The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About911792.tiff PL0841 911792 EXHIBIT 2 CONTAINS MAPS EXHIBIT 53 CONTAINS PAMPHLETS PLEASE SEE ORIGINAL FILE Consulting kipr. white Environmental Scientist USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED EN IN SOUTHWESTERN WELD COUNT AGILITY Y, COLORADO Prepared For: isposal Co. Environmental East t104th Avenue, SI,uite 214B Thornton, Colorado 80233 Prepared By: e- -� I4p R. White Ji Considine Environmental Scientist nvironmental Planner Project No.: 8912-04 Date: July 30, 1990 VI 61.9 • 303 239-9011 630 Ammons Way • Lakewood, Colorado 80215 ( � TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION AND USE 4 2.1 EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED USE 4 2.2 EXPLANATION OF NEED 7 2.2.1 Need for Progressive, Active, Effective, and Efficient Resource/Recovery Recycling in Weld County 7 2.2.2 Need for Suitable Landfill Sites 9 2.2.3 Economic Need 10 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES 12 2.4 DISTANCES TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES 12 2.5 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FACILITY USERS 13 2.6 EMPLOYEES, SHIFTS, HOURS OF OPERATION AND LIGHTING 13 2.7 WATER SOURCE 13 2.8 ACCESS ROUTES 14 2.9 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC 14 2.10 SEWAGE FACILITIES 16 2.11 FIRE PROTECTION MEASURES 16 17 2.12 ANIMALS 2.13 WASTE STOCKPILES AND STORAGE AREAS 17 2.14 STORM WATER RETENTION 17 2.15 DEBRIS AND WASTE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL 18 2.16 EROSION CONTROL AND LANDSCAPING 19 2.17 RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES POST USE 19 2.18 CONSTRUCTION AND START-UP SCHEDULE 20 S10 311 3.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS 21 3.1 WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 21 3.1.1 Agricultural Goals and Policies 21 3.1.2 Urban Growth Boundary Goals and Policies 23 3.1.3 Residential Goals 23 3.1.4 Environmental Quality and Natural Resources Goals and Policies 23 3.1.5 Economic Goals and Policies 24 3.1.6 Comprehensive Planning Consistency 25 25 3.2 ZONING DISTRICT 3.3 CONSERVATION OF PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND 26 3.4 HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF NEARBY RESIDENTS 26 3.5 COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING LAND USES 27 3.6 COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANNED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 28 3.7 COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILTIIES ACT 29 3.8 FLOOD PLAINS, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, AND AIRPORTS (OVERLAY DISTRICTS) 29 3.9 PROOF OF WATER SUPPLY 31 3.10 LEGAL INSTRUMENT DEMONSTRATING THE APPLICANT'S INTEREST 32 32 3.11 NOISE REPORT 32 3.12 SOIL REPORT 3.13 OWNERS OF RECORD WITHIN 500 FEET 32 3.14 MINERAL OWNERS AND LESSEES OF RECORD 33 4.0 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT PLAN MAP 34 34 4.1 VICINITY MAP 34 4.2 PLOT PLAN 35 Bibliography List of Tables 15 Table 1 Summary of Traffic Survey 22 Table 2 Soils Mapped within the Proposed Special Use Boundary List of Attachments Attachment 1 Conceptual View of Environmental Recycling and Disposal Recycling Center Attachment 2 Copy of Legal Instrument Showing Applicant's Interest in the Property Attachment 3 List of Owners of the Coslett Estate Attachment 4 Names of Owners of Property within 500 Feet of the Special Use Parcel Attachment 5 Names of Mineral Owners and Lessees of Minerals on or Under the Special Use Parcel List of Plates (in map pockets at the back of this report) Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Plot Plan Map S i e;T9`'1,.,9 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to present a Use by Special Review Permit Application for the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility (E.R.D.) located in the west half of Section 28, Township 1 North, Range 68 West in southwestern Weld County, Colorado. This application was prepared by Kip R. White and Jim Considine on behalf of E.R.D.. The intent of E.R.D. is to obtain a Special Use Permit and a Certificate of Designation from Weld County for operation of a solid waste resource recovery/recycling and residuals overflow disposal facility at this site to service Weld County and the Front Range Urban Corridor. This permit application is prepared in accordance with the Use by Special Review Procedural Guide issued by the Weld County Department of Planning Services. In addi- tion to this document, a Landfill Operations and Closure Plan has been prepared in accor- dance with the Colorado Department of Health regulations governing solid waste landfills and is included as part of this permit application. The Operations Plan also addresses siting considerations and environmental control measures presented in the proposed Subtitle D Regulations for solid waste landfills (EPA, August 30, 1988). Much of the operational in- formation required by the Procedural Guide is also included in greater detail in the Operations and Closure Plan. In accordance with the application requirements for a Use by Special Review, the contents of this Application Document address each of the items contained in Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance in a sequential format in order to facilitate cross referenc- ing by various reviewers. The following order of presentation is evident: 1. A completed application form. 2. A detailed description of the proposed operation and use. 3. Written materials and supporting documents. A. A copy of the deed or legal instrument. B. A noise report. C. A soil report. D. A certified list of property owners within 500 feet of the application property. 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 2 E. A certified list of mineral owners and lessees under the parcel of land. 4. Use by Special Review Permit Plan Map. A. Vicinity Map. B. Plot Plan. 5. Use by Special Review Application fee. 6. Use by Special Review Recording fee. As part of the Use by Special Review Application process the following documents were extensively reviewed and consulted as sources of information and basis for conclusions: Weld County Comprehensive Plan, Weld County Zoning Ordinance; "Weld County Site Specific Development Plan, Use by Special Review Procedural Guide;" Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan; 1988 Broomfield Master Plan; City of Broomfield Development Code, Broomfield Municipal Code; City of Thornton, Colorado Comprehensive Plan; City of Thornton Zoning Regulations: City of Westminster Policy Document; The Municipal Code o£the City of Westminster. Sections 12-2-1 through 4; Phase II of the Westminster Growth Management Program;" North I-25 Corridor Study; Adams County Comprehensive Plan; Adams County Zoning Regulations; Boulder County Comprehensive Plan; Boulder County Comprehensive Plan Goals Policies, and Maps; and Boulder County Zoning Resolution. Other pertinent documents that were scrutinized as part of the Weld County application pro- cess included: Lafayette 2010 Comprehensive Plan; City of Lafayette Chapter 26 Development and Zoning Code; Northglenn. Colorado Comprehensive Plan Summary; and Zoning Ordinance City of Northglenn. Colorado. The information contained in this document and the Landfill Operations and Closure Plan indicates that the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility is unique in the State of Colorado, both in terms of its state-of-the-art approach to environmentally- sound waste management and its emphasis on a resource recovery/recycling process opera- tion to significantly reduce landfill disposal of elements of the waste stream. Data indicate that the proposed facility will comply with all applicable standards and conditions of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, Weld County Comprehensive Plan, other local plans and E « c'S 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 3 documents,Colorado Department of Health Certificate of Designation requirements (CDH, 1989), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) mandates. Sl c„r^1 R 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION AND USE 2.1 EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED USE The proposed use is construction and operation of a solid waste resource recov- ery/recycling facility and residuals overflow sanitary landfill for disposal of residential, commercial, and institutional nonhazardous solid wastes. No liquid, asbestos, radioactive, or hazardous wastes will be accepted at the site. Since virtually all of the materials that are received at the site will be screened, separated, sorted, and processed through the resource recovery/recycling operation, residuals over- flow disposal will only occur for items and materials that are deemed to be unacceptable for recycling. Unacceptable substances may include non-recyclables, commercially-infeasible objects, and/or spoiled stock. The proposed use will consist of a single-phased resource recovery/recycling center in which incoming solid wastes will be hand and mechanically sorted by using a combination mechanical materials transportation system and manually-operated sorting procedures. Once recyclable materials are separated from the incoming loads, they will be packaged for transportation to appropriate manufacturing facilities. The on-site recycling center will consist of a steel fabricated building which will totally enclose a tipping floor for incoming waste, a system of waste stream conveyors, a sorting area, a processing area, and a truck loading/shipping area. Incoming wastes which will be excluded from the recycling opera- tion include bailed refuse, refuse which has undergone significant recycling at another fa- cility, waste which has undergone successful curbside recycling, and construction debris. The operation will require that incoming wastes be conveyed from the tipping floor by con- veyor belts to a hand and mechanical sorting area to remove glass, plastics, aluminum, fer- rous metals, paper, and corrugated/paperboard materials. Sorted items will be loaded into hauling trucks for shipping to markets. Overflow residuals will be loaded onto end dump trucks and hauled to the proposed landfill part of the operation. Refer to the attached con- ceptual drawing of the resource recovery/recycling facility (Attachment 1). Si.:a. " w 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 5 Since it is not possible to recover and recycle all items contained in the waste stream, an ac- cessory on-site sanitary landfill will be required as part of the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility. The landfill will encompass approximately 200 acres of the total site area of 480 acres. Landfilling of residual materials will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of four separate fill modules, and Phase 2 will consist of three separate fill modules. Each of the fill modules is limited to approximately 25 to 35 acres in order to minimize the area disturbed at any one time during landfill operation. Phase 1 roughly includes 104 acres in the southwest quarter of Section 28. Phase 2 includes approximately 96 acres in the northwest quarter of Section 28. The regional location and E.R.D. property boundary is shown on Plate 1, Vicinity Map, and the proposed fill area is shown on Plate 2, Plot Plan Map. Residual wastes will be disposed in a manner which minimizes potential environmental ef- fects associated with landfilling activities. An area fill method will be used to place refuse at the site. Excavations will be based on generation of sufficient volumes and quantities of suitable soil for construction of a low permeability clay liner at the base of the landfill; daily, intermediate, and final cover of the landfill; and construction of other earthen struc- tures for landfill containment. Base grades will be prepared which allow drainage of leachate to double lined leachate collection sumps for effective removal of leachate. Daily cover will consist of 6 inches of soil over the working face. Final cover will consist of 4.5 feet of soil, 3.5 of which will be clay which will be compacted to achieve a low permeabil- ity layer, and one of which will be prepared and amended as necessary to support the grasses and forbes to be planted during site reclamation. In addition to the recycling building, site operation will require the construction of a paved truck staging area, parking areas, a gate house, portable toilet facilities, a water reservoir for fire protection and dust control, and an equipment maintenance shop. These facilities are shown on the Plot Plan. The initial recycling facility building will have a footprint of 12,000 square feet as shown on the Plot Plan. The building will be expanded as the volume of incoming recyclables in- creases at the site. This building will be a single story steel structure with earth tone color. r 1.. 'i 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 6 The equipment maintenance building and the gate house will be single story earth tone colored structures. The equipment storage facility will be a steel structure with a footprint of 2600 square feet. The gate house will be a modular metal building with a footprint of 200 square feet. Refer to the Plot Plan for location of these buildings. The truck staging storage and parking areas will be constructed on concrete pavement. A minimum of 100 parking spaces will be provided for employees and visitors at the facility. The parking area will be located west of the recycling building as shown on the Plot Plan. Additional paved area will be used for storage of recycled goods prior to shipment to mar- ket as shown on the Plot Plan. Refer to Section 2.13 for discussion of the types of storage containers used. The remainder of the Recycling Facility envelope will be used as a staging area for incoming vehicles. The truck staging area will be capable of accommodating 20 vehicles at a given time. The initial recycling facility tipping floor will accommodate approximately six vehicles at a time. The proposed use will necessitate the realignment and lining of the Community Ditch lo- cated in the northeast quarter of Section 28(T 1N, R 68W). Refer to the Plot Plan, Plate 2 for current and proposed locations of this irrigation ditch. Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO) currently operates the Community Ditch. As part of the landfill con- struction, prior to operations being initiated in Phase 2 of the landfill area, that portion of the ditch identified on Plate 2 will be straightened and lined. The proposed lining would have obvious water conservation benefits for FRICO and own- ers of ditch rights. In addition, the proposed channel lining would prevent leakage of water which could cause saturated ground conditions near the landfill thereby compromising the landfill cover and increasing the management effort required for the leachate collection sys- tem. The channel lining is proposed to consist of concrete lining with a sublining of imperme- able synthetic material such as high density polyethylene. Conceptual design details are presented in the I midi 'Operations and Closure Plan. The improved channel will be pro- tected from landfill operations by a 12 foot litter and access control fence and a 100 foot 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 7 easement. Cleaning of debris which may escape the landfill boundary will be conducted on the entire channel length located in Section 28 at the beginning of the irrigation season,after major wind events, and on an as-needed basis based on a minimum of weekly inspections or as requested by FRICO. Construction and discharge characteristics for the improved canal will be in accordance with the Design Review Process and Design Criteria for Facilities of the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (1984) and with the SCS Technical Guide-Irrigation Water Conveyance 428-A-1. These criteria insure that the canal design flow will accommodate the 100 year storm event plus the maximum normal irrigation flow. Mr. Montoya, the representative of FRICO, has been contacted regarding this proposal and has indicated that FRICO has no categorical objections to the proposal if the previously mentioned design criteria are met(Montoya, 1990). 2.2 EXPLANATION OF NEED The proposed use for a solid waste resource recovery/recycling and residuals overflow dis- posal facility addresses three principal needs: 1. A local, state, and global need exists to progressively and actively recover and recycle solid wastes to facilitate responsible use of available landfill space and raw materials. 2. The need for geologically sound and adequately designed landfills to service Weld County and the Front Range. 3. The need in Southern Weld County for the economic stimulus which this facility will provide. 2.2.1 Need for Progressive, Active, Effective, and Efficient Resource Recovery/Recycling in Weld County It is a recognized fact that a multi-faceted and integrated approach to waste management is required to address issues associated with waste disposal. An integral aspect of such an approach is resource recovery/recycling. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 8 (EPA) Agenda for Action established a national goal of 25 percent for individual commu- nity source reduction and recycling. Additionally, the government, business, and citizen members of Colorado Environment 2000 group, which is coordinated by the Governor's Office, the Colorado Department of Health, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and funded by the EPA, has developed the following draft waste management goal and suggested local government actions that should be considered as part of the review process for all proposed facilities such as the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. Facility. Goal 1: "Reduce by 1/3 the amount of solid waste taken to Colorado landfills through an integrated program involving targeted educa- tional programs, source reduction, recycling, resource recovery, fi- nancial programs, and the use of alternative technologies." Suggested Local Government Actions: "Provide leadership by example by designing and implementing solid waste management practices that emphasize waste minimiza- tion, recycling(including purchase of recycled products), and envi- ronmentally-sound disposal." The proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility operation plans meet and/or exceed the imminent EPA goal and align themselves with the Colorado Environment 2000 goal and suggested local government actions. The fundamental dichotomy that exists regarding the topic of waste management revolves around the fact that human beings generate waste materials, yet few, if any, are willing to objectively face the issues, realize that both resource recovery/recycling and sanitary dis- posal of overflow residuals represent an integrated waste management approach that is much better than single-faceted systems, and make a bold step to imp►ement such an opera- tion. Waste management problems will not abate in the foreseeable future. EPA officials predict that only about 10 percent of the existing disposal facilities in the State of Colorado will 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 9 comply with the new Subtitle D requirements, and it is estimated that about 75 percent of those will be forced to close. Although the national average of residential, commercial, and institutional wastes is about 3.6 pounds per person per day, the Denver Metropolitan Area average ranges from 5.0-5.7 pounds per person per day. with an expected slight increase by the year 2000. Additionally, the Colorado recycling rate of approximately 7 percent of the waste stream is less than the national recycling average of 10 percent. In Colorado in general and the Front Range in particular, the facts related to waste man- agement are : 1) existing disposal sites are diminishing, 2) waste generation rates are in- creasing, and are predicted to continue with that trend, 3) recovery of materials from the waste stream is not great, and 4) a strong need exists to innovatively and effectively ap- proach waste management. The proposed facility incorporates resource recovery/recycling as a primary function of operations to minimize the consumption of landfill space and raw materials by initially removing a projected 20 to 25 percent of the waste stream from reaching the residuals overflow operations. In addition to facilitating recycling, the center will function as an excellent screening measure for prevention of non-approved hazardous waste disposal in the landfill. 2.2.2 Need for Suitable Landfill Sites There is a basic need in Colorado for sites with sound and suitable hydrogeological charac- teristics for adequately designed landfill construction. This need would be met well into the 21st century by the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility. An existing landfill in the area operated by Laidlaw Waste Systems currently serves south- ern Weld County and much of the northern Denver Metropolitan Area. The currently-op- erating landfill has an estimated life expectancy of less than 10 years based on current use rates. However, the life of this facility is likely to be shortened due to imminent regulatory changes at the federal level which will likely force the closure of numerous Front Range landfills unable to comply with the new regulations (EPA, August 30, 1988). Such clo- sures will increase the demand for transfer of waste to other landfills and other waste man- agement facilities, such as the proposed recycling and disposal facility, which are capable of meeting these requirements. �* r ` i4 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 10 The proposed federal regulations include restrictions on siting landfills near, in, around, and/or on airports, flood plains, wetlands, seismic impact zones, fault areas, and unstable lands such as undermined areas. For example, in order to continue operation, an existing landfill located in an undermined area(which are numerous in Weld County) would be re- quired to demonstrate that the undermining which has occurred beneath the site does not pose a threat to environmental control. Any proposed facilities located over undermined ar- eas would also have to address this issue prior to receiving a permit from the Colorado Department of Health. In order to address the need for a well-sited landfill in southern Weld County, we have se- lected the property shown on Plate 1 for proposed development of a residuals overflow landfill. This site complies with the EPA proposed siting criteria, and the geologic setting of the property makes it an excellent candidate for environmentally sound landfill construc- tion. 2.2.3 Economic Need The proposed resource recovery/recycling and residuals overflow disposal facility will be largely manned by low income, underemployed, and economically disadvantaged individ- uals who will be paid a liveable wage of a minimum of $6.00 per hour after training. Because of the labor intensive aspects of waste stream processing and resource recov- ery/recycling activities, it is estimated that 100 such persons will be trained and employed at this facility. Some potential net positive economic impacts of the development of this facil- ity include: 1. Hiring of low income, economically disadvantaged individuals which may reduce welfare payments by Weld County. 2. Provision of increased employment opportunities in the county. 3. Generation of a multiplier effect in the Weld County community, thereby increasing buying power in the local market. 4. Provision for a healthier local economy by allowing individuals the opportunity to remove themselves from dependent care and to become self-sufficient. c ,- r:1:) 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 1 1 Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. business interests are Colorado-based which means that expenditures and profits derived from the proposed economic activity will ben- efit the local economy. In summary, there is poignant need in Weld County for the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility which will: 1. Be progressive in its approach in practicing and promoting resource recovery/recycling of resources that are derived from the normal municipal solid waste stream in the Colorado Front Range as a means of minimizing local, state, and global adverse impacts on the environment. 2. Be hydrogeologically suitable from both design and operational standpoints and which will comply with proposed EPA landfill siting criteria. 3. Allow for an economically competitive waste management option that provides an alternative to only simple landfill disposal of discarded materials and lessens the absolute amount of recoverable materials that are perhaps unnecessarily relegated to final landfill disposal, thereby significantly decreasing the amount of landfill space needed in the future. 4. Continue the service of safe, cost effective, and efficient disposal of non-recoverable materials. 5. Promote the economic welfare of Weld County and the region as a result of economic development, increased employment, and additional generation of money to be circulated locally. The proposed operation is a u ee resource recovery/recycling operation and residuals overflow disposal facility combination in the State of Colorado. By minimizing the amount of waste terminating in land disposal areas, the operation provides an alternative to the need for significantly increasing regional/State landfill capacity. The proposed facility is an envi- ronmentally sound endeavor that will be of benefit to all citizens, decisions-makers, busi- ness people, and industry representatives. Finally, it meets and/or exceeds all local, State, and federal regulations, as well as the previously-mentioned five solid waste management needs in Weld County. 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 12 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES The subject property is presently utilized for nonirrigated,dryland farming. The properties that surround the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility are charac- terized by a diversified mix of land uses, ranging from agricultural to limited residential and industrial uses. Land uses to the north are separated from the subject site by Weld County Road 6 and are predominantly dryland farming and dairy farming agriculture, with a broad mix of farmhouse and mobile home residential, oil and gas production and automobile sal- vage yard industrial, and sanitary landfill land uses. Weld County Road 5 borders the site on the west. A portion of the Laidlaw Sanitary Landfill lies directly west of Road 5 as do dryland farming agricultural and oil and gas production industrial land uses. The area between the south boundary and Colorado Highway 7 is used for dryland farming. A low density "agricultural-type" subdivision exists southeast of the proposed facility. This area is buffered somewhat by the southeast quarter of Section 28 which is used for dryland agriculture and contains oil and/or gas production wells. The northeast quarter of Section 28, while within the proposed E.R.D. property boundary, is not within the proposed spe- cial use boundary and provides a good buffer for residents east of Weld County Road 7, which is on the east side of the property. Land uses to the east include both agriculture and limited residential. Predominant land uses contiguous to the subject property include dry- land farming agricultural, a sanitary landfill, as well as limited residential property. The southeast quarter of Section 28, Township 1, North, Range 68 West in southwestern Weld County, Colorado serves as a substantial buffer zone between the property boundary and residential land uses to the south and southeast. 2.4 DISTANCES TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES North: 1200 feet to the Daniel Horst Residence. No other residences within one mile. Northeast: over one half mile East: over one half mile Southeast: 800 feet South and Southwest: over one mile West and Northwest: over one mile 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 13 2.5 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FACILITY USERS The facility will serve, at a minimum parts of Weld, Adams, Boulder, Jefferson, and Larimer Counties. We anticipate approximately 200 to 250 vehicles per day for the pro- posed facility. 2.6 EMPLOYEES, SHIFTS, HOURS OF OPERATION, AND LIGHTING The proposed facility will be operated seven days per week on a 24 hour basis in three shifts (07:00 to 15:00, 15:00 to 23:00, and 23:00 to 07:00). The proposed facility will employ up to 100 persons most of whom will work in the recy- cling operation. The residuals disposal operation will require a minimum of five employees during each shift to operate heavy equipment including scrapers, water trucks, bulldozers, and refuse compactors, and to serve as spotters and gate keepers. Adequate lighting will be provided at the recycling facility, haul roads, and working face to insure safe working conditions at these locations during all shifts. Lighting along access roads will be minimal. We anticipate construction of minimal dusk to dawn lighting on power poles at the entrance to the landfill property, at the gate house, and within the truck staging area. Additional lighting will be provided at the tipping floor for illumination of the critical unloading area. This lighting will be directed so that it does not illuminate off site areas. Lighting at the working face will consist of one portable, generator powered, light- ing unit carefully placed and directed to illuminate the working face. The lighting unit will be capable of lighting up to three acres. The size of the working face will be maintained at 100 feet or less during all night time operations so as to minimize the amount of lighting re- quired. The lighting units will be directed, and waste filling will be conducted, so as to prevent off site illumination in the direction of residences within one half mile of the site. 2.7 WATER SOURCE Water used at the site for personal hygiene and drinking will be provided by a local bottled water vendor. Two hundred forty thousand gallons of water for fire and dust control will E" Q rt q 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 1 4 be maintained in a lined pond to be located north of the recycling facility as shown on the Plot Plan. The source of this water will be from one of the following in order of owner preference: 1. Purchase of ditch water from Community Ditch. 2. Installation of an on-site nontributary well. 3. Trucked in from an existing nontributary well owned by Mr. Zigan. 2.8 ACCESS ROUTES The primary access to the site will be via Interstate 25 to Colorado State Highway 7, west to Weld County Road 5, and north to the facility entrance approximately 750 feet south of Weld County Road 6. The various phases of the resource recovery/recycling and residuals overflow landfill will be accessed by tributary roads constructed from the main access point. Secondary access to the site will be via Interstate 25 to Weld County Road 8, west to Weld County Road 5, south to the facility entrance or via Colorado State Highway 52 to Weld County Road 5, and south to the landfill entrance. Currently all access roads are paved. These access roads are presently used for the existing Laidlaw Landfill. None of the access roads for the proposed facility will coincide with existing roads that serve as primary transportation means for local and collector streets for primary residential areas. 2.9 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC A vehicular traffic survey was conducted by others and reported by Harding Lawson Associates (1989)for traffic at the existing Laidlaw Landfill. This survey was conducted between 03:00 and 21:00 hours on July 12, 1989. Highest traffic flow occurred between 08:00 and 16:00 hours, and peak flow occurred between 12:00 and 15:00 hours. The re- sults of the survey as presented by Harding Lawson Associates (1989) are summarized in r. l 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 15 Table 1. Harding Lawson estimated that the number of car/pickup truck vehicles would likely increase from 50 to 60 vehicles per day on weekdays to 80 to 100 vehicles per day on weekends. They also estimated that the number of commercial hauling vehicles would decrease to approximately one-third of the weekday volume on weekends. Table 1 Summary of Traffic Survey (Source: Harding Lawson Associates, 1989) Vehicle Type Unloaded Weight Loaded Weight (Ibs) Vehicles per Day Ibs Front-Load 32,000 54,000 44 Collection Truck Rear-Load 29,000 54,000 149 Collection Truck Roll-Off Containers 21,000 54,000 34 Transfer Trucks 40,000 80,000 67 (Tractor Trailer) End-Dump Trucks NA NA 4 Cars NA NA 5 Pick-up Trucks NA NA 52 Miscellaneous NA NA 73 Total 428 Notes: 1. Survey conducted on July 12, 1989 from 03:00 to 21:00 hours. 2. Miscellaneous vehicles include vans, cars with trailers, etc. 3. Weights are approximate. 4. NA -data not available. We anticipate that incoming traffic at this facility, until closure of the Laidlaw facility, to be approximately 200 to 250 vehicles per day. Most of these vehicles are anticipated to come from the existing traffic flow currently utilizing the adjacent Laidlaw facility; therefore, the overall traffic volume on main access corridors will be only minimally impacted. We esti- mate that approximately 40 trucks per day (approximately 20 semi tractor trailers and 20 rolloff vehicles)will leave the recycling facility for shipment of recycled materials to mar- ket. 2 tifri_,1 cr.) 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 16 2.10 SEWAGE FACILMES The only necessary sewage facilities for the site will be toilets for the site employees and patrons. Portable self contained toilets will be provided and maintained by a local vendor for this purpose. 2.11 FIRE PROTECTION MEASURES Fire protection at the site will be effected as follows: -No burning of wastes shall be permitted at the resource recovery/recycling and residuals overflow site. - Signs will be posted at the facility gate stating that smoking is not allowed within 100 feet of the recycling center or landfill working face and that hot loads (i.e., ash or coals) shall be declared at the gate. - Smoking will not be allowed within the recycling areas or at the working face by patrons or site personnel. -A full time spotter will be on duty to identify any hot loads and to enforce the no smoking mandate. -Hot loads will immediately be covered with soil and then segregated from the working face and extinguished. -Fires in the working face will be primarily controlled by the application of soil cover. Soil will be stockpiled for this purpose near the working face. -Secondary control of fires in the working face will be effected by application of water from the reservoir located north of the recycling facility. This pond will be equipped with pumps capable of delivering a total of 500 gpm. -All equipment operators will keep fire extinguishers on their machines to control small fires and as a general safety precaution. - In addition to the earth moving equipment (i.e., bulldozers, scrapers, and compactors), a 1500 gallon water truck will be on site at all times to aid in fire control. -Fire protection within the recycling center will be effected based on a designed fire protection system to be prepared in conjunction with general engineering specifications for building construction. 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 17 2.12 ANIMALS Animals will not be quartered on the property at any time. 2.13 WASTE STOCKPILES AND STORAGE AREAS Waste stockpiles will not be used at the landfill. All incoming wastes will be directed im- mediately to the recycling facility or landfill working face where they will be unloaded, compacted, and covered with soil. Bailed or otherwise contained recycled materials will be temporarily stored in the recycling building, or in rolloff bins or trailers in the area shown on the Plot Plan until shipped to market. The maximum anticipated duration of storage for recyclable materials which will be removed from the waste stream is two weeks. The maximum anticipated volume of such materials stored on site at any one time is 5,000 cubic yards Soil stockpiles will be used at the site near the working face for daily cover and near the site perimeter at various locations for creation of off site visibility control. Berms will screen on-site activities from view by nearby people. The overall goal for the creation of screen- ing berms is to minimize off site visual penetration of the property from all directions. Strategic placement of berms made from stockpiled soil materials will accomplish visibility control. In addition, all topsoil removed from fill areas will be segregated and stockpiled for future reclamation activities. Stockpiles to be used within two months of placement will not be seeded; however, stockpiles to be left in place over a growing season or longer will be seeded with perennial grass seed as recommended by the Soil Conservation Service. Refer to the Landfill Design, Operations, and Closure Plan for seeding specifications. Soil stockpiles for daily cover and visibility protection will range from 10 to 40 feet high, and 40 to 120 feet wide. 2.14 STORM WATER RETENTION Permanent drainage channels will be constructed around the facility perimeter to divert storm runoff from undisturbed portions of the landfill into natural drainage areas. These channels will be designed to accommodate the 100 year 24-hour storm event, and will be c f"r:i 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 18 lined as necessary to prevent erosion. In addition, sediment basins will be constructed to control sediment loading in natural drainage channels. Refer to the Landfill Design Operations, and Closure Plan for detailed specifications of the drainage structures. Temporary diversion channels will be constructed as necessary to divert water away from the working areas and into the perimeter channels. The exact locations of these temporary channels will be determined in the field by an engineer in conjunction with the facility op- erator. These channels will be designed to accommodate the 25 year, 24-hour storm event. Surface water runoff from active landfill areas will be diverted to lined evaporation ponds and/or leachate collection basins within the landfill area and retained on site until 1) it is used for dust control within the contained landfill area, 2) it is evaporated, or 3) it is dis- posed as necessary (i.e., in a waste water treatment plant) based on appropriate chemical analyses. 2.15 DEBRIS AND WASTE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL Wastes conveyed to the resource recovery/recycling and residuals overflow disposal facility will be immediately segregated for recycling or disposed at the landfill working face where they will be compacted and covered daily. Wastes which escape the working face due to wind will be controlled by the construction of a 12 foot high litter fence around the landfill area. This fence will be policed daily and cleaned as necessary to maintain its effective- ness. Adjacent properties and access roads will be policed daily and manual litter pickup implemented as necessary. Litter pickup will also be implemented after strong wind events (winds greater than 30 miles per hour)and at least every two weeks to retrieve litter which escapes the fence. All such waste will be returned to the landfill working face and dis- posed. In addition, unbailed wastes will not be disposed at the landfill working face during sustained winds of 40 miles per hour, or gusts of 55 miles per hour or greater, that persist for one hour or longer. The volume of litter potentially generated on adjacent properties will be much less for this facility than for conventional landfills due to the recycling of most paper prior to disposal at the landfill working face. Cif' ," f1 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 19 2.16 EROSION CONTROL AND LANDSCAPING Landscaping around the proposed recycling facility will include planting of drought resistant trees and shrubs around the buildings to enhance the aesthetics of the structures and surrounding areas. Erosion control for the facility during operation and post closure will consist of the following: -Lining permanent runoff channels with riprap as necessary. - Seeding soil stockpiles which are left unused for a growing season or longer. - Providing temporary cover crops or hay mulches on disturbed soil surfaces during establishment of permanent vegetation. -Reclamation and seeding of the landfill cover as landfilling proceeds to minimize the disturbed area. - Use of fertilizer and soil amendments as necessary to promote rapid establishment of permanent vegetation. -The maximum slope steepness will be 4 horizontal to 1 vertical. -Slopes will be effectively terraced to dissipate the energy of surface water runoff to the landscape. - Sediment basins will be constructed at critical points in the surface water drainage system (refer to Plot Plan for locations). 2.17 RECLAMATION AC IVITIES POST USE Reclamation of the landfill will be conducted as areas are filled to final grade in each mod- ule. Reclamation will be conducted in accordance with the Colorado Department of Health regulations governing closure of solid waste landfills. Reclamation will consist not only of grading,seeding and drainage control over the completed landfill modules but will also in- clude a minimum of quarterly inspections of all areas of the property, including all revege- tated surfaces, drainage channels, and erosion control structures such as sediment basins and terraces. Identified deficiencies such as eroded surfaces, or bare spots, will be promptly corrected. In addition, quarterly monitoring of landfill gas conditions, surface el fr. gin) 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 20 water quality, groundwater quality, and leachate collection system conditions will be con- ducted. 2.18 CONSTRUCTION AND START-UP SCHEDULE Construction of the recycling facility and landfill will be scheduled to begin within 30 days of permit approval and issuance of a Certificate of Designation. Operations will begin as soon as facilities are operational(estimated to be within 180 days of initiation of construc- tion). The life of the facility is estimated to be approximately 32 years. 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 21 3.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS 3.1 WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN After careful review of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, it is evident that the pro- posed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility is consistent with, and support- ive of, numerous elements of the following applicable goals and policies: Agricultural Goals and Policies Urban Growth Boundary Goals and Policies Residential Goals Environmental Quality and Natural Resource Goals and Policies Economic Goals and Policies 3.1.1 Agricultural Goals and Policies Agricultural Goal 8 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan is to develop policies and regulations to permit the conversion of geologically suitable non-prime agricultural land to solid, liquid, and waste disposal sites." Based on a thorough review of the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Southern Weld County it is apparent that the site of the proposed facility is not prime agricultural land. For example, according to the Soil Conservation Survey, there are five principal soil descriptions that encompass all of the area of the proposed site. Each one of the five soils that is on the proposed site is classified as having severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants...or that require special con- servation practices..."or "require very careful management" or "that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation,". Table 2 contains information regarding the soil names, capability classes, and acreages. Agricultural Goal 8 is key to a position of support for approval of a Use by Special Review Permit for the facility. '"9 9 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 22 Table 2 Soils Mapped within the Proposed Special Use Boundary (Source: Soil Survey of Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part, USDA Soil Conservation Service, (September, 1980) Soil Number Soil Name *Capability Classes Acreage 36 Midway Shingle Complex Vie nonirrigated 70 40 Nunn loam IIIc nonirrigated 74 $7 Renohill clay loam VIe nonirrigated 22 67 Ulm clay loam IVe nonirrigated 112 83 Wiley Colby Complex IVe nonirrigated 42 *All land in Section 28, T 1N, R 68W is nonirrigated farmland. The pertinent capability class descriptions are as follows: Class III soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, or that require special conservation practices, or both. Class IV soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, or that require very careful management, or both. Class VI soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation. Agricultural Policy 4 regarding "how the adjoining agricultural uses will not be adversely impacted" and policy 9, which requires that "A disposal site's plan should address preserv- ing or minimizing the removal of prime agricultural land, are both consistent with the pro- posed facility. First, since the entire operation will be developed in strict compliance with Colorado Department of Health and Environmental Protection Agency criteria, significant off-site environmental disturbances are not permitted. Second, operation of the primary re- source recovery/recycling facility will result in significant recovery of waste stream materi- als by weight and volume which will reduce landfill useage and in turn divert/return a good percentage of materials from the waste stream back to the manufacturing sector. The net result of such a situation is environmental protection, a diminished need for additional landfill space, and finally "preservation and minimization" of removal of prime agricultural land from Weld County. c,.10Sa. 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 23 3.1.2 Urban Growth Boundary Goals and Policies The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary of the Town of Erie, Colorado. The pro- posed facility is consistent with Urban Growth Boundary Goal which states and suggests that urban development and related land uses be concentrated in or adjacent to existing mu- nicipalities. Additionally, Urban Growth Boundary Policy 1 indicates that "land-use de- velopment proposals within an urban growth boundary shall be encouraged so long as they conform to the desires of the municipality as expressed in its comprehensive plan or by its land-use decision making body and if the municipality has agreed to provide services." The subject land use development proposal conforms to the Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan (December 4, 1987). Section 3.6 of this application is a summary of the compatibility of this proposal with the Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan. 3.1.3 Residential Goals In today's society it is not possible for responsible residential land uses and development to occur without well-planned, adequately-designed, and efficiently-operated residential sup- port facilities and services such as proper and environmentally-sound waste management services including both resource recovery/recycling and responsible landfilling of the resid- uals overflow. The proposed operation actually provides a unique and much needed facil- ity and service that fosters existing and future conscientious residential development. The facility supports residential Goal 2 by insuring that a necessary and vital ancillary facility is available to serve the existing and future residential developments and districts in both Weld County and the Front Range Region. 3.1.4 Environmental Quality and Natural Resources Goals and Policies It seems that the intent and purpose of the Environmental Quality and Natural Resources Goals and Policies are to conserve and preserve the County's "natural resources and envi- ronment. The proposed design and operation of the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility are to support those premises. First, the proposed use is consistent with Environmental Quality and Natural Resources Goal in that the overall plan for facil- ity design and operation is consistent with, and conforms to, all federal, State, and Weld County regulations regarding environmental and community protection. Water, air, noise Fi tf31 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 24 impacts, adjacent land uses, and other environmental and community aspects are specifi- cally addressed in the Use by Special Review Permit Application and Landfill Design, Operations. and Closure Plan. Second, Environmental Quality and Natural Resources Policy 9 was carefully studied and each of the delineated items, such as surrounding land use compatibility, setbacks, berming and screening, transportation matters, security fenc- ing, environmental standards, flood and geologic regulations, reclamation activities and post closure land use, overlays, and many other vital particulars associated with the pro- posal, were considered and addressed. Finally, and perhaps most prominently, policy 12, which states, "the County may require new landfill applicants to demonstrate that resource recovery and recycle programs have been adequately studied as an alternative," strongly supports the application. The proposed resource recovery/recycling operation and residuals overflow disposal facility, with an emphasis on processing incoming waste materials in a totally enclosed building for an initial estimated rate of waste stream recycling of 20 to 25 percent of all materials, is unique in the State of Colorado. 3.1.5 Economic Goals and Policies Approval and subsequent implementation of the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility will allow citizens in Weld County to realize substantial economic advantages by providing for economic growth and numerous job opportunities, thereby adding to County economic diversification and potentially reducing unemployment. Attainment of Economic Goals 1 and 2 is fostered by allowing new and unique economic activities to be developed and by advancing the economic health and well-being of the County. It is planned that about 100 new jobs will be created to service the operation of the proposed project. In a similar vein, the proposed facility is in accordance with Economic Policy 1 in that it has been planned and designed to have numerous beneficial economic and community de- velopment impacts on the unincorporated, agricultural area while limiting, to a minimum, the number of adverse impairments. Approval of such a new approach to waste manage- ment in Weld County will continue to enhance the economic vitality and stability of the lo- cal area as well as Weld County. S� 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 25 3.1.6 Comprehensive Planning Consistency As a result of considering the proposal for approval of the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. Facility within the context of the Weld County comprehensive planning pro- cess, it is our opinion that the application is consistent with the tone of discussion of future land use as contained in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, examination of the Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan indicated a similar conformance with the antici- pated future land use plan. Therefore, it is evident that projections for future land uses for the subject property and in the vicinity of the site are not inconsistent with economic and land use forecasts. The Weld County Zoning Ordinance states that land that is contained in an agricultural dis- trict may be utilized for "solid waste disposal sites and facilities" if a need for such a facil- ity is demonstrated and if a Use by Special Review Permit is requested by an applicant and subsequently approved by the Weld County Board of Commissioners. The issue of need for a resource recovery/recycling and residuals overflow disposal facility was explained, highlighted, and discussed in Section 2.2 of this report. Submission of this completed document in conjunction with the accompanying Landfill Operations and Closure Plan ful- fills the Zoning Ordinance requirements for a Use by Special Review Permit and serves as a sound factual basis for the application. 3.2 ZONING DISTRICT The proposed site is located in an agricultural district, and as described in the previous sec- tion, is consistent with the intent of the district. Furthermore, Agricultural Policy 9 states that "the County will develop and maintain procedures and guidelines for disposal sites that are operated as a commercial enterprise. This includes...the disposal of solid, liquid, and wastewater in agricultural zone districts. A disposal site's plan should address preserving or minimizing the removal of prime agricultural land." Both the Weld Clounty Zoning Ordinance and Weld County Comprehensive Plan seem to strongly suggest that resource recovery/recycling and residuals overflow disposal facilities should be located in an agricul- tural district. Since the site is not irrigated farm land, and is not prime agricultural land, it is our opinion that the objects of both of the aforementioned documents have been ade- quately met, and that the proposed site use is in harmony with the intent of that district. 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 26 3.3 CONSERVATION OF PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND There are two key reasons why the proposed use is consistent with the policies of the County's Elan. First, since the property is nonirrigated and not prime agricultural land, no minimal loss of productive agricultural land should occur. Second, it is anticipated that the commencement of a large-scale resource recovery/recycling operation will have a very fa- vorable impact on the conservation of productive agricultural land by diverting a substantial amount of the waste stream theretofore relegated only to land disposal options. A dimin- ished flow of materials to land disposal areas will increase the disposal site's life, forestall the necessity for new landfills, and concentrate proposed activities on marginal agriculture land rather than on more agriculturally productive property. 3.4 HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF NEARBY RESIDENTS This proposed resource recovery/recycling and residuals overflow disposal site was se- lected in this portion of Weld County because of the generally suitable geology of the area for landfill construction. The specific site was selected after elimination of other candidate sites in the area which were not as well situated with respect to potentially active geologic faults and subsidence zones. The proposed facility is located over geologic materials and structure which would minimize the impact of landfill operations on ground and surface water resources. The Landfill Operations and Closure Plan incorporates design and construction specifica- tions for a low permeability clay liner to be constructed at the base of the landfill and at the landfill sidewalls. A leachate collection system constructed on top of the liner will mini- mize the amount of leachate which will accumulate on top of the liner. The leachate collec- tion system will consist of a drain layer on top of the liner which conveys any leachate gen- erated to leachate collection sumps at the designed low points of the landfill base. These leachate collection sumps will be equipped with a composite clay and synthetic liner and a gravel backfilled leachate removal well for efficient removal of any leachate generated. .1.(i ">� 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 27 The Operations and Closure Plan also specifies protective measures which address the fol- lowing issues relevant to protection of nearby residents and Weld County: - Limitation of visual impacts, odor, and noise. -Screening of the waste stream to eliminate inadvertent hazardous materials disposal. - Groundwater monitoring. - Landfill gas control and monitoring. -Plans and programs for control and management of litter and fugitive dust. -Conceptual remedial action in the event of an identified environmental problem. These provisions were prepared based on the existing Colorado Department of Health Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities (March, 1989) and on the proposed Subtitle D regulations prepared by the EPA(1988). 3.5 COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING LAND USES A description of the land uses surrounding the property is included in Section 2.3. Many of the adjacent land uses consist of agricultural and open space pursuits. Immediately con- tiguous to the property to the west is the fully-operational Laidlaw Landfill (Erie) and the former Columbine Landfill. Other primary land uses in the area include residential, indus- trial, and a variety of other related uses. The land use character of the area is one of a broad mix of uses. One prominent use that has particularized the area is the presence of sanitary landfills. Even though there are some residences adjacent to the proposed facility, the east half of Section 28 serves as a buffer for the vast majority of people who occupy those resi- dences. Additionally, the facility will be operated in distinct phases and modules so that the number of residents potentially affected by the operation at any one time will be minimized. Design,construction, and operation will be conducted in a manner which minimizes tempo- rary and long-term impact of those residences. In light of the mixed use character of the area, the presence of a similar type of facility, and the existence of a buffer zone between the operation and the residences, the proposed use of the site for the resource recov- ery/recycling and residuals overflow disposal facility is compatible with existing and future land uses. el.(23� 9 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 28 3.6 COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANNED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Additional key policy guidelines germane to the subject site are contained in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan. The planned use of the area as presented in the Weld County document is for agriculture. The proposed land use of the site as a resource recovery/recycling and residuals overflow disposal facility is compatible with agricultural use. In fact, the significant buffer areas within the property boundaries to the east and west of the landfilled areas can be returned to agricultural uses following landfill closure. It is likely that the northeast quarter of Section 28 will continue to be farmed during the landfill operation. The proposed project is located on property that is in the Weld County Urban Growth Boundary Area for the Town of Erie; therefore, consideration of the elements of the Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan is essential. Heedful analysis of the Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan indicated poignant concerns for maintenance of the "rural village character" of the Town, a concern for environmental pro- tection and enhancement, a concerted and well-planned growth and development situation for the community, and a more diversified economic development climate with new and expanded employment opportunities. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the "Comprehensive Plan Study Area" should be developed in such a way that is aesthetically, financially, and socially beneficial to the Erie Community. Moreover, it highlights and suggests that a properly-designed and operated landfill is a necessity associated with urban development, and it can be a good neighbor, a positive economic generator, and a catalyst for future economic development. The proposed use of the subject property as a recycling center with a concomitant landfill is consistent with all of those concerns, goals, and poli- cies as well as numerous others. For example, the proposed use will provide employment and training opportunities both in recycling and landfill operations for area residents which will be financially beneficial to the Town of Erie. As a potential new major "industry" for the area,the proposed venture could have far-reaching profitable impacts on the local econ- omy. c'1 4:-!1,-;1 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 29 The operation of a resource recovery/recycling facility in conjunction with a sanitary landfill is a progressive and environmentally responsible waste management practice. Location of such an environmentally sound operation within the "Comprehensive Plan Study Area" of the Town of Erie will enhance the standing of the Town and Weld County in the eyes of members of the business sector, surrounding communities, and officials from regulatory bodies within the State of Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Region. The potential for positive economic and public relations impacts is great. 3.7 COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILITIES ACT The proposed special use has been designed to comply with the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act(1973). According to this Act certificates of designation are issued by the boards of county commissioners in accordance with the requirements, for the con- sideration of applications, contained in sections 30-20-104 and 30-20-105 of the Act. In considering an application for certificate of designation pursuant to the Act, the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities (1989) shall be followed by the ap- plicant and the County during preparation and submittal of the application (refer to Section 5 of these referenced regulations). This special use proposal and application along with the Landfill Design. Operations, and Closure Plan were prepared based on our understanding of and compliance with these regulations. 3.8 FLOOD PLAINS, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, AND AIRPORTS (OVERLAY DISTRICTS) The proposed landfill is not located within a flood plain or airport overlay district area. The Weld County Geologic Hazard Area Map (1978) indicates that the western portion of the recycling facility and landfill area lie within a moderate subsidence zone. However, our site evaluation of specific mine data and conservative estimates (in preference to safety) of the zone of subsidence indicate that this area should be reclassified. There is potential for subsidence of the undermined area and the potential for the subsi- dence to propagate to the surface at some distance outside the mine boundary due to the subsidence angle of draw. The proposed landfill will be located outside of the potential subsidence influence zone. Our site specific evaluation indicates that subsidence potential does exist along the west portion of the property in those areas directly overlying the un- 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 30 dermined area and to a maximum distance of 175 feet east of the undermined area along the west portion of the property. This determination was made based on the following data and assumptions: 1. The Columbine Mine Map(Rocky Mountain Fuel Company, 1946) available from Colorado Geologic Survey presents a survey of the extent of mining and mine depth elevations. These data indicate that the extent of mining was limited to the western side of the geologic fault which trends north south on the west side of Section 28 (refer to fault location on the Plot Plan). For a complete discussion of geological conditions at the site refer to the attached Operations Plan. The depth of the mine ranged from approximately 190 to 220 feet based on the survey elevations on the map (5058 to 5068 feet msl). 2. Based on the survey data, and an added factor of safety, we assumed that the depth of the mine was 250 feet . 3. The typical angle of draw for subsidence resulting from this type of mine would be between 20 and 30 degrees (Hynes, 1990). 4. In order to increase the factor of safety we assumed that the maximum angle of draw for the site was 35 degrees. The Geologic Hazard Area Map is often, by necessity, overly conservative due to two principle factors related to documentation of the mine operations: 1. Larceny regarding mine lease boundaries was suspected and confirmed at some mines, and 2. The absence of reliable map and survey data from some mines in the region. The larceny was committed to "cover up" mining across lease boundaries. It is apparent, however, that the extent of mining on the east side of the Columbine Mine was governed by the fault rather than a lease boundary; therefore, there would have been no "basis" for larceny. Mining did not occur east of the fault apparently due to the absence of economically recov- erable coal. The mine plan map includes an exploratory boring location in the northwest quarter of Section 28 approximately 230 feet east of the fault which bears the notation, 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 31 "No Coal" (Rocky Mountain Fuel Company, 1946). Other exploratory borings were also shown on this map east of the fault inferring that mineable coal east of the fault would have been extracted had it been present or had it been economical to do so. The horizontal location of surface features on the mine plan map were verified by surveying conducted for preparation of this application in order to accurately correlate the location of the undermined area with the proposed special use area. The air shaft location and north- west section corner shown on the mine plan map correspond exactly to the surveyed loca- tions of these features determined during our site evaluation. In summary, the subsidence hazard zone in Section 28 should include only that portion from the west boundary thence east to a maximum distance of 175 feet east of the north south trending fault shown on the Plot Plan (i.e. 175 feet east of the extent of mining as presented on the Columbine Mine Plan Map). Refuse fill operations and construction of permanent enclosed structures will not be conducted within this subsidence zone. The landfill boundary will be a minimum of 200 feet east of the extent of mining, and therefore well beyond the subsidence influence zone. 3.9 PROOF OF WATER SUPPLY As discussed previously, the preferred water supply will be purchase of ditch water and subsequent storage in the fresh water surface impoundment proposed for the site. Alternatively, a non-tributary well will be drilled at the site for water supply. However, the currently-owned water supply which will be used in the event of inability to purchase ditch water or drill a well, will be a non-tributary well owned by Mr. Ted Zigan in Adams County (Permit No.: 03281F, Appropriation Date: 7/24/61). More than 0.1 cubic feet per second is appropriated for this well, and the well is capable of sustaining an equivalent yield. Water can be trucked from this well and used to fill the proposed 240,000 gallon fresh water impoundment to be constructed at the site. In any event, the impoundment will be filled prior to receipt of any wastes at the site and will be maintained at capacity. I.Cf12O.. 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 32 3.10 LEGAL INSTRUMENT DEMONSTRATING THE APPLICANT'S INTEREST A copy of the option contract, held by Mr. Ted Zigan, to purchase the property is included as Attachment 2. The list of owners of the Coslett Estate is provided as Attachment 3. 3.11 NOISE REPORT All operations associated with the proposed facility will generate less than 70 decibels of noise 25 feet from the property line. Because noise generation does not exceed the noise standards as established in 25-12-101 C.R.S., 1973, as amended, the requirement for a noise report is waived by the Weld County Department of Planning Services (Allison and Potter, 1990). 3.12 SOIL REPORT A soil survey for southern Weld County as prepared by the Soil Conservation Service was reviewed in conjunction with preparation of the Landfill Operations and Closure Plan (refer to Section 3.1.1 of this application). The soil survey does not indicate any moderate or severe soil limitations for landfill activity at the site. In addition, the soil study performed during the preparation of the Landfill Operations and Closure Plan indicates very suitable soils for landfilling activities at the site. The soil types are presented on the Vicinity Map. The soils at the site have reported high shrink and swell potential which will be considered during the design and construction of the foundation for the recycling facility and pave- ments at the site. 3.13 OWNERS OF RECORD WITHIN 500 FEET A list of the owners of property within 500 feet of the proposed landfill site is attached as Attachment 4. S 1(361.9 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 33 3.14 MINERAL OWNERS AND LESSEES OF RECORD A list of the mineral owners and lessees of the subject property and the appropriate certifi- cation form are presented as Attachment 5. el fir,--,1 19 8912-04 USR 7/30/90 page 34 4.0 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT PLAN MAP 4.1 VICINITY MAP The Vicinity Map is included as Plate 1 in a map pocket at the end of this report. The map was prepared at a scale of 1 inch equals 1000 feet as approved by Rod Allison (March 26, 1990). This map illustrates the features required by the Weld County Zoning Ordinance (November 21, 1989). 4.2 PLOT PLAN The Plot Plan Map is included as Plate 2 in a map pocket at the end of this report. This map was prepared at a scale of 1 inch equals 300 feet so that the entire property could fit on one sheet, and to meet the map sheet size requirements of Weld County. This scale was approved by Rod Allison (March 26, 1990). This map illustrates the features required by the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. It."1:,I .,kS 8912-04 Special Use 7/28/90 page 35 Bibliography Adams County, 1984, Adams County Comprehensive Plan. Adams County, Adams County Zoning Regulations. Allison, R., 1990,WeId County Department of Planning Services, Personal Communications by Kip R. White and Jim Considine. Boulder County, December 8, 1983 Boulder County Comprehensive Plan Vol. 11. Boulder County, December 1988, Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. Goals. Policies and Maps. Boulder County, January 1, 1990, Boulder County Zoning Resolution. City of Broomfield, August 23, 1988, 1988 Broomfield Master Plan. City of Broomfield, December 1989, City of Broomfield Development Code. Broomfield Municipal Code. City of Lafayette, April 15, 1988, City of Lafayette Chapter 26 Development and Zoning Code. City of Northglenn, December 15, 1988, Northglenn. Colorado Comprehensive Plan Summary. City of Northglenn, July 1989, Zoning Ordinances City of Northglenn, Colorado. City of Thornton, February 15, 1989, City of Thornton Zoning Regulations. City of Thornton, October, 1985, City of Thornton. Colorado Comprehensive Plan. City of Westminster, 4/88 through 6/89, The Municipal Code of the City of Westminster, Sections 12-2-1 through 4 ,"General, Specific, and Planning Standards for Landscaping for Major Land Development.. City of Westminster, 1990, The Municipal Code of the City of Westminster, Sections 11- 5-1 through 13 ,"Phase II of the Westminster Growth Management Program. City of Westminster, April 24, 1989, City of Westminster Policy Document. Colorado Department of Health, March, 1989, Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities. Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, October 1989, Facing America's Trash: What next for Municipal Solid Waste?. Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Ditch Company, 1984, Design Review Process and Design Criteria for Facilities of the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company. 8912-04 Special Use 7/28/90 page 36 Gage, April 1, 1988, North 1-25 Corridor Study. Harding and Lawson, 1989, Use By Special Review Permit Application for the Proposed Horst Landfill in Weld County. Colorado. Hynes, J.L., Colorado Geologic Survey, 1990, Personal Communication by Kip White King and Associates, Inc., December 4, 1987, Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan. Lafayette, November 3, 1987, Lafayette 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Montoya, Mr., June 13, 1990, Personal Communication by David Douglass. Potter, W., 1990,WeId County Department of Environmental Health Personal Communications by Kip R. White and Jim Considine. Rocky Mountain Fuel Company, 1946, Columbine Mine Plan Map, Sheet 3 of 4, Provided by Colorado Geologic Survey, Recorded by Colorado Division of Mines. Soil Conservation Service, SCS, Technical Guide-Irrigation Water Conveyance. 428-A-1. State of Colorado, 1973, Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act. U.S. EPA, 1989, Agenda for Action. U.S. EPA, August 30, 1988, 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258, Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria. Proposed Rule. Federal Register. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, September, 1980, Soil Survey for Weld County Colorado. Southern Part. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, September, 1980, Soil Survey of Weld County.Colorado. Southern Part. Weld County Department of Planning Services, May 10, 1978, Geologic Hazard Area Map of Potential Ground Subsidence Areas in Weld County.Colorado. Weld County, September 22, 1987, Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Weld County, September, November 21, 1989, Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Weld County, "Weld County Site Specific Development Plan: Use By Special Review Procedural Guide". Attachment 1 Conceptual View of Environmental Recycling and Disposal Recycling Center O t hf- 1 .: , I , ' k ,- yam, 'rr+..... !!!""" . 4 ,34 alt w -"rw - 9 f - a ",R z rk",..x nswoonn*i. y, i'f f � ) � �+ . ,-+"'� tea,#-"�..,- ��'i v < as,,,,,j fie'' -,,,,; ♦�1.� t.,1 � ' 10 %;£;.., A} i � � r 4 • 4 h : r f f. 7" f,y� L�}f}• .4 i�dg y A +&L 1 S � g 4 1 p. i • �k 71, 1 i � er _ T" T ".` 3i 7i/ �} j ,s1 (r••,•f. i ftd T. / i�M ,3" Y ' ,' i� { 5 yy '- 0. L" 1�ftlxy •.'. r j _ ' `.i.i� y 3 v ' e ss ti d .0 • a _ s t x�hx fi.." 3 t� i'� �� < ' 111 CC �`•.. to . l S 4 ', - ' A R` - -Y S r�y�, _ 3 i 4 I�1�� 7 >{ 1. a 1`N l y f „` l{rd a • kS . 4 L lij V 4,t'"� 1/23,3'�i �t}�u T a � i4. - 'ua Ana i.i Iti ..'r- ,, n S °' 34,:s x � , .� w'. ,,� V. r� 64 14K �4�i ' :. II tet` j$�/j' IT el ` ryirp a 44 IlliEit �{ i `t✓ .f Fr j f y L- "• gym. kf , ., pP �� . _ rt t t x. '..tfsfs,• { .. +!'" K 001 - {�' ai '' r. ti "fi"ay ,<�' 4: ti, } Yv , w , .......:.:.:••....:..:..... : :.::.::. ....... .::<:F,. .: fiye.. • L ` r _ A V�' ......::........:.a.::� • It �_ ` y R . �� • - j ;. • 1,..a ' 1 E' ,', � '. .,rT i. �C f_ • ,� , ,'' , ' ' ": •-. --(-0-:. ' t . r. `+rtx* 44. ,w. '." P),` t : w • •.:::: ::::..:.:::::::.C''':::,:::;.:::..;•:.:A::''::';'•:'::::.i:!:-. 7 i'''.:;::;.:::.':.;:::''.:-..;•-.'7.:•....•l' .-. ....... ''.'-'-t, ' ' '''',"''''''-' 4.-,- '-'''-'4.e --"7" , 'IP t - ' ' .' "... ''t:"ki''.-:'7:', F .', p•,•,••••••••,...,',2:::::::.•:.:::;.::.:,?.:.:::::::.e..,;:.::::::',,i',.i..,:;,,,.;,!!...:•:,..::}2..',f::.:::;:,.;.-,....,:::: :.....,.....,..,:-.:..'.:: -......: ....: . •.•,- .. -,.;,,-.4,::.i.:.....:..,.:....,..,,..:- , , ,t.k...- ail. . ; ,„„,- . 00 r.' tf. L •,_ M. .. _ _-._.. ,F_._e,.�r:.,. • .. .. ,... _ .>: �.. ,,-, :.:. . __.. -. « , .tr 4 J r:; , Attachment 2 Copy of Legal Instrument Showing Applicant's Interest in the Property t ' ' B 1258 REC 02208565 03/22/90 09 : 33 y15. 00 1/003 AR220B565 F 2179 MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK & RECORDER WELD CO, CO -- OPTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is between Theodore Zigan , whose address is 5828 So . Dry Creek Court , Littleton , CO 80121 and/or his assigns ( "Zigan " ) and Richard T . Cosslett Estate / Freda June Erwin personal representative whose address is 2040 George , Billings , Mt 59102 ( "Seller " ) and concerns certain real property descr4bed as follows : West 1/2 and NE 1/4 of Section :.8 , Township 1 North Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal MJridian , Weld County , State of Colorado , and containing 468 . 15 acres , more or less This property shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Property " . WHEREAS , Seller owns an undivided one—eighth interest in the Property and , WHEREAS , Zigan desires to purchase the Property on the terms set forth herein , the Parties hereby agree as follows : 1 . In consideration of the option , Zigan shall pay to Seller the sum of $1000 and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the Seller , upon execution of this agreement . This $1000 sum is not refundable . 2 . In exchange for the above , Zigan shall have the right to purchase from Seller , Seller ' s undivided share of the Property upon the following terms : a . Zigan shall pay Seller a total sum of $99 , 450 . 00 for Seller ' s undivided interest in the Property . $98 , 450 . 00 will be paid in cash or certified funds at Closing , and a credit for the $1000 option fee will be realized . b. Seller shall convey , by a general warranty deed all of his undivided interest in the Property , subject only to real estate taxes for 1990 and earlier years and to easements and other restrictions of record prior to the date o£ this Option Agreement . Seller has made no representations regarding water and mineral rights , and no such rights are being sold or relinquished by Seller . 3 . This option shall be good for a period of 120 days from the date of execution of this Agreement . Zigan may R,,v917,11 F� exercise the option by sending written notice to Seller at his address by certified mail , bearing a certification stamp on or prior to the 120th day after signature by Seller of this option agreement . Closing shall occur within 30 days after notice of exercise of the option at the time and place specified in the notice ( the "Closing " ) . If Zigan does not give such written notice , this agreement shall expire and have no further force or effect . 4 . During the option period , Zigan shall have full access to the Property for conducting n survey , soil tests o and other tests to determine the `easibility y proposed use of the Property by Zigan . I'uch tests shall be at the sole expense and risk of Zigan , and Zigan will indemnify Seller from any loss relating to such access to the Property and any work performed at the Property by Zigan or his agents . 5 . Zigan shall have the right to obtain a title commitment , at his expense , for the Property , and a title _ insurance policy , also at Zigan ' s expense at the time of Closing . Seller is not aware of any liens or encumbrances on the Property , nor any title defects , easements or restrictions which would prevent normal use of the Property by Zigan . Seller is also not aware of any environmental hazard or toxic wastes of any kind at the Property . At Closing , Zigan will take the Property subject to any unknown environmental hazards or toxic wastes . 6 . At the time of Closing , Zigan will pay closing costs relating to title insurance , and recording costs . Any real property taxes will be apportioned to the date of Closing . Any other closing cost will be paid by Zigan . 7 . There is a farm lease at the Property which is terminable upon notice to the tenant . Zigan agrees that any growing crops shall remain the property of the Seller and the tenant , but only for growing crops to be harvested within 6 months after Closing . no al broker , o . The parties acknowledge that rem eat, to - = or salesmen have been retained by them . In the event of any claim for a real estate commission , Seller shall be responsible for payment of any broker claiming fl-A- - the Seller , and Zigan shall be responsible for :er claiming under Zigan . 9 . This agreement is specifically enforn It will be recorded in the real property recor Weld County , Colorado . In the event- of any bren - this Agreement by Seller , Zigan s ^ ' 1 have the righ _ ;pin any attempt at sale , and -more , shall hav 7ht to enforce this contract h a specific performance suit , and additionally , a suit for damages for any losses incurred through the breach , including , but not limited to , B 1258 REC 02208565 03/22/90 09 : 33 X15. 00 2/003 F 2180 MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERIC & RECORDER WELD CO, CO C' .Y:Y11£ lost profits and attorney ' s fees . 10 . Jurisdiction for any dispute in any way related to this contract shall rest solely within the courts of Colorado . Venue within Colorado shall solely rest with the District Court of Weld County , Colorado . 11 . This contract is binding upon the Parties , their heirs , successors and assigns . 12 . This contract is severable . In the event any portion of this contract is found to be invalid or void by law , the remainder of the contract she 1 be in full force and eEfect and the contract shall be construed with that portion deleted . SELLER : 7.- Date STATE OF CA2. fAN,1 ) ) ss . • " 'uU• , ury F Ly%.; ' ......:....,. COUNTY OF yP��cwr/on ) '� N ,'.4-; •.,el, Subscribed and sworn to b fore me this 97/ day „.., �Rb:EL r�ju'it/ , 1990 , by 72,-2/5 4e, e�ib,/.J . .-re : t3 Whtncss my hand and offi'icial seal . ;., rr97. Zaxt : . S •.• _ :�s �� My commission expires : „.y// �� l�rE () VIA� Oa�` Notary Public ZICAN : Date / Theodore Zigan ✓ f% L STATE OF COLORADO ) ?`,tip .a d�ik COUNTY OF at(dJ1/) ) -`"./ �t. 1 1::.� e S > :In .O-.>. // t`(/ ' Subscribed and sworn to before me this r -c r,gtvic• iQa 1990 , by Theodore Zigan . " W tness my hand and official seal . � /, '.11 'Or '''•, My Commission Expires June 11, i.^:il My commission expires : _ // . _ „,./P• ) ...17,7 No/ary Public / B 1258 REC 02208565 03/22/90 09 : 33 ,5'15 . 00 3/003 eit q,-rzM, :-1 F 2181 MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK & RECORDER WELD CO, CO A`2216014 B 1266 REC 02216014 06/05/90 13:53 ,+5.00 -/ J - F 0312 MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK S RECORDER WELD CO, CO ADDENDUM TO OPTION AGREEMENT EXTENSION WHEREAS, a certain Option Agreement was entered into between Theodore Zigan, whose address is 5828 South Dry Creek Court, Littleton, Co 80121 (hereinafter referred to as "Zigan") ;and Richard T. Cosslett Estate / Freda June Erwin personal representative whose address is 2040 George, Billings, Mt 59102 (hereinafter referred to as "Seller") Said Option Agreement was executed on the 9th day of February, 1990; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said Option Agreement, Zigan was to have a period of 120 days from the date of execution of the Agreement to exercise his option to P"r and ehase a certain parcel of property described in said contra • WHEREAS, all parties to this Agreemen' wish to extend the time of the Agreement for an additional time of 270 days. THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Zigan shall have an additional time of 270 days to exercise said option. 2. Upon execution of this Agreement, Zigan shall pay Seller the sum of FIVE. THOUSAND (85,000.00) DOLLARS. Said amount shall be credited to the purchase price of the property upon closing or shall be forfeited in the event the closing does not occur. 3. Zigan shall have until the 9th day of March 1991, to exercise his option in the same manner as previously stated in Paragrnph 3 of this Agreement. 4. This Extension Agreement is a supplement to the previously referenced Agreement. All provisions of the previously referenced Agreement shall be in full force and effect unless specifically stated otherwise herein. 5. This Extension Agreement shall be recorded by Zigan in the Clerk 6 Recorder's Office of Weld County, Colorado. SELLER: DATE STATE OF Montana ) ] sa TQ,I .�:Ub•U�NTY OF Yellowstone ] •‘ il:tt-.Su ibed and sworn to before me this 7th day of .' ,coTARr. 'i ayi 1990, by rnrda June Erwin ?.. . __„p .Ceese. my hand and official seal. i spin cnnmp.ssion expires: 1)-],0-92 s•. !11 �f'••.:•••" �(F,` N/ r�otary Public 6 (.101,;, ZIGAN: "F!� .ter=_. —f c„ •_ Date Theodore Zigan_/ STATE OF COLORADO ) ] ss. COUNTY OF ADAMS ) day of6Lf5k(G�h Subscribed and sworn to before me this --2,q1- J 1990, by Theodore Zigon Witness my hand and official se`.' _ My commission expires: ,-r)- -)\ ;1 Notary Pu�6fic JJ C x d E0rorri`ol -: r T <., O Yogic : �. C-• Attachment 3 List of Owners of the Coslett Estate c*� scC1 AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE Application No . Subject Property West 1 /2 Section 28 T 1h R 68t, SATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge, the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses, and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners of property (the surface estate) within 500 feet of the property which is the subject of the application. This list was compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, an ownership update from a title or abstract company, derived from such records, or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The list compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor shall have been assembled within 30 days of the application submission date. v The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this ` oflumu, c)�-d ay of �.t , 19,.��,S 8933,,'y� — V V ��, ,..... °•••+ ,. Os 'a s3 ,yG TA y S 7k_ WITNESS my hard and official seal. : S My Commission expires: -A% et t "se,1c O ,C©V©, My Commission expires December 31, 1991 10(14-6c—, `p �J � Notary Public C� The owners of the Coslett Estate are as follows: Richard Cosslett, deceased, as to an undivided 1/8 interest; Betty Jean Cosslett Gilikinson, as to an undivided 1/8 interest; Raymond Armstrong, as to an undivided 1/8 interest; Beverly J. Collins, as to an undivided 1/8 interest; June Ann Pease, as to an undivided 1/4 interest; Vivian I. Killian now known as Vivian I. Nelson, as to an undivided 1/8 interest; Roberta A. Hensley, as to an undivided 1/8 interest. fir.7., . . Attachment 4 Names of Owners of Property Within 500 Feet of the Special Use Parcel 6?,'� f F�l F NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET ADDRESS , TOWN/CITY , ASSESSOR ' S PARCEL NAME STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION S RICHARD COSSLETT ETAL LONGMNT BANK 1467-20-0-00-010 510 COFMAN LONGMONT , CO . 80501 KENNETH E . PRATT & P . O. BOX 801 1467-29-000-042 KAREN K . LANDERS LONGMONT , CO. 80501 WELD CO . 915 10TH ST . 1467-29-000-041 GREELEY , CO . 80631 STANLEY A . & LEONE M . 16005 S I INGLEEWOODRRDNE 1467-32-000-030 ZIMMERMAN BOTHELL , WA . 1467-33-000-018 WELD CO . 1467-33-000-019 BASELINE INVESTMENT LAKEWOOD , CO. 80215 2201 IST CO . 7, POOLE & CO . WILSON W . & LILA R. 2550 175TH AVE . 1467-33-100-001 ERIE , CO . 80516 WEST ENERGY OIL INC . 2500 FIRST REPUBLIC 1467-28-000-006 7. SNYDER OIL CO . FT . WORTHNK , TX 76102 LOTHAR 2 HERTA 1424 WELD CTY. RD 7 1467-27-000-015 GUENTHER ERIE , CO . 80516 DARRELL D . & FRANCES 1574 80516 WELD CD 7 1467-27-200-005 L . THOMAS ERIE , CO . ELISA M . GAUL 1474 WELD CTY. RD 7 1467-27-200-003 ERIE , CO . 80516 DAVID J . HUBER 3172 WELD CTY . RD 6 1467-27-200-001 ERIE , CO . 80516 MARY BAKER 3423 WCR 6 1467-22-000-018 ERIE , CO. 80516 SWINK FAMILY FARMS 2510 W. H AVE . 1467-21-000-017 & ETALS BROOMFIELD,TCO . 80020 DANIEL R. & 2240 WCR 5 1467-21-000-003 JACQUELINE S . HORST ERIE, CO. 80516 DANIEL R. & 2240 WCR 5 1467-21-000-029 JACQUELINE S . HORST ERIE , CO. 80516 cry %(Al 9 Attachment 5 Names of Mineral Owners and Lessees of Minerals on or Under the Special Use Parcel AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE Application No. Subject Property west 1/9 Sprttinn 7A T 1N R 58W STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, sates that to the best of his or her knowledge, the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names and addresses of all mineral owners and lessees of minerals on or under the parcel of land which is the subject of the application as their names appear upon the records in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office, from an ownership update from a title or abstract company, or an attorney. The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this /�� µ,,euro�. day of C/Jii , 19q0 , gyirjo jatt„,„c i Ccm_A3 (/ d � .... To WITNESS my hand and official seal. "�t •- f� My Commission expires: a'(1)% /41liBL_ Get4t \-9.4S. ....` . My Commission expires December 31, 1991 ,p�4.Cr day /nnnn zurtru Notary Public List of Mineral Owners or Lessees Beneath the Special Use Parcel NW 1/4 of Section 28, T 1N, R 68W: Rocky Mountain Fuel Company 91015th Street Denver, Colorado 80202 SW 1/4 and NE 1/4 of Section 28, T 1N, R 68W: Cosslett Estate Etal. c/o Longmont National Bank 510 Coffman Longmont, Colorado 80501 17.:1,kJC.;1,9 KRW CONSULTING, INC. Kip R.White,P.E. President February, 20, 1991 ;1,'x'1 Colorado Department of Health " ✓�' Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Div. 4210 East 11th Avenue J Denver Colorado 80220 g � twas'`t CO.1111°°' Attention: Austin Buckingham Subject: Addendum to Landfill Design. Operation and Closure Plan for the Proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility in Southwestern Weld County Project No.: 8912-04 Dear Austin: As you requested we have completed additional field exploration at the subject site and have prepared additional information regarding the operation of the recycling facility. This letter report presents this information according to the following outline: Introduction page 1 Additional Field Data page 2 Waste Management within the Recycling Facility page 3 Tipping Floor page 3 Waste and Product Conveyance page 4 Residuals Waste Pit and Pickup Area page 4 Liquids Management page 5 Household Hazardous Waste page 6 Introduction The purpose of this addendum is to provide additional data and information regarding the subject facility. Data is presented regarding ongoing groundwater level monitoring and additional site exploration for verification of the conditions established prior to submitting the initial Operations Plan. Information is also provided regarding the flow, treatment, and storage of the solid waste stream; the exclusion of commercial and bulk hazardous wastes; and the management of household hazardous wastes within the recycling facility. 630 Ammons Way • Lakewood,Colorado 80215 • (303)239-9011 Sit", Ex LI. - -P -- 8912-04 2/20/91 page 2 Additional groundwater data which was generated resulted from measuring water levels in monitoring wells at the site since the initial plan was submitted and drilling of two additional borings in Groundwater Area 3 near the center of the landfill area. These two borings were drilled for the purpose of demonstrating that a minimum of 15 feet of unsaturated material is present beneath the proposed excavation zone in Groundwater Area 3. Information provided on the recycling facility is presented to demonstrate that the facility is enclosed and that generation of leachate within the facility will not occur. Additional Field Data Water levels were measured twice in selected borings across the site in January and February, 1991. This data is presented in Table 1. This is an updated version of Table 1 of the Operations Plan. Two borings were drilled in Groundwater Area 3 for the purpose of confirming, to Colorado Department of Health Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (CDH), that the geologic strata beneath the proposed excavation zone in this area is unsaturated. These borings, 32a and 38a, were drilled immediately adjacent to existing monitoring wells 32 and 38, respectively, which had encountered perched groundwater. The Operations Plan requires that these perched zones be removed by excavation during landfill construction. In order to confirm unsaturated conditions beneath the proposed landfill excavation, these borings were cored with air using NX core equipment. The cored interval extended from the elevation corresponding to the top of the proposed landfill liner elevation to a minimum of 15 feet below the proposed liner The core was visually inspected in the field by Austin Buckingham of CDH and Kip White and was confirmed to be unsaturated in all samples collected below the proposed excavation depth for the landfill. Lithologic logs of these borings have been prepared and are included as Figures 1 and 2. Figure 3 illustrates their locations at the site. 8912-04 2/7O/91 page 3 Waste Management within the Recycling Facility There will be two separate buildings which make up the recycling facility. The main building will contain the tipping floor sorting and picking stations and equipment, and residuals loading area. This building will have a floor area of approximately 20,000 square feet. The second building will house a bailer for bailing of plastics, paper-board, and paper products. This building will have a floor area of approximately 8,000 square feet. Tipping Floor Incoming waste will be unloaded on a concrete tipping floor inside the main recycling building (refer to Figure 4). This floor will be constructed in a manner which prevents drainage from entering or leaving the building via doors, concrete seams, or cracks. It should be noted that leachate generation will not occur on the tipping floor. All cleanup will be performed using dry methods. Prior to entering the tipping floor, all operators of incoming vehicles will be questioned, at the facility gate, regarding the contents of their loads in order to determine if the load is acceptable at the site and if the contents are recyclable. A full time spotter will be present on the tipping floor of the recycling facility to direct the unloading of incoming waste, to prevent the unauthorized disposal of hazardous wastes, and to prevent the unloading of saturated solid wastes. In addition the spotter will direct, and assist in, the removal, from the unloaded waste, of large items which are incompatible with the conveyance systems within the recycling facility. Any hazardous waste, drums, sludges, liquids, or potentially contaminated soil wastes will be returned to the hauler who will be notified of his responsibility for proper disposal at alternate approved facilities. Any saturated refuse which is inadvertently dumped on the tipping floor will be reloaded and hauled to the landfill working face. Waste will be moved from the tipping floor to the main inclined conveyors using a front-end loader. This loader will also be used to maintain open areas for incoming vehicles to dump refuse. 8912-04 2/2O/91 page 4 Waste and Product Conveyance System The waste conveyance system will consist of two main inclined waste conveyors which transport incoming solid waste to four smaller conveyors (moving picking tables). These picking tables dump into two rotating trommels for bag breaking which, in turn, empty onto four more picking tables. Finally, all residuals will be dumped into a waste pit at one end of the building (refer to Figure 4). The main inclined conveyors will elevate the refuse to a level approximately 13 feet above the floor of the recycling facility before splitting their flow into the four moving picking tables. The picking tables will pass several picking stations where paper, paper-board products,glass,aluminum, ferrous metals,and plastic will be manually removed and placed in product-specific drop-shoots which empty onto product conveyors which, in turn, transport the removed recyclables to bins or piles. Paper-board, paper, and plastics will be dumped from the product conveyors into piles where they will be picked up with a loader and transported to the bailer in an adjacent building. The resulting bails will be stored in the bailing building or in the main recycling facility until they are delivered to market. Overflow storage for plastics will be accommodated in the outdoor storage area as shown in the Operations Plan. Glass, aluminum, and ferrous metals will be dumped from the product conveyors into open top bins. These materials will be stored in the bins within the recycling facility until delivery to market. Aluminum and glass overflow storage will be provided in bins in the the outdoor storage area as shown in the Operations Plan. Residuals Waste Pit and Pickup Area The residuals waste pit consists of a concrete lined enclosure which receives the residual unrecyclable materials at the end of the waste conveyance system. The waste is compacted in the pit with a wheel compactor, such as an 816 Caterpillar, and pushed into end-dump trucks for transport to the landfill working face. The waste pit floor will be sloped away from the pickup area to facilitate compaction with the 816. All concrete joints will be sealed with a suitable polyurethane sealant, and any cracks which develop will be similarly sealed on a periodic basis. Free liquids are not anticipated in the residuals pit. O n Pr'1 K?p 8912-04 2/20/91 page 5 The pickup area will consist of a canopy over a concrete pad. Precipitation will be prevented from draining to the pickup area by construction of perimeter drains. No liquids are anticipated as a result of refuse loading operations in the pickup area. Liquids Management Free liquids will not be dumped at the recycling facility. Precipitation will be prevented from entering any waste handling area. In addition, cleanup activities within the recycling facility will be conducted without liquid. Therefore, no leachate will be generated within the recycling facility. Any liquids inadvertently spilled within the facility will be removed using absorbent pads or other suitable disposable absorbent materials. No floor drains will be included in the construction. Any drains, for health and safety showers, toilet, and hand washing facilities,will be serviced by a wastewater storage tank to be designed and constructed according to appropriate Weld County Requirements. This tank will frequently be pumped, and the contents will be removed to a local wastewater treatment facility. Household Hazardous Waste Identified household hazardous waste (HHW) will be removed from the waste stream to prevent disposal of such wastes in the landfill. Household hazardous waste, including "household waste that has been collected, transported, stored, treated, disposed, recovered, or reused"is exempt from EPA and Colorado regulations governing hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.4 (b) (1) and 6 CCR 1007-3 respectively). The HHW to be targeted for removal from the incoming waste stream are listed in Appendix A along with their hazardous constituents. Each employee working at a picking station will be trained to recognize potential hazardous substances as listed in Table A-1, Appendix A. Each supervisor will be trained to recognize the hazardous substances as well as their hazardous constituents (fables A-1 and A-2, Appendix A). The supervisors will also be responsible for insuring that incompatible wastes do not interact during temporary storage. Most picking stations will be equipped with temporary household hazardous waste (HHW) receptacles for placement of identified potential HHW and waste oil containers. These temporary receptacles will be constructed of inert leakproof materials. The receptacles will be S 5�r 8912-04 2/20/91 page 6 emptied by a supervisor at least daily and more often if their capacity is in danger of being exceeded. It should be noted that HHW are typically containerized. It is these containers which will be removed from the waste stream. The contents of the containers will not be emptied into the temporary storage receptacles. The HHW removed from the receptacles at the various picking stations will be placed in temporary laboratory storage cabinets within the enclosure shown on Figure 4. This enclosure will be equipped with separate ventilation equipment, spill cleanup equipment and secure storage cabinets to facilitate temporary storage of HHW. The HHW will be placed in cabinets according to DOT hazard class descriptions. More detailed HHW handling and storage information will be provided in the health and safety plan to be developed as discussed below. As soon as sufficient HHW are accumulated to allow practical transport, the HHW will be packed, labeled, manifested, and transported to an approved hazardous waste disposal facility, or facilities, in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. These activities will be conducted for E.R.D.by a hazardous waste contractor such as GSX Services or USPCI. Prior to operation of the recycling facility, a health and safety plan will be developed for all operations within the facility. This plan will include personal protection requirements, emergency spill cleanup protocol, equipment requirements, detailed storage protocol, chemical compatibility information, lab-packing and bulking procedures, drum labeling procedures, manifesting and transport procedures. All employees, as well as contractors hired for packing and shipment of the HHW, will be required to comply with the health and safety plan. Key employees will be trained in the recognition and handling of HHW. This training will include procedures for waste identification, sorting, and storage, spill cleanup, and personal safety. We trust that this information adequately addresses your questions regarding the additional field data generated at the proposed landfill and the operation of the recycling facility. Sincerely, Kip R. White, P.E. cc. Rod Allison,Weld County Planning r*i l,r1 ,� Table 1 E.R.D. Landfill Field Data Summary, Updated 2/91 Boring Depth Boring Elev. Boring Elev Well S.U. Water Level (from ground surface) (feet) (grd surf.) (Top of Steel) (feet) 2/26 2/27 4/2,4 4/9,134/16,17 4/27 5/3,4 5/1r 1 48.5 5211.601 5213.88 2.28 39.34 39.61 39.44 39.55 39.24 39.48 = 2 50 5234.33 5236.57 2.24 dry- dry dry dry dry a 3 55 5195.26 5197.50 2.24 dry dry dry dry e 4 45 5182.76 5185.16 2.40 _ 37.07 34.84 31 .10 G.) j 4a 15 5182.71 5184.65 1.94 7.26 6.62 3.81 4.21 4.5st k) n w io 5 30 5202.79 5205.48 2.69 29.64 28.06 27.94 27.94 27 v N 6 45 5293.78 5293.78 0.00 dry dry CA VI 7 65 5244.73 5247.60 2.87 dry dry in iv ro N CD 7a 16 5245.10 5247.68 2.58 11.59 = 8 60 5268.48 5268.48 0.00 dry o` 9 50 5252.71 5252.71 0.00 dry N N v, �, x 10 30.5 5247.89 5250.10 2.21 g nt v m 11 45.5 5252.20 5254.78 2.58 y ro m can 91. o A ' m_ 12 50.5 5265.02 5265.02 0.00 m n a n a y o A ro 13 32 5263.98 5265.94 1.96 fv w '� '� `t '< '< w o m '< N 1 ° 14 45 5256.19 5261.19 5.00 �-�- 3 � 15 37 5249.78 5252.53 2.75 -- _ 16 68 5243.75 5243.75 0.00 17 53 5219.31 5219.31 0.00 <1E-7,SHL packer 18 112 5252.04 5254.62 2.58 19 33 5192.22 5194.28 2.061111 5,000 8E-4, SMS slug_ 20 39 5186.39 5188.47 2.08, 2,860 3E-4, SMS slug 21 112 5283.06 5286.08 3.02 22 172 5282.04 5284.39 2.35 23 52 5184.73 5187.32 2.59 8,640 2E-7, CLS/SCS slug bailed dry 5/10/90 23a 10.5 5184.94 5186.98 2.04 24 67 5265.99 5265.99 0.00 25 67 5249.16 5249.16 0.00 26 52 5249.91 5252.58 2.67 0,463 bailed dry 5/4/90 27 50 5268.73 5268.73 0.00 28 67 5220.66 5220.66 0.00 29 58 5232.44 5232.44 0.00 30 82 5209.88 5209.88 0.00 31 58 5214.47 5214.47 0.00 32 82 5309.06 5311.81 2.75 5,146 33 67 5238.49 5238.49 0.00 r 34 67 5281.58 5281.58 0.00 35 58 5289.37 5292.37 3.00 9_375 <1E-7, CLS/SCS sluklailed dry 5/12/90 36 67 5290.07 5290.07 0.00 37 108 5241.22 5241.22 0.00 38 18 5286.85 5289.05 2.20 39 36.5 5206.96 5210.63 3.67 1 ,488 40 57.5 5213.70 5213.70 0.00 41 58.5 5220.24 5222.76 2.52 8,548 42 17 5273.39 5276.28 2.89 3,539 43 26 5273.73 5273.73 0.00 44 48 5281.91 5284.56 2.65 7.068 1E-5, SHL/SMS, slug, 45 18 5279.88 5283.11 3.23 4,303 • 46 18 5272.21 5272.21 0.00 47 12 5282.43 5282.43 0.00 48 13 5273.97 5273.97 0.00 ` 49 48 5285.95_ 5285.95 0.00 50 58 5224.26 5226.66 2.40 2.951 51 58 5255.57 5255.57 0.00 _ dry on 5/24 also 52 57.5 5255.92 5255.92 0.00 et, Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 32a Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 2/13-14/91 Graphic Lop Lithology % core recovery Comments . Topsoil Clay, with some gravels _ 5 _: Claystone, very silty In places, unsaturated,grey, yellow brown _ 10 < 10 — 15 — Claystone, very iron stained, unsaturated — 20 < : 20 — Sandstone, silty to very silty, slightly moist, _ unsaturated, yellow brown — 25 - very cemented lense encountered for 23 inches at 28 feet — 30 30— sandstone more moist just above Claystone but still unsaturated 35 - Claystone, medium moist, unsaturated, olive grey/yellow _ brown — 40 Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, medium 40 y The core interval included smoist/moist, olive grey/yellow brown _ bedrock from approximately 10% Sandstone, silty, fine grained, saturated, yel. brown to grey - 10 feet above the top elevation 45 » Claystone, medium moist, unsaturated, grey of the proposed liner to 15 _ feet below the top elevation of Sandstone, silty, fine grained, as above except unsaturated, - 20% the proposed liner. yellow brown _ 50 Claystone, carbonaceous in part, iron staining and 50 80% stop at 51' on 2/13/91 due to vertical iron fractures, unsaturated, yellow brown to _ water being produced from grey _ 71% sandtone at 42'. returned Claystone/Sandstone interbedded, unsaturated, olive 55 grey/yellow brown _ 7p70% to 51 feet t to o1 and cased hole isolate water and finished hole. Claystone, very expansive, unsaturated, grey brown to _ dark grey _ 48% 57 to 60.5 Drilling Method: Air Rotary/NX Core Figure 1 Hole Diameter 5 1/8"/NX Sheet 1 of 2 Rig Type: Mobile B-80 Test Boring Elevation: -5309 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist 0 t1 q ;'� Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 32a Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 2/13-14/91 Graphic Log LltholoDY Si core recovery Comments Claystone, very silty in places, unsaturated,grey, yellow 48% brown 65' is approximately 15' below the top of the proposed liner. Claystone/Shale to Sandy Shale, some Iron staining 83% noted, sl. moist, unsaturated, grey — Total Depth: 66' _ Drilling Method: Air Rotary/NX Core Figure 1 Hole Diameter 5 1/8"/NX Sheet 2 of 2 Rig Type: Mobile B-80 Test Boring Elevation: -5309 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist S F;r^.1. CS Project Name: ERD Landfill Boring No.: 38a Project No.: 8912-04 Logged By: Kip White Date: 2/13/91 Graphic Loy Lllho/ogy % Core Recovery Comments Topsoil, clayey Sandstone, very clayey, sl moist/ med. moist, unsaturated, yellow brown 5 Claystone, el. to med. moist, unsaturated, grey/brown 10 10 Claystone, more moist at 13' but still unsaturated, iron 15 staining noted, gypsum noted at 15', weathered, grey/ Lt9�d"hARIN in part from 16' 70% The core interval included bedrock from 4 feet above the elevation of 20 20 the top of the proposed clay liner Sandstone, siltstone, clayey, some vertical to 70% to approximately 18 feet below subvertical iron fracturing noted, med. moist, u the top of the proposed liner. unsaturated, yellow brown/grey 25 Claystone, carbonaceous in part, iron stained, 25°h unsaturated, less weathered w/ depth, yellow brown/grey 30 30 60% 35 Sandstone, very silty, unsaturated, yellow brown 50% Total Depth: 36.8 feet 40 40 45 50 50 55 Drilling Method: Air Rotary/NX Core Figure 2 Hole Diameter 5 1/8"/NX Sheet 1 of 1 Rig Type: Mobile B-80 Test Boring Elevation: -5287 Kip R. White Environmental Scientist ;_ ..f'S g LANDFILL PHASING AT THE PROPOSED E. R. D. FACILITY - _ _ _ _ _ _ � _ \\1 � — . t \ ) ti ,, rte:/ =� �. _ ». C .-. ,} � s;;;;Qi -\ \ - ---;--,:c.-r---.-- -\ 11 I �,, A v z� A� A II�, �� 1 ��.�-�/ ��- i Ci �II1i .. Iij - lJ : L'� � _ II':, \ \\\~ v ,� ��r 3=r • = -v' � � ,c_______ . -- - ,'r .w�te -N-:� - (===:-.7.7-- 1\ -.Ilm..il`y''' �N, tI Vii=-,"7 _. . ..._ \/- �.,. .. / l r 1M. -1. '- \ . . Y . Yi 'J I �1/!'.. V/AfTr1(D��y<_'ysin „ZOO' �,.,yy�A..�r �.. yi z. • Cen..w..n.t w.. '- ro,....:4‘,.._,7. r', i• t % tau...o.•140vt..*on ^ 1 IIS R..1.0 kip r.white _ 1_ _. wy.s. 11..0,0 I REFERENCE : Plate 5 Fiqure3 r:' <i r __ I . floor slope enclosed residuals waste pit •rlel . r .a ..ainr. . 1.e i�.1t ;.;lle , `r .'fIf y o compactor \ s ♦ \. \ \\ ♦\ \\ r\ ` r\ \\ \ \\ \\ `\\ n\ Y .\\�-�--- \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ n\ \ \\ \� \\ \\ \\ •n\ � canopied residuals .: _ \\ €\` \` v.. \\ 0.0. a. \ - \\ \\ ♦ \\ \\ \` •\ product pickup area on ;i,"""`\; " " ;;::::2S "` \\\ —I.' concrete pad \•ln.\\♦ \.\ %%%. %\♦\ :\'A conveyors ♦ \ ♦ \. 7 \v \\ \ •:` :�' :: :` :�,_ to open-top • ]..... `"""` "- "\\\ "` bins or piles • 1 1 1 bag breaking employee restrooms trommel ` and emergency wash y facilities 1 moving picking table _ (elevated approximately 13' products to above floor and enclosed to provide separate ventilation) market or bailer 1 (paper, paperboard, & plastics to bailer) \ ":ai P. C�` � \\ ♦♦♦ ♦\\ "\ • ;i: \\r \ \\\ \\ \ " l \% :r ;% ;\ " " f product \; + :•\\ \\\;: \\\ •\\,: \♦\\ \\. \f. conveyors Legend \ \♦r \ \♦ \` " �� to open-top ri drop-shoot to �\ r \\ j1j1 11\\ % ,..ear P P ♦ ; ;, ,; ;� \; ;; product conveyor • II \ \\ ;\ .\ bins or piles ♦ \ %ii \\\r .\"\\ \\\\ \"\\ \\\\ \\ \ Qhouseholtl Ilaiertl •.w� ;\\�\\;` ` \\ \;\ • :::..." ‘:::•.; ous waste receptacle .: L : ;: •;r] 1,; �; t% waste flow \\,..-,�� i �l \ direction `\\�\ \\\\`\\ \\\\\\%%%%%%\ ``\;"\` A \\\\ \\♦\\♦ \\`\\ \\\♦\\\\\\"\\\ml ;♦♦ \ \\♦\ Approximate acele. lik 1' 20'14 inclinedinc conveyor 'I f (for incoming refuse) 1 / x household hazardous waste temporary storage and packing area conveyors loaded with a front-end loader enclosed tipping floor (tull-time spotter directing unloading of incoming refuse) incoming refuse Figure 4 Conceptual Floor Plan Design for the Environmental Recycling & Disposal, Inc. Recycling Facility a,.•-• _ i APPENDIX A-1 HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD SUBSTANCES LIST REPAIR AND REMODELING HOBBY & RECREATION 1. Adhesives, Glues, Cements 1 . Paints, Thinners, Solvents 2 . Roof Coatings, Sealants 2 . Chemicals (Including Photo 3 . Caulkings and Sealants & Pool) 4 . Epoxy Resins 3 . Glues & Cements 5. Solvent Based Paints 4 . Inks & Dyes 6. Solvents and Thinners 5. Glazes 7 . Paint Removers & Strippers 6. Bottled Gas Chemistry Sets 8 . White Gas CLEANING AGENTS 9. Charcoal Fluid 10. Batteries 1. Oven Cleaners 2 . Degreasers & Spot Removers 3 . Toilet, Drain & Septic Tank MISCELLANEOUS Cleaners 4 . Polishes, Waxes & Strippers 1. Ammunition 5 . Deck, Patio, Chimney Cleaners 2 . Asbestos 6 . Solvent Cleaning Fluid 3 . Fireworks PESTICIDES 1 . Insecticides 2 . Fungicides 3 . Rodenticides 4 . Molluscides 5 . Wood Preservatives 6 . Moss Retardants 7 . Herbicides 8 . Fertilizers AUTO. BOAT. EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1 . Batteries 2 . Waxes & Cleaners 3 . Paints, Solvents & Thinners 4 . Additives 5. Gasoline 6. Flushes 7 . Auto Repair Materials 8 . Motor Oil 9 . Diesel Oil APPENDIX n-2 HAZARDOUS CONSTIUENTS A. REPAIR & REMODELING A6 Solvents & Thinners Al Adhesives, Glues, Cements Isopropyl Alcohol Cresol Methyl Ethyl Ketone Isopropyl Alcohol Methylene Chloride Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Petroleum Spirits Mineral Spirits Toluene Petroleum Ether Toluol Toluene Turpentine Xylene A2 Roof Coatings & Sealants Glycol Ethers A7 Paint Removers & Strippers Petroleum Distillates Acetone Benzene A3 Caulkings & Sealants n-Butyl Alcohol Kerosene Asbestos Methylene Chloride Kerosene Perchloroethylene Lead Toluene Phenol 1 , 1, 1 Trichloroethane Sodium Silicate Xylene Xylene A4 Epoxy Resins Epoxy Resins Polyester Resins 30-40 Styrene Monomer A5 Solvent Based Paints Acetone Butyl Acetate n-Butyl Alcohol Ethyl Acetate Ethyl Carbamate Methyl Ethyl Ketone Mineral Spirits Petroleum Ethers (Naphtha) B. CLEANING AGENTS B1 Oven Cleaners Methylene Chloride 1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane 82 Degreasers & Spot Removers Chlorinated Solvents Methylene Chloride Orthodichlorobenzene Paradichlorobenzene Peichloroethylene Petroleum Distillates Trichloroethane B3 Toilet, Drain & Septic Tank Dichlorobenzene Hydrochloric Acid Methylene Chloride Orthodichlorobenzene Paradichlorobenzene Petroleum Distillates 1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene B4 Polishes, Waxes & Strippers Ispropanol Petroleum Distillates Phosphoric Acid 1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane B5 Deck, Patio, Chimney Cleaners Ethanol Isopropanol Kerosene Naphthalene Phosphoric Acid B6 Solvent Cleaning Fluid 1)1.1 ;IS 1 • D. AUTO. BOAT. EOUIPMENT MAINTE D1 Batteries D7 Auto Repair Materials Lead Cyclohexanone Sulfuric Acid 2 , 2-diaminodiethylamine Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide D2 Waxes & Cleaners D8 Motor Oil Kerosene Petroleum Naptha or Stoddard Solvent Petroleum Distillates etroleum Hydrocarbons Tetrachloroethylene Stoddard Solvent Trichloroethylene Tricresyl Phosphate Heavy Metals D3 Paint, Solvents & Thinners Aromatic Hydrocarbons D9 Diesel Oil Petroleum Hydrocarbons D4 Additives Butyl Alcohol D5 Gasoline Benzene Ethylene Dibromide Ethylene Dichloride Tetraethyl Lead Toluene Kylene D6 Flushes n-Butanol potassium hydrixide Cresol sodium chromate Ethylene Dichloride sodium dichromate Hydrochloric Acid Isopropanol Oxalic Acid Petroleum Ethers Potassium Dichromate 5. 1 fi...,r ;rr�� E. HOBBY 6 RECREATION E1 Paints, Thinners, Solvents VM & P Naptha Acetone Alcohols E2 Chemicals (including photo Aromatic Hydrocarbons Benzene & pool) Acetic Acid Butyl Acetate Acetone Butyl Alcohol Alcohol Carbon Disulfide Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride Carbon tetrachloride Cellosolve Acetate Chloroform Ether Formaldehyde Cresols Polychlorinated Biphenyls Cutting Oils Potassium Chrome Alum Cyclohexanone Dichlorobenzene Potassium Cyanide Dioxane Potassium Dichromate Ethyl Acetate Potassium Permangenate Ethylene Dichloride Selenium Oxide Gasoline Sodium Hydroxide Heavy Metal Based Pigments Sodium Hypochlorite Isoamyl Acetate Turpentine Isoamyl Alcohol Isophorone E1 Glues & Cements Kerosene Ketones Lithotine Acetone Methyl Alcohol Alcohol Methyl Butyl Ketone Benzol Methyl Cellosolve Formaldehyde Methyl Chloroform Gasoline Methyl Ethyl Ketone Hexane Methyl lsobutyl Ketone Methyl Acetate Methyl Styrene Methyl Methacrylate Methylene Chloride Mineral Spirits Mineral Spirits Naphtha Monchlorotoluene Nitrobenzene Perchloroethylene E4 Inks & Dyes Petroleum Distillates Petroleum Ether Acetic Acid Phenol Aromatic Hydrocarbons Rubber Solvent Chromic Acid Styrene Heavy Metal Based Pigments Toluene loroethane To Hydrochloric Acid Toluene Sulfuric Acid Trichloroethylene Turpentine Vinyl Toluene DATE: May 21, 1991 CASE NUMBER: USR-925 NAME: Environmental Recycling & Disposal Company c/o Mr. Ted Zigan ADDRESS: 2200 E. 104th Avenue, #2148, Thornton, CO 80233 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for a recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 of Section 28, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to the Town of Erie and Weld County Road 6; east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 5. THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE REQUEST BE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. In accordance with Section 24.3.1.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has not demonstrated the proposal is in compliance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility is located within the urban growth boundary areas of the Cities of Broomfield, Thornton, and Northglenn and the Town of Erie. The location of the proposed use requires the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the urban growth boundary goals and policies listed in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. An urban growth boundary is an area located within three miles of a municipality where future municipal uses and services are planned. Weld County urban growth boundary goals and policies are intended to allow the County and municipalities an opportunity to coordinate plans , policies, and land-use standards affecting orderly development. Through the County' s referral process, representatives from the Cities of Broomfield and Thornt• d s EXHIBIT —Li-- ' Page 2 the Town of Erie have indicated the proposed recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility is not compatible with the future land-use plans in this urban growth boundary area. Municipal representatives within this urban growth boundary area have expressed concerns about the regional character of the use, the location, and the compatibility with existing and future land uses. As a result, the proposed recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility is not in compliance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated the proposed recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility is compatible with existing surrounding land uses as required by Section 24. 3.1.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Carol Heights, Leisure Living, and Ranch Eggs are subdivisions located east and southeast of the proposed use in unincorporated Weld County. These subdivisions contain approximately 72 residential home sites located 800 feet to a 1 1/4 miles from the proposed special review permit area. The Erie Air Park is located within the Town of Erie, southwest of the proposed use. This subdivision contains approximately 127 residential home sites within 1 1/2 miles of the proposed special review permit area. A regional solid waste disposal site and facility operated 24 hours a day is not compatible with the surrounding residential development. Potential negative impacts associated with the proposed use include windblown trash, fugitive dust, truck traffic, glare, odor, and noise and visual pollution. el f'_�� Page 3 3, The applicant has not demonstrated the proposal will comply with Section 24.3.1.4 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Section 24.3.1.4 requires the proposed use to be compatible with future development of the surrounding area as projected by the comprehensive plan or master plans of affected municipalities. The Broomfield City Council, in a letter dated September 20, 1990, recommended denial of the proposed recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility. A representative of the City indicated the proposed use was not located in an appropriate area due to the high visibility of the proposed site and the incompatibility of the proposed use with other municipal uses planned for the area. In a letter dated January 28, 1991, a representative of Broomfield explained the future land uses planned by the City include a high quality office park west of I-25 along the north side of State Highway 7, and residential development north of the planned office park in the area of the proposed recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility. In a public meeting on May 14, 1991, the Broomfield City Council considered the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Company' s application and the City' s referral letter of September 20, 1990 and reaffirmed a recommendation of denial. The Erie Town Administrator, in letters dated October 3, 1990, February 1, 1991, and March 12, 1991, stated that Erie' s planning and zoning commission recommended denial of the proposed use. Representatives of the Town of Erie indicated the proposed use was not compatible with its 1 US1 Page 4 comprehensive plan and that residential and commercial uses were planned in this area. The expansion of residential uses east of the Erie Air Park and the expansion of Ranch Eggs were also projected as future development that would be incompatible with the proposed recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility. The Thornton Planning and Development Manager, in a letter dated March 13, 1991, recommended denial of the proposed use because there is not an immediate need for new landfill facilities in the area. The letter also explained that the impacts to existing residential uses and growth associated with the proposed E-470 Highway and the new international airport should be studied before additional landfill sitings take place in this area. 4. In accordance with Section 45.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has not demonstrated a need for a recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility in this area. There are two regional solid waste disposal sites located and operating within one-half mile of the proposed site. Based upon current use rates these two existing sites have an estimated life expectancy of ten years. Representatives of the Town of Erie are currently planning, with a private developer, to site a regional solid waste disposal site and facility approximately one-half mile north of the proposed site. This facility is projected to have a 12.5 year life expectancy. e roc,a Art Page 5 Representatives of the Town of Dacono are also currently planning, with a private developer, to site a regional solid waste disposal site and facility approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the proposed site. This facility is projected to have a 20 year life expectancy. Based upon the fact that there are 2 operating regional solid waste disposal sites in the area and 2 regional solid waste disposal sites proposed by municipalities in the area, the applicant has not demonstrated a need for this proposed use. S 5f31 _ It i 1 y r —sso 4 / So•'r iJ t -� I 508 I e- l: , � N• 1 _ V `� 1 I ' , \� i it U ) , I + 16 1f; \. ` g �1�.i ' ( 1" I, , i, lt. , r\ \ �tvasional °''. 12 :„--% \ \ p _ '\ L ` /,, � h it-----N\ o � � r�- ,, 1 / moo , h �a , �w a /1 • �' - ------,, ,; fIi•A `\ ,-7-- ...� /.517 f1 �I'I .# 22/I. II / _ �( f�- i -� / �� '�•6� 43 ii Iii 0.,, n.�OJ �• � ... . �� ( ,,\ J ,--;----'7—'Cm , / .---_ tone M:e / 1 • 1 p �l�i 4c-c.„,�� , . o u . Ia r—.' ,i�--�(27 �i ____-_,L.t - ,_::,‘. -1 , i : c\—,', , '-7 , / ; . , ... G7 • \ \�� a - +�.� ill 1 ' / CC -.------ ,. . .1 • i' • S i i i__ \ - %) r-- H• I /: �\ I X� �_ 2, EXHIBIT -W$LD e II ar---- - e_ I `. ` I e em z 7 WELD .r" ' J ADAMS W `g9B • INT./SIM—oao.oa.C.,wjr... wtnu..°WM Cic—un ADAM C ' ,9gaM.'.E. 10 'OD Is01 CO DENVER IINTERSTd TE )GI IS mr t �`iBR,GHT' Napped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey 48(117_ -- _ --0(//// _. tia y>11:7 Er ! . . ///:// - . -- -r- -' -, -:7--...-7t--,E;-.... e..1-45.-- / / et / / / /n) / / / / / • - - r�t� 5.. Y 4 Y Q 4 :<., 1 ti, fl ` - t 0 a.EC g � i. $y�ee £ Ri .. f 4 01 4i_:. . r5 _1;74. - ,) + . ^nom i, *Y� 4 N Y 4. S v - e- ?j ? ?s - 4 S� si `� s�KY Y.' F • _ a i Y,4 f : 5,. N r'� JAG m9,4 i y; rya Yt .s.!�.l rJ *: .. 9 YJY � b wry T ) 4 W�' r 15 {- q25 4 � '- : -' ' I Y G I iGT �r -r,' .r , - :r _ r.j �,y .,r4' .40i ?;t . - ._ a:. —, .n •yyr t . .. ^Cx '5A. Y.-rS 'c aj a .. ilk..yyq(( E '{ a e�� 7 3 .:..;f ft - y . . Y O,1 . � f ₹ zf ' f • r ti . * i N N w -art. • ` 1 . r - _ i tii 5r -f S'. 4...y 'E✓.' --F I� t �� F �� • i ':,..-7.14y / • • ••" .1 S. as I iT111— n � u .• y rw /// .. w I: — '��.�� .. ving 1 t 1 I.• : 1 11 r� / • • r` •�S�a �a a_ - _' • • n ar 25 r .. • qt' ii-- ; : I f - ` • •. LL- E. Ill Ia a li n r is. ••• l�/ • a • n r a 1xl• . LM - _ as a.• /'Ya, � 1„:.''_ - _ _ __ _ _ � »' p'r x ; . ` ' _ • • • 1• I %•.wear • r we • if a • 1:4 � ffr' T`t \+ 'W• •i•• S`_`�1\`1r . 1' � S •a I,a• • . • .g• f{•� • ' •alas 1 . �� • f �• . II • •'-\•a ,• �+ P'!I it'^�TEUC�\\ �• x: `' • •• attar ..I To. •,' / __..••. • a • . • 1 . • t.\i M`_ �••••„• • I�oO •� 1 u r . • try, J�• t( ••O •'.I r�•. •l• II •••• „ • • 'a :V a'•• ddRB. •. IS MO50ila a' ' l! as •• • `, • .i u I▪ ( r x• • sure ••'^ • / .� n• I •• ! Rd• a - r .YID a .•!� o+A?• •i• J (.1 . . \ - •iS• ' Ii I' I. •.o '"o' \I• ° � . 1fi• ,,• • NtrLLal,artcl \ _ ••p L•• l ' C_ G �'• - /Y r o• Z' ▪ —� u t . • • '.•°.<N. .17 4 .` pl• `• -•�._ ' • I n Q▪ti �: ;a » _ .a.,... .%.r\ .. �{ n '/ • •'./A.; , „ c' , • _:.v. •• p • q 1 1 ` 'r�l •YI. a°i ao° • cqu •(C • • 1My; 'I ope �, 'I+•a • • • `• O • •• h,� • Y E 1:uE yp x, X f $ 1 . I I •• 1 • .I- -._�� u �`�o:nd • _i f�'E:oaisrop'' `,�_ >• I!_ _ .._ _ _v •I n _ \'• •+•!• •4. ..x•.: 'l�•• • '• / I nEOEaC r •1. ▪ • 1 P tics.' •� r )f • I`r 0•ra •!• ,/'. �• �_ w/ ::_c � •II ' .•I•I as \ as • a •'a •� � • as i ar:u0(n�' • 4 1 VI) 22 °t •I • • t„/_� • r7T �xlir' i.�s• ._., �•arY• Ip•\ • \/• l2 .•y 6• .�� al•• .ado• �.../ • • u E. ' �•r�� ,uc.•ti,. ' 9 onl • ~ . !! /IiJJ 'l r I / / c' h Eu.roa . • , l �5 J 1 :�i. .' ' ----- -I•• • - m - r ® _ •\ •1• r ' , _ _ _ • 'I a .� ,r .�� '• � •�(/\` ae ` • to r •I , • r.b. .\• • ! a tp • • n • ' •E • 'i q Vii ' �� •'� / _��is r i -I n m J' x' 5 " ;I i. •••gp: . 2 1: Ju •r•�x�a• •.•.a• . a : • �'••'`Ei• • f ,Y I ax ,'.. + • b r/r • ' 5 n•• .4t.. . p /. `/� I. .or 'F�eEGc _ CI0`••i ,o1 •I • Q 1 '. .r •--'i��e I �cF .r J ,. .— '1"D rQ. ' i.- •• ' ,,..." �JN�m -� ' � ,�' xr a a`�i• a• c qr • . •„v. 1 17 v a `u • '•• •• s �6 �•� �I e 1 le III x, •- ) I • •^C.. 'J1 • • • _ _ _ V •• . It • • _ _ ItlJ .- » • . I S •nix- ......:1 ,p9NMII - (�. • --a^�• • •} — .`.. •' �L. , • r ••' iiil .=a^\• a ... \ •I'1(L('.'A �', . IAaGF \ L �•V _ 'I• aill .. of i: LAND-USE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET Date: May 10, 1991 CASE NUMBER: USR-925 NAME: Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. , c/o Mr. Ted Zigan ADDRESS: 2200 E. 104th Avenue, #214B Thornton, CO 80233 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan, Special Review Permit, and Certificate of Designation for an Environmental Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Site and Facility in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 of Section 28, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to the Town of Erie; south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 6, and east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 5. PLANNING COMMISSION FUNCTION: The proposed environmental recycling and solid waste disposal site and facility requires two separate actions by the Planning Commission. First, a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners consistent with the special review permit standards of Section 24.3.1 through 24.3.1.7 and 45.4.2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Second, a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners addressing the factors considered for a certificate of designation application. A copy of Section 30-20-104 C.R.S. , identifying the factors to be considered is enclosed. The staff recommends the Planning Commission accept all the testimony for the special review permit and the certificate of designation before developing separate recommendations. The Department of Planning Services staff has received referral information or recommendations from representatives of the Colorado Department of Health, Weld County Health Department, Engineering Department, Office of the State Engineer, Colorado Geological Survey, Federal Aviation Administration, Longmont Fire Protection District, Adams County Department of Planning and Development, Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District, Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, City of Broomfield (two letters) , Town of Erie (three letters) , City of Thornton (two letters) , and the City of Northglenn. Copies of all referral information or recommendations are enclosed. The applicant has submitted a 17 page addendum to the application at the request of representatives from the Colorado Department of Health. A copy of the addendum is enclosed. The Department of Planning Services' staff has received four letters of objection and several phone calls inquiring and objecting to this proposal. (I! EXHIBIT 1 I FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: USR-925 DATE OF INSPECTION: April 5, 1991 APPLICANT'S NAME: Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. , c/o Mr. Ted Zigan. REQUEST: Environmental Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Site and Facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 of Section 28, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County Colorado. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to the Town of Erie; south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 6, and east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 5. . LAND USE: N Weld County Road 6, dryland pasture, one residence, oil and gas production. E Dryland pasture, oil and gas production, the Community Irrigation Ditch, Weld County Road 7, residences. S Dryland pasture, the Community Irrigation Ditch. W Weld County Road 5, dryland pasture, oil and gas production. ZONING: N (Town of Erie - Agricultural) E A (Agricultural) S A (Agricultural) W A (Agricultural) COMMENTS: The parcel is used as dryland pasture. The Community Irrigation Ditch is located in the northeast portion of the Use by Special Review (U.S.A.) area. A gas well is located in the northwest portion of the U.S.R. area. No other improvements exists on the U.S.R, area. Access to the parcel is proposed from Weld County Road 5. The topography of the parcel is mainly broad and rolling. The elevation of the north boundary of the parcel is 5,250 feet. From north to south the parcel increases to a maximum elevation of approximately 5,310 feet in the middle of the Use by Special Review area. South of this high point, the elevation decreases to approximately 5,184 feet on the southwest boundary and 5,220 on the southeast boundary. ilia. • Principal Planner = EXHIBIT Ila 419 Public Improvements 30-20-105 Applied in City d: County of Denver.v. Eggert,647 P.2d 216(Colo.1982). 30.20-104. Factors to be considered. (I) In considering an application for a certificate of designation, the board of county commissioners shall take into account: (a) The effect that the solid wastes disposal site and facility will have on the surrounding property, taking into consideration the types of processing to be used, surrounding property uses and values,and wind and climatic con- ditions;_ (b) The convenience and accessibility of the solid wastes disposal site and facility to potential users; (c) The ability of the applicant to comply with the health standards and operating procedures provided for in this part I and such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the department; - (d) Recommendations by local health departments. (2) Except as provided in this part 1, designation of approved solid wastes disposal sites and facilities shall be discretionary with the board of county commissioners, subject to judicial review by the district court of appropriate jurisdiction. i (3) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of designation, the board of county commissioners shall require that the report which shall be submitted by the applicant under section 30-20-103 be reviewed and a recommendation ! as to approval or disapproval made by the department and shall be satisfied that the proposed solid wastes disposal site and facility conforms to the corn- ; prehensive county land use plan, if any. The application, report of the depart- ' ment, comprehensive land use plan, and other pertinent information shall be presented to the board of county commissioners at a public hearing to be held after notice. Such notice shall contain the time and place of the hearing and shall state that the matter to be considered is the applicant's proposal for a solid wastes disposal site and facility. The notice shall be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the county in which the proposed ;solid wastes disposal site and facility is located at least ten but no more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. Source: L. 67, p. 760, § 4; C.R.S. 1963, § 36-234;L. 71,p.341, § 5. I) Quasi-judicial action must be preceded by Proper notice of quasi-judicial agency action I reasonable notice. Under the solid wastes act must reasonably describe the subject matter of - (t 4 30-20-101 through 30-20-116),quasi-judi- the hearing,any charges to be considered,and vial action by county commissioners must be the action contemplated. City A County of preceded by reasonable notice.City&County Denver v.Eggert,647 Pfd 216(Colo.1982). of Denver v.Eggert,647 P-2d 216(Colo.1982). 30.20-105. Certificate. If the board of county commissioners deems that a certificate of designation should be granted to the applicant, it shall issue the certificate, and such certificate shall be displayed in a prominent place at the site and facility. The board of county commissioners shall not issue a certificate of designation if the department has recommended disapproval pursuant to section 30-20-103. Source: L. 67, p. 760, § 5; C.R.S. 1963, § 36-23-5;L. 71,p. 342, § 6. EXHIBIT � � REFERRAL LIST NAME: Ted Zigan CASE NUMBER: USk-925 REFERRALS SENT: August 14, 1990 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: September 25, 1990 COUNTY TOWNS and CITIES Attorney Ault B Health Department . Brighton Extension Service _Bacon Emergency Management Office Eaton --Sheriff's Office B Eriex Engineering • Evans - Firestone STATE merest X Division of Water Resources * ----Greeley X Geological Survey + Grover X Department of Health* Hudson Highway Department Johnstown - Historical Society Eeenesburg Hater Conservation Board Kersey X 011 and Gas Conservation Commission; ----La Salle - Jochbule FIRE DISTRICTS Longmont Ault F-1 Mead Berthoud F-2 Milliken -- --Brighton F-3 _New Raymer Dacono F-19 Nunn Eaton F-4 Platteville - Fort Lupton F-5 _Severance Galeton F-6 Windsor Hudson F-7 - Johnstown F-8 COUNTIES La Salle F-9 X Adams • X Longmont F-10* B Boulder Milliken F-11 Lorimer Bunn F-12 Platteville F-13 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ----Platte Valley F-14 US Army Corps of Engineers Poudre Valley F-15 USDA-APHIS Veterinary Service - Raymer R Federal Aviation Administration * Southeast Weld F-16 _Federal Communication Commission ----Windsor/Severance F-17 ----Western Hills F-20 SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Brighton OTHER _Fort Collins X City of Broomfield * _Greeley Mr. Kirk Oglesby, Planning Director X Longmont't P.O. Box 1415 _West Adams Broomfield, CO 80043-1415 COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER X Mr. Tom Stedt, Planner II * X Rick Iverson Thornton Community Development Dept. 9500 Civic Center Drive — X Farmers Reservoir b Irrigation Co. ' Thornton, CO 80229-1220 Attn: Manuel Montoya 80 South 27th Avenue X Jerry Starling, Director V Brighton, CO 80601 Northglenn Community Development Dept. 11701 Community Center Drive t EXHIBIT Suite 206 � l (j Northglenn. CO 80233 R �1 g r !T U J' l � , ..I/i al, r. I!/O n bhp c 199/ hit Ca. oiatca(� "" txxau. AL�l COLORADO DEPARTMENT OFAHEALTH April 3, 1991 CERTIFIED #140 732 614 ROY ROMER Governor JOEL KOHN Gene Bratner Interim Executive Director Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 4210 East 1lth Avenue Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Phone(303)320-8333 RE: Application for a Certificate of Designation for the Environmental Telefax Recycling and Disposal Facility Main Building/Denver Numbers: Y g P Y (303)322-9076 Site Location: WI/2 Section 28, TIN, R68W of 6th P.M., WELD COUNTY Piannigan Place/Denver (303)320-1529Dear Commissioner Bratner: First National Bank Building/Denver (303)355-6559 The Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (the Division) has completed it's Grand Junction Office (303)268-7198 review of the "Application for a Certificate of Designation for the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Facility" at the location cited above. The review is made under the authority of the "Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act," Title 30, Article 20, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes 1986 as amended (the Statute) and was intended to determine compliance with the requirements of the "Regulations Pertaining to the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities" adopted for the implementation of the statute and contained in the Colorado Code of Regulations, 6 CCR 1007-2 (the Regulations). It is the Division's assessment that if the facility is operated as proposed and includes the following binding recommendations the facility can comply with the minimum standards of the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act and with the Regulations. The Division's approval is contingent upon the incorporation of the following as part of the "Application for a Certificate of Designation for the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Facility." 1) Prior to construction of the waste transfer recycling and storage facilities, the Division requests two copies of all maps and narratives for review. 2) All Health Laws, Standards, Rules and Regulations o£ the the Department, Water Quality Control Commission, Air Pollution Control Commissions and Applicable Zoning Laws and Ordinances shall be complied with. 3) The applicant shall develop a contingency plan in the event that a loss of integrity to the Phase II retention pond occurs during storm events. �S EXHIBITI v tI prusted on recycled paper Gene Bratner, Weld CO Commissioner April 3, 1991 Page 2 4) Stainless steel is recommended for the outside protective casing for the sump access riser. 5) One or more faults may traverse the proposed site. The Division wishes to be kept apprised of fault location and condition discovered during excavation. The Division may request permeability evaluation of the fault and/or additional monitoring. 6) The applicant shall, through continued monitoring (at least quarterly), verify that moving and lining the community ditch will facilitate removal of the perched conditions in the northeast corner of the site. 7) If perched water conditions are encountered during excavation activities, the Division shall be notified within four working days. Contingency plans may be required. 8) The applicant shall document the source and amount of water required for construction. 9) The applicant shall as a minimum analyze leachate for at least the following parameters: *total organic halides, *chemical oxygen demand, *total petroleum hydrocarbons, total phenols, pH and specific conductivity. 10) The applicant shall include carbonate and cation-anion balance as part of the groundwater monitoring program. 11) The applicant shall comply with Section 2.2.3 (b) and (c) of the regulations which requires an analytical method and statistical evaluation of ground water monitoring data. 12) A certification report shall be prepared and reviewed by the Division prior to commencing the landfilling in any module. The report shall provide written evidence that the quality assurance plan was implemented and the construction was performed in conformance with design criteria, the project plans and specifications. 0 -`frP ,. Gene Bratner, Weld CO. Commissioner April 3, 1991 Page 3 The plan and monitoring program is subject to revisions pending the receipt of pertinent data and/or changing site conditions. The Division requests written concurrence by the applicant on all recommendations outlined above prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Designation. The Division cannot specifically require closure and post-closure financial assurances. The inclusion as commitments for the owner and operator of the site is recommended as part of Weld County's certification. The Division respectfully requests that Weld County send a copy of the Certificate of Designation with all conditions when and if it is issued. If you have any questions regarding the Division's recommendation for approval please contact Austin Buckingham at (303) 331-4846. Sincerely, \ LC-6.7 _ i I k Austin N. Buckingham ela L. rley Geologist Section Chief Solid Waste and Solid Waste and Incident Management Section Incident Management Section Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Waste Management Division ANB/PLH/cg/9076 cc: R. Allison, Weld County Planning Dept. W. Potter, Weld County Planning Dept, T. Zigan, Environmental Recycling and Disposal, Inc. K. White, Engineer for Zigan c' _ , D -q .. Vj _ Aileirht mEmoRAnDum JAN 181991 IliacRod Allison j�Weld County Planning Dm, January 7T 991 at D,f� COLORADO Rom Wes Potter, Director, Environmental Protection Services 6� IO/�L\ swoon, Case Number: USR-925 Name: Zigan, Ted Environmental Protection Services has reviewed this proposal and recommends for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The facility shall be constructed and operated in compliance with the Colorado Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Regulations. 2. The facility will receive for disposal only those materials approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Health Department. 3. A knowledgeable manager shall be on site at all times that the facility is open to receive waste. That manager shall be responsible for all ongoing activity at the facility during operation. 4. All waste received at the facility shall be screened by all practical means available to insure that the appropriate wastes are being disposed at the facility. 5. The facility shall be operated in a manner which protects against surface and ground water contamination. A ground water monitoring plan, including leachate detection and ground water monitoring wells, periodic sampling and monitoring shall be implemented by the facility operator. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Colorado Department of Health and the Weld County Health Department. The plan shall be reviewed at least once every two years by the State and County Health Departments. Changes and updates to the plan shall be facilitated by the operator as required by the reviewing agencies. 6. The facility shall be operated in a manner to control blowing debris at all times. Operation during windy periods shall be accomplished in a manner that controls blowing debris. Any debris found to be off-site adjacent to the facility will be picked up within 24 hours. All access roads to the waste disposal facility shall be periodically patrolled by the facility staff to assure that trash along these routes is picked up and kept to a minimum. The manager of the facility will respond to requests by the County for trash pick-up along these routes within 24 hours of notification by the County Health Department personnel. 7. The operator of the facility shall insure that all liners placed a the facility have a final permeability equal to or less than 1 x 10 "7 cm/sec when in place. The construction of liners shall be supervised by a Colorado Registered Professional Engi Pr ThP engineer shall submit a final evaluation report on liner = EXHIBIT ---lk- E Rod Allison Weld County Planning RE: USR-925 January 17, 1991 Page Two construction of each liner segment to document that the liner meets the required specifications. This report shall be reviewed for approval by the Weld County Health Department and the Colorado Department of Health. 8. The facility shall be operated in a manner which controls odors. Odors detected off-site shall not equal or exceed the level of 15- to-1 dilutions threshold as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. 9. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on-site at all times. In the event that fugitive dust from the facility is determined to be a nuisance by the Weld County Health Department, a dust abatement plan shall be submitted within 10 days to the department for review and approval. Implementation of the approved dust abatement plan shall begin within 24 hours of approval by the county. 10. Any required Emissions Permit is obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health. 11. Maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the light industrial limit of 70 dB(A) , as measured according to 25-12-102, Colorado Revised Statutes. 12. A bathroom with adequate toilet facilities served by an individual sewage disposal system, is required for the proposed facility and shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 13. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile overburden, soil, and associated materials from the facility area in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. WP37/dgc Q,*,� f ryl ;ro iglatr MEMORAnDum WilkTo Rod Allison. Planning Din �O/ct�oyb�pr -0. 1990 COLORADO From nrpw Srh 1 inga. County Epgineer �L4/ s„ om. Ted Zigan Landfill and Recycling Facility. USR-925 The traffic generated by this facility will have a major impact on the Weld County roads in the area. The applicant has provided good information regarding anticipated traffic. However, the applicant should be required to address the impacts, and propose a plan for mitigation prior to the Commissioners' hearing. The following aspects should be addressed: 1. A traffic analysis should be provided identifying what roads will be impacted, and the estimated traffic count and vehicle distribution on those roads. 2. Based on the information provided above, a work plan should be submitted that will identify what road improvements (overlays, repairs, etc.) will be required over what time frame. 3. Cost estimates for the proposed work plan should be provided. 4. A proposed road maintenance and improvements agreement should be supplied by the applicant that will identify the specifics of how and when work is to be performed, and paid for. OCT 1 i7 1990 DS/mw:przigan Yield CB. town awuuiytm cc: Commissioner Kirby Planning Referral File - Ted Zigan Landfill and Recycling Facility USR-925 4 EXHIBIT El 17 200 '306d BGEG6SS.. Sti:SI 0S. _. r3 d3S _. lBICO----, 74t‘e Attn: Manna& Montoya 80 South 2Tgh Avenue Brighton, CO 80601 /HONE org 3Eacei ENL 4 W tit im STREET 11111 EWEELEY,COLORADO x0631 De CASE NII109ER 1181925 COLORADO • August 14, 1990 lIC311n ..UG 13 eg1 TO WRON IT MAT CONCERN: THE maims pEgavefl# Enclosed is an application from Ted ligan for a A Sits SOMPLINM BBBIRant Plan. Certificate of Designation. and a Special Review permit for a sanitary landfill and recycling facility. The parcel of land is described as the Wh of Section 28, T11, 168W of the 6th P.M.. Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is south and adjacent to the Town of Erie; south and adjacent to Weld County Road 6 and east and adjacent to Weld County Road S. This application is submitted to you for review end recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be ORteciated. Your prompt reply will help to facilitate the processing of the ap�r n and will enanre prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply y eptember 25. 1990. so thak'ire`Way give full consideration to your recommendation. Please call Rod Allison, Princiapl Planner. if you have any questions about the application. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that it • does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. 2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: 3. We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. X A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be our spbmitted to you t r smm • S. M�Pl� a er`too tfi enase closed le ter. �� cal cow (�� Signed: 1�W111�� + Agency: T � k� W I. EXHIBIT Date: ChM> 2j. Qm ( SCO ' S ....- / OOXLId 24 : 9T NOW Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District 9595 Nelson Road,Box D - Longmont,Colorado 80501 September 5, 1990 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Case Number USR-925 Ted Zigan Gentlemen: We have reviewed the application from Ted Zigan for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review permit for a sanitary landfill and recycling facility, and offer the following comments: The main concern of the district is the straightening of the Community Irrigation Ditch. As stated in the proposal, SCS specification 428-A-1, Irrigation Water Conveyance will be the design guidelines used to construct the ditch. Previous experience has shown that nonreinforced concrete has a high maintenance requirement in terms of patching and sealing cracks. Also, they are not 100% seepage free. Concrete is permeable enough to allow some water through. The polyethylene subiining material should be overlapped and joined together to prevent seepage between the seams. Caution should be taken not to allow the slip form to come into contact and tear the sublining material. If there is material placed between the subiining and the ditch, it should be free draining material. This will reduce the likelihood of frost heave problems. According to the Weld County Soil Survey, the Nunn loam 1-3$ slopes has a high shrink-swell potential in the 9-29" depth. It also has a moderate rating for potential frost action. The Wiley-Colby complex 3-5% slopes has a moderate shrink-swell potential in the 11-60" depth and a low potential frost action. Soil corings should be drilled at the location of the new ditch alignment. This would provide additional information on the soil characteristics which could improve the life expectancy of the ditch. Additional concerns relate to the proposed reclamation plan. Section 6.2 Grading and Seedbed Preparation should be amended to include the following: "The seedbed shall be well settled and firm, but friable enough that seed can be placed at seeding depths between 1 /4" - 3/4". The seedbed shall be free of weeds so they won't inhibit seed establisment. Soils that have been compacted should be tilled to break up restrictive rooting layers. This will allow the seeded species to utilize the entire rooting zone." Section 6.3 Fertilization - should be amended to include the following statement. "The phosphorous will be incorporated into the top 4" of the topsoil prior to grass seeding." 3 EXHIBIT CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT • SELF-GOVERNMENT 19 _ . ., '- 2 Section 6.4 Seeding - should be amended to include the following: "Top- soil stockpiles shall be seeded when left unused for nine months or more. These stockpiles shall be seeded with Luna Pubescent Wheatgrass at a rate of 14 PLS pounds per acre. If stockpiles will remain for more than two months, but less than nine months, they should be seeded to a cereal - grain like annual rye or wheat at 20 PLS pounds per acre." Section 6.5 Erosion Control - should be amended to include the following: The hay mulch should be weed free and applied at a rate of two tons per acre. Sincerely,Azalt rr Ba Sinkey President BLS:rah rah 0 gliii5n7 sEp 1 3 1990 emit.,pe nl!=== S fi`:15) • U.S Department Omar Airports6 District Office at Transportation n Street Federal �� Suite 300 0enver, 0p Adminbh ( 11allon , C000383) 2866-5527 AUG 2 0 1990 Mr. Rod Allison Principal Planner Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Allison: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed E.R.D. Recycling and Disposal Facility approximately one mile southeast of the town of Erie in Weld County (Case USR-925) . The proposed facility will be located approximately 6200 feet from the Tri-County Airport. I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration's Order concerning the compatibility of Waste Disposal sites on or near airports. Please make reference to paragraph 7. Based on the criteria presented in paragraph 7, the facility may be incompatible dependent upon whether it attracts or sustains hazardous bird movements relative to the operation of the Tri-County Airport. As you are aware, the Tri-County Airport is a federally funded public use airport designated a reliever to Stapleton International Airport. As such, it is considered important to the National System of Airports. The FAA would appreciate the proponent of the facility submitting information concerning how birds will be controlled and how they have addressed the potential bird-aircraft strike hazard. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Barbara Jo on _'' EXHIBIT Planner �� Q a (� Enclosure cc: Tom Reed J��7 Dennis Roberts Tom Pierce AUG 2 t 1990 New Co. Nsmuq allifraUi 1,4_'r4_`r5 On'(DLn • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 52OO.5A • 1/31/90 SUBJ. WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS li.` 1,?':0 1. PURPOSE. This order provides guidance concerning the establishment, elimination or nionitorin of landfills, open dumps, waste disposal sites or similarly titled facilities on or in the vicinity of airports. 2. DISTRIBUTION. This order is distributed to the division level in the Offers of Airport Planning and Pro- gramming, Airport Safety and Standards, Air Traffic Evaluations and Analysis, Aviation Safety Oversight, Air Traf- fic Operations Service, and Flight Standards Service; to the division level in the regional Airports, Air Traffic, and Flight Standards Divisions; to the director level at the Aeronautical Center and the FAA Technical Center; and a limited distribution to all Airpon District Offices, Flight Standards Field Offices, and Air Traffic Facilities. 3. CANCELLATION. Order 5200.5, FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfills On Or Near Airports, dated October 16, 1974, is canceled. 4. BACKGROUND. Landfills, garbage dumps, sewer or fish waste outfalls and other similarly licensed or titled facilities used for operations to process, bury, store or otherwise dispose of waste, trash and refuse will attract rodents and birds. Where the dump is ignited and produces smoke, an additional attractant is created. All of the above are undesirable and potential hazards to aviation since they erode the safety of the airport environment. The FAA neither approves nor disapproves locations of the facilities above. Such action is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency and/or the appropriate state and local agencies. The role of the FAA is to ensure that airport owners and operators meet their contractual obligations to the United States government regarding com- patible land uses in the vicinity of the airport. While the chance of an unforeseeable, random bird strike in night will always exist, it is nevertheless possible to define conditions within fairly narrow limits where the risk is in- creased. Those high-risk conditions exist in the approach and departure patterns and landing areas on and in the vicinity of airports. The number of bird strikes reported on aircraft is a matter of continuing concern to the FAA and to airpon management. Various observations support the conclusion that waste disposal sites are artificial at- tractants to birds. Accordingly, disposal sites located in the vicinity of an airport are potentially incompatible with safe flight operations. Those sites that are not compatible need to be eliminated. Airport owners need guidance in making those decisions and the FAA must be in a position to assist. Some airports are not under the jurisdiction of the community or local governing body having control of land usage in the vicinity of the airport. In these cases, the airport owner should use its resotrees and exert its best efforts to close or control waste disposal operations within the general vicinity of the airport. 5. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES. The following list outlines the major changes to Order 5200.5: a. Recent developments and new techniques of waste disposal warranted updating and clarification of what constitutes a sanitary landfill. This listing of new titles for waste disposal were outlined in paragraph 4. b. Due to a reorganization which placed the Animal Damage Control branch of the U.S. Department of Inte- rior Fish and Wildlife Service under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an address addition was necessary. c. A zone of notification was added to the criteria which should provide the appropriate FAA Airport/ office an opportunity to comment on the proposed disposal site during the selection process. fT 1 .cr) Distribution: A—WP(AP/AS/TS/OV/TO/FS)-2; A—E(AS/AT/FS)-2; Initiated By: AA.S-3OO A-YZ-1; A-FAS/FFS/FAT-0(LTD) , 5200.5A 1/31/90 6. ACTION. i 1 a. Waste disposal sites Itx:atul or proposed to be Itx;ua:d within the areas established for an airport by thekview J guidelines set forth in paragraph 7a, b, and c of this order should not be allowed to operate. If a waste disposal site is incompatible with an airport in accordance with guidelines of paragraph 7 and cannot be dosed within a reasona- ble time, it should be operated in accordance with the criteria and instructions issued by Federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services, and other such regulatory bodies that may have applicable requirements. The appropriate FAA airports office should advise airport owners, operators and waste disposal proponents against locating, permitting or concurring in the location of a landfill or similar facility on or in the vicinity of airports. (1) Additionally, any operator proposing a new or expanded waste disposal site within 5 miles of a runway end should notify the airport and the appropriate FAA Airports office so as to provide an opportunity to review and comment on the site in accordance with guidance contained in this order. FAA field offices may wish to contact the appropriate State director of the United States Department of Agriculture to assist in this review. Also, any Air Traffic control tower manager or Flight Standards District Office manager and their staffs that become aware of a proposal to develop or expand a disposal site should notify the appropriate FAA Airports office. b. The operation of a disposal site located beyond the areas described in paragraph 7 must be properly super- vised to insure compatibility with the airport. c. If at any time the disposal site, by virtue of its location or operation, presents a potential hazard to aircraft operations, the owner should ware action to correct the situation or terminate operation of the facility. If the owner of the airport also owns or controls the disposal facility and is subject to Federal obligations to protect compatibility of land uses around the airport, failure to take corrective action could place the airport owner in noncompliance with its commitments w the Federal govemment. The appropriate FAA office should immediately evaluate the situ- ation to determine compliance with federal agreements and take such action as may be warranted under the guide- lines as prescribed in Order 5190.6, Airports Compliance Requirements, current edition. (1) Airport owners should be encouraged to make periodic inspections of current operations of existing l disposal sites near a federally obligated airport where potential bird hazard problems have been reported. d. This order is not intended to resolve all related problems, but is specifically directed toward eliminating waste disposal sites, landfills and similarly titled facilities in the proximity of airports, thus providing a safer envi- ronment for aircraft operations. e. At airports certificated under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 139, the airport certification manual/speci- fications should require disposal site inspections at appropriate intervals for those operations meeting the criteria of paragraph 7 that cannot be closed. These inspections are necessary to assure that bird populations are not increasing and that appropriate control procedures are being established and followed. The appropriate FAA Airports offices should develop working relationships with state aviation agencies and state agencies that have authority over waste disposal and landfills to stay abreast of proposed developments and expansions and apprise them of the hazards to aviation that these sites present. f. When proposing a disposal site, operators should make their plans available to the appropriate state regula- tory agencies. Many states have criteria concerning siting requirements specific to their jurisdictions. •g. Additional information on waste disposal, bird hazard and related problems may be obtained from the fol- lowing agencies: U.S. Deparuncnt of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 18th and C Streets, NW Washington, DC 20240 U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service P.O. Box 96464 f Animal Damage Control Program ) \� Room 1624 South Agriculture Building Washington, DC 20090-6464 ti i.' Iro..or.) 2 1/31/90 5200.5A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency f 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20406 • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 7. CRITERIA. Disposal sites will be considered as incompatible if located within areas established for the air- pen through the application of the following criteria: a. Waste disposal sites located within 10,000 feet of any runway end used or planned to be used by turbine powered aircraft, b. Waste disposal sites located within 5,000 feet of any runway end used only by piston powered aircraft. c. Any waste disposal site locatrA within a 5 mile radius of a runway end that attracts or sustains hazardous bird movements from feeding, water or roosting areas into, or across the runways and/or approach and departure patterns of aircraft. t /'44`9 Leonard E. Mudd Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards • 21.C4513 3 ile r LONGMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 700 Weaver Park Road, Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 772-0710 Metro(303) 666-4404 September 24, 1990 Rod Allison Weld County Planning 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Co 50631 RE: Zigan Development Plan Dear Mr. Allison: The Longmont Fire Protection District has reviewed the site specific development plan for Ted Zigan and have no conflic=ts. However , before any construction takes place for maintenance buildings etc . the fire district must see a complete set of building plans. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Xi/ getteA2 .-- -- Mark A. Lawley Assistant Chief Prevention RIWasaPir- SEP p 6 1990 NEIA Co. Naomi Counima EXHIBIT A^j=,4 LONGMONT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ty 700 Weaver Park Road, Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 772-0710 Metro(303) 666-4404 D �, I � ,' 'l,y�c� I MAR March 13, 1991 VS CO.Nalit 6.-- Rod Allison Weld County Dept of Plarming 915 Tenth Street Greeley,CO 80631 Dear Mr.Allison, The Longmont Fire Protection District has reviewed the addendum to the Ted Zigan development plan,and have no conflicts provided they meet all the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and it's references. If you have any questions or comment please feel free to contact me. Sincerely , M eA"_ Lawl y• Gleargar Fire Marshal EXHIBIT a as g E 17 it b crlekliti(D9.) ye WE-91-0001 ROY R ROMER * �I �, A JOHN W.BOLD GOWINIOR DIRECTOR }1876 a COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 718 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING—1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE 13031 888.281 t September 24, 1990 ri,,c,,gitTek=1 EEP 27 1990 Mr. Rod Allison Principal Planner Department of Planning Services 1fclden RnmiQCameiailw 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Certificate of Designation Application Review - Sanitary Landfill and Recycling Facility in Sec. 28, TIN, R68W. Dear Mr. Allison: We have reviewed the materials submitted on the above referenced application, the general and engineering geology and the hydrogeology of the site and vicinity. The technical documents prepared by Kip R. White in support of this application do an excellent job of characterizing the site, and proposing a well conceived, and thorough plan for this facility. There are three geology-related issues which bear directly on the suitability of this proposed site for use as a sanitary landfill . The recyling portion of the proposal presents no unique problems beyond the landfill issues. All three of these issues have been dealt with acceptably in the application and supporting documents. Each will be reviewed here briefly to present the Colorado Geologicial Survey's position on these issues. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The application correctly states that the only geologic hazard identified in the area is the potential for subsidence due to underground coal mining. EXHIBIT r. r GEOLOGY 01-"OV /NQ TLJC OAQT VN TA TI-IF PI ITI IiDF f Mr. Rod Allison September 24, 1990 Page 2 Two possible mechanisms exist which have some potential to adversely affect the proposed facility. One is surface effects caused by a subsidence event related to the collapse of mine voids and shafts. The planned disposal cell area is sufficiently removed from the workings of Columbine Mine to avoid this hazard. The second potential problem is related to induced fault motion resulting from subsidence related stress. The proposed set back of the disposal area to meet subtitle D requirements for faults adequately addresses this problem. COMMUNITY DITCH IMPACTS Leaking water from the ditch is presently contributing to a perched water condition which can complicate the leachate collection and control plans for the disposal cells. The combination concrete and HDP liner proposed for the straightened and realigned ditch should eliminate this problem. GROUNDWATER IMPACTS Due to the presence of several hundred feet of relatively impermeable rock between the surface and the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer, we feel no realistic impact exists with respect to groundwater at depth. This leaves only the shallow, perched zones and any shallow water associated with the allivial stream channels in the area. A properly run sanitary landfill is almost certain to produce some leachate. The liner and leachate collection system proposed for the ERD facility should allow for collection, detection and appropriate treatment of the anticipated leachate from the facility. Minor leachate losses, if any, to the surrounding soil can be readily neturalized due to the alkalinity, cation-exchange capacity and absorptive properties of the soils. The proposed system of monitoring wells, leachate system scrutiny and surface water diversion should function to prevent any major leachate release or, at least, detect it in time to take appropriate corrective measures. f 1 Mr. Rod Allison September 24, 1990 Page 2 In summary, we believe that the site is free from any geology-related hazards or constraints which would cast serious doubt on the suitability of the tract for the proposed use as presented in the Certificate of Designation application and supporting documents. Yours truly, Jeffrey L. es Senior Engineering Geologist JLH:JLH-91-6229 Enclosures) cc: Kip R. White ERD Co. Zigan Sand & Gravel Inc. c riT- ��'�v ROY ROMER �• yp Ogvemor in tar-akte p JERIS A.DANIELSON * �� t State Engineer t • x X876 �` OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303)868-3581 September 11 , 1990 EXHIBIT Mr. Rod Allison Weld County Department of Planning Services • 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Zigan Landfill and Recycling Facility, USR-925, Sec.28, TIN, R68W. Dear Mr. Allison: We have reviewed the proposal for the Zigan Recycling Facility and landfill in southwestern Weld County. This facility will be designed to recycle solid waste and to dispose of materials which cannot be recycled in an on site landfill . The site is located in an area which may be underlain by a the Arapahoe Aquifer at a depth of up to 100 feet below the surface. The actual landfill will most likely be constructed in surficial materials composed of predominately silty and clayey soils. The landfill design requires that a minimum of 3 feet of compacted clay liner be placed in the bottom of the excavation and on the side slopes of the excavation. In addition, should sandy material be encountered during construction, the area will be over- excavated and additional liner material will be placed against the sandy material . In addition to the clay liner, a synthetic liner will be placed on top of the clay and a leachate collection system will be constructed above the synthetic liner. This type of design should adequately protect and ground water in the area from contamination by fluids included in the fill material or generated within the materials deposited in the landfill . Ground water monitoring of the site also appears adequate. The water requirements for the site are not addressed in detail in the material submitted. The source of water for construction as well as any drinking and sanitary facilities is only addressed vaguely with no firm commitment for water service. Based on the design of the proposed facility and the monitoring plan, we feel that the ground water in the area will be adequately protected. Because of this, we would recommend approval of the overall facility plan. We do have some concerns that an adequate water supply will be available. For this reason, we ask that the developer provide additional information concerning the water supply prior to final approval of the facility by the county. Sincerely, 0 Hal D. Simpson Deputy State Engineer cc: Alan Berryman, Division Engineer ^,—,-. �\ R,�Steve Laughtenslager � ' SEP 131990 v ----- Veld Co. Plan *emuiro ni F,< STATE OF COLORADO OIL A._J GAS CONSERVATION COMM..,SION DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SUITE 380 LOGAN TOWER BUILDING WILLIAM R. SMITH 1580 LOGAN STREET Director DENVER, COLORADO 80203 DENNIS R. BICKNELL ROY ROMER Deputy Director (303) 894-2100 Governor August 23, 1990 Mr. Rod Allison Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Application for Use By Special Review USR-925 W 1/2, NE Sec 28-1N-68W Dear Mr. Allison, I am writing this letter in regard to your request to review and comment on USR-925 in section 28-1N-68W. I have reviewed the application and do not find any conflicts with the plans presented. The plan was comprehensive and complete. Please contact this office if any specific well information is required. I have enclosed an area well plat for your information. Future drilling in this area, should it occur, will have to comply with our safety rules, specifically: Rule 603 (a) Wells shall be located a distance of 150 feet or one and one-half times the derrick, whichever is greater, from any occupied building, public road, or major above ground utility line or railroad. Rule 604 (a) (3 ) Tanks shall be a minimum of 200 feet from the residences, normally occupied buildings, or well defined normally occupied outside area. Rule 604 ( b) ( 5 ) Fired vessel, heater treater, shall be a minimum of 200 feet from residences, occupied buildings, or well defined normally occupied outside area. If I can be of any further assistance I may be reached at 894-2100 . Th Yours truly, O � ( AUG 3 0 N90 Step an Pot `�- Sr. Engineer EXHIBIT telA Co- 41yix,,,,y .,,u,nNivaW doc 280N aS e el (i1;19 9 A . _.! City of Broomfield vi '�,'> NUMBER SIX GARDEN OFFICE CENTER P.O.BOX 1415 BROOMFIELD.CO 80038-1415 (303)4861'3301 Ji September 2O, 199O O gi�0 y( irl - SEP 2 ; 1990 /Ir. 1ldd ea Plailat Rod Allison, Principal Planner Department of Planning Services Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 8O631 Re: Zigan Landfill Referral Response Case Number USR-925 Dear Rod: This is in response to your referral dated August 14, 199O, regarding an application from Ted Zigan for a Site Specific Development Plan, Certificate of Designation, and a Special Review permit for a sanitary landfill and recycling facility to be located on the west half of Section 28, T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. The City of Broomfield opposes this request due to the concerns noted below raised at the September 11, 1990, City Council meeting and urges denial of the request. Although the proposed recycling aspect of the operation is attractive, we believe this is not the proper site for the landfill operation due to its high visibility and future land use incompatibility. 1. Visibility/Height of Fill: The existing hilltop at an elevation of 5,309 feet would be covered with 51 feet of fill to an elevation of 5, 360 feet. The south slope of the fill facing the Edwards property and S.H. 7 has an existing elevation of 5,235 feet and would receive 1O5 feet of fill for a final elevation of 5, 340 feet. The Edwards annexation to the southeast has an average elevation of 5, 250 feet with a high point of 5,292 feet in the northwest corner. The appearance of the proposed large "mountain" of fill from the S.H. 7 corridor is a concern. EXHIBIT I a(‘) r'irC1 Rod Allison, Weld County -2- September 20, 1990 2 . Imaae: The project will foster a negative image for the S.H. 7 development corridor if the area were to become a regional landfill center with the existing Erie/Cdlumbine landfill and the proposed Horst, PSCO, and Zigan landfills. (See Attachment 1. ) A negative area image will detract from the high quality development potential of the corridor. 3 . Proximity to Residents: A county subdivision exists to the southeast of the site. 4. Proximity to Edwards Property: The recently annexed Edwards parcel lies one-half mile to the southeast of the site. 5. Traffic: Trash haulers will use S.H. 7 and U.S. 287 to get to Road 5 on the way to the landfill. Expected trips range from 200 to 250 vehicles per day. Increased heavy truck traffic is a concern. 6. Hours of Operation: The facility would operate 24 hours per day. Depending upon future development of the area, a 24 hour operation may be a concern. Overall, it seems this is not an appropriate location for the proposed operation. The highly visible location will severely impair the opportunity for quality development along the S.H. 7 corridor. An operating landfill is not a good neighbor for a high quality office park on S.H. 7. The south-facing slope on the southern portion of the site will be particularly visible. Additional concerns include the current poor condition and failure of Weld County Road 5, the lack of a synthetic liner, and non-conformance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan on page 33 states: Land use development proposals within an urban growth boundary shall be encouraged so long as they conform to the desires of the municipality as expressed in its Comprehensive Plan or by its land use decision-making body and if the municipality has agreed to provide services. Although the area of the request is in the Urban Growth Boundary for Erie as defined by Weld County' s Plan, we believe it to be in Broomfield's area of concern. Broomfield opposes the request and Erie's opposition is also anticipated. ti.IF{ 3'; Rod Allison, Weld County -3- September 20, 1990 Finally, at their September 11, 1990, meeting, Broomfield City Council directed me to testify on behalf of the City , at any future public hearings on the request held by Weld County. Please inform me at the earliest possible date of any upcoming hearings so that I may arrange for testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, 2 alska-Lt-- I a1— Kirk Oglesby, AICP Planning Director Attachment pc: George Di Ciero, City Manager Matthew Glasser, City Attorney Jim Black, Deputy City Manager/Community Development Scott Hahn, Town of Erie Brian Rick, City of Lafayette Ted Zigan, Environmental Recycling and Disposal, Inc. .-� ATTACHMENT 1 .r :�� { -� •� -.-:, ice- M tieK. • __ _ _ _ - 3 =_ . .Ai i,yk -+-_; - _.- - J _ �« .� '` • -r ` _ I r1 -_ _ III 0 tam II ...4 0. 12 I ' .a •• -�, t - C _ 1 .1 -w .• 1 /]. - .r/ - v. .cd , . " . :— iH•RST LANDFIL� ��// �[ 1.•_ J ' r t �/ YLI ,^ ... f r EJdSTING ERIE LANDFILL; - _ ,_ • - - - L— -- �---= . SOS.III , a' s - -1 i 1 w-isr= I , 1 i , • . J-• •-7• -4f-•-- `��i i • 1t 1 (---Lik - • •1 _--G"" e . - PROPOSED ZIG*, LANDFILL s �• : : - .n 1 I • •r, 1 "� Erie' f i. z �` ate_-� � i . • , " I PROPOSED PSCO ASH DUMP \ .41t LAG ' 14V: 1N . -z •�'`-' \� a'J ' BROOMFIELD = . . - vetce L -a ``,_tea 1- -- _' --..� 1:"-.. ,. 1 , - V; ill ..-4 7 A _ !.'113/4"••• •• v --- i - e - I "%• ' _ 4_ritr::ewa -� _. -I) • t~ J .7* „.., . •*.I.I .1.1.4 h. ; - 1 - — 1'0 . - _ y _ _ _ I t; .•� e 1'< ;31_9 ed�o..:_ .lin City of Broomfield A ,'_ NUMBER SIX GARDEN OFFICE CENTER P.O.BOX 105 BROOMREID.CO 80038-1415 (303)469-3301 l January 28, 1991 — Lay al, w all 2 y im Rod Allison Weld County Planning Department !dd CO. MOM aassua 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Rod: Re: Edwards Property, SE 1/4, Section 33, T1N, R68W This letter is to clarify the anticipated land use on the Edwards property in the City of Broomfield noted above and to establish the property as lying within Broomfield's Urban Growth Boundary. The designated land uses of the Edwards property are reflective of the future land use pattern along the broader State Highway 7 corridor between Erie's Tri County Airport and I-25. In general, based on our recent annexation and planning activities, there is evidence that the Weld County portion of the State Highway 7 corridor will develop into a high quality commercial and business park corridor of approximately one-quarter mile in depth. The area from one-quarter to one-half mile off the highway is expected to be primarily residential in character. I have also attached a copy of Resolution No. 93-90 which amended the City's Master Plan to designate the north half of the Edwards property as residential and the south half as commercial/business park. Please call if you have any questions or require further clarification. Sincerely, (/1";1(—, Kirk Kirk Og by, P Planning Direct KO/de Attachment (1. EXHIBIT O7 (Th RESOLUTION NO. 93-90 . A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE 1988 BROOMFIELD MASTER PLAN BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOMFIELD, COLORADO: Section 1. The City Council finds that the City adopted the 1988 Master Plan in August 1988 and has subsequently adopted amend- ments, as follows: Date of Resolution Description Council Action Number of Amendment 1. 3/14/89 21-89 Changed open space and business park areas in E 1/2 of NE 1/4 of Section 23, Boulder County, to residen- tial 2. 3/14/89 38-89 Added various land uses in the northwest corner of Adams County in accordance with the Northern Broomfield Annexation PUD 3. 10/24/89 123-89 Added various land uses in Sections 26 and 35, T1N, R68W, Weld County, in accordance with the Weld County Investors PUD Plan 4. 2/13/90 5-90 Designated land use in Section 26, T1S, R69W, Boulder County, in accor- dance with the Mitchem Annexation PUD Plan. 5. 7/24/90 84-90 Designated land use in Section 3 , T1S, R68W, Adams County, in accordance with the Weld County Line, Ltd. Annexation PUD Plan. Section 2 . The City Council finds that changes in the city limits and anticipated development have occurred warranting an amendment to the 1988 Broomfield Master Plan to designate land use in the southeast quarter of Section 33 (aka the Edwards Property) of Weld County. L 1. X1..9 Resolution No. 9 .70 � Page No. 2 Section 3. The City Council hereby amends the 1988 Broomfield Master Plan to designate land use in Section 33 of Weld County as follows: 1. The north half of said southeast quarter shall be designated as residential; and 2. The south half of said southeast quarter shall be designated as commercial/business park. ADOPTED this Niit day of Atte , 1990. obert J chulzea os-r-Th ATTEST: ile uA+A 70W' Vicki Marcy, Ci lerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: `Mat w ser ity Attorney • TOWN OF ERIE 845 HOLBROOK P.O.BOX 100 ERIE CO ERIE COLORAD 80518 828-3843 _ / • 88&3855 s-, 7. October 3, 1990 Rod Allison, Principal Planner Department of Planning Services Weld County fr.: 915 10th Street ,;" Greeley, CO 80631 LD ��u idbg3( Vhe lir I OCT 5 1990 RE: Zigan Landfill Referral Response '' Case Number USR-925 Uu �-� sip„ MA C8 Pth,uf:lp :iess4Y 4 Dear Mr. Allison: 4'- Mr. Zigan' s request is for a recycling center and landfill. The Town of Erie identifies the "recycling" activity more i closely with surface trash rehandling facilities. Nothing is 7 actually recycled by the facility. V The Town of Erie strongly oppose this land use request. Our reasons are as follows: 4. - 1 . CONFLICT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS: This proposal is t9 in direct conflict with many areas of our Comprehensive Plan. re This area is considered an Economic Development Area and this landfill will detract from this goal . Presently, this area is identified as a Non-Urban Area for land use which "produces limited traffic" , "has low visual and dust impact" , "has low environmental impact on adjacent uses" , or "be left as open space or for recreation" . Generally the Erie Comprehensive g plan requires that industrial developments be buffered from other land uses with landscaping and berming. The plan further states that residential neighborhoods should be protected from any • land use activity involving an excessive level of noise, pollution or traffic volume. 2 . VISIBILITY: The operations are impossible to screen from view of land that holds the greatest potential for high quality development. 3 . PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS: The operations will be ' immediatly upwind of a residential neighborhood. The developer ' s Its. plans will not prevent noise, odors , and windblown litter from tt- entering this property. (I EXHIBIT 9 [:: POLICE DEPT. METRO 4483188 LOCAL 828-3200 P.O.BOX 510 E JAE DEPT. 828-3152 ., IF '' l l ,, i 4. RECYCLING QUESTIONED: The recycling transportation costs are double if sorting occurs at landfill sites. The L. impact on public roads are also doubled. The market for P recycled material is poor. Worker safety in the facility is not adequate. For these reasons, it is unlikely that 11- this venture would succeed. 5. NEED FOR LANDFILL SPACE: The State Health Department has conditioned Dan Horst's landfill permit. Both parties agree that the State 's requirements will be obtainable. Erie does not feel that there is a need for additional landfill space in this area. We have taken more than our share of landfills. 6. ASSURANCES: Levels of insurance and financial backing are less than what the Town of Erie requires for landfills in our jurisdiction. 3 7. INADEQUATE OPERATIONS PLANS: Levels of operating requirements, employee training, government oversight, and closure plans are less than what the Town of Erie requires for landfills in our jurisdiction. 8 . LAND USE EXPERIENCES: It is reported that Mr. Zigan has had repeated difficulty complying with Adams County Commissioner 's J. requirements for his gravel pit operations. A full investigation may be warranted before he is allowed a permit for a land use as specialized as this. A mistake here affects us all. In conclusion, we appreciate this opportunity to respond on this land use proposal before Weld County. r. • Sincerely, -14111-71797172 Scott A. Hahn Town Administrator I. SAH:mc - t- i -F I el cfr11 , - -``.. TOWN OF ERIE • �i 845 HOLBROOK P.O.BOX 100 ERIE COLORAD 80518 • 4, 8283843 j.,. •4^` . 8853555 I . � • • . `: •7 .— y��------ Mi fl LZ ( 1 � , 1 February 1, 1991 i II FEB ° 4 I9?t, ti 12Id CO. Plate Cams: . I Hr. Rod Allison, Principal Planner it- Department of Planning Services Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 a`' . Dear Hr. Allison: i2: As you near a more detailed review of the Zigan land-use proposal, j;- case number USR-925, I would like to clarify Erie' s position on this matter. s- Erie opposes more landfill activity near our community. This proposal is not compatible, in any way, with the Erie y Comprehensive Plan' s zoning for this site. This community s. foresees an expansion of residential activity at the Erie Airpark. This expansion will be easterly toward the proposed Zigan site. We also foresee Ranch Egg estates expanding at its borders. Erie wants to promote a positive land-use, such as residential or commercial development. The Zigan proposal will severely curtail this plan. Although to some people, unfamiliar with the topography of the land, this site may appear to be in a common vicinity with other landfills. In fact, it is located over the hill and dominating a separate large undeveloped area. This area holds a great potential for residential and commercial development. This area also will be 1 directly affected by the proposed W-470 beltway. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, S'? jttara = EXHIBIT i' A. Hahn � — TIT Town Administrator : SAH: jm ic-f X1-3 'w POLICE DEPT. METRO 449.3156 LOCAL 8283200 P.O.BOX 510 FIRE DEPT. 8283152 R .4. r . 1: - TOWN OF ERIE v r-v -- _ (��- HOLBROOK P.O.BOX 100 f ' MAP, 1 1991 I ERIE coLORAo16 o-3ssis ess 3sss `. t . ` mu Wei^a Plat au* TO: Rod Allison, Weld County Department of Planning Services • • FROM: Scott Hahn, Town Administrator DATE: March 12, 1991 • RE: Zigan Referral 17 The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the Zigan referral of , _. February 21, 1991 and has the following comments: .. 1. This is the third review by Erie of material submitted by Mr. Zigan and he has not attended any of our meetings to answer any ,• questions. 2. There has been no background information provided on the • applicant's past business record. 3. The Erie Planning and Zoning Commission was recently informed 4„•, that there are loopholes in the solid waste regulation when recycling s`• _is comingled with landfills.Apparently recycling centers do not have to cover refuse with the same frequency and expertise as a landfill. t Recycled trash may sit outside indefinitely. Chemicals are also not reported as toxic waste when sent to a recycling facility. The :4 Commission implores Weld County to fully research this problem. X 4. The Erie Planning and Zoning Commission does not find that there _ is a "need" for more landfill space in this area. This facility would be a duplication of present services and unnecessarily scar land that 4. has better uses. 5. The Erie Planning and Zoning Commission may look more favorably • on only a recyling center with a requirement to use existing landfill ≤y; space for unrecyclable materials. 6. Finally, the Erie Planning and Zoning Commission finds the submitted material to be incomplete and general in focus. What "' instrument is being used to guarantee that the applicant will stick to ▪ his word? 11 In conclusion, the Commisssion is forwarding a resounding "no" to approval of this land-use as proposed. EXHIBIT .` : Sinc rely, I do "la`'r „ S od' tt A.„ii,* _ i.l Town Administrator SAH:mc POLICE DEPT. METRO 4493188 LOCAL 828-3200 P.O.BOX 510 FIRE DEPT. 828-3152 j‘glii. am Center City of iSe Thornton 9500 Civic Center pnve P.O. Box 291220 Thornton. Colorado 80229-1220 September 17, 1990 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 ATTN: Mr. Rod Allison RE: WELD COUNTY REFERRAL - Case No. USR 925 Dear Mr. Allison: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed resource recovery facility. The proposal consists of a request to construct a resource recovery facility and landfill on 480 acres located south and adjacent to the Town of Erie; south and adjacent to Weld County Road 6 and east and adjacent to Weld County Road 5. The referral which was submitted has been reviewed by the City of Thornton Technical Review Committee (TRC) during a three week process. No significant comments on the proposal resulted from the TRC meetings. In addition, the area proposed for the landfill is beyond the City of Thornton's existing growth area and beyond the City's future growth area. Therefore, the City of Thornton has no comments on the proposed recycling facility and landfill. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Thomas Stedt Planner II TS:pm:7 I D Ra-acco Ir SEP 18 1990 __ 11 Yield Ca. Plaaoi R 'AMU* EXHIBIT 'The Crtv of Planned Progress AtCivic ltmm � City or n �iCi)_gia\n/ �� T '±-� �' '� '. MAP. 1 i, 1991 Thor—:- ; WA Co. Moist 1,ommi tit : _ ._.. -_..."- .. March 13, 1991 Mr.Rod Allison, Principal Planner Department of Planning Services Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 • Dear Mr.Allison: I received the addendum to the application from Environmental and Recycling Disposal Company for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a sanitary landfill and recycling facility.We recommend denial of this request for a number of reasons.First,there are already a concentration of landfills in the Weld County area; three out of the eight existing landfills in the Denver Metro Region are located in Weld County. Additionally,that concentration could increase substantially,regardless of the outcome of the request before you.Besides the Ric Thermal Medical Waste Incinerator that has been approved but is not yet operating,there are four proposed landfills located in Weld County that are pending state/local approval (Horst A,Horst B,Northglenn, and Westem Waste). If all of these landfills were to begin operating in the near future,there would be more landfills(9)located in Weld County than in the rest of the Denver Metro Region Combined. Second,there is not an immediate need for new landfill facilities in our area.According to the State Health Department,existing landfill space is sufficient to serve the needs of the Denver Metro Region for the next 15 years.Finally,while much of Weld County could benefit from the development and growth associated with the proposed E-470 and the new International Airport,this opportunity will not materially-if it must compete with a multitude of landfills. I hope you find this information useful. Please contact me at 538-7295 if you have any questions concerning our response. Sincerely, e0lati t 1r61"1/4--------e David Callahan,ASLA,AICP Planning and Development Manager i EXHIBIT cc: David Wenzel,Community Development Director i _—_31_ 2a__ ti1.r �-44t ♦��i Department of Community Development 1 - Phone(303)450-874,3 �O!'ffiglef1J/t FAX(303)450-8708 TM September 24, 1990 Department of Planning Services - ATTN: Rod Allison Weld County Colorado 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80630 Dear Mr. Allison: Thank you for providing the City of Northglenn with information about the landfill and recycling facility proposed by Environmental Recycling And Disposal , Inc. for Section 28, T 1 N, R 68 W, southeast of the Town of Erie. As a general statement, we are very supportive of recycling efforts that lessen the impact of solid waste on the environment. Because of the location of this proposed facility in relation to our City limits, we have no specific comments or recommendations regarding it. Again, thank you for providing the City with information and the opportunity to comment on this matter. Sincerely, rome D. Starling Director of Community Development --- --1 Enclosure 1 SEP 2 is 1990 JDS/jk xc: James Landeck, City Manager %8aure upy��;v„ Ted Zi gan rreiG L° z EXHIBIT I —33— 11701 Community Center Drive North glemr,Colorado 50233-1099- J jay�siegen ADAMS C O U N T Y, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 4955 EAST 74TH AVENUE COMMERCE CITY,COLORADO 50022-153,5 (30.1)287-5249 March 15, 1991 Principal PlannRod er Cli �r '�iici72"JMOT Weld County Planning Services Dept. biAR 1 5 1991 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 LT , CC., Ni b.-NamIN yak Re: Comments on Environmental and Recycling Disposal Company Dear Mr. Allison: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced application for a Certificate of Designation and Special Use Permit for a sanitary landfill and recycling facility in southwestern Weld County. Staff has reviewed the proposal and it is our position that there is a demonstrated need for a recycling facility in the area, but not landfill, and that the financial and operational history of the operator be closely reviewed. In addition, the impacts on the roadway system surrounding the site have been addressed inadequately. Our specific comments follow. 1. Need for the Facility. The concept of a regional materials recovery (recycling) facility at the front end of a landfill is commendable, and certainly a step in the right direction toward meeting the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's goal of recycling 25% of the waste stream by 1992. However, there is a question of need for a landfill, particularly at the north end of the Denver metropolitan area. To begin with, it should be noted that immediately contiguous to Environmental and Recycling Disposal Company's (E&R) proposed facility is the second largest landfill in the metro area. Columbine Landfill operated by Laidlaw. Columbine Landfill, as well as the other large, permitted landfills located along the Front Range, have adequate capacity to accommodate the anticipated increase in waste volume caused by the closure of rural landfills throughout Colorado. In the metro area, most residential growth is occurring in the south and eastern suburbs. Does the region benefit, in terms of transportation impacts, safety, and air quality, from the movement of waste from the southeast to the northwest? There is a logical need for the location of a materials recovery facility adjacent to all major landfills and transfer stations, and such activity would generally be considered a compatible use. However, the need for an additional landfill adjacent to an existing landfill, unless large volumes of out- of-state waste are anticipated, is harder to justify. EXHIBIT [4. S 4 F� � � BOARD OF COUNTY ELAINE T.VALENTE JAMES M.NELMS HAROLD E. KITE COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRIrT 1 2. Financial and Compliance Records. The financial strength and compliance history of the operator should be carefully examined. Ted Zigan has applied for and received Conditional Use permits in Adams County for several gravel mines. Mr. Zigan has not consistently operated in conformance with County Zoning Regulations at these sites. In 1985. a Show Cause hearing was held before the Board of County Commissioners for failure to adhere to the approved operations plan. This hearing resulted in permit revocation. The permit was reinstated following termination of violations. Currently, Mr. Zigan is delinquent in performing timely reclamation at the same properties, although he was quick to remove all high-grade gravel. Mr. Zigan has also been behind in payment of taxes on these properties. The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division may have additional information on his compliance history, as he has operated mining activities in several counties throughout the state. Our recommendation would be to set very specific performance criteria, backed with performance bonds, particularly for the less profitable (recycling) portions of the operation that you are interested in. Otherwise, we would expect that only profitable portions of the application would be conducted during tough economic times. 3. Operational Considerations. Observations made at existing recycling facilities indicate that nuisance conditions, such as odor, are a problem during the summer months due to the presence of partially decomposed grass clippings in the waste stream. Will the recycling facility be composting or disposing of grass clippings? How will odor be controlled? Most recycling facilities require large areas for the storage of products awaiting transportation to market. Some facilities stockpile commodities, such as metals, baled plastics, and newspaper, in order to obtain favorable market prices. Does the proposed application have sufficient indoor storage to weather market fluctuations? Will outdoor storage be performed? If so. have adequate provisions for visual mitigation been provided? The State Health Department (CDH) is the lead authority which will determine whether the presence of faults, potential subsidence, and shallow ground water are detrimental to the proposed plan. In the event the landfill is sited and public concerns remain, you should know that Adams County has instituted a very successful landfill liner construction oversight program at our most recently permitted landfill. This program provides proactive environmental protection and possibly an extra degree of public comfort. Oversight is performed by our local health department, but paid for by the operator. This program was put in place due to concerns about the limited oversight role provided by CDH. The Adams County inspection program has identified potential shortcoming during liner construction, which has resulted in better built cells. We would be happy to discuss specifics of the program at any time. Sl4: S1 r 4. Roadway Acc a% The applicant states in their application that the proposed facility will attract 200-250 vehicles per day. 40 trucks per day. and will employ 100 people. With the possibility of nearly 700 to 800 trips added to the roadway system. a traffic impact analysis seems in order. This analysis would illustrate whether unsatisfactory levels of service or safety problems may be created by the development which require remedies provided by the developer. We urge Weld County to require a traffic impact analysis. especially in consideration of the existing rural roadway network in the area. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you should have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely. a6a0Ce—c diLt 4 ArDlutsLty Cynthia L. Bosco Teresa E. Lawler Env. Planner/Compliance Agent Long-Range Planner . Panted an.e,.7ded paper. C"1.-trf-t;1_4) o � lye _- --j�.: FEB 2 n 19y SW et 068,210 "aities Attn: Rod Allison Weld County Planning & Zoning commission 915 - 10th St . , Rm. 3`f2 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Rod Allison, We are strongly opposed to any further developments of landfills around the Erie area . It would be devistating to all the residents within miles of Erie. Everything that has to do with the well-being and livelihood of the residents here would be jeopardized . The air and underground water pollution would be horrendous and growing every year . The heavy truck traffic and aviation dangers for the area would be appalling. We don 't want the land surrounding Erie turned into a filthy, disgusting landfill ! How would you like to live amongst that and raise your children close to a disasterous situation as this? I know the answer to that would be a definite 'no' . Nobody in their right mind would say yes. There are nice subdivisions here where a lot of people reside . Please help keep it a clean place for these people to live and raise children . We would greatly appreciate your help . Thanks, Pelf-X - EXHIBIT r� r � � 167.1,1 deli/At eiranu„e- xm..1) A� a, is r. 2ea.thibyte y ,doaelte,o_ed4 ant aaf zVut,e gasar , Qp �cjov� a, 1�n 22, ZOtd / � �, dung✓, X96 /� `�/��.�/C 441, 2 0 �.� Alters), tea' seeiz L-L eilt y 4 W02ik ai u-c or/irt thaw_ f� /du., tazeZ o ad" mod) .,44c .aeza'- ,64 ice.tA.) .a,A4--n-et 416 eh, -e/iJ IAA, Qua, ctff) LCD /li. (� _/ ��JJ -12 'c -de, � Qru4 en& ear Eta, ad �c w�a �v ' J C�r� -fries ,alp � _ ,ater at _die, aft Ja , atelebte 4147.40 lace,ipedleoG migse � au zhe� � 1nu. .��m aa4 ai, de _ jf 14111 4427 .�f t, fric , -6,rid a /ramie. �i .� c,e ,,,ba446 out ku,. a/n4p ome . . ,te r f/ A did 42140 �� 749-71'2,9e, ,4� _ 4.5.so Aka a, .a/ua/14k Ond oeltad 47 ,ogetz4d4;i6;70 ateao .Ol edt Glo Uvy?taayz.. ,Atayoz iciee,h re Sled S I�°�a u� psi ficJ. ,erm S m .4v an' d one, cant) -- ELDEN AND DIANE MOORE EXHIBIT 5427 Aspen Ave., Erie, CO 805]6 S 1.f4511 u �.e naevi y /0, /99/ -gad yr, aelhotte6;,it a, .64r ‘ozee��ta Lae-a eel � ` 20-CZ ant A d t.,/ a iP. p citay da2 /Let •p&l ezeic,' "64 14Wi0 .eau//X2-4 .4G a c2 2cu Ali ,Clot Li, 6 ��`'```,'�� - ��' a �lea� D-� _Gcr11 / � .z/ze, Qika, eetiru doze.. �r 0�" ah-zi � .a� �aG1 z t�e y7c4 aurut. l rJ 9u t Levu, 4.44, Q�ine Adz, d l AAA �iv/� o/a� -dui . ..le-mt et dub A 44) ieeuh tized dry /d amAter Qfi ,Ot ;0 , tile-at s � >�� tat Li ca _idtze, An d,;,1 Sys So 7121 2zet e, .dtett a/Le /heeeLl -e ecL l/ha d2z .14 ) aa4 dee &/2,tfric 1,Leittifoetotif .4,5 , l dni-Q, Ackei)4,9AOneelditAtde7 )9ia6zecd44x0 av,./ EXHIBIT a 3`1 3 '1 )6161( I)6161( >El% r - C; , / __ 7 i May 7, 1991 Department of Planning Services )r -it: 1 915 10th Street - 7 )�, I I, Greeley, CO 80631 Case Number USR-925 Attn: Jerry Kiefer *Li at. Wbmitt Aunt Re: Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. At"the present time we have two waste dumps 3/4 mile west of our property. Due to the high winds, trash accumulates against our fence line (garbage bags, papers, cardboard boxes, plastic bottles, and baby diapers). It is devasting to think that another recycling and waste disposal site is being considered that would be even more obnoxious and objectionable. This site would be bordering our property and placing the solid waste site within 500 feet of our home. Not only will this affect 911E environment, but also our health, our property value, and our view - a primary asset for this location. Our residence is, most likely, the most valuable property in the area. We are in the business of raising and breeding very valuable livestock - namely, llamas. These animals, by their nature, have sensitive eyes and often require special treatment for their eyes as a result of dust contamination. This area is prone to, and often experiences, very high winds. Ted Zigan has contacted us twice asking what he could do to make this solid waste site more desirabe for us. To say the least, we suggested he put it in his own yard. Mr.Zigan spoke of a 40 foot ridge of dirt that would be necessary to put in a modular for the solid waste. The ridge of dirt would be directly in front of our large cathedral window, patio, deck, and balcony. We have owned our property for 20 years and have lived here for 15 years. We have a beautiful home! In addition, we have gone to great expense to improve the soil, landscape and improve the grounds, and build bams and grooming stables, in the style of our home, to further enhance the property. It never ceases to amaze us how the requirements of a public notice could be satisfied by publishing it in a newspaper in Keenesburg which is located 35 miles from the neighborhood involved. What possible interest could the people of Keenesburg have in the solid waste disposal site? And, there probably is no person in our area who would be reading that newspaper. How clever! Therefore, notification of truly interested parties must be done by word-of-mouth. We are the only property owners who received a written notice, yet it would, no doubt, affect everyone in the surrounding area. We would like the Planning Commission to schedule a meeting with us at our home to address our concerns and to see first-hand what the installation of a solid waste disposal site at this location would involve and the damage it would do. g;helit 4-/ -lb%? EXI418" Wilson and Lila West 2550 175th Ave. Erie, CO 80516 (303) 665-3172 1.°.f 3t) E NVIRONMENTAL - - - V RECYCLING "Y J 1991 AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 i Thornton, CO 80233 DISPOSAL, INC. 4573333 May 2, 1991 Mr. Rod Allison ='' EXHIBIT Weld County Department of Planning Services 615 10th Street [ I 39 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Allison: As you know I have written you several letters addressing the legitimate concerns of several City, County and State Agencies about my recycling and landfill project. It is now necessary for me to address the illegitimate "concerns" of the town of Erie. Erie ' s only concern in this area is that my application be denied so that I won ' t compete with the landfill approved by Erie immediately adjacent to my proposed project. I have competed as a drywall, ready mixed concrete, and gravel supplier in the Denver area for 18 years. I won a lot of bids and customers and I lost some. But, always I competed on a level playing field. Now I don ' t mind at all competing in the waste management industry. I feel I will have a great sales tool in that I will have the only landfill in the state with a recycling facility that will divert 202-252 of the waste stream. Any environmentally conscious municipality, trash hauler, or citizen will strongly consider using our facility. What I can ' t do and should not have to do, is compete with Erie who, unlike my legitimate competitors , has the right to attempt to sway the County ' s decision making process against me. I attended an executive session meeting of the Erie Town Board of Trustees over a year ago. At that meeting my engineer and I tried to convince Erie to consider the disadvantages of the Horst landfill application and the advantages of our project. Horst 's application was for a standard landfill in subsidence area . Our idea is Eor a recycling facility and a landfill in a non—subsidence area. We explained to Erie that our site is much safer than the = Horst site. We were told by the Erie Trustees that they were going with the Horst proposal because of a S3,000,000 , "loan" offered by Horst. I was also told that they would a o_ 3 _f ,�� r_ L NVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING j� AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 DISPOSAL, INC. Thomton, CO 80233 457.9333 oppose my application because we would compete with Horst/Laidlaw and therefore would reduce the revenue to the town. I think it is legally and morally reprehensible for a municipality to back one business venture and do everything in it 's power to defeat a competitor. At that meeting I asked for and later received the pre—annexation agreement between Horst and Erie. I gave it to my attorney for his analysis. Please find enclosed a copy of the agreement with my attorney ' s comments . Please look carefully at paragraph XVIII. — Future Annexations . I have had several attorneys advise me that this granting of Horst a landfill monopoly in the town of Erie is illegal. It shows Erie 's attitude toward competition, and why their comments to the County are tainted. Enclosed, also. please find a copy of a segment of the Erie comprehensive plan. In it you will see they violated it by agreeing to site the Horst Landfill which is north of the current Erie and Weld County Landfill (Laidlaw Landfill) . My site, southeast of this landfill would not be a violation of their comp-plan. Erie is the only body that has not endorsed my concept of recycling. For them to be against recycling shows they must be desperate in their effort to defeat me. Sincerely, OTCrei cr Ted Zigan President TZ/gw Y Ap r,,, S Po_ lia o Land uses adjacent to the landfills will need to buffer from other land uses. Industrial uses should be encouraged as transitional uses adjacent to the existing landfill sites rather than increasing the area of the landfill activity. Effective screening on the landfills or on adjacent developments may be appropriate treatment. I. AIRPORT Improvements and activities with respect to the Tri-County Airport may start being governed by the Federal Aviation Administration. Airport impacts such as noise, overflight patterns, height restrictions, etc. may impact development within the study area, particularly the airport influence area. Policv o A check of potential development limitations will be performed for any parcel of land being considered for development. Areas impacted by height, noise, or use should be studied in more depth. Particular attention should be paid to areas adjacent to the airfield boundaries, the extended runway areas, and the airport influence zone. An additional buffer zone around the airport influence area may be recommended upon completion of an in-depth airport study. J. FAULTS Development should not occur over active faults. Development adjacent to inactive faults should be designed such that septic systems and leach fields are located far enough away from the faults to avoid the possibility of leakage of contaminants through the faults to the ground water supply. IV. Environmental Opportunities A. GOAL New development should respect and utilize existing environmental opportunities so that the natural environment is preserved and enhanced. The Town should adopt the basic policies and concepts detailed out in Erie's "Master Recreation and Open Space Plan - Fall, 1978" as the open space and park portion of Erie's comprehensive plan. c 45571 9 4 cooperative program with both landfills for mitigating environmental concerns as required. F. VEGETATION AND/OR WILDLIFE The only significant vegetation in the study area is three-square Buirush, which is associated with the 100 year floodplain of Boulder Creek. The fringe areas of the Panama Reservoir are wildlife habitats. Generally, areas along the water bodies and water courses, including irrigation ditches and canals, offer environments in which vegetation and wildlife will prosper. Water loving plants and animals • may indicate a wetlands environment. Designated wetlands are subject to development review and mitigation. Policy o Environments conducive to flora and fauna should be enhanced and preserved whenever possible, particularly in association with water courses and water bodies. Designated wetlands may be subject to 401 permitting mitigation. Land uses adjacent to plant and animal reserves must be appropriately designated to minimize the effect of development. G. RESOURCES AND MINING Erie's history is inseparable from mineral and resource extraction, particularly coal. Most of the subsidence areas are related to coal mining. Coal deposits cover most of the area. There are several abandoned gravel and sand pit operations. One gravel/sand operation is currently open. There are producing oil wells in the area. Policy o Around mine shaft portals, a 200' minimum diameter buffer is essential for safety. Mineral extraction methods are regulated on a variety of levels (county, state, federal, etc. ). Additional policies relating to extraction, transportation, taxation, reclamation, etc. may be considered by the Town of Erie. Land uses adjacent to operational resource mining may need to be buffered or reflect transitional uses. H. LANDFILLS There are two landfills in the study area -- the Erie Landfill and the Weld County Landfill. Both are situated on soils appropriate for landfill uses. As stated earlier, the slopes adjacent to the Erie Landfill may require stabilization on the western perimeter of the landfill. Increased landfill activity in this area is to be discouraged. Expansion north or west of the present site should be prohibited. S1 f...!^ yi PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is voluntarily mcde eatexed into this 22nd day of February, 195,, by and betwten the TOWN OF ERIE, COLORADO, a municipal corporation t the State o: t Colorado; ihertin.liter referred to , " ." wn• • 2nd Daniel R. Horst I F. Vii.r:N r. rtf?rr to unc "Trustee" , whose agreements, _,)versant.=. . unierstand, ngs and representations are hereinafter set trirth . ThAt Daniel R . Horst, individually, and as Truster , represents all the owners ef the property to be anne_:ed . cGt , r WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of certain real property situated in the County of Weld .. State of (_gicrado, Which Property is described in Exhibit A designated "Legal \ Description, " attached hereto and made an integral part hereof; and WHEREAS, Owner intends to develop the property as a landfill, and; WHEREAS, the parties desire to include in this . C Agreement certain provisions, understandings and agreements regarding the Property and its annexation. • . Ttt • K1P.,Rf 40 A NOW THEREFOR.£, in consideration of the recitals, premises, mutual covenants and agreements herein contained: and for the valuable considerations, the parties hereto agree as tollows : I . ANNEXATION It is intender that the property be annexed to the Town. The parries intend to ►•roceed with the annexation of the property described on Exhibit A to this Agreement. Said annexation shall be in accordance with the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act of 1°55 , as amended. Thisr�reemeet applies to the entire property described in Exhibit A cunrd by Owner. II. ZONING-?EEItI'1' I L� A. Zoning. Upon completion of the annexation, the property will maintain its zoning as agricultural and a special use permit will be granted to operate a solid waste landfill according to the requirements established herein . S . Issuance of a Permit. As part of the annexation by Owner and upon approval of the annexation, t contemporaneously, the Town shall issue to Owner, a solid waste landfill permit. The permit shall be for forty (40 ) years and subject to the term of this Agreement. S t6:251 ,9 C. Disconnection from Town,. In the event ttat for any reason the permit in terminated prior to the forty (40 ) year period provided ah..)ve, the entity in title to the property may move to diseon nett the property from the Town, so long as the disconn”.:Lion is in full compliance with Colorado law. III . GENERAL REOUIREHENTf: A . Develooment Concept . Owner shall devel•lp the property consistent with the terms and conditions . [ this Annexation Agreement.. It is further intended thst the development conform to the �l d technical v - h e epmenr..,_ and operation plan recuir"m.Ints contained the fl lowing documents : 1 . Site Evaluation and Operation Fisn for Horst Landfill Disposal Site prepared by Harding-Lawson. 2 . Monitoring Systems and Baseline Conditions at Owner' s Disposal Site . See attached Exhibit B . 3. Final Site Drawing 4 . Additionally, the landfill proposed for the property shall be designed, constructed, operated, closed and maintained after closure in accordance with- all applicable federal, state and counts• statutes, ordinances, rules anti regulations, as the same may be amended from time to time, • • including without limitation, the solid waste disposal facility criteria established by the Environmental Protection Agency under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 . B. Landfill Size . The total size on the landfill shall not exceed Sir. Hundred Forty ( 640 ) acres and no more than a total of four cells !approximately 40 acres) may be utilized at any one time . There shall be a single working fare not to exceed 10 acres . C. Ho us of noetatinn . The landfill is originally intended to bµ operated twenty-four ( 24 ) hours, seven ( 7 ) days per week, but Owner may dacrease �{, ;/s�e hours of operation yr; Owner' s diric.retion . Provided, ho tc)/ the Town i� - may request the Owner to reduce the hours of operat " the public interest. Such reduction of hours shall be made by mutual agreement between the Owner and the Town. Owner may determine which parcel of which phase to commence landfill operations, and the Town agrees to such determination by the Owner. D. Staffing . The landfill shall be adequately staffed at all times to meet all operational requirements . Each shift shall have at least one decision-making supervisor. All supervisory personnel must have a proven and documented track record in quality landfill operations. x:,,i n E. 1. The land then in operation as a solid waste landfill shall be fenced with an eight-foot (8 ' ) wire mesh fence, or some other fence that is acceptable to the Town. All fencing shall be completed before the landfill opens for business and shall be maintained in good condition . E. 2 . Landsraotac. Owner shall : rovide landsonpin; to the site that is in operation as approved by the Owner and the Town. F. Visual Access. It the review of visual access becomes necessary, this shall be negotiated between the Tc.wn Administrator and the Owner in good faith in accord with tilt best interests of both parties. The Owner shall keep a nearly reasonable as possible all of the u: ar_r.ta-_e in prairie grass or winter wheat _ O ei G . Security. There will be one primary aate r the entire fenced area. Other gates may be constructed as deemed necessary by Owner. The primary gate entrance will be locked when the landfill is not in operation. Upon closing each day, the entrance will not be blocked by equipment or other items that may hinder police or emergency vehicles, should they need to enter the property. Owner will provide electronic surveillance at the main entrance including video, and provide Town officials with a key to the gates, so the gates may be opened in an emergency. • H. Litter. In addition to required daily inspections and pickup of downwind areas, litter shall not be allowed tool (ff q lk, accumulate aion, the landfill 's perimeter fence. The Owner also agrees to the policing of Held County Road 5 for a distance of approximately two ( 2 ) miles in either direitt.ion from Garfield Road; and to police Colorado State Highway 7 for 1-1/2 miles from Held County Road 5 . East sr•a Litter pickup will ocur on an "as-needed" basis, not leas than once a month, approximately miles in each direction from the intersection of Weld County Roads 5 and 5 . I. Truck Traffic . Owner agrees to strongly discourage all truck traffic that is generated by the landfill from passing through the town and fu then agrees not to dispute any municipal ordinance which distil _,)teL sale! truck traffic . The Town agrees to amend its urdifi,:iet, SQ that it necessary, O::ner may ust Road 6 for truck tca tic tv iii>; landfill . Fo.“-±ver, is r.0 I ent shall auy :itud lli Llc use Road 6 between Road 7 and the southea ner of the property described in Exhibit A. O J. Services. The Town will provide the landfill with police protection. Fire protection will be provided by the appropriate fire district. The Town will not provide water or other services unless mutually agreed upon in writing. IV. MONITORING A. Reports. Any reporting requirements to the agencies of the federal government, state government, or county government concerning solid waste landfill matters cs lori Q shall be the responsibility of the Owner. Any costs incurred in order to meet the reporting requirements, such as a survey of methane gas dangers, or any other requirements shall be borne by Owner, and considered as a cost of operation . Copies of all reports and communication and applications submitted to any County, State or Federal agency shall also be concurrently submitted to that Town . All return retorts, application decision t communications or a nn from the aforementioned agencies shall be duplicated l -a d by the Owner and also submitted to the Town. • • B . Audits . To insure compliance with this Agreement, the Town may request to have the Owner ' s accounts audited by an independent auditor. These independent_ audits will be conducted no more than once a ye. and the andir:•r will be employed by the Town, but t. t5i t shall he reasonable and /paid for by the Owner. The a . .C reasonable shall he acceptable to the Owner and the Town. J. CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE The Owner shall be solely responsible for the closure and post-closure requirements, including maintenance, monitoring, corrective action, and financial assurances that are required by applicable federal, state and county statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, as the same may be amended from time to time, including without limitation, the solid waste disposal facility criteria established by the Environmental Protection Agency under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 . 2 lifi`"l! • Ten ( 10) years after closure, the Owner may peti'ion the Town as often as once per year to be released from further post-closure inspections . VI . SUSPENSION . TERMINATION OP OP:iOLE:7CENCE . NO -VIAET_'Ti O£ THE. SOLID HASTE LANDFILL CAUSED BY CHAN_=NG TECHNOLOGY. Both parties recognize that technology and change in the manner and way in which solid waste may be dispose : of - may change as a result of technology or obsolescence, o- by acres of paramount governmental agencies, or otherwise IT IS NON THEREFORE AGREED: ©("" 1 . That upon suspension or termination of the, sr -ial use permit by any governmental agency or the Town of. E::e , the obligation to continue annual payments shall teas?. All monies due to the date of suspension or termination of the special use permit- due to the Town from Owner shall be caid toj the O+F¢gr, on a pro-rata basis . Arai 2 . The determination that solid waste may no longer be processed through a solid waste landfill shall be governed by the following principles: A. If by regulation, statute or ordinance, the Ownerri S'i T waste landfil: Ind either shall be ort :d to close the landfill and cease operations by any governmental agency, then the obligation to pay any annual fee shall terminate on a pro-rata basis. B . It the te.:hnology being developed mandates the closure of the solid waste landfill by the Owner, s% that solid waste can no lonye r be processed in a conlmerc : ally feasible way, and some other method for processing solid waste is required by law and the solid waste landfill is required to close, then the Owner has no obligation t : pay annual fees . C. IC the Owner dsterwines, on a volula ary basis . that the operation of a solid waste landfill ds IS no::• reiny conducted l.`: no loner a commerCidl burin utul a a.^.: uQc profitable because of change in technology j herttise, the Owner may cease operations and be liable only fc _es die to the date of closing . D . Attorneys Fees . Owner agrees to pay all reasonable attorney fees necessary for any future amendment to this Agreement . VII. CONTRIBUTIONS AND FEES Owner agrees to pay the Town a fee of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ( S100,000 . 00)per year or five ( 5% ) percent of gross receipts, including receipts from salvage sale; S 8161,1 whichever is hsgher. The commencement uate for the first payment shall be thirty (30) days after the landfill commences operation, in an amount of not less than $6, 333. 54 , or five ( 51 ) percent • of the monthly gross receipts, as modified herein . The phrase "commence operation" is defiled to mean when the Owner accept the first truck/l»oaaYd1�¢- solid waStc! trash to be placed in + = landfill . Ali payments due shall be made within fifteen ( 15 ) days of the close of the previous month. t • t �T �pp S� 5IA VIII . INSURANCE O �L'- �]).5 Owner shall furnish the Town a cestificat¢ of . .. farce liability insurance which names the own, 9& additif:na.l insured and a copy of the insurance policy for th fo7lo ,ing minimum amount combined single limit of : Si471 , 006.en0. 00 *, the period of this Agreement. Owner will su (7 1t%no more than three ( 3 ) numbered copies of said policies to 7 : 'k:OgAd and receipted by Town Administrator for his review, wh�hall agree to maintain these copies in confidence, and in no event shall said documents become public records. The Owner shall also furnish the Town an endorsement that it has in force environmental impairment liability insurance to cover sudden and nonsudden accidental occurrences. Both the sudden and nonsudden coverage shall be for at least $1 million per occurrence and S2 million annual aggregate . If available, the environmental impairment insurance shall be an occurrence based policy covering .claims arising from events occurring Q.1 tni. 9 t during the policy period, regardless of when the claim is tiled. All required insurance will be in place prior to the i "commencement of operation" as defined in this Agreement . It is agreed that all insurance requirements may by reviewed by the Town at least annually, and the Town will be notified immediately in the event of ani lapse or change in coverage . As a part of such review, the Town may regaest the Owner to submit one or more bids for a_ternxtive insurance levels. It is further agreed that this insurance shall remain in force during the entire period of. „p ration and during the entire post-closure inspection period . IX . ONNER '`•: RTCFT TO CLOSE The Owner shall have the right to Ise th land: .l.. at any time, providing the Owner has compli ' ith all closure and revegetation requirements stated here (—) aid closure will free the Owner from all financial obliya�!'� hat are stated in paragraph VII of this Agreement, and al)i permits shall become null and void, provided, however, Owner must comply with all closure requirements of this contract . K. LEGAL ACTION In the event any suit is brought against the Town as a result of this Agreement, the annexation referred to herein or for any other reason related to this Agreement, Owner agrees that t he will pay all attorneys fees as they are incurred by Town. . •Owner shall provide additional counsel of his choice subject 1 �i��1 to the Town ' s _eview and approval which approval may not be unreasonably denied. RIII. APBITRATION The Owner and the Town agree that no civil action can be taken against the other for any action arising directly or indirectly from this Agreement, Lhat the parties will submit any such matter to a.biLtation udder the following terms and ccnditions: 1 . If the parties can agree upon an arbitrator, they shall select such arbitrator by written ..,greement and share ? 1 cost of arbitration . ? . If they cannot agree on an arbitrator , each arty shall choose one arbitrator, and these arbitrators shall ��/?;\ choose a third . The cost of this arbit'rat.'i+an shall be "C.71, (' )_ determined by the arbitrators. `c 'I1 3. Arbitration shall have same standing as a judicial procedure and shall be conducted pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure . The findings of the arbitrators shall be binding on the parties and not subject to court review. . BI. ASSIGNMENTS Owner and Town agree that Laidlaw has an option to purchase said solid waste landfill together with the solid el (el waste landfill permit. Owner may therefore assign to Laidlaw or to a comparable assignee the solid waste landfill permit. Said assignee shall have the rights afforded to Owner and assignee shall have the same obligations as Owner. Shen the assignee has taken toll possession of the lard and the right to use a solid wast= landfill permit, the Owner will be discharged from any obligation hereunder . Prior t any such assignment, the Owner shall give the Town at least ;0 days notice of said assignment and further agrees to -•ooperat- ,in providing any documents, financial statements, or other items ' reasonably ne•:essary for the Town to determine the comparability of said assignee . No such assignment shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by the Ocher , the assignee and the Town. XII . AMENDSENTS The Owner or the Town may make amendm _ to this 1 . L - Agreement. All amendments must be in writing and r�elve a majority vote of approval from the Town Board and agreement by the Owner prior to becoming an effective part of this Agreement. XIII. FILING Petition for annexation shall be filed with the Town Clerk. The Petition • shall be accompanied by an annexation filing fee of One Thousand Dollars (S1,000 . 00 ) Which shall be non-refundable . Petitioner shall also agree to pay recording costs, publication costs, and surveys . • %VI . DISCOUNTS It is understood and agreed that Owner may desire to operate its own business for the hauling of waste . in order to maintain the maximum gross sales at the landfill for the Towns beneLit, at no time may the Owns::: gyve iavcrahle prices to its own customers or any business that Owner has .an ownership interest in, including any parent, subsidiary, successor or partner, such as would reduce the gross sales of the landfill . In furtherance of this interest , Owner a• ree thh' it will charge its trucks or the trucks of .any busi 'ss `.hat Owner has an ownership interest in, in :iudinc any par-u`• subsidiary, .SUCOe5sl . OC p ltlle�, uv leis thou th laest - amount charged to any other hauler or company. XVII . SPECIAL CONDITION PRECEDENT • ��✓i';ti;. C . This special condition precedent shall be a maeatory provision which shall prohibit the commencement, of the t/ operations by Owner until such time as the special condition has been fully satisfied . The condition is as follows: 1 . The Owner agrees that he will advance S3 million dollars (S3,000,000.00) to the Town of Erie as a loan. The a At-A-Ecaa-42-4 Town shall execute a promissory note bearing interest at seven (7% ) percent per annum in exchange for receipt of the E'W,7* revr-- .w ex 6L-a,51ve't1 ' S3,000,000. 00. This note shall be repaid from the five ( 5% ) percent revenu _o be received monthly the Town, except that the Town may retain six (6t ) percent of the monthly revenue for administrative purposes. The 71 interest shall be deemed interest paid on a municipal obligation and therefore, this interest may be exempt from State and Federal 7110•>Ine Tax. This note shall be a non-recourse note and shall not create a municipal obligation of the Town, payment nn said note being looked to exclusively by the Owner from the L AND ¢i Lr- r` monthly revenue_ . The Town may not pledge or hypothecate its monthly revenue for any purpose whatsoever, except for repayment of the $3,000,000 . 00 to Owner. , until such time as the $3,000,000. 00 is repaid to Owner, together with ?tweeted interest . Owner stall have the richt., if h so chooses, to retain ?41 of the monthly revenue due to the Town as :: cre .tit against. the $3, 000,000. 00 ante . 11 is :,..'".-ed that the $3, 000, 000 . 00 shall to used for paving the city streets and construction of sidewalks; and for related imp rnvelurnr_v 1� l ,� , the streets and sidewalks. /1v1,0 ✓v/rl(i` ✓�_ �� The obligation of the Town to repay the Srtl ? 000. 00 together with accrued interest is specifically li1mited (lry the following provisions : a . When the total amount paid by the Town for principal and/or interest or as a combined total reaches S6 ,000,000. 00, the obligation of the Town terminates, and the note will be marked "paid in full" and delivered to the Town. b. In any event, whether the S6 ,000,000.00 of principal and interest has been paid by the Town, they yrt;ri + obligation. of the Town to repay any of the 53,000,000.00 together with accrued interest shall terminate ten ( 10) years ( 120 months ) from the date that the last governmental approval is given to the Owner to operate a solid waste landfill, or ten ( 10 ) years tram the dale that operation_ "commence" as defined in this Agreemeentt, whichever date is ce-later. ' �Z/M�6476,:u2.ref cd7 �l+y�M � c. If the Owner advances the S3,,000,000. ¢0 to the Town prior to the "commencement of operations" as defined in this Agreement, then the ten ( 1O ) year. period shall be increased to twelve ( 12 ) years from the date that operation � �,pnian es . M 47 1Is • �- �� A rfAA-� • �I: (NI,�(/ .)1`i t XVII . ZONING STATUS I �,'> (; The Town agrees that unless it receives the consent of the Owner, in writing, it will not rezone the landfill property and that the agricultural zoning now in effect for the landfill property will continue in effect. XVIII. FUTURE ANNEXATIONS c� • 6;1 • The Town grees . that it will no' nnex any other property for use as a landfill within the Town boundaries, without the written consent of the Owner. The parties hereto understand that the purpose of this provision is to protect the substantial interest of the Owner and the Town considering the investment of the Owner and the revenue received by the Town. The Town will invoke, 'a rule of necessity" to determine if there exists a need for additional landfill use permits to be granted while the landfill of the Owner is still operating and the landfill has not been filled. �c70&1 L G; XIX . SgVERABILIT'i If any term, condition or provision of this A7teement is held by .a court of competent jurisdicti.or tc be invalid and unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as if the offending term, condition or provision were never a part of this Agreements ; except th_pt if in the role judgment of-Developei , the invalid and unenforceable term, condition or provision is a material part of this Agreement. XX. FUTURE ACTS to.X4 4 CU 71 p Following the axgrutivd of this Agreement, Town and Developer agree to do all acts, including the execution of appropriate documents, when requested by the other, where such acts are reasonably required to fulfill the performing ' party' s obligations under this Agreement. 3_11; 51 • • Xai. Emu Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement will be deemed to be received when delivered personally in writing or five ( 5) days after notice has been deposited with the U . S . Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified and return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: If to Owner: Daniel R. .(i // G 2230 Field Coui t 5 Erie , CO 305? c Hartin P . Hiller 190? w. Littleton Flvd Littlet„n, CO 80in If to Town: Town Manager P . O. Box 100 Erie, CO 80516 t XXII . MISCELLANEOUS • a. Captions . The captions for sections used in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not be considered a material part of this Agreement nor shall they b used as an aid in interpreting the Agreement. b. Cot _ _ative Drafting. This .greement is the product of the cooperative effort of Town and Developer and shall not be construed or interpreted against either party solely on the basis that that party drafted the Agreement. c. Initiative or Referendum. If a petition in the nature of initiative or a referendum is successful, which initiative or referendum materially alters this Agreement and/or the terms of any ordinance annexing the property or materially altering or modifying in any way the Special Use Permit granted to the Owner to operate a solid waste landfill , the Owner shall immediately be entitled to disconnect the property in the manner provided by Colorado law and the Town shall not object to such disconnection . �O d . Continaencies . All At Owner !.order this agreement are expressly contingent upon nd will not arise until this Agreement is adopted and ratified by Town and by an ordinance annexing the property and a resolution or ordinance granting to Owner a special use landfill permit under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. e . Indemnification . Owner shall indemnify and save harmless Town, its present and future officials, employes and agents, from and against any and all liabilities, penalties, fines, forfeitures, demands, claims, causes of action, suits, and costs and expenses incidental thereto ( including cost of defense, settlement, and reasonable attorney's fees) , which any and all of them may hereafter suffer, incur, be responsible for or pay out as a result of bodily injuries (including death) to any person, damage t.ncluding loss of use) to any property (public or private) , contamination of or adverse effects on the environment, or any violation or alleged violation of statutes, ordinances, orders, rules or regulations of any governmental entity or agency, directly or indirectly caused by, or arising out of the operation of the Property by Owner or out of any act or omission of Owner, its employees or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement or the operation, closure, and post-closure of the landfill. Insurance coverage and requirements herein constitute the minimum requirements, and said requirements shall in no way lessen or limit the liability of Owner hereunder. Donn f . Independent Owner and Operator. Ov is and shall perform this Agreement as an independent owner, and operator, and as such, shall have and maintain complete control over all of its employees, subcontractors, agents, and operations . Neither Owner nor anyone employed by him shall be, represent, act, purport to act, or be deemed to be the agent, representative , subcontractor, employee, officer, or servant of the Town. Under no circumstances shall Town be viewed as an owner or operator of the Site . THIS AGREEMENT shall be binding on the heirs, assigns and successors in interest when duly executed by the Owner and the Town. g1.1.151 s (4.4 44,4,04,5 TOWN 0£ ERIE, HAYOR DANIEL R. HORST, IND VIDUALLYid( /1 _ ® - .�2 - yG7 a -aa TOWN OF ERIE, ADMINISTRATOR DANIEL R. HORST, 90 AS NOHINEE 1405-144.- . ©(Th ATTEST: O oake.,772 . 772 0-7t TOWN CLERK t Zato gilds 9. games 2Sonn y, �.e 825 Lorin Stud (15423) Sbt-goo3 Zenon, eorowdo So2o3 9axr (903) Sao-6920 March 28, 1990 Ted Zigan 2200 E. 104th Avenue Suite 2148 Thornton, CO 80222 Re: Erie/Horst Project Dear Ted: Enclosed in this correspondence is a draft of the Pre- annexation Agreement between. Erie and Mr. Horst. Please note item XVIII. "FUTURE ANNEXATIONS" which provides for a "nonrecourse promissory note" between Erie and the Town. Furthermore, please note XVII. "ZONING STATUS" which provides that the town will not allow another landfill. Both of these provisions are illegal, and at some point in time, we may want to discuss this further. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, F. JAMES DO_N_NEL�pL.Y,, P.C. F. James Donnelly FJD/djp Enclosures S1 tr Si n ft rr p',„:-., E NVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 Thornton, CO 80233 DISPOSAL, INC. 457.3333 May 1 , 1991 - -- — Lc: 1 f_ Mr. Rod Allison w r Principal Planner ; ., - 199 ,• ] 1 ' Weld County Planning Services Dept. _1J 915 10th Street Greeley, Co. 80631 thiA Cu. Mama* .�urotvhn Dear Mr. Allison: I feel it is necessary for me to comment on the referral letter sent to you by Adams County dated March 15 , 1991, In paragraph (1 ) Ms . Bosco takes the position that our "recycling facility at the front end of the landfill is commendable" , but then questions the need for a landfill. She unfortunately does not realize you cannot have the recycling facility without the landfill. The recycling facility will be marginally profitable at best. The profit is derived from the tipping fee. If we received trash, removed 20-25% of the waste stream for recycling, and then had to pay a tipping fee to landfill the remaining 75-80% of the trash, we could not be profitable . Ms . Bosco also states that the Laidlaw Landfill has adequate capacity remaining. According to Rick Roffman, the manager of the Laidlaw Landfill, during a conversation with me in August 1989, said their landfill would be filled by 1996. That is hardly adequate long term capacity. Ms. Bosco somehow takes license to imply that we anticipate accepting large quantities of out-of-state waste. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have no plans to accept any out-of-state waste . In paragraph (2) Ms. Bosco states : 'The financial strength and compliance history of the operator should be carefully examined. ' I agree whole heartedly. The financial strength for this project is being supplied by my = EXHIBIT LID E � ?.Cf 4 4- e E NVIRONMENTAL �ECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 Thomton, CO 80233 ISPOSAL, INC. 4573333 joint venture partner. I will very soon be able to identify who this company will be. pending the imminent signing of our contract. I can tell you this company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and has assets of S300.000.000. As far as compliance history goes, I have the following to offer. During my 18 years of experience as a construction related materiels supplier and miner I have had large operations in Adams , Denver, Park, and Weld Counties . During those 18 years I have been cited for one zoning violation and it was in Adams County. The Adams County officials required me to show cause why my conditional use permit to mine gravel should not be revoked because of the following alleged violations : 1 ) The chain link fence around Pit #1 is in poor repair. 2) Mining is too close to the Fulton Ditch on Pit #2 and on the north property line on Pit #1. 3 ) No acceleration/deceleration lane has been constructed for Pit #2. 4 ) The fence on the west property line of Pit #1 should be completed. During this show cause hearing it was found by the Adams County Commissioners that : 1) The fence was leaning and should be repaired in two weeks . It was repaired in one day. 2 ) That wash outs of some banks had occurred and that they should be repaired in four weeks . They were repaired in one week. 3) The acceleration/deceleration lane already had been constructed prior to the citation. 4) The wooden fence should be completed in four weeks. This fence was voluntary on my part and was not required under my permit stipulations , however we completed this fence within four weeks . The commissioners further found that my gravel Pit #1 should be completely reclaimed in 7 1/2 months. My mining (-31 - NVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 Thomton, CO 80233 DISPOSAL, INC. 457,3333 permit was only in it ' s 5th year of a 10 year plan. We were still mining. It was impossible to reclaim the entire pit while mining was still going on. My attorney wrote to the Adams County Attorney explaining this fact and that I refused to comply with this finding. The commissioners were obviously unaware of the letter, convened another hearing 7 1/2 months later without notifying me and revoked my permit. I then asked for a reconsideration. The commissioners did reconsider and reinstated my permit. This episode happened in late 1984 and mid 1985. I have had no violations since that time. Ms. Bosco states that I am delinquent in performing the reclamation to my gravel pits . This also is not true . I would invite you to tour my gravel pits in Adams and Weld Counties to see yourself that reclaiming has been done, and done well. Rod, if you have any other questions regarding the Adams County letter, please contact me and I think I could arrange a meeting with Leo Younger and Steve Cramer, the former Adams County Commissioners , to confirm what I have said. Sincerely, ;7_,,(4765T.6004007'.-- Ted Zigan NVIRONMENTAL _. RECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 DISPOSAL, INC. Thomton, CO 80233 457-3333 May 2. 1991 Mr. Rod Allison Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Allison: As you know the City of Broomfield voiced several concerns it had with my recycling facility and landfill in a letter to you on September 20. 1990. On April 30, 1991 I was invited by Broomfield to attend a meeting with a five member committee of it ' s City Council together with the City Manager and his assistant. At this meeting I believe I adequately addressed those former concerns. The committee will report the results of that meeting to their full City Council in their next regularly scheduled public hearing. At that time the council will consider adopting a modified position on our project. If it does so, they will no doubt notify you of their new position as soon as possible. Sincerely, OA s C df a° Ted Zigan President TZ/gw - - Ir �•lJ .� � EXHIBIT /C / grip s. pi3ame! e^imasv,„ � e 0-,ir s .i. NVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING DISPOSAL, 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 DISPOSAL, INC. Thornton, Co 80233 _ 457.3333 rz 4.r May 2, 1991 Mr. Rod Allison Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Allison: I am writing in response to concerns of both the State Health Department and State Engineer 's Office about the source of water for our recycling and landfill facility. Drinking water will be supplied by a local bottled water vendor. Water for constructing the landfill , dust suppression, and fire protection will come from one or more of the following sources . 1 ) Three commercial wells I own: well permit numbers : 03281-F, 11044-F, 11043F 2) Lafayette City Water 3) Northglenn waste water treatment plant 4) Community ditch 5 ) A yet to be constructed well on the property tapping the Larimie Foxhills aquifer If you have further questions about this or any other items , please don ' t hesitate to call me or Kip White. Sincerely, 1 "-a Ted Zigan = EXHIBIT President TZ/gw gl `T D , ,d { I — ' r � ‘p .." 1 ' 1991 USIA DI'M�� c,* `'. fitc- it`:.- ...- t:f: if r"'.,,.a E NVIRONMENTAL ... �ECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th,Ave., Suite 214 Thornton, c5 -0233 3333 DISPOSAL, INC. May 2. 1991 Mr. Rod Allison Meld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley. Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Allison: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I sent to the FAA in March. I believe it addresses their concerns about potential bird—aircraft strike hazard at the Tri—County Airport. I have not received any other comment from the FAA in the .two months following my letter. If you have. please let me know. Also enclosed is a comment letter I asked for and received from the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation. This office is charged with the responsibility of recycling at the state level. Please include it in our public file. Sincerely. :b 1e2e'd ` Ted Zigan President TZ/gv � - - P ::".Y 1 . 1991 .. EXHIBIT --1L Weil ca. aunt Coensias 2 _ ; ei Prr1. E NVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING AND 2200 E 104th Ave., Suite 214 CO 80233 DISPOSAL, INC. Thornton, 457-3333 Barbara Johnson March 5, 1991 Planner Federal Aviation Administration Denver Airports District Office 5440 Roslyn Street Denver, Co. 80216-6026 Dear Ms. Johnson: I have recently received your letter of August 20, 1990, which asked for information concerning how birds will be controlled at our Recycling and Disposal Facility near the Tri-County Airport. Our facility lies approximately 7,000 east of the Tri-County Airport. The two landfills that now make up the Laidlaw Landfill lie nearly 2,000 feet closer to the airport. This landfill has been in operation for many years and has not caused ,any appreciable potential for bird-aircraft strike hazard. In a phone conversation with Mr. Tom Pierce, airport manager, on February 21, 1991, he reported to me that in fifteen years of his experience at the Tri- County Airport he knows of no problem of bird strike hazard caused by the presence of the near by landfill. When asked why no bird hazard has been created by the Laidlaw Landfill, Mr. Pierce responded that it was a well managed clean landfill. I have toured the Laidlaw Facility and know it to be well managed to reduce the possibility of attracting birds. We at E.R.D. will take the same measures to remove the bird strike hazard that Laidlaw has, and that is to cover all trash brought in during a current operating day with a minimum of six inches of dirt. In so doing the food source that could attract nuisance birds will be eli@inat?d.. I believe that since the Laidlaw Landfill, which lies closer to the Tri-County Airport than our facility, has been able to minimize the attraction of birds for fifteen years, that we will be equally successful in doing so by the same means as Laidlaw has been employing. If you have further comment, plase make it as soon as possible. We hope to have our public hearings at weld County in April and May of this year. Thank you for your cooperation and concern. Sincerely, _ 7.72:\ / C 1 Ted Zigan ,. F. 6 19:. President /LSU Need r.b. &Ion Affint°W _ 11 NVIRONMENTAL c- __ i ' R ECYCLING "14 " 195 U AND fins p 2200 E 104th Ave., Suite 214 IS 01Thornton, CO 80233 DISPOSAL, INC. 457.3333 April 25, 1991 Mr. David Callahan Planning and Development Manager City of Thornton 9500 Civic Center Dr. P.O. Box 291220 Thornton, Colorado 80229-1220 Dear Mr. Callahan: I would like to comment on your letter of March 13, 1991 to Rod Allison, Principal Planner at Weld County. A copy of your letter is enclosed. Your statement that 'there are already a concentration of landfills in the Weld County area' is misleading at best . The fact is there is only one sanitary landfill in southern Weld County, the Laidlaw Landfill. This landfill is located entirely over a mined out coal mine, or a subsidence area. Under current Colorado Health Department policy, a new landfill could not be sited in this area. Furthermore, when proposed Sub Title D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is enacted, this existing landfill will most likely have to be closed. If this happens , there rill be no permitted landfill space available in southern Weld County. Your further statement that 'there are four proposed landfills located in Weld County that are pending State/Local approval (Horst A, Horst B, Northglenn, and Western Waste ) " is also incorrect. There is only one application pending by Horst. There are no applications pending in Northglenn. The Western Waste application seems to be doomed in Dacono. EXHIBIT 44 n E NVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 Thornton, CO 80233 DISPOSAL, INC. 457-3333 What is further lacking in your letter is any mention of the dramatic difference between the applications for standard landfills and our application for a Recycling Facility, which will eliminate 20-25% of the waste stream, with a residual landfill. No other waste management company in Colorado has been willing to expend the capital and operating costs necessary to achieve this goal. Sincerely, • t // __�T' rneen Ted Zsga n President cc: Rod Allison -l' ac) STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF ENERGY CONSERVATION �o 112 East 14th Avenue it IS Denver, Colorado 80203 * Phone (303) 894-2144 AacssA a •ay. Roy Romer Governor Karen Remenson Director September 14, 1990 Mr. Ted Zigan Environmental Recycling and Disposal, Inc. 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 Thornton, CO 80233 Dear Mr. Zigan: In response to your request for us to comment on the concept of a Municipal Resource Recovery Facility (MRF),we believe that such a facility can provide an effective alternative to be used in Colorado as part of a comprehensive solid waste management solution. MRF's can be one of several viable options used in the separation, resource revovery and recycling process. Dedication of adequate equipment and staff to pull recyclabies from the comingled trash are critical factors to ensure the significant recovery of resources. Although MRF's are relatively new to this part of the country, they are being used successfully in many other areas within the United States. Our office welcomes the opportunity to work with both the public and the private sectors in creating effective systems which make waste reduction and recycling a successful endeavor. Since e ate WOK "--) r n Reinertson Director _ `1 nG .i r' 1, ..r: '. J 1991 U \._.S -- Iteli ts. m o n C°°la;ssicu Printed on recycled paper r 1 q rRi I • E NVIRONMENTAL _ D RECYCLING r, _jr . :•:.^.Y 7 7 199i AND 2200 E 104th Ave., Suite 214 Thornton, CO 80233 DISPOSAL, INC. NI to.�� 457-3333 May 2, 1991 Mr. David Callahan Planning and Development Manager City of Thornton 9500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 291220 Thornton, Colorado 80229-1220 Dear Mr. Callahan: Thank you very much for your letter of April 30, 1991 . I do agree with you 'that it is only with a consensus of all parties involved that we will be able to effectively plan for the future of the area. ' With that thought in mind, let me tell you more about our project. This is going to be both a state-of-the-art recycling facility and landfill. The landfill will be built to exceed the minimum requirements of the proposed Sub Title D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. It will be constructed on a site that has several hundred feet of impervious clay stone and shale between waste and a usable aquifer. Beyond that, we will install a 3-4 foot compacted clay liner to keep leachate from percolating downward. Between the waste and the clay liner will be a leachate collection system. This system consists of a one foot bed of gravel that will transmit by gravity all of the leachate to one of two leachate collection sumps . These sumps will be lined with compacted clay plus a synthetic liner. When leachate is present in the sumps , we will first test it for contamination and then dispose of it in one of three ways . 1 ) If it is not contaminated we will use the water for dust suppression on site. 2) If it is slightly contaminated, the leachate will be trucked to a wastewater treatment plant. 3 ) If it is contaminated beyond the point that a wastewater treatment plant could accept it, it will be trucked to a hazardous materials disposal site. The chance of the leachate being severely contaminated is very slim, it . EXHIBIT .,. ._. E NVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 Thornton, CO 80233 DISPOSAL, INC. 457-3333 because of the unusual monitoring of each load of trash. since each load will be dumped inside of our recycling facility. Ground water monitoring will be an ongoing requirement. For these reasons contamination of ground water at this site will be less probable than any other site in Colorado. For your further information I am enclosing a copy of a referral sent to Meld County from the Colorado Geological Survey. If you have any other questions , please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, • Ted Zigan President TZ/gw cc: Rod Allison e r ,r^ d.• •• �� Civic Corner City of Ile Thornton 9500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 291220 - — -- Thornton. Colorant, 80229-1220 ur "/ :.:AN; 3 2 199! April 30, 1991 Veld Ch. '115lwi a ..subst'U. Mr. Ted Zigan, President Environmental Recycling and Disposal, Inc. 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 Thornton, CO 80233 RE: Southern Weld County Landfills Dear Mr. Zigan: This letter is in in response to your letter of April 25, 1991. On Friday, April 26, 1991, one of our staff spoke with Austin Buckingham, Geologist with the Colorado Department of Health. She informed him that the following are the existing, approved, and pending review, landfill locations in Southern Weld County: EXISTING Laidlaw North T1N.R68W Sec. 20: S✓2SW/4 Laidlaw South TIN.R68W Sec. 29: W/2NE/4, E/2NW/4 APPROVED BY THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ERD TIN.R68W Sec. 28: W/2 PENDING REVIEW Horst TIN. R68W Sec. 21: W/2 Dacono TIN. R67W Sec. 17: E/2 During our open records request of the City of Northglenn, we discovered a letter from Waste Management Co. indicating interest in the property recently annexed by the City of Northglenn,T1N, R68W, Section 36: E/2. What is of concern to the residents of Southern Weld county and the City of Thornton is the potential of tripling or quadrupling the landfill acreage in the area and the attendant environmental, social and economic impacts. �:°70 s Page 2 Zigan 430-91 We support your efforts to reduce the waste stream and control environmental damage. But, we feel that the impacts upon the existing residents of the area and future development must be thoroughly studied before additional siting can take place. This is why we are hoping for industry support of our regional planning effort. We need you to inform us of how the modern lanrlfilling techniques will mitigate the potential environmental hazards of landfills. I'm sure you'll agree, that it is only with a consensus of all parities involved that we will be able to effectively plan for the future of the area. We look forward to your involvement in the Southern Weld County planning process. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 538-7295. Sincerely, David Callahan Planning and Development Manager cc: David Wenzel David Murray Rod Allison DC/dm , E'' � E NVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING �c 7 AND 7Vn �� 1S 1991 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 Thornton, CO 80233 DISPOSAL, INC. _ p, ,�� 54 457-3333 aittVteis Ca - May 10, 1991 Colorado Department of Health Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver , Colorado Attention : Austin Buckingham Subject : Environmental Recycling and Disposal Landfill Application Reference : Your letter dated April 3 , 1991 to Weld County Commissioners Dear Austin : Thank you for sending us a copy o£ your letter recommending approval of the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc. Lanfill Design , Operations , and Closure Plan. In the referenced letter you stated that, "it is the Division ' s assessment that if the facility is operated as proposed and includes the following binding recommendations , the facility can comply with the minimum standards of the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act . " The purpose of this letter is to address the 12 binding recommendations presented in your letter which are to be incorporated as part of the "Application for Certificate of Designation for the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Facility. " Each of the 12 items is stated below followed by our response and commitment to comply with the stated recommendations . 1 . "Prior to construction of the waste transfer recycling and storage facilities , the Division requests two copies of all maps and narratives for review. " Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc . (E .R.D. ) will provide two copies of all maps , plans , and narratives regarding the waste transfer , recycling, and storage facilities to the Division prior to construction. Copies will also be provided to the appropriate Weld County Agencies prior to construction. 1 EXHIBIT lag el rleil E NVIRONMENTAL R ECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 DISPOSAL, INC. Thomton, CO 80233 457-3333 2. "All Health Laws , Standards , Rules and Regulations of the Department , Water Quality Control Commission, Air Pollution Control Commissions and Applicable Zoning Laws and Ordinances shall be complied with. " E.R. D. will comply with these stated rules , regulations , and ordinances . 3 . "The applicant shall develop a contingency plan in the event that a loss of integrity to the Phase II retention pond occurs during storm events . " The Phase II retention pond is designed to contain the runoff from the 100 year, 24—hour storm event over a 15 acre drainage area . The maximum drainage area to the pond will be 15 acres , and during most of Phase II operations the drainage area for the pond is anticipated to be 12 acres or less . As an additional contingency to prevent overtopping of the pond, the pond will be constructed 13 feed deep , instead of 12 feet deep as stated in the Landfill Plan so that there will be sufficient volume to accommodate all of the runoff of 15 acres during the weltest month (0 . 58 inches ) in addition to the 100 year , 24—hour storm event . The top area of the pond will be 41 ,616 square feet (204 ' by 204 ' ) , and the bottom area of the pond will be 10,000 square feet (100 ' by 100 ' ) . A minimum freeboard of 10 feet will be maintained in the pond to accommodate the 100 year , 24—hour storm event. 4 . "Stainless steel is recommended for the outside pro— tective casing for the sump access riser. " We agree that the protective casing for the sump access riser should be constructed o£ stainless steel and commit to implementation of the recommendation. 5. "One or more faults may traverse the proposed site . The division wishes to be kept apprised of fault location and condition discovered during excavation. The Division may request permeability evaluation of the fault and/or additional monitoring. " Any faults identified during the excavation will be surveyed and mapped . The Division will be notified and provided with documentation of the locations of any faults identified �s ter*., 41 E NVIRONMENTAL R ECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 DISPOSAL, INC. Thornton, CO 80233 457-3333 during the excavation. E.R.D. agrees to provide permeability evaluation of such faults and/or additional monitoring at the request of the Division. 6. "The applicant shall through continued monitoring (at least quarterly) verify that moving and lining of the community ditch will facilitate removal of the perched conditions in the northeast corner of the site . " Monitoring of water levels will be conducted at least quarterly in all wells in the area of community ditch within the northeast portion of the property. 7. "If perched water conditions are encountered during excavation activities , the Division shall be notified within four working days . Contingency plans may be required. " We agree to provide notification of encountering perched water within four working days of such encounters during excavation and to provide contingency plans as required. 8. "The applicant shall document the source and amount of water required for construction. " There are three sources of water currently available for construction of the landfill . Water is available from a non-tributary well owned by Ted Zigan (Permit No : 03281F , Appropriation Date : 7/24/61 ) . More than 0. 1 cubic feet of water per second is appropriate for this well , as the well is capable of sustaining and equivalent yield. Water form this well will be trucked to the site as necessary. Verbal commitments have also been provided by the Cities of Lafayette and Northglenn to sell water to E.R.D. Other possible sources of water form Community Ditch or drilling of a well into the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer beneath the site . The amount of water required for construction purposes at the landfill is estimated to be approximately 123 acre-feet over the life of the landfill (approximately 3 .8 acre-feet per year ) . This water will primarily be used for moisture conditioning of soil during compaction of liners , landfill cover , and structural fill , and for dust control . S 1 ',I 1:.) E NVIRONMENTAL R ECYCLING DAND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 ISPOSAL, INC. Thornton, CO 80233 457-3333 9. "The applicant shall as a minimum analyze leachate for at least the following parameters : total organic halides , chemical oxygen demand, total petroleum hydrocarbons , total phenols , p.H. . . and specific conductivity. " E .R.D. will , at a minimum, analyze leachate for these listed parameters . 10. "The applicant shall include " carbonate and cation— anion balance as part of the groundwater monitoring program. E .R.D. agrees to include these parameters in the groundwater monitoring program. 11 . "The applicant shall comply with Section 22 . 3 (b) and (c ) of the regulations which requires an analytical method and statistical evaluation of groundwater monitoring data . " E.R. D. will comply with these sections of the regulations . - Reports will be generated which specify the required methods used during analysis of samples and which present statistical evaluation of the data. 12. "A certification report shall be prepared and reviewed by the Division prior to commencing the landfilling in any module . The report lhall provide written evidence that the quality assurance plan was imple- mented and the construction was performed in confor- mance with design criteria , the project plans , and specifications . " As was discussed between Kip White and yourself on May 9, 1991 , the intent of this requirement is for certification of each distinct landfill area within a module prior to landfilling in these areas . E.R .D. will provide these required certification reports prior to commencement of landfill activities in each distinct area within the landfill modules . E NVIRONMENTAL R ECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 DISPOSAL, INC. Thornton, CO 80233 457-3333 If you have any questions regarding this letter or should you require additional information, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Ted Zigan, President cc. Rod Allison, Weld County Planning Kip R. White , P. E. , KRW Consulting , Inc . TZ/gw el c_ .q M KRW CONSULTING, INC. Kip R.White,P.E. President May 8, 1991 r _ Weld County III . .-'.� - ' 1991 Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Veil Cs. Mum astision Attention: Rod Allison Subject: Case Number USR-925,Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc Reference: Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District Letter Dated September 5, 1990 Dear Rod: In the referenced tenet Barry Sinkey outlined several concerns/recommended changes to the subject USR application. The purpose of this letter is to address those concerns. In paragraph two of the subject letter; Sinkey alerts us to the potential problems associated with construction of the lined section of the irrigation ditch. We are well aware of the technical aspects which will need to be addressed during design and construction of the ditch lining. In addition E.R.D. is well motivated to insure that the lining is constructed properly in order to prevent the possibility of ditch water from impacting landfill operations. Therefore, the design of the lining will include both concrete and synthetic material such as high density polyethylene (HDPE). The HDPE will be installed in a similar manner to that described in the QAQC Plan of the Landfill Design, Operation. and Closure Plan with all seams being welded and field tested to insure their integrity. Much of the ditch realignment will be constructed over structural fill to be placed by E.R.D. The appropriate soil testing will be performed prior to placement of this structural fill in order to provide appropriate design specifications which address items such as frost heave, soil shrinkage and swell, consolidation, and permeability. All structural fill will be placed and compacted to the design specifications with appropriate field and laboratory testing being performed to verify compliance with the specifications. Reports of all testing performed on soil, concrete, and synthetic materials, as part of the construction of the ditch realignment, will be submitted to Colorado Department of Health, Weld County Planning and the FRICO Ditch Company. Paragraphs three through six of the referenced letter recommend slight modifications in Section 6.0, Reclamation Plan of the Landfill Design Operation and Closure Plan These recommended modifications are in keeping with the intent of the J.andfill Plan, and will therefore be incorporated into the reclamation activities at the site. We have itemized each specific proposed amendment below. Paragraph three of the referenced letter states that Section 62 of the Landfill Plan should be amended to include the following; 'The seedbed shall be well settled and firm, but friable enough that seed can be placed at seeding depths between 1/4"-3/4". The seedbed shall be free of weeds so .they won't inhibit seed establishment. Soils that have been EXHIBIT compacted should be tilled to break up restrictive rooting layers. This will g allow the seeded species to utilize the entire rooting zone." 630 Ammons Way • Lakewood,Colorado 80215 • (303)239-,111 tr.' s) } page 2 S/8/91 8912.04 revises Paragraph four of the referenced letter states that Section 6.3 should be amended to include the following statement: "The phosphorous will be incorporated into the topsoil prior to grass seeding." Paragraph five of the referenced letter requests the following amendment to Section 6.4 of the Landfill Plan: "Topsoil stockpiles will be seeded when left unused for nine months or more. These stockpiles shall be seeded with Luna Pubescent Wheatgrass at a rate of 14 PLS pounds per acre. If stockpiles will remain for more than two months,but less than nine months, they should be seeded to a cereal grain like annual rye or wheat at 20 PLS pounds per acre." Paragraph six of the referenced letter states that the Landfill Plan should be amended to include the following: "The hay mulch should be weed free and applied at a rate of two tons per acre." We trust that this letter adequately addresses the concerns of the Boulder Valley Soil Conservation District If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Kip R. White cc Ted Zigan,Environmental Recycling and Disposal Inc n . May 10, 1991 • [...AY 1 3 999. Department of Planning Services U --- /✓ WELD COUNTY Weld to. Plaint cummiui 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 • Greetings RE: Case Number USR - 925 This letter is this company's formal objection in the above case to a proposal of Environmental Recybling and Disposal Co. for a Site Specific Development Plan, Certificate of Designation, and Use by Special Review Permit. As this company owns mineral rights in the North West Quarter of Section 28, Township One North, Range 68 West in Weld County, it would be unable to further developcthe oil and gas reserves of this tract. Moreover, this company--as the owner of other properties in Weld County and other counties of the front range area--believes that there are presently sufficient landfill operations to meet existent and future needs. Your consideration of our position will be greatly appreciated. Yours very truly Gerald R. Armstrong, Preside s EXHIBIT Certified Mail No. P 297 636 126 _6D Return Receipt Requested 756 DENVER GAS & ELECTRIC BUILDING, 910 FIFTEENTH STREET . DENVER, COLORADO 80202 . (303) 573-9655 tfri-44-4 t i ;), -'?1) il k'L i i ki i ) �, . �. 1 1 1 - “ CI 0 a l Nt PIt ;1 � 'i �� ° li 1'4 lf,t1 - t ,. .', it c )) ' 1 • AN ''; ktit" 1 ,): - ,Th r'd ‘t 1 \zi lei t i lc- . \\ \> IStil Fl ;': 1 .s,,z) 1 11 elwelvvmm ( . 4 1 i _______O. 4 bO \ ‘ ' -� �► x ..{� -Rzik r 7 ; i � � ' ,_ 5 n1 z . ) ei � 1 t 4 C\ 00 . s'il 1 l ) 3 I . J, trql l'i ,4 - -t ' NI 11 ii, r . � i 4 ' 114 i . -1 �,\ . 44 � 1 � 4 IA4 11 �. v Hello