HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181449.tiffBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado 80634
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
DOCKET 2017-86.D
IN RE: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT,
USR17-0043, FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ASPHALT
AND CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS, MATERIALS PROCESSING (CRUSHING AND
SCREENING), MATERIAL STOCK PILES, AN OFFICE, A SHOP, AND OUTDOOR
TRUCK AND EMPLOYEE PARKING IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT -
CACTUS HILL RANCH COMPANY, C/O SIMON CONTRACTORS, INC.
(10:11 A.M. TO 1:06 P.M.)
The above -entitled matter came for public meeting before the Weld County Board of
County Commissioners on Monday, February 5, 2018, at 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado,
before Tisa Juanicorena, Deputy Clerk to the Board.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that upon listening to the audio record, the attached transcript, as
prepared by Rebecca J. Collings, DausterjMurphy, www.daustermurphy.com, 303.522.1604, is a
complete and accurate account of the above -mentioned public hearing.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
Ctrs., ivt w414 CO41 e'x4
DS -61- ts.
r
2018-1449
- -.--_PL_aSo3-
1
1 APPEARANCES:
2 ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
3 COMMISSIONER STEVE MORENO, CHAIR
4 COMMISSIONER BARBARA KIRKMEYER, PRO-TEM
5 COMMISSIONER SEAN P. CONWAY
6 COMMISSIONER JULIE A. COZAD
7 COMMISSIONER MIKE FREEMAN
8 ALSO PRESENT:
9 ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD, TISA JUANICORENA
10 CLERK TO THE BOARD, ESTHER GESICK
11 ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, BOB CHOATE
12 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, KIM OGLE
13 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, EVAN PINKHAM
14 PLANNING SERVICES ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE, HAYLEY BALZANO
15 HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, BEN FRISSELL
16 APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE:
17 ANNE BEST -JOHNSON, TETRA TECH
18
19
20
2
1 (Beginning of audio recording.)
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right. Good
3 morning. It is February 5, Monday, 2018. It is now
4 10:11, and I'm going to call up Docket 2017-66.
5 Mr. Choate?
6 MR. CHOATE: For Docket 2017-86, this is
7 Case USR17-0043. The applicant is Cactus Hill Ranch
8 Company in care of Simon Contractors. The request is a
9 Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit
10 for Mineral Resource Development, including asphalt and
11 concrete batch plants; materials processing, crushing
12 and screening; material stockpiles; an office; a shop;
13 outdoor truck and employee parking in the Agricultural
14 Zone District.
15 This is part of the western half of
16 Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the Sixth
17 Prime Meridian in Weld County, located south of and
18 adjacent to County Road 80 1/2, east of and adjacent to
19 State Highway 257.
20 Original notice for this hearing was
21 published October 20, 2017, in the Greeley Tribune, and
22 the matter has been continued multiple times.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you,
24 Mr. Choate.
25 I just want to make a friendly note that
3
1 the public comment has been closed and we will not be
2 hearing anything from the public today, as that was
3 already previously closed. Simply, we're going to be
4 hearing from the applicant, and we'll then -- when we
5 begin into discussing where we're at with this,
6 conversation with the staff and the county here.
7 So we'll bring up the applicant. And I
8 know you had a presentation, I think we talked about
9 when I reviewed the audio of it all, that we're giving
10 you up to an hour on this. So please state your name
11 and address for the record.
12 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Good morning. Anne
13 Best Johnson with Tetra Tech, 1900 South Sunset Street,
14 Suite 1E, Longmont, Colorado 80501.
15 Materials provided on December 27th and
16 January 5th were direct response to questions raised at
17 the November hearing or response to staff questions
18 regarding the December 27th submittal.
19 As discussed at the January 10th hearing,
20 the application before you for consideration today is a
21 ready -mix concrete and asphalt batch plant, and not a
22 cement manufacturing facility.
23 The slide content before you today has not
24 changed with the exception of two issues. One, the date
25 on this slide was changed from January 10th to February 5th.
4
1 And the second item that changed is the rearrangement of
2 the slides. The slides that were presented at the last
3 hearing had been moved to the end, and the slides have
4 been rearranged, in order per the time limitations of an
5 hour, for the engineers to make comment and then follow
6 up with development standards and conditions of
7 approval.
8 So we have several individuals here on the
9 Simon team that are going to be available to you to
10 answer any questions that you may have. Note that John
11 Siren and Dr. Phillips were not able to join us back
12 today.
13 And just to -- a reminder, the intent of
14 this presentation, the engineers are going to present
15 regarding drainage, road improvements, and traffic. I
16 will then present the remaining conditions of approval
17 and development standards.
18 And each part of the presentation will
19 address the additional points of clarification that you
20 asked to be addressed at the November hearing as well as
21 how the applicant has gone above and beyond the code
22 requirements to meet the conditions of approval and
23 development standards. And this information is provided
24 based on site -specific research, facts, and scientific
25 evidence regarding the practical land use application --
5
1 or this particular land use application.
2 So the engineers were provided with one
3 hour to discuss these three items: Drainage, road
4 improvements, and traffic. In the essence of time, we
5 do respectfully request that the engineers be allowed to
6 do their presentation. They have prepared a succinct
7 discussion far below the one -hour timeframe, which will
8 allow for questions to occur afterwards.
9 Jeff and Dave, you are up.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Please state your
11 name and address for the record, please.
12 MR. BUTSON: My name is Jeffrey Butson.
13 I'm with Tetra Tech, 1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1E,
14 Longmont, Colorado.
15 MR. RAU: Dave Rau at Paragon Consulting
16 Group, 39672 Rangeview, Severance.
17 MR. BUTSON: To start, modifications have
18 been made to the storm water system design that we
19 presented originally back in October to address the
20 Water Storage and Supply Company's request to keep
21 runoff out of the canal. Modifications were included in
22 Exhibit H of the December 27th notebook as well as
23 Attachment J of the items provided on January 5th.
24 As illustrated on the screen, some water
25 runoff will be collected into two lined ponds that are
6
1 located on the south side of the property. The features
2 will include a standard water quality treatment
3 structure prior to flowing into an inverted siphon that
4 conveys flow under the canal and onto Cactus Hill Ranch.
5 The features -- the drainage features will
6 be lined with a compacted clay liner that meets capital
7 seepage rate standards. The system has been engineered
8 to contain flows up to a 300 -year event, which is above
9 and beyond the 100 -year design standard in the Weld
10 County Code.
11 Regarding Development Standard 30,
12 maintenance of historical flow patterns, the enhanced
13 drainage plan will accommodate requests by wick
14 (phonetic) to prevent storm water from entering the
15 Larimer County Canal. The flow rate from the site will
16 be reduced to the five-year pre -project flow rate for up
17 to the 100 -year storm event, in compliance with Weld
18 County Code.
19 Cactus Hill Ranch has supplied a letter
20 accepting the drainage found in the December 27th notebook
21 that's presented in Exhibit D of the 27th notebook. One
22 objective of the drainage plan is to restore the
23 historic flow patterns that existed prior to the
24 construction of the canal. The DWR has concurred that
25 the revised drainage plan conforms to state water law
7
1 and policies because the historic flow patterns will be
2 restored. Additional support materials are presented in
3 Attachments B and D of the January 5th package.
4 MR. RAU: Mitch will came up and talk
5 about the noise issues. With regard to the SPCCP, Simon
6 prepared a site -specific SPCCP, and that's included in
7 Exhibit S of the notebook. The regulation requires
8 secondary containment in an effort to go above and
9 beyond, as requested by the Board of County
10 Commissioners.
11 Simon has installed and will install
12 tertiary containment per the SPCCP and to contain the
13 petroleum storage units, and Simon acknowledges
14 Development Standard 18.
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any questions for
16 Jeff or David? Commissioner Cozad.
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: The tertiary
18 containment that you were just talking about, that is
19 above and beyond both state regulations and -- well, the
20 county doesn't have regulations for SPCCs, but those are
21 through the health department, correct?
22 MR. RAU: Actually, they're not. They're
23 through a federal regulation of the Clean Water Act,
24 Part 112. But the regulation only requires secondary
25 containment.
8
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Right.
2 MR. RAU: In addition to that, Simon's is
3 (unintelligible) tertiary (unintelligible).
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But the SPCC, does
5 that go to the state health department for -- do they
6 keep a copy of that?
7 MR. RAU: No. The way that rule works is
8 you've got to have the plan on site and implement the
9 plan and document training and inspections. And
10 typically the EPA does the inspections, oil and public
11 safety will get involved. If there's a release, they'll
12 ask far the plan.
13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So the plan has to be
14 on site so if somebody comes out, the full plan has to
15 be there that they can review if they -- somebody came
16 out and wanted to look at it?
17 MR. RAU: Absolutely, correct.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. But the
19 tertiary, going back to that, containment is not
20 required?
21 MR. RAU: Correct.
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But your design shows
23 tertiary containment?
24 MR. RAU: Correct.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Thank you.
9
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any questions?
2 Okay. Thank you.
3 MR. RAU: Thank you.
4 MR. BUTSON: Moving on to the road
5 improvements next.
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
7 MR. BUTSON: Pardon me.
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Can you go back to
9 your first slide which shows how the runoff -- yeah. So
10 I'm reading the Cactus Hill letter. I apologize. I
11 wanted to -- so the historic flows flow which way?
12 Because their letter talks about the historic flows will
13 be maintained. Can you help me in this diagram, show
14 where these historic flows off this property go?
15 MR. RAU: The historic flows
16 (unintelligible) down this drop across Cactus Hill's
17 property.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Can you take the mic
19 with you when you're over there, please?
20 MR. RAU: Yeah. The historic flows run
21 down, join part way through this field, and then
22 continue through to the (unintelligible).
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So traditionally
24 it's flowed off agricultural lands, correct? Dry land,
25 right?
10
1 MR. RAU: Off of this land? Is that what
2 you're saying they start?
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Correct. Now you're
4 going to lay a surface which will have industrial
5 purpose that -- so how will you capture those runoffs?
6 Because I know in the first hearing -- and that's what
7 I'm trying to go to -- it says in Development
8 Standard 30, it says the historical runoff amounts --
9 the -- I guess the planning commission changed this.
10 The historical -- it was the historical flow patterns
11 and runoff amounts on site will be maintained.
12 We took out flow patterns and just left
13 out the historic runoff amounts on site will be
14 maintained. So help me in terms of how you're proposing
15 to deal. Because one of the concerns that the public
16 raised was contamination of the ditch, correct?
17 MR. RAU: Correct.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So how are we
19 dealing with that issue? That's what I'm trying to get
20 to in terms of Cactus Hill's letter and your plan.
21 MR. RAU: Well, there's -- runoff from the
22 project is all captured in the water quality ponds.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
24 MR. RAU: And then conveyed underneath --
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: But none in the
11
1 ditch, though, right? Correct?
2 MR. RAU: There's none running into the
3 ditch.
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Correct.
5 MR. RAU: It's captured in the water
6 quality ponds on site, and then it's conveyed across the
7 ditch and runs across Cactus Hill's property.
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Thank you.
9 MR. RAU: Does that make sense?
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah. No, I'm just
11 trying to connect what Cactus Hill wrote in their
12 letter, which was in your exhibits and the plan. That's
13 all.
14 MR. RAU: Perfect.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm just trying to
16 connect it, because that was a concern that was brought
17 up in terms of water quality.
18 MR. RAU: Correct.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Historically did
22 storm water sheet flow off this property into the ditch?
23 MR. RAU: Yes, ma'am.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. So following
25 up with some of --
12
1 MR. RAU: And that was --
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Go ahead.
3 MR. RAU: -- after the ditch was
4 constructed. Prior to ditch construction, water just
5 flowed south across the property.
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So following up with
7 the questions, it's going to be contained on site, and
8 then it's going to be piped underneath the ditch over to
9 the adjacent property. Who owns the property to the
10 south?
11 MR. RAU: Cactus Hill.
12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. And there's
13 the agreement that's in place that's in our exhibits
14 that show the acceptance of that water?
15 MR. RAU: Correct. There's a license
16 agreement with the ability to maintain.
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And then --
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner, before
19 you leave that, if I may.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Just so I -- when
22 you're saying it's to the north from County Road
23 80 1/2 -- is that what you're talking about, into that
24 field? Is that what you're talking about?
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: South.
13
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Would it be south?
2 MR. RAU: Yeah.
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Uh-huh.
4 MR. RAU: It runs -- the slope of the land
5 is north to south.
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. So drainage
7 will be coming south?
8 MR. RAU: Correct.
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Sorry.
10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Just one final
11 question just to follow up with Mr. Butson. In your --
12 at the beginning in your early part of the presentation,
13 you also said that your -- you designed this far a
14 300 -year event versus a 100 -year, which is -- that's
15 above the County Code regulation; is that correct?
16 MR. BUTSON: That's correct.
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Thank you.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Continue.
19 MR. RAU: Okay.
20 MR. BUTSON: Regarding the improvements
21 and maintenance agreement with Weld County, we will work
22 with the Public Works Department to -- regarding the
23 timing of improvements and enter into a road
24 improvements and maintenance agreement.
25 Historically or traditionally this is
14
1 prepared after the approval of the USR. The final
2 design, geotechnical investigation and pavement design,
3 will take about four to six months to complete including
4 public agency review by CDOT and Weld County. We will
5 also work with the PVREA for relocation of local power
6 lines if necessary as a part of the road improvements.
7 Significant improvements to State Highway
8 257 and Weld County Road 80 1/2 are proposed to safely
9 allow movement of traffic. Improvements include a left
10 turn lane from State Highway 257 to Weld County Road
11 80.5 allowing left turning traffic to safely decelerate
12 and stop outside a travel lane; a right turn lane from
13 State Highway 257 to Weld County Road 80.5 allowing
14 right turning traffic to safely decelerate as it leaves
15 the travel lane; right turn and left turn lanes from
16 Weld County Road 80.5 along separation of traffic from
17 80.5 for simultaneous turns onto the highway.
18 Additionally, a right turn may be made if
19 another vehicle is waiting to turn left onto the
20 highway. An acceleration lane on northbound State
21 Highway 257 will allow traffic to get up to speed and
22 merge safely. Both CDOT and Weld County have been
23 provided these preliminary sketches that are shown in
24 the presentation. Agreements have been made in
25 principle, but everything is subject to final review at
15
1 both public agencies.
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And these are in
3 Exhibit F? Sorry. What exhibit is this all located in?
4 Is it F? Oh, there it is. F. Never mind. I answered
5 my own question.
6 MR. BUTSON: Okay. And we'll move on next
7 to conditions of approval 1.H and 1.I. Condition of
8 approval 1.H requires that the applicant will submit
9 evidence from the Poudre Valley REA, that the proposed
10 improvements will not impact their ability to service
11 the existing electric line adjacent to Weld County
12 Road 80 1/2.
13 I've spoken to the PVR -- PVREA to discuss
14 this project, letters from the PVREA stating their
15 intent to serve and no conflict have been provided and
16 are included in Exhibit K of your December 27th notebook.
17 Condition 1.I requires that the applicant
18 submit evidence from CDOT that the concerns and issues
19 in the referral response have been addressed to their
20 satisfaction. We have consulted closely with COOT to
21 discuss the proposed improvements to the intersection.
22 The traffic study was prepared in
23 accordance with accepted engineering practices and
24 modified this report to address CDOT's questions,
25 included in the report in the December 27 notebook at
16
1 Exhibit G.
2 Preliminary sketches of the proposed
3 improvement have been included in this presentation.
4 CDOT then provided a letter stating that Condition 1.I
5 has been satisfied. That letter is presented in
6 Exhibit E of the January 5th notebook.
7 One of the questions brought up by the
8 Board was regarding the on -site turning radius of
9 trucks. The site design is designed to accommodate the
10 trucks that are planning to come into this site. We
11 have prepared an exhibit here on the screen that shows
12 the turning tracks for the typical vehicles that will
13 enter and exit the site. Those are shown in red.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So, Jeff, if it's
15 all right, if I may ask, I know when we had discussion
16 before, you're planning on paving inside there, laying
17 down some asphalt down for (unintelligible)?
18 MR. BUTSON: That's correct.
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
20 MR. BUTSON: During the public comment
21 period, there were some questions regarding the traffic
22 study that was prepared for this project. We did
23 compare our traffic study to the traffic count provided
24 by a private citizen. The perceived discrepancy in the
25 counts was due to differences between a peak time count
17
1 and an all -day count. An all -day count was conducted by
2 the private citizen and presented during the public
3 comment period. The traffic study was conducted with a
4 peak time count in accordance with the standard
5 engineering practice for these types of studies.
6 This study was included in the original
7 application material and supplemented in Exhibit G. If
8 you are to scale up the peak time count to an all -day
9 count, the values are essentially the same.
10 There was a question regarding
11 construction traffic versus regular traffic. Additional
12 temporary traffic is anticipated when the site is being
13 constructed. Construction traffic will include
14 deliveries of permanent equipment and some construction
15 equipment.
16 Site work is expected to take up to three
17 to four months to complete. Additional time will be
18 needed for highway improvements beyond that three to
19 four months, as I mentioned.
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Oh, Commissioner
21 Conway.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Where's that traffic
23 count in your -- I'm trying to find that.
24 MR. BUTSON: The -- the revised traffic
25 study is in Exhibit G of the December 27th notebook.
16
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Okay. And
2 it's cited -- okay. What was the -- you said there was
3 an all -day count versus a peak count, but they
9 essentially came out the same. Can you clarify that?
5 MR. BUTSON: Sure. So a peak time count
6 is only run for --
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No, I understand the
8 difference between a peak count. What were the numbers?
9 MR. BUISON: Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Let
10 me -- if you bear with me a second.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That's all right.
12 And if you want to do it later, I don't want to
13 interrupt your presentation to the Board. I just -- dig
14 them out and get them to me later. That's fine. Thank
15 you. Maybe -- and if I find them, I'll let you know.
16 MR. BUTSON: Regarding the haul routes,
17 shown in Exhibit E of the December 27th notebook and
18 materials included with the original application, haul
19 routes of the site are intended to be State Highway 257
20 and State Highway 14. Use of and proximity to the state
21 highway system was a key consideration in selecting this
22 site.
23 That concludes my presentation. There
24 will be additional slides.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway,
19
1 I think those charts that you're looking for are towards,
2 the end of that on G.
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: On the end of G?
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: The traffic study
5 counts, (unintelligible) counts.
6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you,
7 Mr. Chair.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right. Anne.
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: All right. So that
10 concludes the presentation route from the engineers.
11 And the remainder of this presentation details how all
12 remaining conditions of approval, development standards,
13 and any unanswered questions have been and will be
14 addressed above and beyond what's outlined in the County
15 Code.
16 Talking really quickly during rehearsals
17 this weekend and last week at home, I got through this
18 in 22 minutes, so we'll see if I can stay -- stay on
19 target there.
20 So the three conditions of approval listed
21 on this slide here have been discussed with Planning,
22 the Public Works staff, as well as the Town of
23 Severance. A revised access permit was submitted with
24 the December 27th notebook to reflect internal paved
25 roads. That was Exhibit A of your -- the December 27th
20
1 notebook.
2 The lighting, landscaping, visual
3 mitigation and parking plans were submitted to planning
4 staff, Exhibit BE in the 12/27 notebook; was further
5 enhanced to remove a light pole and to illustrate how
6 low -light fixtures in the supplemental information on
7 January 5th would be incorporated.
8 The visual mitigation plan and landscaping
9 screening plan was submitted to the Town of Severance.
10 In addition, we reached out to Platte River Power
11 Authority to confirm that there would be no conflict
12 with the proposed plans. Correspondence indicating
13 support from Severance and no conflict from Platte River
14 Power Authority are included in Exhibit C of the
15 December 27th notebook.
16 Lighting on site is proposed, of course,
17 for safety. The International Dark -Sky Association
18 provides suggestions which will be utilized. Lighting
19 will only be turned on when needed. Lighting will only
20 illuminate the area that's required. Lighting will only
21 be as bright as safety measures require. Lighting will
22 be shielded. Lighting will be fixed within the plant
23 and illuminate the work area.
24 All lighting, with the exception of the
25 sign entrance lights, are downcast and will be shielded.
21
1 Now, the entrance sign lighting will be shielded and
2 directed towards the sign. The sign will be minimally
3 lit to illuminate the features as needed from a safety
4 perspective.
5 One pole that was proposed near the office
6 building has been replaced with two on -building lights.
7 And on -building lights are used for security and safety
8 purposes.
9 This is a 3D rendition of the western
10 berm. We worked with a landscape architect to select
11 disease- and drought -tolerant materials to prepare the
12 west visual mitigation plan.
13 The landscape architect selects the --
14 suggested the largest size that will do well with
15 transplanting and a variety to reduce problems
16 associated with planting monocultures. Plant material
17 was selected to have year-round color and texture and
18 interest.
19 After listening to the concerns expressed
20 by property owners on the east, a berm that is
21 approximately 10 feet tall and 75 feet wide has been
22 added to the side on the east. This berm is landscaped
23 as illustrated in the 3D rendering here to enhance
24 visual mitigation. And this is a view from the east
25 looking west towards the plant. And this also has a
22
1 photo of the existing stockpiles, and you can't see
2 them.
3 The truck parking area used to be located
4 280 feet to the east of the equipment parking area. The
5 truck and equipment parking areas now have been
6 combined. The berm placement on the east necessitated
7 the need to move the office, shop, and fueling
8 activities farther south of Weld County Road 80 1/2 by
9 approximately 75 feet. These uses, along with parking,
10 will be screened by not only the fence along 80 1/2, but
11 also the landscape berm as part of the visual
12 mitigation.
13 Their landscape materials that have been
14 proposed -- and these are on the landscape plan that are
15 included in your packages. Materials selected include a
16 hardy mix of evergreen trees for year-round screening,
17 shrubs to add interest and color and complement the
18 evergreen trees, a hardy vine for the fence along Weld
19 County Road 80 1/2, as well as grasses to complement the
20 planting berms for texture and color interest. The
21 disturbed area between the fence and the road will be
22 planted with wildflowers and native grass seed.
23 Now, this is a graphic illustration that
24 illustrates the view corridor. It is from the property
25 to the neighbor closest to the -- close to the property
23
1 to the east. Right here, this is the house. There is a
2 barn immediately west of the house, and then this is a
3 large agricultural stockpile of maybe silage or other
4 soil, some other material. It's -- it's a tall pile of
5 material. And then you can see the site line directly
6 from the middle of the house going through the barn,
7 through the pile, and through the site.
8 So the top graphic illustrates the view
9 from the residential structure to the west to the plant
10 site. And this is in 2D view. The lowest graphic is a
11 true height graphic illustrating topography and
12 structure heights as well as the visual corridors. So
13 that's this bottom graphic here.
14 This top graphic here is a 1 to 5
15 exaggeration so we can see the differences, because
16 there's not much difference looking here at this view.
17 So we wanted to exaggerate it just a little bit.
18 Distance, as we all know, really minimizes the view of
19 what we're looking at.
20 So there are three sight lines. The first
21 is at eye level when we're standing. This is at 5 feet
22 above the ground, and that sight line is right down
23 here. And that's as if we were looking right across the
24 property as if there is no difference for distance. The
25 highest line illustrates what your eye actually sees
29
1 because of distance. That goes right over the plant.
2 And the middle line is what you would see if the barn
3 was not there.
4 Now, in order to take this into
5 consideration, we stepped down from the house so that we
6 wouldn't impede -- have the barn impede the view flow.
7 So we wanted to give that consideration. And this is
8 what the view corridor looks like.
9 The parking plan that was submitted to
10 Planning staff prior to the hearings with Exhibit B of
11 the December 27th notebook was slightly modified in the
12 supplemental information provided to you on January 5th.
13 The modification from December 27th to January 5th is that
14 the word "truck" was omitted in the December 27th version
15 and added in the January 5th version.
16 If you'll remember, the original truck
17 parking was over here, 280 feet over. But we
18 consolidated and moved truck and equipment parking here,
19 and just in December we left the word "truck" out, and
20 so we added it in January.
21 So condition of approval 1.J, with several
22 modifications that need to be made to the plat, and
23 these are standard activity that are made between the
24 application and plat recordings. These are made to --
25 in review from referral agency comments and staff
25
1 comments. And in an effort to illustrate intent to meet
2 the conditions, we've made and submitted our first and
3 second round of modifications based on the comments
4 received.
5 These were included as Exhibit B to the
6 December 27th notebook with minor housekeeping in
7 attachment A to the January 5th submittal. Modifications
8 from the original submittal from the application include
9 placing the development standards on the plat; internal
10 paving; verifying the auto turn for internal turns;
11 adding bales for noise reduction on the north, east, and
12 south side of the recycling areas; the truck and
13 equipment parking consolidation; adding just a few extra
14 parking spaces for occasional vendors, should they come
15 to the site; adding the eastern berm; moving the fence
16 that is near the western berm that was originally
17 proposed on the west side of the berm to the east side
18 of the berm at the suggestion of the Town of Severance,
19 which actually makes a great esthetic improvement from
20 how it looks from 257; adding the drainage siphons;
21 reducing the fence height by removing the concertina
22 wire; lighting fixture modifications based on the
23 International Dark -Sky Association; and adding plant
24 material on both berms.
25 Condition of Approval 2, 3, and 4 give
26
1 stipulations for how we need to submit the plans for
2 review by planning staff and timing. Condition of
3 approval 5.A discusses grading permit requirements, and
4 we acknowledge that a grading permit for the permanent
5 facility, including a construction storm water
6 management plan, is going to be finalized and submitted
7 a month prior to any gradient activities, according to
8 the condition.
9 Condition of Approval 5.B, tracking
10 control will now be managed by the internal paved roads.
11 Conditions of Approval 6, and 6.B, these are items
12 regarding on -site wastewater treatment and a class 5
13 injection well. Those permits, if needed, are
14 acknowledged prior to a certificate of occupancy on
15 site.
16 Condition of Approval 7.A are off -site
17 improvements. A schematic design has been included in
18 this January 5th supplement as Attachment C and as
19 Exhibit F in the December 27th notebook, as discussed
20 previously.
21 Condition of Approval 7.B, a draft
22 emergency action and safety plan, was submitted with the
23 USR application and will be finalized with Roy Rudisill,
24 with the county, and Fire Marshal Sandra Fredrickson.
25 7.D, a decommissioning plan has been
27
1 submitted with the notebook. And as discussed before, I
2 don't think 7.C exists. It was probably just an error,
3 and we can correct that. And the timing of plat
4 recording is acknowledged.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Quick clarification.
7 On the resolution that I have in front of me, I don't
8 see a 7.C or D. I have A and B; that's it. Is that
9 correct? Okay.
10 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Okay.
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I just want to make
12 sure I'm looking at the most recent resolution. Thanks.
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So moving on to
14 development standards, there are responsibilities
15 associated with approval of a permit. Those are listed
16 in Development Standards 1 and 2, and those are
17 acknowledged. Development Standard 3, hours of
18 operation for the office, those are acknowledged and
19 agreed to.
20 Development Standard 4.A.8, this -- we are
21 requesting a minor modification here to indicate that if
22 private companies request night paving operations, that
23 they be allowed to do night paving for private as well
24 as CDOT and county operations, in case there's like a
25 parking lot .or something that needs to be paved at
28
1 night. And then also we wanted to clarify the
2 applicant's name. So those are the only modifications
3 being requested, and these have not changed.
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Can you leave that
5 one up?
6 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thank you.
8 MS. BEST JOHNSON: And a sample, this was
9 provided -- let's see here -- to you in writing as well,
10 to make it easy for you, pages 79 to 94 of Exhibit CP.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: It's in our last exhibit on
12 page 110, Commissioner, also.
13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thank you. Can you
14 hang on just a second?
15 MS. BEST JOHNSON: You bet.
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thank you. I have
17 that one that I think everybody -- yeah, I've got that
18 one.
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Questions
20 (unintelligible)?
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thanks.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Continue, Anne.
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Thank you. Development
24 Standard 4.B.3 and 4, hours of operation, we are
25 respectfully requesting that the hours of operation for
29
1 the ready -mix mirror that of the asphalt plant, and
2 these two changes reflect that. They're exactly the
3 same.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Questions on that?
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Just -- can you leave
6 that up just for a second? Mr. Chair?
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Can you explain your
9 reason for -- I'm sorry, because I was trying to write
10 and read and listen to you at the same time. So you're
11 requesting to have Number 4.B.3 stricken. Can you
12 explain why that is again?
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Just to be consistent
14 with the asphalt plant, hours of operation, they weren't
15 listed for asphalt, so we wanted the asphalt plant and
16 the ready -mix conditions for hours of operation to be
17 the same.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And then you're
19 suggesting adding the condition number-- a new Number 4?
20 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Uh-huh.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. All right.
22 Thanks.
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: You're welcome.
24 Each of these standards, Development
25 Standards 5 through 12, are acknowledged, and they've
30
1 been reflected in the application materials, the
2 enhanced plans, and discussed previously in this
3 presentation and other presentations you've heard from
4 us.
5 Simon acknowledges Development
6 Standards 19 through 25 and shall abide by them. As far
7 as Development Standard 26 goes, in our original
8 presentation on November 8th, we shared with you that
9 these permits here on this slide are those that are
10 required and associated with the temporary plant.
11 And the permits on this slide illustrate
12 those that are associated and necessary to operate the
13 permit facility. Both illustrate Simon's understanding
14 of the permits, compliance, and responsibility to
15 federal, state, and local jurisdictions to operate the
16 facility.
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Before you move on,
18 may I ask?
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So there's -- my
21 quick counting, there's 22 -- there's 22 permits. These
22 are all local, state -- any federal? Yes, it has PCC.
23 And then how many for -- can you go back to the previous
24 slide?
25 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Six, yeah.
31
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: These six --- I'm
2 sorry.
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
4 Kirkmeyer.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: But these six
6 that were for the temporary facility, they're
7 encompassed in the following 22?
8 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So essentially 22
10 is the accurate number of permits that are required?
11 MS. BEST JOHNSON: For the permit
12 facility.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Continue.
15 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So Development Standard
16 27 -- okay. Development Standard• 27 -- and I've just
17 been told that -- oh, the third from the bottom
18 agreement there is with Cactus Hill.
19 Okay. So on 27, controlling noxious weeds
20 on the property, that's acknowledged. Development
21 Standard 28 regarding access, maintenance, and tracking,
22 this will be much better managed now that the site
23 circulation route is proposed to be paved on site and
24 that they're proposing to pave their travel lane on --
25 or travel way on Weld County Road 80 1/2 as well. So
32
1 track should be fairly minimized.
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So before you go
3 further on that, so there's not going to be any staging
4 on 80 1/2 right there? Is that where you had some of
5 your trucks before?
6 MS. BEST JOHNSON: There was no -- I'm
7 going to have Jeff Butson come up and address that one
8 issue. There was a perception that we were staging that
9 was brought up. That happened to be a weather -related
10 incident. But there's no plans to stage on 80 1/2 or on
11 State Highway 257 at all.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. I wanted to
13 clarify, because I drove out there Saturday. I spent
14 some time out just driving around the property a couple
15 times and I was just wondering. Commissioner Conway.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So how do you handle
17 weather -related events like that that created the
18 pictures we saw?
19 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Well, now that the
20 site's proposed to be paved and that the road is going
21 to be paved, the issue should be minimized, if
22 completely gone away.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So to Commissioner
24 Moreno's question, there will be no stacking up of
25 trucks? And if that's the case, that will be a
33
1 violation, correct?
2 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes. If there are no
3 stacking or staging of trucks in the county right of way
4 and there is stacking or staging of trucks in the county
5 right of way, that would be a violation.
6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And do you have a
7 plan to deal with weather -related events, as you
8 described them?
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Care to share or --
11 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Shoveling the hard
12 surface.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. Would
14 trucks not be brought through the site? Would they be
15 brought? How would they be dealt with if trucks are
16 en route? Because these trucks are coming from Wyoming.
17 They're coming from a great distance, correct?
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Trucks bringing
19 materials to the site are coming when they have to bring
20 it when they're not stockpiled, when the material isn't
21 stockpiled.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So, yes, I'm sure Simon
24 would be making a plan to shovel. And I can bring Brett
25 up here to talk about their -- their plan for on -site
34
1 maintenance. I really don't (unintelligible) for their
2 on -site (unintelligible).
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm good with that.
4 You brought it up, so that's why I wanted to ask.
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah.
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Because now when I
7 listened to everything on the November hearing and the
8 January hearing again and the public comment about that
9 too, so you're clarifying that all those trucks are
10 going to be inside, and that's why you're paving
11 everything? There won't be any of those trucks right
12 there on 80?
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That is the intent.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Thanks.
15 MS. BEST JOHNSON: No -- and then 29, we
16 just discussed. So then on 32, lighting, we provided
17 plans and we previously discussed lighting is minimal,
18 and we did adopt International Dark -Sky mitigation
19 measures. And then ❑evelopment Standards 33 through
20 39 --
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Can you hold up
22 just a second? You're talking really fast.
23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I know you're
25 probably trying to get in underneath the hour, but --
35
1 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- we're all like
3 sitting here trying to write really fast as well, so --
4 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Okay. I apologize.
5 COMMISSIONF,R KTRKMEYER: So you said adopt
6 Dark -Sky what? I'm sorry.
7 MS. BEST JOHNSON: The International
8 Dark -Sky Association lists lots of things that
9 organizations, commercial, and industrial sites and
10 residential developments can do to help minimize lights
11 spilling on to other properties.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And those are
13 best practices essentially?
14 .MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah. And that's a
15 great idea of -- great way of putting it.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So where's that
19 reflected in development -- you said it's
20 incorporated -- the Dark -Sky's is incorporated into
21 Development Standard 32.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: In the lighting
23 plan.
24 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah, in the
25 lighting plan back in the conditions.
36
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. So it's in
2 the lighting plan.
3 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Uh-huh, the lighting
4 plan. We --
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And will adhere to
6 the Dark -Sky's -- okay. Thank you.
7 MS. BEST JOHNSON: You bet. We removed a
8 light -- a freestanding light pole and instead we put
9 on -building lights. And all of the lights will be
10 shielded, and there's a narrative that was added.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. 1.B. Thank
12 you.
13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any other questions
14 or clarification?
15 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I'll try to slow down.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Continue, Anne.
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: All right. Thank you.
19 So Development Standards 33 through 39 are acknowledged.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: May I just ask --
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
22 Kirkmeyer.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So when you're
24 saying "acknowledged," you're saying agreed upon?
25 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
37
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Great. Thank
2 you.
3 MS. BEST JOHNSON: We recognize you're
4 asking Simon Contractors to adhere to them, and that
5 they will be adhered to and agreed to.
6 And I have a closing statement.
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Go ahead.
8 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So the materials
9 provided to you on December 27th, on January 5th, our
10 presentation on November 8th, the rebuttal on January 10th,
11 and today illustrate how this facility will meet the
12 intent of a USR in an Ag Zone District. Asphalt and
13 concrete batch plants are listed as a contemplated use
14 in the Ag Zone District through the USR process.
15 And Simon Contractors has illustrated how
16 they not only meet, but exceed the conditions of
17 approval and development standards. Simon Contractors
18 has deployed mitigating measures and answered questions
19 with factual information that directly relates to this
20 specific site and this site.
21 Specific development plan is in accordance
22 with Agricultural Goa1.9. The responses and mitigating
23 measures far exceed what is required by County Code and
24 illustrates the intent of Simon Contractors to go above
25 and beyond to mitigate even potential conflicts and
38
1 compliance with state and federal laws.
2 Simon has deployed mitigating measures to
3 address noise, dust, and air quality, and water quality.
4 A professional appraiser's opinion was provided to
5 address concerns with property values. Simon has
6 deployed mitigating measures to address the concerns of
7 lighting, including the removal of lights and adopting
8 the International Dark -Sky measures.
9 Many express that improvements to the road
10 system were needed to accommodate the proposed land use.
11 Simon has proposed improvements with both CDOT and Weld
12 County and agrees that development should pay its own
13 way.
14 As noted in the comprehensive plan, the
15 population of the county is expected to increase by
16 250,000 people by the year 2030. And this is in
17 Section 22-1-20 of the Comp Plan. And, in fact, we've
18 heard by many organizations, including the state
19 demographer and upstate, that Weld and Larimer Counties
20 are one of the fastest growing metropolitan service
21 areas in the nation.
22 As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, in
23 22-2-30-D, the County recognizes that tension may
24 result, not only from the impacts to present use, but
25 also from resistance to change and growth.
39
1 The county and Town of Severance have
2 recognized areas of urban growth and development nodes.
3 The communities of Severance and Windsor did not express
4 concerns with the application, neither did referral
5 agencies. Severance was consulted regarding the vision
6 mitigation plan, and their comments have been
7 incorporated into the enhanced plans.
8 Placing construction materials is -- in an
9 area of future growth and near major transportation
10 corridors is a smart decision to allow for the
11 affordable availability of materials to all consumers.
12 The site engineering, design, and mitigation measures
13 deployed by Simon Contractors will ensure this land use
14 will be harmonious with the current and future land use
15 of a growing area.
16 And that concludes our formal rebuttal,
17 and we are here to answer any questions that you may
18 have.
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. I -- may I
20 first -- I missed --
21 UNKNOWN MALE: You're theCchair.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Sorry to jump in
23 here. Because I did spend a lot of time since last week
24 and prior to that and this weekend going through a lot
25 of this stuff, and you've kind of already covered a
40
1 number of things, but when I was reviewing some of this
2 here, just so I understand it, 250 trucks, is that
3 what's estimated for the future within here going in and
4 out of that area?
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That's the maximum
6 daily count that --
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: That you would
8 expect?
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: -- that we -- that
10 could be handled. Now, there are going to be days where
11 there may be zero. There could be some days where there
12 are 50. But that would be the maximum ever anticipated.
13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: For the future,
14 growth?
15 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. And let's
17 see. There was something else in here that I was
18 reading -- or maybe that I was listening to in the
19 hearing that the citizens had a lot of concerns about,
20 if there's an accident, that you would start moving your
21 trucks on County Road 80 and 19, 78, 21, or 80 1/2. And
22 was -- so I guess do you recall that part of the
23 conversation with -- can you comment on that again?
24 MS. BEST JOHNSON: There are a lot of
25 what -ifs, and Simon would have to -- you know, I can't
41
1 make a comment regarding how they would handle a what -if
2 scenario, if there was an accident at that intersection,
3 other than bringing -- bringing Brett or John up to
4 address what if there was an accident at that
5 intersection, what would they do if they had a delivery.
6 You know, best management practices also
7 includes talking with your customer. So, I'm sure there
8 are a lot of things that they deploy, but I can't answer
9 that question for you. That's an operational question
10 that they'll have to address.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: And I know there's
12 going to be more probably when we start talking a little
13 bit further about the noise and everything,
14 (unintelligible) maximum (unintelligible) and stuff, but
15 I'll leave that for some of the other commissioners.
16 Commissioner Conway, I'll go ahead and let
17 you --
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah. I should have
19 asked you this when you had the landscaping up. You
20 showed this picture, which was part of your
21 presentation. But in your submittal to us, you had a
22 picture like this. Do you recall this? I can give this
23 to you. It was in the book you gave us which shows --
24 this is the western view. Do you have that -- or you
25 can put it on -- there it is. Thank you.
42
1 So my question is related to the trees
2 that are blocking -- the plant there. How -- how long
3 will it take for those trees to grow to that maturity?
4 Because you're planting 6 -foot trees, correct?
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes. And we had the 3D
6 rendering artist render these at mid-life height, not at
7 full height. So the trees grow approximately a foot a
8 year, depending on conditions, and I'll let -- I know
9 Kim Ogle has a great background.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah.
11 MS. BEST JOHNSON: And he can either
12 support that or tell me I'm all wet. So --
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So how long -- my
14 question was: To reach that level of maturity, how many
15 years are we talking about?
16 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Five to seven.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So those trees are
18 how high?
19 MS. BEST JOHNSON: 12 to 15 feet high.
20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That's a 12- to
21 15 -foot high -- it looks closer to 20 to me, but if you
22 say 12 to 15. So they start out at 6. And I'll check
23 these numbers with our on -staff horticulturist. Kim,
24 would you conclude it would take five to six years to
25 _ make -- or longer, at one foot a year?
43
1 MS. OGLE: To get 12 feet, it would be
2 about six years, that's correct.
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Six years. So
4 six years to reach that probably?
5 MS. OGLE: Correct.
6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Thank you.
7 MS. OGLE: I believe those trees are on a
8 berm.
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Oh -huh.
10 MS. OGLE: Yeah.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: But they start out
12 at 6 foot -- what height would you estimate those trees
13 on the berm to the west or to the right, by the pole
14 there, the telephone pole? Are those 6, 8 feet?
15 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I'm looking at the
16 plant schedule, so let me --
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No, take your time.
18 I know it's computer -generated, so I just needed to get
19 a --
20 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah, 6 to 8 feet.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. So it would
22 take debatably six, seven years to get to that height?
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Right. And shrubs grow
24 a little bit faster than the trees do.
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And I think you
44
1 answered -- this was asked and answered. Your water
2 supply is coming from --
3 MS. BEST JOHNSON: There will be a water
4 truck, and then the domestic water supply is from North
5 Weld County Water District.
6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. To regularly
7 water the shrubbery and the trees? Okay. Thank you.
8 That's all I had.
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any of the other
10 commissioners? Are there questions of staff at this
11 point? Just one more time, I know you've already stated
12 on record, but everything that we have discussed to this
13 point in your consideration if the Board was to move
14 forward of approval, you've pointed out some things for
15 consideration, the conditions and development standards.
16 And just one more time on the record that
17 you will affirm that you will abide by -- in compliance
18 with everything that is put into the conditions and
19 development standards in order for this to move forward?
20 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes. Simon Contractors
21 has indicated that they will abide by the conditions of
22 approval and the development standards as proposed in
23 the revised copy provided to us prior to
24 (unintelligible) with the condition that they are
25 respectfully requesting changes to those two development
45
1 standards.
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I do have some
4 questions, if I may.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
6 Klrkmeye_r.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: All right. I
8 thought I talked fast, but I'm thinking you talk as fast
9 as I do. So I just have a few questions as I was going
10 through here. So can you tell me the last time when the
11 property -- subject property was irrigated? Because
12 it's currently not being irrigated.
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Correct. And if I
14 cannot, then I'm going to go ask the property owner, if
15 you'll give me a second to run back and ask.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
17 MS. BEST JOHNSON: The property owner
18 indicates that the last time it was irrigated was 2016.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Okay. And
20 then -- so you stated that you already have submitted
21 evidence from Poudre REA that the proposed improvements
22 will not impact your ability -- their ability to service
23 the area?
24 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Correct.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And you submitted
46
1 that already to the planning department?
2 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Correct. That was in
3 your Exhibit CO, page 237 and 238.
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. And then
5 on page 8 of your draft, it talks about that the
6 applicant shall submit evidence from the Colorado
7 Department of Transportation that the concerns and
8 issues have been addressed. Have you already submitted
9 that evidence? Sorry. I was trying to keep up with
10 you. But did she say --
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think she did say
12 it was satisfied. That's what I wrote down.
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes, that was
14 satisfied.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So that's
16 already -- that evidence has already been submitted?
17 MS. BEST JOHNSON: It has been. That is
18 in your CP, page 46.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Okay.
20 And so we didn't require a dust abatement plan, but I
21 know you said that basically you were paving the
22 circulation route.
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Correct. And we did
24 submit a dust mitigation plan with our application, and
25 that included sprinkling and things like that. But now
47
1 that we're paving the internal roads, there are other
2 items that we will be doing to improve air quality and
3 reduce air quality perceived concerns.
4 And I can have Jeff Harrington come up and
5 talk about those, because those are related specifically
6 to the APEN, in compliance with the APEN, and Jeff is
7 here to address those if you'd like.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: If I may,
9 Commissioner, jump in. If I can, say, weigh into this
10 too, one of the other things when I was reviewing
11 everything too, it talked about Simon would also be
12 watering down as the mixing and everything else was
13 being done because of concern with dust from the
14 materials and everything else that was going to
15 processed. Is that correct too?
16 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. That's just
18 simply spraying it with water? Is that what --
19 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I'll let Jeff ask --
20 answer that question.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Thank you,
22 Commissioner.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
24 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Do you want Jeff to
25 come up?
48
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: That would be
2 great.
3 MR. HARRINGTON: Good morning. Yes, that
4 would be by spraying.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: State your name and
6 address, please.
7 MR. HARRINGTON: Oh, I'm sorry. Jeff
8 Harrington, and I'm with Tetra Tech at 451 Presumpscot
9 Street, Portland, Maine 04103.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. So is
11 there a dust abatement plan? Because I don't see a
12 development standard or anything that's associated with
13 that.
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: It was submitted with
15 the original application, a dust mitigation plan, but
16 then we have the dust --
17 MR. HARRINGTON: Right. So Development
18 Standard 13 addresses fugitive dust management. And of
19 course (unintelligible) permit, the construction permit
20 application, the APEN with CDPHE, that will also further
21 address the fugitive dust management on site.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Is there
23 any development standard that basically says that the
24 internal roads will be paved? Because I couldn't find
25 one, but that doesn't mean it's not on here.
49
1 MS. BEST JOHNSON: No, there's not a
2 development standard. We're just proposing that, again,
3 to go above and beyond to mitigate (unintelligible).
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. That's all
5 I have for right now.
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you. I do
8 have a question for staff, though.
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
10 Kirkmeyer,
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you. So
12 one of the conditions of approval -- it's J.1.6 on
13 page 9 -- talks about setback radiuses from existing oil
14 and gas tank batteries. I could be incorrect here, but
15 my understanding was those setback radiuses are for
16 residential properties or for residential dwellings,
17 correct? Like they're supposed to be set back like
18 350 feet?
19 MS. OGLE: Right. They're for anything
20 that has habitable space, and it is defined by the
21 building code. So an office, batch plant, if there's
22 any oil and gas near there, they'd have to meet that
23 setback requirement.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Thank you.
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Mr. Chair.
50
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Staff, what -- the
3 noise level, what development standard is that? I
4 couldn't find it here. Maybe I'm -- I've gone through
5 this three times.
6 MR. FRISSELL: Hang on just a second. I'm
7 going to pull it up. It appears that Development
8 Standard 15 addresses the maximum noise level on page 3
9 of the USR development standards.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Mine's not here.
11 MS. OGLE: It's top of page 3. There you
12 go.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: There it is. Top of
14 the heading. Thank you. Clarifying question.
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Light industrial
17 again is what?
16 MR. FRISSELL: It is 70 during the day and
19 65 decibels during the evening or nighttime.
20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: 70 during the day
22 and --
23 MR. FRISSELL: And 65 during the evening.
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And residential is
25 50, 55-
51
1 MR. FRISSELL: 55 and 50.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: May I?
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
5 Kirkmeyer.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So my question is
7 of staff. Is there any development standard or
8 condition that speaks to specifically that no runoff
9 from the property will go into the ditch?
10 MS. OGLE: There is not, I don't believe.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
12 MS. OGLE: We just have Development
13 Number -- Standard Number 30, historical runoff amounts
14 on site will be maintained.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Uh-huh.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I saw that.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: If I may ask
19 the applicant?.
2O COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
21 Kirkmeyer.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sorry. Again, I
23 know Commissioner Cozad was trying to write everything
24 down that you had on that one slide. Could you go back
25 over again what you believe the hours of operation need
52
1 to be, and could we just start at 4.3.1? And I guess
2 I'd like to hear your comments again on those. Sorry, I
3 was reading and trying to write down at the same time as
4 well.
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That's okay.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And there weren't
7 any changes that you were asking for for 4.A, correct?
8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yes, there were.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Oh, there were?
10 Maybe can we just start with Development Standard 4, and
11 if you would go back through that again? And I
12 apologize. I was trying to catch you all, but I
13 don't -- I don't think I got it.
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I'm sorry. And I had
15 no caffeine today, so --
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I don't drink
17 caffeine, so --
18 Can you go back one more, because I think
19 that goes back to 4.A.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: There it is. 4.A.4.
21 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Okay. So the hours of
22 operation for the asphalt plant right now, 4.A.1 states
23 the plant will typically only operate Monday through
24 Saturday; two, the standard hours of plant operation
25 will be limited to one hour before sunrise to one hour
53
1 after sunset; three, load -out from storage silos will be
2 limited to one hour before sunrise to one hour after
3 sunset.
4 And there were clarification requests made
5 to just indicate that when the plant is operating at
6 night, it will only occur when material is requested by
7 cities, counties, or CDOT for night paving projects.
8 We wanted that to include -- or a private
9 company, like if Safeway or a King Soopers wanted their
10 parking lot paved at night, they wanted to have the
11 opportunity to bid on that work and be able to receive
12 that work for night paving. So that's why that was
13 included in there. And this is for the asphalt. It's
14 to clarify private companies could be considered for
15 night paving.
16 And then the other change is, then -- oh,
17 go back. Sorry, Esther. Depending on the request of
18 the customer versus jurisdiction, because jurisdiction
19 respects a governmental -- it's implied that that's
20 governmental. And then we just wanted the applicant's
21 name corrected. So that's for the asphalt plant.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: All right. So I
23 have a question with regard to that.
24 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
25 Kirkmeyer.
54
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you. So is
2 that typically an operation that requires that you work
3 at 3:00 a.m. in the morning or, you know, from 1O:00
4 until 3:00 or 2:00, or is it an eight -hour kind of deal,
5 or is it something where it's -- you know, you're in and
6 out within an hour?
7 MS. BEST JOHNSON: A parking lot paving
8 project?
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, like if you
10 have to haul asphalt or whatever to Safeway.
11 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Can I ask Brett to
12 answer that question?
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure.
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Okay.
15 MR. BAKER: Brett Baker, Simon
16 Contractors, 6215 Clear Creek Parkway, Cheyenne,
17 Wyoming.
18 To answer your question, I think from a
19 duration, it does depend on the type of work, right? So
2O there's city, municipality contracts that are emergency
21 contracts that may be emergency repairs that we'd like
22 to be able to bid. And something happens if one
23 (unintelligible) they call you up to do the repair so
24 it's ready to go by morning. So it's kind of
25 time -dependent.
55
1 There's also projects that are bid
2 strictly to be performed at night due to traffic so
3 that -- you know, do the work and then open it up during
4 the day for rush hour, close it and night pave -- pave
5 the project at night. So that's more of on the asphalt
6 side of the business.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. So what
8 about for paving for special projects for private
9 companies? How often does that occur?
10 MR. BAKER: Not very often. I think what
11 you look at most of the time, it wouldn't be the asphalt
12 side of it; it would be the ready -mix side. So a lot of
13 like box stores and warehouses and things like that will
14 do large floors, concrete floors. And they may start
15 and do it through the night due to temperature concerns.
16 But that's -- it's more rare.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So does that
18 happen for your company like once a week? Five times a
19 month?
20 MR. BAKER: We've done -- this year we've
21 done one.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: This year you've
23 done one?
24 MR. BAKER: Well, in 2017 we did one,
25 one -- or that size.
56
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: 2017 or '18, you
2 mean?
3 MR. BAKER: 2017.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: 2017.
5 MR. BAKER: In all of 2017, our ready -mix
6 business in four states did one of those. Now, that may
7 not be indicative of Larimer and Weld County requests.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Thank you.
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Okay. So that's for
10 asphalt. Then moving on to ready -mix, then, is that we
11 wanted the ready -mix hours -- everything to be exactly
12 the same as the asphalt plant. So, the changes that were
13 reflected just are a mirror image of that what was in
14 asphalt 4.A -- or reflected in 4.B.
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So basically
16 Number 4 -- excuse me.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Number 4 is exactly
19 the same language that you proposed under A.4?
20 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Correct. 4.A and 4.B
21 could be mirrored. In fact, 4.B -- I mean, you could
22 state 4 -- 4.A could be modified to say, "the hours of
23 operation for asphalt and ready -mix," and then list all
24 of that and then get rid of all of 4.B.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So I'm just looking
57
1 at it real quickly. So did -- it does mirror exactly
2 what 4 --
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: If you delete 3.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Add 4.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Delete B.3,
7 So --
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
9 Kirkmeyer.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you. So
11 could you explain again the request 3 -- an 3 to take
12 away the part that says the plant will not operate more
13 than 16 hours per day? Why is that?
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: We just wanted the
15 hours to be the same. If there was a project required
16 some concrete that -- that was running with an asphalt
17 project that needed an 18 -hour day operation or -- we
18 just wanted it to be consistent, the two operations to
19 have exactly the same hours of operation.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Thank you.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Follow-up question.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So if we're going to
24 do that, don't we need to add the same standard hours of
25 the plant operation to be limited to one hour before
58
1 sunrise and one hour after?
2 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: If they're in --
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Mr. Freeman?
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: It is? It's in
5 Number 4, RB?
6 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah, B.2.
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Oh, got it. Okay.
8 So then why did we have 3 on there before?
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So that they
10 wouldn't --
11 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I'm not sure.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: (Unintelligible)
13 more than 16 hours a day.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So depending --
15 right. So would it be limited to 16 hours? Okay. Can
16 we -- may I ask the staff --
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad,
18 continue.
19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Why did we do that on
20 the ready -mix?
21 MS. OGLE: We took that development
22 standard off of previously recently approved asphalt and
23 concrete batch plant development standards.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thanks.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Do you want her to
59
1 continue?
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I don't have
3 any -- I'm just looking at it. I think I got all my
4 questions asked now. I think so. Well, I'm probably
5 going to ask a question about -- well, not, probably.
6 I'm going to ask a question.
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
8 Kirkmeyer.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Development
10 Standard Number 13 where it says "fugitive dust should
11 attempt to be confined on the property," you said
12 essentially you do have a dust mitigation plan or a dust
13 mitigation -- well, you have a plan.
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Uh-huh.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Not a plan that
16 we've approved, though?
17 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Correct. We've
18 proposed a dust mitigation plan as part of the original
19 application, and then the APEN process will further
20 dictate what needs to be done in order to maintain
21 compliance with that permit.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: May I add something
24 to that? First I have a question for Ben. Did you --
25 did you -- I don't know if you remember, but I'm sure
60
1 you've gone through the dust mitigation plan. I know
2 that it's not something -- I think where Commissioner
3 Kirkmeyer is going is that we don't have a condition on
4 there that says it was approved. So have you looked at
5 it, and do you feel that it's adequate based on other
6 dust mitigation plans that we've had submitted in the
7 past?
8 MR. FRISSELL: Yeah, I have reviewed it
9 and it does follow suit with other facilities or like
10 facilities and what they do to mitigate dust. The
11 reason that staff put "attempt to be confined" is under
12 the Colorado air quality commission regulations, there
13 are some stipulations: High winds where those kind of
14 don't apply at certain velocities. So that's why an
15 applicant can't contain dust when winds are 50 miles an
16 hour.
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So I think we could
18 do two things. One, we could add a condition that says
19 that, you know -- kind of where the landscaping plans
20 are that we haven't approved -- you know, we require a
21 dust mitigation plan. I hear the applicant saying that
22 they have done that, but we don't have a condition that
23 says it needs to be approved.
24 And then I think we could add a sentence
25 to Development Standard Number 13 that -- at the
61
1 beginning that says the property owner or operator shall
2 comply with the dust -- with the approved dust abatement
3 plan as submitted by the applicant, and then go into the
4 rest of Number 13.
5 And I think some of it has been addressed
6 because of the paving that was done. The dust
7 mitigation plan that was submitted initially did not
8 anticipate paving. So some of that's been -- been
9 addressed, but not all of it because there are
10 stockpiles there. There could be -- you know, there
11 could be some areas where there could be some water or
12 whatever as part of their dust mitigation plan.
13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne?
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So Chairman Moreno, so
15 Commissioner Cozad, what I hear you indicating is a
16 condition of approval that there shall be an improved
17 dust mitigation plan or the dust mitigation plan shall
18 be approved, and then just compliance with 13 and 14?
19 Is that what I heard you stating?
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I actually -- yes,
21 but I also added a sentence that Esther already added to
22 Number 13. And as far as a condition, we probably need
23 to add somewhere in 1 -- maybe l.D, a new 1.D, because
24 it sounds like it actually needs to be updated anyway.
25 So you might say an "updated dust abatement plan."
62
1 I have a few other things that I'm not
2 sure Commissioner Kirkmeyer --
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, I just am
4 in questions. I wasn't --
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Actually, when we're
6 right there on that page, on Number E, is this -- is
7 this one still necessary? Because it talks about a
8 drainage easement indicating the property owner south of
9 the water supply and storage -- it sounds like that's --
10 maybe that's just been addressed. Hayley. Sorry. You
11 need -- you need to ask her. Sorry.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you,
13 Commissioner Cozad.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Sorry about that.
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Hayley.
16 MS. BALZANO: Hayley Balzano, Public
17 Works. Based on a conversation with Bob, this does need
18 to be corrected to remove the word -- the words
19 "easement" or "drainage agreement," and just say
20 "drainage license agreement." And there's two spots in
21 that standard where it says that.
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So you can actually
23 just take out the words "easement" or "drainage" and put
24 in "license"?
25 MS. BALZANO: Yeah.
63
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: In two places -- the
2 two places?
3 MS. BALZANO: Thank you.
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Back to Anne, can I
5 ask Anne a question?
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So back to that, did
8 you -- I think that you, during your presentation, said
9 that that's been -- that's completed?
10 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Correct.
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: That's with Cactus
12 Hill?
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Correct.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay.
15 Bob has a question about it.
16 MR. CHOATE: Hayley --
17 MS. BALZANO: Sorry. Hayley Balzano,
18 Public Works. The license agreement was drafted; I just
19 didn't include the access for maintenance. In
20 discussion with the applicant, they agree to changing
21 that, so we haven't had one to review yet.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway,
23 you're writing down a lot over there. Do you have some
24 questions?
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No.
64
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Just going through
3 things, trying to (unintelligible).
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. I just didn't
5 know if -- you keep looking this way, and I look over
6 this way.
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thanks for asking,
8 though.
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. We'll get to
10 the Q and A. Okay. Commissioner Conway.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Just a procedural
12 question with you. After we get through -- I see
13 Commissioner Kirkmeyer still going through her stuff
14 and --
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No, I'm done with
16 questions.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: You're done?
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: You're done with
19 questions?
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I am too.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: You're done?
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I believe so. Just
23 go right (unintelligible).
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Are we
25 (unintelligible) with going through the process and
65
1 asking the applicant? Is that the process you're going
2 to follow in terms of if we (unintelligible)?
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: As we do go -- if
4 that's where we're going to proceed? I was going to
5 start this way to see where we're at, you know, where
6 the whole board's at, to proceed forward or -- towards
7 approval or --
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, I would --
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I'll start with you,
10 Commissioner.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: If the applicant is
12 done, have we brought it back to the board?
13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Are you done with
14 your --
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'm done.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. I'm bringing
17 it back to the board.
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: We're here to answer
19 questions.
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Actually, I have one
22 more question. Sorry.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
24 That's fine.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So on Number 18 --
66
1 it's on page 9, so it would be J.1.8 -- showing the
2 label "accepted recorded drainage easements," does that
3 language also need to be cleaned up?
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: To say "license,"
5 yeah.
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Let me just
7 make sure I didn't have any other questions.
8 MR. PINKHAM: And Commissioners, I had a
9 clarification, if not more. So, prior to operation, we
1O have the accepted construction drawings -- this is
11 7.A -- accepted construction drawings and construction
12 of the off -site improvements are required prior to
13 operation, and then the off --site improvements include
19 asphalt paving of County Road 80 1/2 and from
15 Highway 257, 50 feet east to the easternmost access of
16 the facility.
17 After talking with the applicant, I think
18 it would be probably best in this scenario, since the
19 site is existing under the temporary use permit, to
2O modify the language a little bit and have maybe a date
21 set that those requirements would be completed, since
22 the site is in operation at this point.
23 The date that we had kind of talked about
29 those -- and I -- requirements being completed by would
25 'be October 31 of 2018.
67
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Can I --
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Question,
3 Commissioner Conway.
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- ask a follow-up
5 question? I thought their use had expired, their
6 temporary use had expired. Wasn't that part of the
7 discussion we had?
8 MR. PINKHAM: I believe that the temporary
9 use permit has been extended.
10 MR. OGLE: Yeah, it's on an extension. It expires
11 on May 15, 2018.And if you want to extend it thereafter,
12 we'd come back to the Board for their consideration.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So did the Board --
14 was that staff that did it or did the board do that? •
15 MR. PINKHAM: Staff did it.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So that was an
17 administrative extension to (unintelligible) operate?
18 MR. PINKHAM: Correct. The planning
19 director had that authority for two times.
20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So if there's third
21 extension --
22 MR. PINKHAM: It comes back to the board.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you for that
24 clarification.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So I --
68
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I have a follow-up
3 then. Why would we go all the way out to October? If
4 the temporary permit is only through May, May 15th, why
5 wouldn't we have May 15th -- or May 1st be the date certain
6 for the drawings?
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Not for the --
8 MR. PINKHAM: I think for the --
9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: As part of the
10 improvements agreement, though; isn't that right?
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Hayley -- I mean
12 Evan.
13 MR. PINKHAM: I think that date would be
14 adequate for, you know, construction drawings to be
15 accepted by Weld County to have that as a requirement.
16 The language did talk about the construction being
17 completed on those improvements. So, we were just
18 talking about an October 31 deadline to get the
19 construction completed. So, if we were talking about
20 several deadlines, it might be appropriate to have a
21 deadline for construction drawings.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner, would
23 you like to see it as May 1, 2018?
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, I'm -- I guess
25 I'm just a little bit confused. So the improvements
69
1 agreement is condition 1.F, and as a part of that is --
2 it includes -- it's not limited to -- dust control. So
3 that's part of the improvements agreement: Damage
4 repair, haul routes, and future traffic triggers for
5 improvements. So, with the improvements agreement, at
6 that time generally you don't necessarily get
7 construction drawings, do you?
B MR. PINKHAM: It's likely that we would
9 get, in this scenario, construction drawings along with
10 the improvements agreement. We would also take
11 collateral for the office site improvements as well at
12 that point. So we would need to get that improvements
13 agreement done at the time that we get the construction
14 drawings.
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So going back to
16 Commissioner Conway's question, if the extension is only
17 through May 15th, the plat doesn't get recorded before
18 May 15, then they -- and they'd have to come in front of
19 us for a third extension, shouldn't May 1st be some of
20 these deadlines? Well, maybe it shouldn't -- it kind of
21 is already.
22 I don't know if really we need to put that
23 deadline in because right now their permit is -- is
24 based -- their temporary permit is up May 15. And if
25 the plat's not recorded, they can't operate after May 15th
70
1 unless they applied for a third extension. If the
2 plat's not recorded, then they'd have to come back in
3 front of us, correct?
4 MR. OGLE: That's correct.
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So may I have one
6 more?
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Continue.
8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I guess it's more of
9 a comment, really, than a question, but I think that
10 kind of -- kind of puts the applicant and the property
11 owner in -- in a dilemma too because if all of a sudden
12 on May 15th they're applying for another permit and for
13 some reason it's not granted, now they don't have a
14 temporary permit or a permanent one if the plat's not
15 recorded and the improvements agreements aren't done and
16 all these things that they're supposed to do prior to
17 that.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
19 Kirkmeyer.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And I appreciate
21 the discussion that's occurring, but I guess before I
22 jump into this discussion, I'd like to know where we're
23 going.
24 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner --
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'd like to know
71
1 what the pleasure of the board is at this point --
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- as to whether
4 or not I should be looking at standards and conditions
5 or not.
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway
7 wanted to comment. Do you want to start, start that up?
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No, you can go.
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, I'd like to
10 know -- to me what I'm struggling with is has the
11 applicant made -- met the burden, particularly of
12 23-2-30.B.3, which is under Number C of the resolution.
13 Sorry. That would be 2.C -- or 2.A under 6 -- I'm
14 sorry, under 6 --
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: What page are you
16 on, Commissioner? Original application.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm sorry. Hold on.
18 One, two -- page 4 --
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- at the bottom.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: C.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: C.6.C, Section
23 23-2-30 -- or not dash -- B.3. Has the applicant met
24 that burden? Has the applicant met the burden of F,
25 23-2-230-B.6.G, Section 23-2-230-B.7? Those are the
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ones I'm struggling with. I'd like to hear my fellow
commissioners on that.
Because if we both -- if we're on the same
page -- this thing is going to require, I think, a lot
of work based on the questions and the comments and the
information we've got from the public and the applicant.
So I just want to have that discussion.
Do we believe the applicant's met those
burdens in terms of what's in the resolution? And I'd
just like to hear that discussion with our fellow
commissioners. I'm struggling with that, but I'm -- I
want to hear from my fellow commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad?
COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'm willing to go
next. You know, I we can go through all of these,
because they have to meet all of the requirements.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right. Those are
the ones I'm struggling with.
COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. So I'm
actually not struggling with C because it talks about
the uses permitted to be compatible with existing
surrounding land uses, and I think there's a whole lot
of -- a lot of things that -- I think first of all, the
draft resolution, which comes from our Planning staff
and the Planning Commission, does a really good job of
73
1 laying out why it is compatible, and I think they
2 address a lot of those things. There's also things in
3 the Comp Plan that I can address later as well.
4 But part of it is the existing surrounding
5 land uses. There's a lot of things that are out there,
6 like the power lines and the overhead power lines and
7 some of the existing agricultural things that -- and the
8 location of the state highways, the -- and, you know,
9 some of it is some of the things that the applicant has
10 put forward and did address based on the public comment.
11 So I think that their application does
12 address compatibility with their landscape plan, their
13 lighting plan. They moved some of their facilities
14 based on public input on their parking, with their
15 parking plan. The road improvements that they have to
16 do I think will make it compatible.
17 And the drainage improvements, that was
18 one of the biggest things for me initially was the
19 drainage into the ditch and downstream, how that might
20 affect agricultural and folks downstream, and I think
21 they've addressed that.
22 What was the other one that you had? Did
23 you say D?
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: F.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I mean, I'll go in
74
1 more detail later, but --
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: F?
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: The applicant must
4 demonstrate a diligent effort to preserve prime
5 agricultural land. We hear it today for the first time
6 that this was irrigated farmland as recent as 2016.
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But this is not
8 designated as prime, even if it's irrigated.
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well --
10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: It could be
11 irrigated. It hasn't been irrigated since 2016 and it's
12 not prime, so I think it meets that condition.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And did you say G?
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah.
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: You know, G, I think
17 the 22 permits that are required address whether it's
18 local, state, or federal; address the health, safety,
19 and welfare between the drainage plans, the SPCC plans,
2O the air quality plans, the dust control, the safety that
21 they -- they looked at with lighting. I think that
22 they've addressed all those things.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Any other fellow
24 commissioners? Well, I'll go ahead and --
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: We could hear
75
1 from Commissioner Conway what he's struggling with, why
2 he's struggling, what he feels is not -- it's there.
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'm going to turn on
4 my microphone.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I want to hear from
6 all my commissioners. Go ahead, Commissioner Kirkmever.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Go ahead.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I'll jump in because
9 I you know, I would concur with Commissioner Cozad on
10 this here. And also I -- it's not just that. What's
11 been incorporated by the Planning staff and the planning
12 commission in reviewing this here, I know there was some
13 comments here in public comment that it was a split
14 vote. We have three commissioners that were not
15 present. It was a 4-1 vote. We had one commissioner
16 that did not believe it was compatible, but I do believe
17 in the findings here.
18 And I also point out here on D here,
19 23-2-230.B.4, the use which will be permitted will be
20 compatible with future development in the surrounding
21 areas as permitted by the existing zoning and the future
22 development as projected by Chapter 22, the Weld County
23 Code, and any other ethical code provisions or ordinance
24 in effect, or the adopted master plans of affected
25 municipalities.
76
1 And I'm not going to read the rest of this
2 whole thing. I mean, we've already heard from Severance
3 and Windsor and Larimer County on this, so I guess I
4 would be willing to move forward on this. I know
5 there's things that we need to mitigate that I think the
6 citizens have brought forward to us, and I believe there
7 are legitimate concerns and things, but I think we can
8 mitigate and get to that point here of approval. So
9 that's where I'm at, Commissioner.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Thank you.
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: May I ask a quick
12 question?
13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Because it is
15 confusing from the planning commission, because the
16 resolution that we have in our packet says it was 5-0.
17 But it -- if you go back and read through it, it was a
18 4-1. I believe it was a 4-1 vote --
19 MS. OGLE: 4-1 vote.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- but there were
21 three planning commissioners that were absent that day
22 as well, correct?
23 MS. OGLE: That's correct. It's a 4-1
24 vote --
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: It was 4-1.
77
1 MS. OGLE: -- Commissioner.
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, because the
3 resolution does -- the planning commission resolution
4 does list four passage -against -passage and then the
5 three that were absent, and it does list 5 nn the
6 4 passage, five of the planning commissioners, that it
7 was a 5-0. But I think it says later that it was a 4-1.
8 So you're confirming that was a 4-1 vote?
9 MS. OGLE: It was a 4-1 vote.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Freeman
11 or Kirkmeyer? Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Well, I would
13 probably have a tendency to agree with Commissioner
14 Cozad's comments in going through -- going through all
15 of the documents, all of the documents. And it appeared
16 to me, I think -- I wish we would have had the
17 distinction between a ready -mix concrete plant versus a
18 concrete batch plant.
19 I think that was -- there's an important
20 distinction that was made. So a lot of the things that
21 I read through from the public that they sent in, all of
22 those documents, a lot of them seemed to be related more
23 to a concrete plant and not a ready -mix plant, and a lot
24 of them weren't even located in the United States.
25 So I think the information that we
78
1 received from Dr. Phillips and Jeff Harrington with
2 regard to the air modeling was extremely important, and
3 I think relating it back to -- as Commissioner Cozad
4 stated, that's -- I don't know if that was F or G, but
5 one of those. I'll get to it. I've got paper all over
6 the place here. Back to G.
7 So we also had a lot of discussion with
8 regard to the property values. I didn't see anything
9 from the public or anyone else. Prior to that I know it
10 was a question that we asked after the public hearing,
11 because it came from the public hearing with regard to
12 property values.
13 So the, I guess, appraiser or experts were
14 brought in, and they spoke at the last public hearing in
15 relationship to Exhibit J in talking about the
16 unlikelihood that would -- as a result in diminution of
17 value with regard to future sales.
18 And while I appreciated all their
19 comments, I can also use my own personal experience of
20 living within about a half mile of a batch plant, and I
21 haven't seen any diminution in value of my own personal
22 property where I live or others in my area. In fact, if
23 you go check the Assessor's value, our property values
24 have probably increased at a higher percentage rate than
25 a lot of other areas in the County.
79
1 So I basically live, what I would
2 consider, within kind of that I-25 corridor, if you
3 will, within a few miles of the I-25 corridor. So -- I
4 have other comments to make, but I think Commissioner
5 Cozad's comments probably capsulated what -- capsulated
6 mostly what I would have said anyways.
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
8 Freeman.
9 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah, and I -- you
10 know, I would agree with Commissioner Cozad
11 (unintelligible). I think that when you look at -- I
12 think there's going to be some things and mitigate these
13 things, but I do -- I agree with the comments that
14 Commissioner Cozad (unintelligible).
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So I guess with
16 that, we've heard from the Board. It looks like we're
17 willing to move forward with discussion in addressing
18 conditions and development standards. It looks like I
19 got a thumbs -up at the end over here. Who would like to
20 go first?
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, I think one of
22 the things --
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- I'd like to
25 discuss first is the hours of operation that were
80
1 requested. Generally, I think -- as far as consistency,
2 I don't think that we've allowed emergency operations at
3 night for just -- just for commercial reasons. But I
4 think maybe where Commissioner Kirkmeyer was going was
5 maybe eliminating it, eliminating that to maybe a
6 certain number of times per year or something like that.
7 I don't -- I don't know what you were thinking. But I'd
8 like to have more discussion with the Board on that --
9 that particular one.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So do you want to go
11 right --
12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Because they were
13 asking for -- to add the private companies. And I would
14 be -- you know, I would be willing to look at that, but
15 maybe only a certain number of times per year. We heard
16 the applicant say that they only did one last year.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Go ahead.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
19 Freeman.
20 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: You know, I'd be
21 (unintelligible) I mean, I think it's a rare thing, but
22 I think it makes sense. And I do think that any time
23 there's an emergency, whether it's -- whether it's from
24 a -- from a private business or a government entity,
25 they send a letter, a request into th'e Planning
B1
1 Department to get permission to do that. That's how the
2 process works; is that correct?
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Well, I
4 understand why we added this standard --
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
6 Kirkmeyer.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- in other
8 applications for emergencies where it's requests by
9 cities, counties, or by the state. I'm struggling a bit
10 with why we would change it to "or private companies."
11 I understand that probably Safeway or King
12 Soopers or Walmart or the Kmart distribution center
13 would like to do their paving at night because it's more
14 convenient for them, but I'm not sure that it's more
15 convenient for the surrounding property owners that the
16 plant is open.
17 So I'm trying to balance compatibility and
16 mitigate things here, and I don't know that I can get to
19 seeing how that really mitigates for -- for the
20 surrounding areas.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: That's kind of where
22 I was too.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I'm fully --
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: It's not -- we
25 haven't allowed that in any other like facilities.
82
1 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I would agree.
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: But I didn't know
3 where everybody else was going. That's why I was asking
4 about limitations possibly.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: For furthering the
6 discussion on this here too, I know we had the major
7 issue in 2013 with the flood, and that. If there
8 was such a situation like that, could we consider maybe
9 looking at an emergency situation for that particular
10 disaster or something?
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: May I ask a
12 question of planning on that? So in that kind of a
13 scenario where maybe there would be private companies
14 that maybe during emergency -- like a declared emergency
15 type situation -- say we don't put that in there for
16 them to operate at night for private companies, but
17 there is that kind of a situation, what would the
18 applicant have to do? If they wanted -- say there was
19 an emergency of some kind, would they have to submit
20 something to the planning department asking for a
21 temporary --
22 MS. OGLE: Normally they submit a letter.
23 It says that they have an emergency situation and they
24 want to have nighttime operations.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And it would be for a
83
1 private company, then, that -- when we've seen those
2 before, we've had some of those come in front of us a
3 couple of times -- that would just come in front of us
4 and then we could look at the exact situation that would
5 cause them to need to do that for a private company?
6 MS. OGLE: That is correct.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: But that would
8 have to be an emergency situation?
9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: That's what I would
10 be thinking; it would be an emergency situation.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I'm going to let the
12 applicant respond to that. Anne, did you want to
13 comment on that?
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah, the applicant --
15 I guess what -- the question is: What constitutes an
16 emergency? How do we define that? Is it the parking
17 lot that has a sudden sinkhole or something that's --
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I think the two
19 things need to be separated. I don't think it's for
20 emergencies for private companies. I think it's for in
21 an emergency situation.
22 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Okay.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So, for example,
24 during the 2013 flooding, if we'd had where they said
25 they need -- in fact, we did go back through and made
84
1 some changes, emergency resolutions allowing for the
2 operations of all of the gravel, mining, ready -mix,
3 asphalt plants to be open 24/7 during the declared
4 emergency situation.
5 So I think that's what we're trying to
6 address with the emergency situation, which would have
7 allowed for anything. I mean, if the Costco plant would
8 have had an emergency -- the place would have had an
9 emergency because of the flood and they need to get
10 stuff done, we would have been able -- people would have
11 been able to operate in a 24/7 -- and recover more
12 quickly is what we were trying to get to there. I don't
13 think we're trying to say that if a private company has
14 an emergency.
15 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I would agree.
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Commissioner Moreno.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So actually I
19 don't -- I would be supportive of leaving it -- leaving
20 it the way it is because I think there's options. If
21 there was an emergency for the private companies to come
22 in -- I just don't see what an emergency for a private
23 company would be. If there was an emergency situation,
24 then there are ways that we can address it during an
25 emergency.
85
1 But as Commissioner Kirkmeyer said, if
2 there was a large paving project -- parking lot,
3 whatever -- when I've seen parking lot paving, it's --
4 you know, they do sections at a time. So I don't see
5 how that's an emergency. That's just me.
6 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Right. And if I may
7 answer. May I answer a question?
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne, go ahead.
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Thank you. So it's
10 cities, counties, or CDOT, or private companies. But
11 putting "emergency" in there, it's restricting the night
12 paving work that's just a night paving project that only
13 allows far bidding at night by CDOT or by Weld County,
14 by inserting the word "emergency" in there.
15 So I know it's semantics, but we want to
16 be -- be careful there that -- that cities, counties,
17 CDOT is not just limited to emergency, because several
18 of those bids only ask for night paving.
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I understand what
21 you're saying, but I would -- I would take out the word
22 "emergency" and take out "private companies." Because I
23 think where we're -- at least what I'm hearing is there
24 are -- if it was an emergency situation, there are
25 options far you as an applicant to come back to the
86
1 county. I'm just -- for me, I just think -- I
2 understand paving operations for cities, counties, and
3 CDOT. But -- and I understand where you're trying to
4 go, but I'm just not supportive of it.
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: And the applicant is
6 fine with that.
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway,
9 do you have something to add to that?
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I agree.
11 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I agree as well.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Me too.
13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So some of the
14 clean-up stuff, though, I'm okay with obviously because
15 you want to make sure that the applicant's name is in
16 there correctly. And then as far as the ready -mix
17 concrete, I am -- I'm okay with making that consistent
18 with the asphalt, though, just so that the hours aren't
19 different, that they're the same. So, I'm okay with
20 that.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Maybe we can
22 start with the conditions on page 7.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. All right.
24 Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So, first of all,
87
1 I'd like to see a condition that requires a dust
2 mitigation plan and that within that dust mitigation
3 plan is a requirement of the paving of the internal road
4 circulation system. So, I'm not sure exactly where that
5 would fall in, but it appears maybe it would be a new E.
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: (Unintelligible) in
7 there.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Oh, a new D.
9 Okay. If so, within D there, your new D, I think there
10 needs to be a second sentence that ensures that there is
11 the pavement of the internal circulation system.
12 MS. OGLE: Can we make that as a
13 development standard versus -- this is prior
11 (unintelligible).
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: That's fine. If
16 that's where it's going to be, that's fine.
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I have a placeholder.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Great.
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: And, Commissioner,
20 if it's okay with everybody as we go through these --
21 since we have, it looks like, several -- if I can just
22 acknowledge with the applicant that --
23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Sure.
24 COMMISSIONER MORENO: -- she understands
25 that, just so --
88
1 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah. So C, :the
2 applicant shall submit an updated dust abatement plan
3 for review and approval by the department of planning
4 services. That's a -- and if you want that to say
5 "including pavement" so that --
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: We'll end up
7 putting that in a development standard.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner?
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I think. So then
10 what was 1.E now is 1.F. We need to make the
11 appropriate changes there. So, Bob, did you have -- is
12 it in there? The license agreement is in there? Okay.
13 That's great.
14 MR. CHOATE: It's corrected.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Great.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So Anne,
17 (unintelligible).
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: On 1.7 I would
21 like --- so, well, now it's -- I'm going to go off of
22 what it was. So it was 1.F. Okay. Great. So where it
23 talks about the improvements and road maintenance
24 agreement is required for off -site improvements, second
25 sentence, "Road maintenance included, but not limited
89
1 to, specified traffic improvements," I would like that
2 added in right there. Because we talk about dust
3 control, damage repair, specified haul routes, and
4 future traffic triggers; but there are some specified
5 traffic improvements to me that are tied into the
6 operation now.
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I've got a nod from
8 the applicant?
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Do we need to be
11 making a change to H, which is "shall submit evidence,"
12 since they've already submitted the evidence? I'm just
13 asking this way.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, it sounds like
15 what we have in our documents that there's -- there's a
16 letter from Poudre Valley REA that they've addressed
17 their intention to serve and that they had no conflicts.
18 But I think we can just leave it in there --
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- because if it's
21 been addressed, they can -- that's a condition they can
22 already meet.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Same thing with I,
25 actually.
90
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: (Unintelligible) go
2 ahead. The next page, anything else? Trying to respect
3 both sides here of the board. Okay. Next.
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: All right. I
5 don't have anything on the next page. I don't know if
6 someone else does. I don't have anything on page 8.
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I thought on page 8
8 we had under I -- I had something.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No, we don't need
10 to make changes there either.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Okay.
12 Page 9.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I didn't have any
14 changes on page 9.
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: There was the one
16 change to Number 18.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Oh, that's right.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Changes there.
19 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah, that's
20 just --
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Oh, that's right.
22 You just ---
23 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: The license thing.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Applicant? Okay.
91
1 Anne?
2 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes, we concur.
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right. Going to
4 page 10 and then we're down to 7.A.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMFYER: So on 7.A,
6 personally, I think that's probably covered in the road
7 improvements agreement, and I'm not sure why we would
8 put a date into the condition itself. I would say that
9 that needs to be something that's worked out. It has to
10 be done prior to operations that you have to have the
11 drawings and the construction of the off -site road
12 improvements. Work it out in the improvements
13 agreement.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Go ahead, Bob. You
16 had a comment.
17 MR. CHOATE: That's all right, Mr. Chair.
18 I was emailing back and forth with Evan on this issue,
19 and I prefer that we don't have a date because it's
20 harder to enforce. My recommendation is to make it a
21 condition of the issuance of the occupancy for the
22 ready -mix plant so that they've got to go do the
23 off -site road improvements prior to issuance of the CO.
24 And if they don't, the county won't issue the CO.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
92
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I appreciate
2 that. How do we deal with the issue that this is a
3 temporary use and will come back to us for continued
4 operation while they go through all of this in May? How
5 do we deal with that?
6 MR. CHOATE: Well, I can't say whether
7 they will be able to meet the other conditions of
8 approval prior to recording the plat; but this would be
9 limited to the construction, completion of the
10 construction, which we would expect to occur later.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I guess to go
12 back to Commissioner Cozad's original question, how do
13 we deal with this looming -- May 15, is that what it is?
14 MR. CHOATE: It is.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- issue, because
16 the likelihood they're going to have much, if any, of
17 this done by that time before it comes back to the
18 Board, because they've been given one extension -- how
19 do we deal with that in terms of this?
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Can --
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I don't -- Bob can
23 jump in, but here's the way I'm thinking about it now.
24 First of all, they have to have a valid special use
25 permit. They've got to get their plat recorded. Part
93
1 of that is the improvements agreement. That's a
2 requirement.
3 They can't construct -- they -- you know,
4 I think the construction drawings are tied to their
5 improvements. They can't get their improvements done
6 until their construction drawings are submitted. And so
7 really -- I mean, that's three and a half months from
8 now.
9 And, I don't know, maybe the applicant can
10 address it, but that seems to be to me -- I don't know
11 what their timing is, but October seems really long.
12 But if they're not in compliance with their USR and they
13 don't get another extension of the temporary permit,
14 then they're in violation, so they'd go through a
15 violation process, I would imagine.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: How long would
17 that --
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
19 Kirkmeyer.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'd like to know
21 when it would be plausible to have the construction
22 drawings submitted by.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne?
24 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Thank you. So, the
25 intent is we were -- and thank you for Public Works. We
94
1 did receive an advanced copy of the improvements
2 agreement last week, so we were able to start reviewing
3 that.
4 Our intent is to work with Public Works
5 and CDOT on the timing for all of those improvements,
6 have the plat recorded as soon as possible so not to
7 have any items that are left outstanding that have these
8 long lead times.
9 Then, in anticipation of today's hearing,
10 we've prescheduled some activities to occur in the field
11 hoping that the outcome of the hearing is positive for
12 Simon: The surveying, the drilling, all of those items
13 that have to occur in order to do the pavement design,
14 which takes time; the lab tests of the soil, which takes
15 time in order to come up with a pavement design.
16 Then CDOT requires, you know, 30, 60,
17 90 percent drawings. There's time involved with that.
18 Public Works has timing for review of the designs as
19 well. So those will be key marked. We'll sit down with
20 Public Works. We'll develop a timeline that's very
21 progressive and aggressive in order to have the
22 improvements constructed during the construction season
23 of 2018.
24 I would just like to point out an item of
25 clarification. We received our original temporary use
95
1 grant. We received one extension. If I'm not mistaken,
2 planning department has the ability to grant one more
3 extension. That third extension has to come back in
4 front of the board of county commissioners for that.
5 But it's not our intent to have to do that. Our intent
6 is to record our plat before this first extension
7 expires.
8 So if -- if conditions are placed that
9 require us to submit the construction drawings and
10 everything before recording the plat, then we can get
11 that plat recorded and it's taken care of. So, again,
12 our intent -- by meeting all of the conditions of
13 approval before the hearing so that we can as soon as
14 possible get our plat recorded.
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Kim, can you address
16 that? Is she correct on that?
17 MS. OGLE: The interpretation from the
18 planning director is not that case, so that -- the first
19 temporary was I think one and the extension was
20 Number 2, so the third one would come to the board.
21 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Okay.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Commissioner
23 Kirkmeyer.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So, again, what
25 is the timeline with regard to construction of the road
96
1 improvements?
2 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Unless we --
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Like what do you
4 think it is approximately?
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: October 31, 2018.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: You think you're
7 going to get all those right lanes, left lanes, all
8 completed by October 31st?
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: They supply the
10 material and they're right there on site, so that's --
11 they -- the applicant believes that they can get it all
12 done by October 31, 2018, barring any strange weather.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. So, I'm
14 going to suggest, then, that we take out 7.A and make it
15 its own -- either it's its own condition or it gets
16 included that a timeline for construction -- for
17 construction drawings and construction of the office
18 side road improvements agreement be included in the
19 improvements -- road improvements agreement, and it all
20 be included in there with the date of construction to
21 not pass October 31, 2018. And that can all just be put
22 into the road improvements agreement. Does that make
23 sense?
24 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway,
25 are you okay with that? Commissioner Freeman?
97
1 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Makes sense to me.
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway?
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That's fine. You
4 got -- hold on. Commissioner --
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So would we add
7 that to the road improvements agreement condition, that
8 it would also include a timeline for the construction
9 drawings? Because that would then have to be done
10 before you can record the plat so you can get a timeline
11 in place. Not that the drawings have to be done, but
12 you would have a date certain when they would be done in
13 the road improvements agreement, and there would be a
14 timeline for construction not to exceed October 31,
15 2018.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Mr. Choate.
17 MR. CHOATE: That's what we would include
18 in the road improvements agreement. It would include
19 the original construction schedule. I think we can very
20 clearly make sure that there is a deadline on there as
21 the board is requesting, and then it gets generally
22 recorded simultaneously with the plat. I think we can
23 absolutely do that in our typical construction --
24 pardon -- road maintenance and improvements agreement.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So just --
96
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I just want to make
3 sure that I'm clear, because now we moved that condition
4 to be a part of the improvements agreement to have
5 accepted construction drawings?
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No.
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah. That's what I
8 was thinking, that needed to be its own condition, but
9 not a part of the improvements agreement. What you were
10 looking for was the timeline for construction to not --
11 not go past October 31, 2018.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
13 Kirkmeyer.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And that -- what I
15 hear Mr. Choate saying is that that's generally already
16 part of an improvements agreement, is a timeline for
17 construction. But didn't you want that condition to be
18 its own condition?
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I think it can be
20 included in the -- in F there. And so it includes where
21 we have, "The road maintenance agreement includes, but
22 not limited to, haul routes" and all that stuff. I
23 think there's a new sentence that says something similar
24 to, you know, "Also included in the road maintenance
25 agreement is a timeline for the submittal of
99
1 construction drawings and for the construction of the
2 off -site roadway improvements that shall not" -- I can't
3 remember everything that I said -- "but that shall not
4 be past October 31, 2018." I mean, construction needs
5 to be done by October 31, 2018, as stated. That's what
6 I was trying to get to.
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne?
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So a little
9 pre -sentence, but --
10 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- there you go.
12 MS. BEST JOHNSON: We agree to that. I
13 mean, again, but for a snowstorm, whatever, we know --
14 we will be marching towards those goals, yes.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: All right. Well,
16 as you said, they have all the material. Better get her
17 done.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah.
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Commissioner
20 Conway.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I just have a
22 general question. What is the expectation of the
23 planning commission -- or not -- as Mr. Ogle has said,
24 this will come back before the board on May 15. What is
25 the expectation for approved -- well, come back
100
1 anyway -- what is the expectation on the 15th so the
2 applicant and the public have a clear understanding of
3 this? Because there's been a lot of discussion here.
4 Can I just get clarity on that?
5 MS. OGLE: So the applicant would have to
6 make a request for an extension so that we'd have the
7 six-month time period. That would have to be approved
8 by the Board.
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. And that
10 would be predicated -- that would include an update
11 on -- if the USR was approved, what progress they've
12 made in terms of from today until then?
13 (Unintelligible) 90 days.
14• MS. OGLE: It could. The request is just
15 for a temporary batch plant operation for that extension
16 at the end of six months.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
18 MS. OGLE: If the board would like to have
19 more conditions placed on that extension request, you
20 do.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Just to kind of
23 follow up with what Commissioner Conway is saying, if
24 they get their plat in and they get their conditions of
25 approval all done by May, then they have a special use
101
1 permit.
2 MS. OGLE: That's correct.
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So if that's done by
4 May 15th, then their -- their USR -- then they can move
5 forward with the rest of the --
6 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: To make their
7 improvements.
8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah. But there will
9 be a timeline for that as part of the improvements
10 agreement.
11 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Right.
12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Okay.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I didn't have
14 anything else on the conditions.
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. That's it on
16 the conditions. Then we'll move on to the development
17 standards and we'll start with the first page. It
18 probably looks like we will address Number 4, it looks
19 like, from what I have here. That change has been added
20 that -- or at -- been at the request of the applicant to
21 make changes.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So I think where
23 we are landing -- I'm looking at Commissioner Cozad is
24 that we would change 4.A to be the hours of operation
25 for the asphalt and the ready -mix concrete, and then you
102
1 can delete all of 4.B.
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Everyone agrees with
3 that?
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Commissioner
7 Conway, you had a question over here?
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: We're going to go
9 through the rest of --
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I didn't have
12 anything else for the -- for the rest of that page. I'm
13 on to the next page, which is our page 2.
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, I have
15 questions.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Do you have
17 questions on this page?
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I do.
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Commissioner
20 Conway.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So I'm questioning
22 the operations Monday through Saturday. Why Saturday?
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Under 4.A or --
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: A.1.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne?
103
1 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I'm sorry. I was
2 listening to another question.
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: That's okay.
4 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Because there are
5 several times where projects are done for county or CDOT
6 work on Saturdays.
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, most of CDOT
8 and county work -- I don't know any county work that's
9 done on Saturdays. I don't know if our Public Works
10 director is here. COOT normally doesn't do work on
11 Saturday because of traffic flows. But I -- I may stand
12 corrected. Since we're not doing private companies,
13 that's why I asked the question. You're mostly doing
14 municipal, county, and CDOT, correct, based on the
15 changes we made earlier? And we haven't gotten to that
16 in terms of private companies.
17 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Weil, based on the
18 changes to 4.A.4 -- and 4.A needs to read -- yeah,
19 ready -mix, thank you, Esther -- 4.A.4 is just
20 referencing night, not daytime.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: You're right. Thank
22 you. Okay.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. All right.
24 So the applicant agrees to the changes on that page,
25 everything that we've discovered?
104
1 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. We'll move on
3 to page 2,
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Then I'm down to
5 Number 8_
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Before you get to
7 Number 8, I actually have one for Number 6.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Oh, there you go.
10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So I think Number 6
11 we could -- we can actually scratch what's there and
12 have -- just have it say, "The internal road and parking
13 area shall be paved and maintained per the approved
14 parking plan."
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Is it in the
16 parking plan or the dust abatement plan?
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: They have a parking
18 plan too, so you could say parking and dust -- I have a
19 different one for dust abatement plan.
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Everyone okay with
21 Number 6?
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No, I'm just
23 saying, maintaining the -- because you added the
24 internal road system in with the parking. That's not in
25 your parking plan. They have a parking plan.
105
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: It is in their new
2 parking plan.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Oh. I thought it
4 was in their dust abatement plan.
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Tt. is.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Why don't we just
7 say they have to be in compliance with their parking
8 plan? They have a parking plan.
9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I just thought it was
10 a good place to put about paving the internal road.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I had that in 13.
12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So you could say
13 parking and dust abatement plans.
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER:• There we go.
15 UNKNOWN MALE: (Unintelligible.) Good
16 job.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Anne?
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: The applicant is --
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: In support? Okay.
20 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes, they're in support
21 of that.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. All right.
23 Now we're going to move down to --
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So Number 8 needs
25 the language added that they're in compliance with their
106
1 landscaping and screening plan, the approved plan.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Will that plan --
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I'm sorry.
4 Commissioner Conway.
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Will that plan come
6 back before the board like we've had in other USRs, like
7 DCP and others, in terms of this landscaping plan like
8 you've insisted in the past?
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: That wasn't in
10 the conditions of approval, so that would be something
11 that you would have to bring up.
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. I --
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. So do you
14 want it to come back in front of the board?
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, I do.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I think we've been
18 consistent on that. To remain consistent in terms of
19 some of these USRs, I think that needs to come back.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I --
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So hang on just a
22 second. Where would you like to put that in,
23 Commissioner Conway, before we get too much farther?
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, let's hear
25 from my other board members before we go on.
107
1 Commissioner Cozad had --
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, I'm just not
4 sure if we've done this on multiple USRs. I think we've
5 done it on one, that a landscape plan came back in front
6 of us. I'm not -- I'm not against it, but I -- you
7 know, I also do trust our planning department staff.
8 I actually have another suggestion, but I
9 was going to wait until we got all the way through this
10 as far as from the surrounding property, but --
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: We'll ask staff on
12 this one. Actually, Kim was looking like he was going
13 to weigh in. Kim, did you want to comment?
14 MS. OGLE: I have no comments.
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, I thought --
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: My condition is
18 1.C on page 7. So do you want the -- you want the
19 landscaping screen plan submitted to the department of
20 planning services but approved by the board?
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, that's --
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: We can add that.
24 That would -- go ahead, Commissioner Conway.
25 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And the purpose of
108
1 that is to give the public an opportunity that I'm sure
2 the applicant will reach out to the public in terms of
3 that landscaping plan. You've already done some of that
4 in terms of your meetings. That gives the public an
5 opportunity to come back and have that (unintelligible),
6 like we have in (unintelligible).
7 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Right. So I understand
8 there's been one USR that has come back before. It's --
9 the landscaping -- the visual mitigation plan. We have
10 incorporated comments from the Town of Severance
11 already, and both the Town of Severance and planning
12 staff had originally provided their approval of our
13 plan.
14 So if you would like that plan to come
15 back, we are -- we are -- you know, we can bring that
16 back. But just note that, again, that that causes a
17 delay in our ability to record the plat, should there be
18 more additional changes that you'd like to see. So we
19 would hope that those changes -- if you would like to
20 see changes -- they would not impact the ability to
21 receive another extension on a temporary facility.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I understand.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Esther is
24 looking for some guidance here on language, I think.
25 Mr. Choate, I don't know if you can help us.
109
1 MS. GESICK: (Unintelligible.)
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yes, that's what
3 we're talking about.
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And that's back to
5 the conditions of approval (unintelligible).
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So it's submitted
7 to the planning department and --
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Approved by the
9 board.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- it's approved
11 by the board.
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah. Thank you.
13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I just want to point
14 out to the applicant again, and we just. added it.
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: To clarify and --
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: That's during --
18 isn't that during just a regular 9:00 board meeting?
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yeah, just like we
20 do.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And are we going to
22 have a public hearing about that?
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: We don't want the
24 public to comment on a couple of others.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right, Anne.
110
1 Give her a minute to take a look at that.
2 MS. BEST JOHNSON: If that's what you
3 request, then that --
4 UNKNOWN MALE: As quickly as you get it to
5 us.
6 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So if I could go ahead
7 and just explain the timing to the applicant.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Sure.
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So -- so we continue
10 progressing on with meeting all the conditions of
11 approval, getting everything ready, and that would be
12 the only item outstanding for recording the plat would
13 be the approval of the landscape plan. And the
14 landscape plan needs to come back to this Board for
15 approval, and that would be the only item.
16 So it would be done at a 9:00 a.m_
17 hearing, and the public, then, would have the
18 opportunity to comment on the landscape plan. Now, the
19 landscape plan has been approved by the Town of
20 Severance and by planning staff, but we would have the
21 opportunity then to listen to surrounding property
22 owners to make comment on the lands to plan.
23 So if we have a need to come back to the
24 Board after making adjustments to the landscape plan,
25 that would make -- that would create delays in when we
111
1 could report the plat, but everything else would be
2 ready to go once we have the plat recorded.
3 MR. CHOATE: Mr. Chair.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Mr. Choate.
5 MR. CHOATE: If I may, if this were a
6 concern for the Board, the recording of the plat is what
7 has to happen for them not to have to request an
8 extension. So if you were to move that to a different
9 condition of approval after recording of the plat -- for
10 example, prior to construction -- it would address that
11 concern, if you want. You certainly don't have to.
12 It's normally done prior to recording the plat.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The problem would
14 be if they don't approve the landscape plan that they
15 submit and we make changes to it, then they'd have to go
16 in and amend their -- their map.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So just -- I just
19 want to ask Anne a question. You showed us your
20 landscape plan. You've submitted your landscape plan
21 already. It's been submitted. And has that been
22 approved by the planning department?
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: We can ask Mr. Ogle
24 that question, but I have information from the Town of
25 Severance -- and that was included in your packet --
112
1 that said that the Town of Severance was fine with what
2 we submitted. And Mr. Ogle -- I believe Mr. Ogle had
3 approved the landscape plan, but I -- I've interpreted
4 things incorrectly, so we'll let him --
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Kim, can you clarify
6 that?
7 MS. OGLE: Sure, Yeah. Planning staff
8 has reviewed the plan, and we find it acceptable. We're
9 basing it on the comments from Severance because it's
10 within Severance IGA area.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Well, I guess
13 they can get it in front of us next week.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, I think if it's
15 already been submitted, I mean, that's what I'm thinking
16 is we can get some thing on the agenda fast.
17 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Sounds good.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Does that
19 take care of it, Commissioner?
20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That takes care of
21 it.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right. So we're
23 going to go back now to page 2 on the development
24 standards.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I think I'm good
113
1 with the --
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: 13?
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Do we need to --
4 okay. So the proposed -- 8 has to say, "The proposed
5 landscape screening plan" or "the approved plan,"
6 actually, or "It has to be maintained with the approved
7 plan, compliance with the (unintelligible)."
8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think you wanted
9 the word "compliance" in there, that --
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Whatever we
11 typically put in there.
12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: "The property owner
13 and operator shall comply with the landscape screen."
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Approved
15 landscaping plan?
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And then -- I don't
19 know how you write in the word "maintains" --
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: We don't need
21 "maintain" anymore.
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well --
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, if they
24 apply with the approved landscape screening plan, part
25 of that is maintaining it.
114
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Take out the rest of
2 it.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So they can take
4 out the rest of it.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
6 Freeman, did you have anything else?
7 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: No, I'm agreeing to
8 it.
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Sorry.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: All right. So
11 Number 13, is that language okay now? Let's see.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: It's the next one --
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: We've put it in
14 twice now.
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah.
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Because I actually
18 brought that up prior.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: But we put it in
20 twice. We put dust mitigation plan in twice, so I don't
21 think it needs to be in twice, because we have it up in
22 Number 6 or whatever number that was.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: (Unintelligible)
24 out?
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, Number 6,
115
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, except that
2 Number 6 talks about the internal paved road and parking
3 area, and it doesn't really talk about the other things
4 that are in the dust abatement plan. So, I could talk
5 about stockpiles and other things. That's why I was
6 actually wanting to add that language as part of the
7 dust abatement plan. But it talks about fugitive dust
8 too.
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Because -- well, I'm
10 sorry. Commissioner.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Internal road
12 being paved is in the dust mitigation plan or is it in
13 the parking plan?
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So the paved internal
15 road is on the USR plat, so it will be recorded. The
16 result of having a paved road is reflected in the APEN.
17 It's reflected in the dust mitigation plan that, because
18 the road is paved, there won't be that source of dust.
19 So it's -- it will be on the recorded plat that the road
20 has to be paved, and so it's reflected in all of those
21 other plans.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. The
23 internal road being paved is reflected in the dust
24 mitigation plan? Okay. I don't think we need to
25 include dust mitigation plan in Number 6, and just leave
116
1 it as is, then. It's fine.
2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Just take that out.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And now we have
4 it there in 13.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thirteen.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Perfect.
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right. And you
8 saw 13.N, Number 8, won't (unintelligible). Okay?
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Ts that okay? All
11 right. Well, we'll go to page 3. Is there anything?
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: 15.
13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Number 15, Mr. --
14 Commissioner Conway.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So to be consistent
16 with other similar facilities most recently, we have had
17 a residential, and I think that we probably want to do
18 that at 55, 50. I'm told by the applicant that their
19 noise study will significantly reduce things out there.
20 And I think to be consistent with Martin
21 Marietta and other batch plants, that you go to that 55,
22 50. We have residents that are within 250 feet of this
23 facility. There's a ton within 1,500 feet. This would
24 be gauged from the property line, and I think it's very
25 achievable.
117
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad?
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Kim, do you have the
3 map that shows closest residents?
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: According to the --
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Because I -- to be
6 consistent, even on the Martin Marietta plant, we did
7 residential noise standards adjacent to --
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Subdivision.
9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- res -- yeah, the
10 subdivision, but not on all the property lines.
11 MS. OGLE: So the nearest residence that
12 is not owned by Mr. Nelson is Mr. Moore's property to
13 the east. And it's --
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Can you just -- can
15 we look at the map? Sorry.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: On page 12 of 22,
17 I think it (unintelligible).
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Uh-huh.
19 MS. BEST JOHNSON: The nearest -- if I
20 may.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne.
22 MS. BEST JOHNSON: The nearest subdivision
23 is half a mile north, and it's on the north side of
24 State Highway 14.
25 COMMISSIONER MORENO: It's page 6 on the
118
1 maps that you've put in here, Kim.
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So just -- here's
3 what the Martin Marietta condition --
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- development said,
6 Mr. Chair. "The facility shall adhere to the maximum
7 permissible noise levels allowed in the residential zone
8 as per the sections of code as measured at the property
9 line of the adjacent residential lots. In all other
10 locations, the facility shall adhere to the maximum
11 permissible noise levels allowed in the industrial zone
12 as delineated, again, in the Weld County code." So
13 that's what would be consistent.
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. You have
15 residents --
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And we actually have
17 light industrial in here, not industrial.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I know. It's still,
19 according to our staff, 70, 65. It's pretty high. You
20 have property owners within 540 feet, and you have
21 several residences within 1,500 feet. I'm fine with
22 crafting language which is consistent with Martin
23 Marietta, but I think in terms of those close
24 residents --
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: That's why I wanted
119
1 to see the map. I couldn't (unintelligible).
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- they should be
3 allowed to have their peace and quiet, especially since
4 we're operating on Saturdays.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So you'd be okay
6 with adjacent residential lots?
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, which would be
8 as described in C in the resolution, there is one house
9 260 feet north of the property line, and a second
10 residence within 540 feet east of the property line, and
11 other residents located within the 15 -- that's what the
12 resolution says. If it's incorrect, we need to go back
13 and look at it, because that's under C. Read it. In
14 terms of staff -- that's what I'm reading from the
15 planning staff.
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: C.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So there's the map.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: On page 4.
19 There's an overhead electronic transmission line within
20 hundred feet.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, there's the
22 red dot.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: 2.5 miles from
24 Windsor, 5 from -- .5 from Severance, nearest residence
25 being located approximately 250 feet north of the
120
1 property line. So if we put in the language about
2 adjacent residential properties, that would be
3 consistent and that's what you're asking for?
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah. Those
5 immediately around the --
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And I already
7 said they could be (unintelligible) standards, so sure.
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'm in agreement
10 with that.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I'm in agreeance.
13 Commissioner Freeman?
14 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah.
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad?
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So the houses we're
17 talking about is the one on the north right there.
18 Yeah. And then the one to the east. Yeah. Those are
19 the adjacent -- and the one on the south, isn't that
20 Cactus Hill? Don't they -- isn't that their house?
21 MS. OGLE: That is a house that's owned by
22 Cactus Hill. It's for labor.
23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay.
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So it's not a
25 residence, but it takes care of those two close
121
1 residents.
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So we're saying on
3 the north --
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Because if they're
5 in violation there --
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Northeast and
7 eastern --
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: For those
9 properties.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, for those
11 properties.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: For just those
13 properties.
14 COMMISSIONER,CONWAY: Yeah, adjacent --
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Or existing -- I
16 think it needs to say, "The existing adjacent
17 residential properties."
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Right?
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne?
21 MS. BEST JOHNSON: And would it be
22 measured at that property at that house, measured at
23 that --
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Measured at the
25 property line.
122
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: At the property
2 line.
3 MS. BEST JOHNSON: If it's measured at the
4 existing residential structure, yes.
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, traditionally
6 it's --
7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Well, it's the
8 property line of yours.
9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: To be consistent with
10 the Martin Marietta one, it says, "As delineated in
11 Section 14-9-30 of the Weld County Code, as measured at
12 the property line" -•-
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Property line.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- "of the adjacent
15 residential lots." And I think what I heard
16 Commissioner Kirkmeyer say is -- heard Commissioner
17 Kirkmeyer say is existing adjacent residential lots.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, which is --
19 yeah.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So of the
21 existing adjacent residential lots. Sure. Otherwise,
22 all the other boundaries are light industrial.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne, do you want to
24 take a look at that as she's typing it up here?
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: 14-9-30 is the one
123
1 that's in the Martin Marietta one. And it says "of the
2 Weld County Code," so it's not per state statute.
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right.
4 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Anne?
5 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So the northern lot is
6 owned by Cactus Hill.
7 UNKNOWN MALE: Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: The northern
9 residential lot is also owned by Cactus Hill?
10 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So north, south --
11 north, south, and west is Cactus Hill. So east is
12 really the only one that's not owned by Cactus Hill.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. So it's
14 existing adjacent residential lots.
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Kim, you wanted to
16 clarify something?
17 MS. OGLE: The Doyle residence is up there
16 someplace as well. I think it's next door to the -- the
19 house to the north is the Doyle residence.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I can't hear you.
21 I'm sorry.
22 MS. OGLE: The property that's adjacent to
23 the north, the red house up there, is the Doyle
24 residence.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, and it's a
124
1 residential lot.
2 MS. OGLE: It's a residential lot.
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No, that one's not --
4 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That's not Doyle.
5 That's owned by Cactus Hill.
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: That house is owned
7 by Cactus Hill?
8 MS. OGLE: It's farther east.
9 MS. BEST JOHNSON: It's farther on down
10 80 1/2.
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. I think we --
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Are we good?
13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Uh-huh.
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I just have a
15 clarifying --
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So outside of that
18 border is -- is light industrial. So, I have a question
19 for counsel. How do they -- it sounds like a catch 22
20 if they're in violation. I mean, I'm fine with leaving
21 it light industrial, but that's -- that's going to make
22 it like 90 -- if it reaches 1,500 feet out, I'm just
23 asking staff here, they'll be in violation in terms of
24 the existing, correct?
25 MR. CHOATE: Correct.
125
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So if they violate
2 the 55, 50 with the residents there, that's going to
3 take care of that other sound -- okay. I'm good with
4 that.
5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Mr. Choate, did you
6 have anything else to add to that?
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Is that correct,
8 Bob, as you interpret that?
9 MR. CHOATE: Well, I guess I would defer
10 to Ben on how that works. I only wanted to point out
11 just for clarity that, you know, you said it exactly how
12 you want it. Our County Code, 14-9-30, references
13 measuring at the property line; whereas the statute
14 references measuring 25 feet from the property line. So
15 if you're putting in that more -- slightly more
16 restrictive measuring, and I just wanted to be clear.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And I'm okay with
19 that for the residential parcel. And I think the rest
20 of it should be the -- the light industrial, and the
21 development standard should be the same as it was before
22 for everything else. So, we're just talking about the
23 adjacent residential lot.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So you just need
25 to copy that and make a new sentence. And then you'll
126
1 put back in that -- "light industrial" back in the
2 previous sentence. There you go. Because that --
3 essentially, it's an exception. Yes, there you go. And
4 then put "light industrial" back in the previous
5 sentence. No, take that out, not there.
6 MS. GESICK: Okay.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So that sentence
8 is fine. Now the first sentence, insert back in the
9 "light industrial." And do you want that in here,
10 Section 14-9-30?
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Uh-huh.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Because it's
14 basically the adjacent properties that Cactus Hill owns.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I just want to
16 make sure that's what you wanted.
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, well, that's
18 what was the -- that's --
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. And then
20 you can take off the last part on that first sentence,
21 "as measured at the property line," all the rest of
22 that. Not there. In the first sentence -- I'm sorry.
23 After 30, put a period. In the first sentence, put a
24 period and delete the rest. There we go. "Measured at
25 the property line" -- oh, we missed the --
127
1 (unintelligible) "measured at the property of the
2 existing" -- so at the end of where it says "line," you
3 need to add -- on the second sentence we need to add
4 "existing residential lots." Right?
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Right?
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Uh-huh.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway,
9 you look a little puzzled.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm just reading.
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. That's fine.
12 I'll just give you a minute. The applicant is reading
13 also.
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So the --
15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner -•-
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Go ahead. I
17 apologize.
18 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Can we just wait --
19 Ben wanted to --
20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Go ahead, Ben.
21 MR. FRISSELL: Just a point of
22 clarification. Under the County Code, we do not have a
23 light industrial standard. If you guys chose to put
24 that in, that's fine, but that would be measured --
25 well, it would still get measured under the County Code,
128
1 but it would be taken from the CRS.
2 Currently we have residential, industrial,
3 and non -specified areas. We don't have that specific 70
4 and 65. We do have an 80 and 75, though, for the
5 industrialized. I just want to make sure that we're
6 clear if we were to go out,
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: What's the next
8 level up from residential within industrial? 65, 60?
9 MR. FRISSELL: They're -- as far as I'm
10 aware under this, we have a residential or commercial,
11 and both of those are 55 and 50. We have a
12 non -specified area which is 55 and 50, and then we have
13 industrial area or construction activities which are 80
14 and 75.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, I think we
16 need to clarify since it's not the Code in this.
17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Cozad.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think we can do
19 that by leaving the state statute section in there
20 because that goes back to the 70, 65 for light
21 industrial. It's not in our Code, but it's in the
22 statute.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So I think if we
25 leave it in there, then those areas, other than the
129
1 residential, it goes back to the 70, 65. And that's per
2 state statute.
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: And counsel agrees.
4 I saw a nod of the head over there. Okay.
5 MR. CHOATE: Counsel agrees.
6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So that statute
7 clearly points out the light industrial.
8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yes.
9 MR. CHOATE: Correct.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: In terms -- okay.
11 I'm good with that.
12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Good?
13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right. Anne,
14 reviewing that, are you okay?
15 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: All right. So is
17 there anything else there on page 3 of the development
18 standards? Anything on page 4, 26 through 36
19 development standards? And on the last page, page 5,
20 37, 38, and 39?
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Just a second.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
23 Kirkmeyer.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I just want to
25 make sure that it's clear in here someplace --
130
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Page 4?
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- I think it's
3 on page 4. I don't know if it's directly related to
4 Number 30, but the statements that have been made, I
5 just want to make sure they're capsulated in here
6 someplace -- whether it's a condition or a development
7 standard -- that there's no runoff from the property
B going into the ditch. It looks like --
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Why don't we just
10 state that, that no runoff from the property --
11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- would run into
13 the ---
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Did you have a
15 comment?
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, I think that's
17 a part of their drainage plan.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Well, then
19 let's have it approved by Public Works.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: It's just approval.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Then let's have
22 it in compliance with their drainage plan.
23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Perfect. Thank
25 you.
131
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So maybe we can add
2 that somewhere in 30 or 3I --
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, there we
4 go.
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- in compliance with
6 the approved drainage plan.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Perfect.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Commissioner
9 Conway.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So the -- I just am
11 making sure with staff, their drainage plan prohibits
12 any drain -off into that ditch. Hayley?
13 MS. BALZANO: It prohibits any on -site
14 drain -off. So, the existing off -site will still be
15 routed around the site and go into the ditch, but all of
16 the on -site will not go into the ditch.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So does that meet
18 your (unintelligible)?
19 MS. BALZANO: Yeah.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: They said -- that's
21 per historic, correct?
22 MS. BALZANO: Correct.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
24 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Are there --
25 anything from staff? All right. Before we bring it
132
1 back to the Board, I just want to ask the applicant one
2 more time. We went through one by one on all the
3 changes and the conditions of development standards.
4 Does the applicant or the applicant rep for the
5 applicant affirm that they will comply with everything
6 that's been put into the conditions and development
7 standards?
8 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes, Commissioner
9 Moreno, and it was very helpful doing it one by one and
10 asking one by one, and then it kept it correct. So,
11 yes, the answer to your question is yes.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you.
13 Ail right. I'm going to bring it back to
14 the Board. Commissioner Cozad.
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Mr. Chair, I think
16 one of the things that I would like to do, I'm willing
17 to make a motion, but I would like to add to some of the
18 findings that are in our resolution.
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And as I stated
21 previously when we first started this discussion, I am
22 supportive of the application, and I stated my reasons
23 why, but I think to support that even more, I'd like to
24 add some -- some things to our findings.
25 So under -- under our resolution under
133
1 Number 2.A, I'd like to add -- which is the part about
2 consistency with Chapter 22, which is our comprehensive
3 plan -- I'd like to add A.Goal.7. Basically that
4 addresses the property owner requesting a land use
5 change. And I just want that verbatim, that section out
6 of the code --
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: If I may.
B COMMISSIONER COZAD: -- or out of this
9 section.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
11 Kirkmeyer.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Maybe we can work
13 off each other here.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Sure.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'd like to add
16 specifically also A.Policy 7.1, and A.Policy 7.2 into
17 the findings.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Actually, I was going
19 to add those as well.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Great.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And A.policy 7.2
22 talks about the support of -- the conversion of
23 agricultural land to non -urban residential, commercial,
24 and industrial uses. And I think there's evidence that
25 supports that, basically that the parcel is primarily
134
1 located and surrounded by the existing property owner,
2 Cactus Hill.
3 I also wanted to add that we have the
4 letter of support from Severance. I know that's in
5 there in several places, but I want to add that to this
6 section as well, and that there are adequate services
7 available and attainable with the letter from the
8 utility company, so that they can provide -- they can
9 provide service to the site. And also, I think some of
10 the reasonable attainable is with the improvement
11 agreement and the road improvements.
12 Let's see. Under -- we're in our existing
13 resolution 2.A.3, it talks about I.Goal.3, and then I
14 just wanted to add some narrative under that section
15 that talks about the haul routes as approved by CDOT and
16 also the improvements that will be made to both the
17 State Highway 257 and County Road 80 1/2.
18 And then understanding -- I -- and I'll
19 let Esther get caught up. Under section -- the next
20 one, Number 4, it talks about the development
21 improvements, minimizing permanent vision scarring from
22 grading, road cuts and other site disturbances requiring
23 stabilization and landscaping of final landforms that
24 runoff should be controlled at historic levels. I would
25 just like to add to the end of that paragraph that the
135
1 applicant worked with the adjacent ditch company as well
2 as took impact -- or took input from the surrounding
3 property owners and downstream properties on how they
4 managed their drainage and -- by controlling their
5 runoff, not discharging into the ditch.
6 And then the additional landscaping and
7 berming, that was also added based on public input. Did
8 you get the landscaping and screening was modified by
9 the input at the public hearing?
10 And then under Number 5, again, I think
11 that there's -- there's also evidence - it talks about
12 the high tension power lines, but that -- maybe at the
13 end. I don't know where you want to insert this. I was
14 thinking maybe right after where it talks about the high
15 power -- the Platte River Power Authority transmission
16 line, maybe after that or at the end, maybe adding,
17 again, that the applicant addressed the public comments
18 during the public hearing to change the landscaping plan
19 and the overall site plan in regards to the location of
20 truck parking. And that's all I had under A. I don't
21 know if Commissioner Kirkmeyer --
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: It might be
23 easier if I just stated mine myself. (Unintelligible.)
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Sorry.
25 I think under B -- so I'll keep going.
136
1 Under B where it talks about consistent with the intent
2 of the Ag Zone District, I think one of the things that
3 I'd like to add there is that this facility would supply
4 materials to agriculture and improve farm -to -market
5 roads.
6 And under C, I listed all of these when I
7 was speaking before when Commissioner Conway brought up
8 whether it met the burden. And I think there's pieces
9 and parts in here.
10 So you know, Esther, I know when you have
11 to go back and up, you know, try to get the capture in
12 the resolution, I think what I would like -- so maybe
13 just go to the end.
14 I just would like to add,,if it's not
15 already in here, the updated landscape plan, the updated
16 lighting plan, the updated parking area plan, the dust
17 abatement plan, the -- let's see. I'm trying to find
18 the right word. The road improvements, the updated
19 drainage improvements. And I think that's it, actually.
20 Address the compatibility along with the
21 conditions of approval and development standards that
22 were amended during the hearing. I think it was -- I
23 think under D -- you know, really things are covered
24 there, but I just want to restate my position for the
25 record.
137
1 We did so I don't think we needed
2 anything here, but I just want to say it on the record
3 that I agree with the findings that are in the
4 resolution.
5 We did send referrals out to Severance,
6 Windsor, Timnath, Larimer County, and basically
7 Severance gave us the letter of support. Windsor -- the
8 applicant also met with Windsor and worked with them on
9 haul routes and things like that and got their support.
10 They found no conflict of interest. Town of Timnath and
11 Larimer County, as stated in the resolution, did not
12 return a referral response, and so that -- basically
13 they did not oppose the application.
14 Under E, again, I think it's stated in the
15 resolution, but the compliance with Chapter 23,
16 Articles 5 and 11 of the Weld County code talk about
17 whether or not it's in the floodplain or geological
18 hazard area or airport overlay district, and they're not
19 in any of those areas. They will pay into your county
20 road impact fee for roads and also drainage. And so
21 also the impacts are addressed within the conditions of
22 approval and development standards.
23 Under F, I think we did already discuss
24 this, but it -- the property is not designated as prime
25 farm ground. It has been irrigated, but it's a small
138
1 parcel. It is 31 acres and has not been irrigated since
2 at least 2016.
3 And then under G, I would like to add
4 under section -- under this portion -- I'll let you get
5 caught up. Under Section G, to ensure the -- that there
6 are adequate provisions for the protection of the
7 health, safety, and welfare.
8 Again, I think the numerous -- and I would
9 like this in the findings -- the numerous number of
10 permits that are required by the applicant to be in
11 compliance with. So, there were 22 permits. You can put
12 just -- I don't care, either 22 or numerous local,
13 state, and federal permits that are required, address
14 the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of
15 the neighborhood and the county.
16 And just as a reference to some of those,
17 I think the SPCC plan in particular that was discussed
18 during the hearing today, that they've actually gone
19 above and beyond what's required by having tertiary
20 containment, and it's only required to have secondary
21 containment.
22 Their air quality permits, the safety from
23 the lighting, and also I think the lighting -- and I'm
24 just going to state this on the record. The lighting
25 plan actually addressed the concerns that we heard from
139
1 the public too as far as the welfare of -- of the
2 neighborhood by them implementing some of the Dark -Sky's
3 and best practices that they discussed during their
4 presentation today.
5 And T think that was -- and I said the
6 drainage already too, that the drainage will basically
7 have -- they fall under the 300 -year versus the 100 -year
8 as required in our County Code, so they've gone above
9 and beyond with their drainage as well.
10 That's all that I have as far as the
11 findings.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
13 Kirkmeyer, did you (unintelligible)?
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'll wait
15 (unintelligible) motions (unintelligible) more comments.
16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Commissioner
17 Conway?
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'll wait.
19 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner
20 Freeman?
21 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: (Unintelligible.)
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. I'm prepared
23 to make a motion to approve Site Specific Development
24 Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, USR17-0043, for
25 Mineral Resource Development, including asphalt and
140
1 concrete batch plants; materials processing, crushing
2 and screening; material stockpiles; an office; a shop;
3 an outdoor truck and employee parking in the
4 A (Agricultural) Zone District for Cactus Hill Ranch Company
5 in care of Simon Contractors, Inc., with the additional
6 findings, the conditions of approval, and development
7 standards as amended during the hearing today.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Second.
9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Moved by
10 Commissioner Cozad, seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer
11 to approve USR17-0043. With the statements that were
12 already made, now we'll go ahead and go to discussion
13 further.
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure. So also
15 along with discussion, I'd like to ensure that we are
16 incorporating the Planning staff's recommendations -- or
17 development -- I'm sorry -- findings of facts as well,
18 but I have additions to the findings that I would like
19 incorporated into the record as to why I will be
20 supporting the motion.
21 So the proposed area that it can support
22 development, I find that it is consistent with
23 Chapter 22. I might sound a little bit repetitive of
24 what Commissioner Cozad said, but I'm going to try and
25 not be. But it is compatible in the area when you add
141
1 in the goals and policies that are found in A.Goal.7,
2 and specifically Policy 7.1 and 7.2. I would like those
3 added into the findings.
4 Furthermore, I'd like it added into the
5 findings that because of the road improvements, road
6 maintenance improvement agreement, that I.Goal,4_ should
7 be satisfied as well, which encourages industrial
8 development to pay its own way.
9 Additionally, I would like A.Goal.8, 8.3,
10 8.4, showing that it's consistent with those goals as
11 well, which require that adequate services and
12 facilities, especially roadways and storm water
13 management, be available or attainable to accommodate.
14 I think they figured out how they can accommodate.
15 They've put together a drainage plan
16 that's designed for a 300 -year event, which is above and
17 beyond what the Board -- what the County requires.
18 They're preventing any runoff into the -- from entering
19 into the canal that will be contained on the site, and
20 it will restore the historical flow patterns. So I
21 think they've worked to exceed what the County
22 requirements are for runoff and storm water.
23 I'd also like to add into the findings
24 A.Goal.9, and specifically Policies 9.2, 9.3, and 9.5.
25 These encourage the reduction of potential conflicts
142
1 between various other land uses in the conversion of
2 traditional agricultural lands to other land uses.
3 I think the conditions of approval and the
4 development standards include several mitigation
5 measures and many aspects -- and many of -- include
6 several mitigation measures with regard to this proposal
7 to assist with making it consistent with our
8 Comprehensive Plan.
9 Further, I just want to make sure that we
10 have identified as well I.Goal.1 that wasn't identified
11 in here before because these -- I.Goal.1 promotes the
12 location of industrial uses within essentially urban
13 growth boundary areas or intergovernmental agreements,
14 and•this is located within the intergovernmental
15 agreement location.
16 Let's see what else I had. I think that
17 might have been -- I think we got all of those. Then
18 within Section C, talking about compatibility, I agree
19 with the comments that Commissioner Cozad made. And I'd
20 like to make sure that within the findings, it's
21 delineated that they also will have a
22 drainage plan, as I already stated, and that the Board
23 put on additional conditions with regard to limitations
24 of the noise standard with a residential standard to be
25 where there are existing adjacent residential lots.
193
1 And then lastly, under Section F, which is
2 that the applicant has demonstrated an effort to
3 conserve prime agricultural land, I think, again, it's
4 stated in here that it is not prime -- it is not
5 designated as prime agricultural land, but I would just
6 say that we have said this before as a board and just
7 wish to say it again, that the Board doesn't interpret
8 this requirement is that the applicant has to make a
9 diligent effort to conserve prime farmland, which,
10 again, this is not. It's not a mandate that prime
11 farmland may never be converted to other uses; that we
12 work to balance the goal preserving prime farmland with
13 the other goals for the development of Weld County.
14 And, again, I would just like to remind
15 everyone that the applicant -- or remind the Board --
16 that the applicant has made it very clear that they will
17 not be impacting the ditch with their runoff.
18 And then lastly, that the -- in this area
19 as well, that the proposed use is dependent upon being
20 located adjacent to adequate road infrastructure.
21 They're essentially located near two state highways:
22 257 and State Highway 14.
23 But I just want to make sure that we also
24 put in the findings that the site is in an area that's
25 transitioning to other uses, probably due to the
144
1 extensive road infrastructure, but also the -- it's
2 reflected in the Town of Severance's Land Use Plan that
3 this is within a development node area and it's within
4 their plan and, again, within our Intergovernmental
5 Agreement.
6 And that's all I have with the addition to
7 the findings, I believe.
8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Further comments or
9 discussion? Commissioner Conway --
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'll wait. Go
11 ahead, Commissioner Freeman.
12 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah, so I think
13 you guys have got the -- the findings pretty much
14 covered. A couple of things when looking at.this site,
15 you know, originally one of my biggest concerns
16 obviously was going to be the water supply and storage
17 ditch. Being the fact that they've mitigated that
1B issue, that makes it easier for me to support.
19 I think the other thing is when we look at
20 where this property is located, where you've essentially
21 got the same land owner who owns all the property to the
22 north, to the south, and to the west of this, the impact
23 to the neighborhood is -- is fairly minimal.
24 It's a very rural, residential -- I mean,
25 very rural area with very few residents out there. And
145
1 I do think that with the growth that you're seeing and
2 with Severance -- with it being in Severance development
3 node as well, and the fact that Severance supports it
4 and the fact that this plant is going to be very
5 beneficial to the Town of Severance and Windsor as well
6 as probably Timnath and Larimer County as we continue to
7 see the growth along the Front Range, I think -- and
8 with the fact that you've got the two state highways
9 right there beside it, I think at the end of the day,
10 any time you see any kind of change anywhere, obviously
11 it impacts the neighbors.
12 This will impact neighbors, but I think
13 that they've done a really good job of putting things in
14 place to be able to mitigate those impacts. And I think
15 that over -- over the long period of time that it's
16 going to be something that's going to be very beneficial
17 to the neighboring communities in that area.
18 And so for those reasons, I will be
19 supporting it.
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Commissioner Conway.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Go ahead.
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Go ahead. I'll --
23 I'll take the (unintelligible).
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Have we noticed the
25 applicant --
146
1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Several times.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Just
3 double-checking.
4 Well, I've been struggling with this case.
5 I guess where I come down to is, first and foremost, I
6 want to thank my Commissioners. I think we've
7 diligently tried to mitigate some of the impacts of
8 this, particularly on the noise, the landscaping, the
9 road improvements, the lighting plan. I think that at
10 the end of the day, you've diligently tried to do that.
11 I guess where I struggle -- and having
12 read through everything this weekend and looking at --
13 and it's just, I guess, an interpretation. We agree to
14 disagree and do it respectfully. I'm going to vote no
15 on this USR because I don't believe it meets a number of
16 sections in the code.
17 Section 23-2-80.B.2, the proposed use is
18 consistent with the ag district. Section 23-2-230.B.3,
19 if this was a use to be permitted, it would be
20 compatible with existing surrounding land uses. There
21 isn't another batch plant around the corner here. The
22 closest one I think is Martin Marietta. There might be
23 one north, you know, in terms of that.
24 I also have 23-230.B.7, to ensure
25 protection of health, safety, welfare of the
197
1 neighborhood. The public provided us -- I went back
2 through and looked at the public -- numerous articles,
3 EPA studies, which really question some of the health
4 impacts of this.
5 Along -- I know the applicant produced a
6 professor from CU, and I appreciate his comments. But
7 when I went back and looked at the number of medical
8 journals and other documented emissions and concerns
9 from batch plants particularly which have been studied,
10 you've got numerous residents within 1,500 feet of this
11 facility. I just -- I have real concerns there.
12 I guess where it really, at the end --
13 I'll make some personal comments. Those are my
14 findings -- oh, on the ag thing, you know, I know,
15 quote, you know, 31 acres is not deemed irrigated prime
16 land -- that was used as recently as 2016 -- isn't
17 deemed prime, but I -- I understand we can agree to
18 disagree on that. I think it is prime ag land. So I --
19 I have a problem with that.
20 But I guess what I really come down to is
21 how this whole process in terms of the applicant has
22 proceeded. You know, imagine you wake up one morning
23 and you look at your back door and check out your back
24 door and you find a batch plant.
25 There are no public hearings, no notice,
148
1 no information. Neighbors have to drive over to the
2 facility to find out what's going on. And they're
3 told -- the public is told, This is a temporary use.
4 We're using this temporarily. You don't have anything
5 to worry about.
6 And then they find out a few months later
7 that the batch plant is not only going to remain, but
8 it's going to double in size. It's going to have a
9 bigger impact to your surrounding neighborhood. And I
10 guess that's where I really struggle with this.
11 You know, the neighbors in their
12 testimony, the public in our system have said, We didn't
13 have a problem with the temporary use. Now we have a
14 situation where the facility is going to be doubled.
15 It's going to become permanent.
16 And I just -- I think at the end of the
17 day the applicant said in their testimony that their
18 first choice was 1-25 and Harmony, but it was in the
19 city of Fort Collins, and they don't allow batch plants.
20 And so we moved a little farther east down the road.
21 I think this facility is going to have a
22 huge impact, and I -- you know, I go back to a statement
23 that one of the public made. You can put lipstick on
24 the pig, but at the end of the day, it's still a pig.
25 Again, I want to thank my Commissioners
149
1 because I think they really did try to mitigate some of
2 the concerns. I want to thank the applicant for their
3 willingness to go back and be respectful and try to make
4 those changes. And I want to thank the public. I know
5 this process can be frustrating at times. And at the
6 end of the day, we try to work our way through this.
7 We have lots of binders up here. I don't
8 even think Martin Marietta had this many binders, did
9 it, Commissioner Freeman? It's been a huge undertaking
10 in terms of stuff, and I want to thank you for your
11 participation and your comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. Thanks. I --
13 as I'm the final commissioner to speak on this, again, I
14 want to first, again, thank the public, because the
15 public does have a big part of decision -making here and
16 this process here.
17 I think that as everyone knows, I was
18 supportive of moving forward in the discussion of where
19 we were at. I spent a lot of time -- I went back and I
20 listened to all the audio from the two hearings. And
21 that was painful going through so much time again with
22 this here. And -- but as I said, I think the public
23 pointed out some things that were of concern that I
24 thought that we could get through in mitigating, and
25 believe we have.
150
1 As I stated to begin with, I looked at
2 what the Planning staff had presented, I looked what
3 comments were made from when the Planning Commission was
4 presented with this first. And I would agree with my
5 fellow commissioners and all the statements that have
6 been made by Commissioner Cozad, Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
7 and Commissioner Freeman here, and I'd incorporate
8 everything that's been put into the findings.
9 I do find, with all due respect from
10 Commissioner Conway's opposition of this here, that it
11 is compatible. I believe that everything has been
12 mitigated to the point that will take care of a lot of
13 those concerns. I think when we talked about the ditch
14 and that -- when the, applicant came back and addressed
15 that with us. I mean, we talked about the dust
16 abatement. I think we've covered that very well on a
17 number of these things here.
18 So I'm going to be supportive of this. As
19 I said, I drove out there, I spent Saturday -- not just
20 a driveby; I drove several times past it and around the
21 surrounding areas. What is out there? I think it is in
22 a good place where this is at, 257 and 14.
23 I think it is impactful, as I think we've
24 heard some emotions about the quality of life out there.
25 I really believe that the applicant is going to take
151
1 care of everything responsibly here.
2 So with that, I'm going to close with that
3 and I will move, I guess, to a roll call vote, if we're
4 ready to go.
5 MS. JUANICORENA: Sean Conway.
6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No.
7 MS. JUANICORENA: Julie Cozad.
8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yes.
9 MS. JUANICORENA: Mike Freeman.
10 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yes.
11 MS. JUANICORENA: Barb Kirkmeyer.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yes.
13 MS. JUANICORENA: Steve Moreno.
14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yes.
15 I'll let the record reflect that 4 out of
16 5 have voted in to approve USR17-0043. With -- with
17 that, we'll adjourn this land use case at 1:06. Thank
18 you.
19 (End of audio recording.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 5, 2018
TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Rebecca J. Collings, a Colorado
Realtime Certified Reporter, Registered Professional
Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of
Colorado, do hereby certify that I prepared the
foregoing transcript from an audio recording of the
proceedings.
I further certify that the transcript is
accurate to the best of my ability to hear and
understand the proceedings.
I further certify that I am not an
attorney, nor counsel, nor in any way connected with any
attorney or counsel for any of the parties to said
action, nor otherwise interested in the outcome of this
action.
My commission expires September 14, 2021.
•i
- -- - REBECCA J. COLLINGS
Registered Professional Reporter
Colorado Realtime Certified Reporter
Notary Public
DausterlMurphy 303-5.2.2-1604
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss
COUNTY OF WELD)
I, Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board of Weld County Commissioner and Notary Public
within and for the State of Colorado, certify the foregoing transcript of the digitally recorded
proceedings, in re: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT, USR17-0043, FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ASPHALT
AND CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS, MATERIALS PROCESSING (CRUSHING AND
SCREENING), MATERIAL STOCK PILES, AN OFFICE, A SHOP, AND OUTDOOR TRUCK AND
EMPLOYEE PARKING IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - CACTUS HILL RANCH
COMPANY, C/O SIMON CONTRACTORS, INC., before the Weld County Board of County
Commissioners, on Monday February 5, 2018, and as further set forth on page one. The
transcription, dependent upon recording clarity, is true and accurate with special exceptions(s) of
any or all precise identification of speakers, and/or correct spelling or any given/spoken proper
name or acronym.
Dated this 1st day of May, 2018.
Esther E. Gesick, Notary
Weld County Clerk to the Board
ESTHER E. GESICK
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 19974016478
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 29, 2021
ORIGINAL ee)
CERTIFIED COPY ( )
Hello