HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181446.tiffBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado 80634
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
DOCKET 2017-86.B - PART 1
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.
(10:46 A.M. TO 11:45 A.M.)
The above -entitled matter came for public meeting before the Weld County Board of
County Commissioners on Monday, November 6, 2017, 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, DausteriMurphy, 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
s4.
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
2018-1446
`,bvywr. tUM,a, C.att-�'►A-4
CS -0"1-t$
PL. 5°3
1
1 APPEARANCES:
2 ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
3 COMMISSIONER JULIE A. COZAD, CHAIR
4 COMMISSIONER STEVE MORENO, PRO-TEM
5 COMMISSIONER SEAN P. CONWAY
6 COMMISSIONER MIKE FREEMAN
7 COMMISSIONER BARBARA KIRKMEYER
8 ALSO PRESENT:
9 ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD, TISA JUANICORENA
10 ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, BOB CHOATE
11 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, KIM OGLE
12 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, EVAN PINKHAM
13 PLANNING SERVICES ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE, HAYLEY BALZANO
14 HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, BEN FRISSELL
15 APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE:
16 ANNE BEST -JOHNSON, TETRA TECH
2
1 (Beginning of audio recording.)
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: We'll go ahead and
3 call up Docket Number 2017-86. I do have a couple of
4 announcements to make.
5 One was the sign-up sheet. So where is
6 that again? Whoever has it, we do need you to sign in.
7 Please put your name, address on there, and that's how
8 we're going to call up individuals to come up and speak.
9 And generally what we'll do is we'll just
10 have you come up, be ready, maybe I'll call up five
11 people in a row. So just be ready when I call, you
12 know, the five names, and then we'll go from there.
13 The other thing is -- I didn't mention
14 this during our last part of our meeting. If you do
15 have cell phones with you, please make sure and have
16 those on mute so that we're not interrupting the
17 meeting.
18 We will not tolerate outbursts from the
19 audience either. So, if you'll please -- please refrain
20 from doing that and everybody be respectful of the
21 process here today; we really would appreciate that.
22 We will allow anybody from the public that
23 wants to come up and speak to speak for up to three
24 minutes. And we'll let you know when you're getting
25 close. We can either put up a little sign and let you
3
1 know you have 30 seconds, and we'll go from there on
2 that.
3 Just so the audience is all aware, we do
4 have a lunch that we've already been scheduled for that
5 we have to be at at noon. It's in our complex up here,
6 so we'll probably break about five or ten until 12:00,
7 and then we are going to reconvene at 1:45 because we
8 also had -- we have a commissioner that's got a
9 conference call that has to be taken care of at 1:30.
10 So just so everybody's aware of that, so
11 we will take kind of a long lunch break, and then we'll
12 come back at 1:45.
13 So go ahead and let Mr. Choate read into
14 the record.
15 MR. CHOATE: This is Docket 2017-86, Case
16 USR17-0043. The applicant is Cactus Hill Ranch Company,
17 in care of Simon Contractors. The request is a
18 Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit
19 for Mineral Resource Development, including asphalt and
20 concrete batch plants; materials processing, crushing
21 and screening; material stockpiles; an office; a shop;
22 outdoor truck and employee parking in the Agricultural
23 Zone District. Part of the west half of Section 16,
24 Township 7 North, Range 67 West of the Sixth Prime
25 Meridian in Weld County. Located south of and adjacent
4
1 to County Road 80 1/2, east of and adjacent to State
2 Highway 257.
3 Notice of today's hearing was published
4 October 20, 2017. And this was previously continued
5 from October 25th.
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. All right.
7 We'll start with staff. Good morning, Kim.
8 MR. OGLE: Good morning, Commissioners.
9 Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services.
10 As stated, this application is USR17-0043.
11 The applicant is Cactus Hill Ranch Company, in care of
12 Simon Contractors who are represented by Anne Johnson
13 with Tetra Tech, Longmont.
14 The sign for today's hearing was
15 posted at least ten days prior to the Planning
16 Commission hearing by planning staff and is evidenced by
17 photograph and affidavit.
18 As indicated, this case was continued at
19 the October 25, 2017, hearing at the request of the
20 applicant in order to have all five commissioners
21 present to hear the case, and also to hold a community
22 meeting on October 30th with the surrounding property
23 owners and interested persons, who submitted several
24 letters on Monday and Tuesday prior to the Board's
25 October 25th hearing.
5
1 The applicant held the second community
2 meeting on October 30th at the Windsor -Severance Fire
3 Station with approximately 50 persons attending. The
4 applicant can provide additional comment on this
5 meeting, as staff did not attend.
6 The site is located south of and adjacent
7 to County Road 80 1/2, east of and adjacent to
8 Highway 257, and borders Larimer County Canal on the
9 south property line. There is an overhead electric
10 transmission line for the Platte River Power Authority.
11 It aligns south of County Road 80 1/2 and within a
12 recorded easement.
13 The proposed facility is located within
14 the Coordinated Planning Agreement area between Weld County
15 and the Town of Severance and the Town of Windsor.
16 This site, while located within the CPA for the Town of
17 Windsor, is located outside of their growth and land use
18 planning area per the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Their
19 planning area extends north up to County Road 80.
20 Simon Contractors met with the Town of
21 Windsor Planning director on July 7, 2017. The Planning
22 Director did not express concerns for this application
23 at the time of the meeting.
24 In Windsor's electronic referral mail --
25 excuse me, electronic mail referral dated August 11th, the
6
1 town echoed comments that were provided by the Town of
2 Severance relating to improvements on county -- on
3 Highway 257.
4 The site is located one-half mile south of
5 an area with a land use designation of development node
6 for the Town of Severance. Development nodes are
7 identified as areas where commercial, mixed use, or
8 urban style development may be appropriate outside and
9 away from the town core.
10 The development nodes are surrounding key
11 intersections in areas within the Town of Severance
12 growth management area but outside of the town core
13 area. These development nodes are important to the
14 future economic vitality of the community and have
15 potential to be served by urban infrastructure which may
16 offer the opportunity for higher intensity land uses.
17 It's recognized that the development node
18 areas are not presently served with full urban
19 infrastructure, and it could take several years for this
20 infrastructure to reach each node. However, it is
21 desirable to promote development of these areas, and
22 therefore, the development of these areas could occur in
23 stages.
24 The Town of Severance recognizes three
25 development nodes within the Comprehensive Plan
7
1 with the corner of State Highway 257 and State
2 Highway 14 being one such area. This intersection of
3 two busy state highways has high -traffic counts, good
4 access into the north end of Fort Collins on Highway 14,
5 south on Highway 257 to Severance and Windsor, and east
6 on Highway 14 to Ault and Highway 85.
7 Landowner developer shall meet with the
8 Town of Severance and the Colorado Department of
9 Transportation to determine allowable access points onto
10 county highways located within the development node.
11 The uses allowed in these areas include
12 industrial land uses including heavy industrial
13 facilities as a special review. That excerpt comes out
14 of the Town of Severance's future town plan per
15 ordinance.
16 Simon Contractors met with representatives
17 from the Town of Severance on June 29, 2017, and the
18 town planner attended the open house held on July 10,
19 2017. A letter of support from the Town of Severance
20 was included within the application materials.
21 There are residential structures located
22 in the immediate area, with the nearest residence being
23 located approximately 260 feet north of the property
24 line, with the second residence being approximately
25 540 feet east of the property line. A third residence
8
1 is located approximately 570 feet to the south of the
2 property line. All other residences are located
3 1,200 feet or greater distance from the property line
4 within this proposed facility.
5 Adjacent land uses to the northeast
6 include a solar ray facility known as Silicon Ranch
7 Corporation, permitted under MUSR16-0001. Adjacent to
8 the south and southwest are three confined animal
9 feeding operations for 800 cows, 40,000 sheep, and an
10 adjacent location for 150,000 sheep permitted under
11 Cactus Hill Ranch Numbers SUP -309 and AMUSR-803. And to
12 the southwest is a 5,000 -head cattle feed lot, also for
13 Cactus Hill Ranch Company, permitted under SUP -364.
14 To the west is a 900 -head dairy known as
15 Barclays Boxes Dairy, USR-1554, and to the north are
16 several telecommunication towers including USR-1155 for
17 150 -foot high communication tower. Also to the north is
18 a 15 -lot residential subdivision identified as Valley
19 View Acres, and it was approved in 1978.
20 The applicant, Simon Contractors Company,
21 is proposing the development of the Severance asphalt
22 and ready -mix plant. The facility was granted a Use by
23 Right for a temporary asphalt plant associated with a
24 specific CDOT project on State Highway 85 for a period
25 of sixth months or until November 15, 2017. The use
9
1 that's proposed for this request are for a permanent
2 asphalt plant and permanent ready -mix concrete plant,
3 crushing and screening material, and material
4 stockpiles.
5 Prior to submitting the USR application,
6 representatives for Simon Contractors and their
7 consultant met with neighbors concerning this proposed
8 site development on July 10th and invited neighbors within
9 a thousand feet of the property and also invited three
10 residents located east along Weld County Road 80 1/2
11 that were outside of this thousand -foot radius to an
12 open house to present the project and answer questions.
13 Three individuals attended this meeting
14 including a neighbor, the landowner, the Town of
15 Severance planner. The neighbor had concerns with the
16 noise generated from plant operations, time of day of
17 operations, traffic, particularly the traffic at County
18 Road 80 1/2 and Highway 257, and the smell coming from
19 the facility. A second meeting was held on October 30th,
20 which was previously discussed, and the applicant will
21 go into further detail.
22 Simon Construction Company provides a
23 number of services including asphalt, asphalt paving,
24 ready -mix concrete, bridge construction, utility
25 construction, and concrete construction. Per the
10
1 application materials, the proposed site was selected
2 due to proximity to state highways as well as growing
3 communities. The Severance facility will provide
4 asphalt and ready -mix concrete products to northern
5 Colorado customers both in the public and private
6 sectors.
7 Simon anticipates receiving aggregate to
8 the site from southern Wyoming by truck unless a more
9 cost-effective local source is secured. Aggregate
10 received at the site will include crushed stone, sand,
11 gravel, and recycled asphalt product.
12 Planning staff received three letters for
13 this case prior to the planning commission hearing, one
14 from the owner of the property requesting no screening
15 of the property uses from the public rights -of -way and
16 adjacent property. Mr. Nelson owns the lands to the
17 north, south, and west.
18 The second letter was from Platte River
19 Power Authority, indicating they have knowledge of the
20 uses within the utility easement and have no additional
21 comments.
22 The third letter was received from
23 Mr. Christian Schulte, attorney from Otis, Bedingfield &
24 Peters, on behalf of Mr. Thomas Moore, adjacent property
25 owner to the east, who is in opposition of the
11
1 application based on the available information, and
2 requests the application be denied as the proposed
3 operation poses too great a risk to the existing
4 surrounding agricultural and residential land uses.
5 The concerns address potential for air and
6 water pollution, expected noise pollution, light
7 pollution, and the potential for criminal activity when
8 the plant is not in operation.
9 The letter also states that at a minimum,
10 the hearing should be postponed to a later date, citing
11 notification to the surrounding property owners. While
12 the procedure was followed, there may have been
13 confusion on behalf of the neighbors as the temporary
14 batch plant was up and operational.
15 Planning staff also received several
16 telephone calls from adjacent property owners when the
17 temporary batch plant was being constructed, and then
18 post-USR application from adjacent property owners to
19 the east and others nearby.
20 Prior to the Board of County
21 Commissioner's hearing on October 25th, Planning staff had
22 received 13 telephone calls from persons identified --
23 from persons identified as to the temporary batch plant
24 being turned into a permanent installation. Staff also
25 has received numerous letters, including letters that
12
1 I'm receiving right now, in opposition of this permitted
2 use and land use.
3 Common themes expressed through each
4 letter included the increase to commercial traffic,
5 airborne toxins, noise, smell, trucks blocking County
6 Road 80 1/2 at County Road 257, dust, debris,
7 cancer -causing agents from cement in the air, washboard
8 roads, taxes continuing to rise while property values
9 will go down if the facility is approved, and runoff
10 into the adjacent ditch, specifically the degradation of
11 the Larimer County Canal and the water utilized for
12 irrigating 20,000 acres to the east, were the general
13 concerns.
14 To address the concerns raised, the
15 Planning Commission requested a lighting plan, an
16 updated landscape and screen plan, and the screening
17 plan should screen the truck parking and outdoor storage
18 as required per Weld County Code Section 23-3-50.F,
19 specific to screening, and Section 23-3-50.G and
20 Section 23-21-60.U.6 specific to lighting.
21 The Planning Commission also is -- also
22 cited a restriction to the hours of operation for the
23 two plants. The restricted hours of operation, along
24 with the Development Standards, will assist in
25 mitigating the impacts of the facility on the adjacent
13
1 properties, ensure compatibility with current and future
2 land uses.
3 Planning staff is in receipt of a revised
4 lighting, landscape, and parking plans associated with
5 the proposed facility as submitted by the applicant.
6 These documents were received on October 23rd.
7 Twenty-two referral agencies have reviewed
8 the application for this case. Five offered comments,
9 some with specific conditions. In a referral dated
10 October 2nd, I received from Donald Frick, attorney for --
11 from Fischer Brown Bartlett & Gunn, P.C.,
12 representatives for the water supply and storage
13 company, also known as the Earimer County Canal,
14 indicate the company objects to the County's
15 recommendation for approval.
16 Their concerns are specific to the
17 discharge of waters into the canal, and more
18 particularly are concerned that the proposed facility
19 will produce volatile organic compounds and other toxic
20 materials which, if not properly contained or removed
21 from on -site storm water runoff, will adversely impact
22 the water quality in the canal, the detriment of the
23 canal, and the company's shareholders. A second letter
24 dated November 2nd, from Mr. Frick was received and is
25 part of the record.
14
1 Representatives for the applicant have met
2 with representatives for the Larimer County Canal
3 concerning the requests and are able to provide
4 additional comment on the current status of their
5 discussion and possible agreement.
6 The Planning Commission as a condition of
7 approval prior to recording the USR map. It's requiring
8 the applicant to submit evidence from the Larimer County
9 Canal Company, water supply and storage, that the canal
10 will accept overland flows of water from the property
11 into the canal and evidence to be submitted in writing
12 on company letterhead to the Weld County Department of
13 Planning Services.
14 The Planning Commission recommended
15 approval of this application with attached Conditions of
16 Approval and Development Standards, as amended, on a vote
17 of 4 to 1.
18 Representatives are here for Simon
19 Contractors with some images for the surrounding
20 property and will be happy to answer any questions.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Are there any
22 clarifying questions for Kim at this time? Otherwise,
23 let's -- go ahead, Commissioner Moreno.
24 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thanks, Madam Chair.
25 Kim, just to clarify again, the -- this was temporary
15
1 with support from CDOT supporting this?
2 MR. OGLE: Correct.
3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: When was this? In
4 May?
5 MR. OGLE: Correct. Our code allows for a
6 temporary batch plant operations to be a use by right so
7 long as the company who has the state contract can show
8 evidence of a contract. And it's specifically for a
9 specific project and for a specific term.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you.
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And just to clarify,
12 that was a CDOT project, correct?
13 MR. OGLE: It is a CDOT project.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay.
15 MR. OGLE: State Highway 85.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: (Unintelligible.)
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, go ahead,
18 Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Has planning
20 staff -- just for clarification -- have you received a
21 letter from the Larimer County Canal Company?
22 MR. OGLE: Yes, we have. We have two
23 letters from them, one from October and then also one on
24 November 2nd.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And is it
16
1 something (unintelligible)?
2 MR. OGLE: No. They're objecting to the
3 flows of -- it's in your -- it's in your document file.
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: All right. I'm
5 trying to find that. Thank you.
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Commissioner Conway.
7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Clarifying question,
8 the notes show a 5-0 vote. You said 4-1 on Planning
9 Commission.
10 MR. OGLE: It's 4-1, yes.
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, the actual
12 minutes say 5-0. There were three people that were
13 absent, and it doesn't show in the minutes that there
14 was anybody that was opposed who was a 5-0 vote.
15 MR. OGLE: Okay. My mistake.
16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: According to our
17 documents.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Is that a mistake on
19 the minutes or -- I'm just trying to clarify, because a
20 4-1 versus --
21 MR. OGLE: Yeah, I'll pull the minutes and
22 see.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, yeah, we have
25 them right here. I looked at them, but --
17
1 MR. OGLE: All right. My mistake.
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Go ahead.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The Larimer
4 County Canal, is that a referral or is that an exhibit
5 (unintelligible) letter?
6 MR. OGLE: It's a referral. It's a
7 referable from Don Frick. He is the attorney who
8 represents the canal.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: (Unintelligible.)
10 Thank you.
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Any other
12 clarifying questions for Kim at this point? Otherwise,
13 let's go ahead and look at some pictures.
14 MR. OGLE: So this is a view from the
15 property looking off to the east. The transmission line
16 corridor is right here, and then this is County
17 Road 80 1/2. And then this is one of the nearest
18 neighbors that's up here to the east from the property.
19 This is a view looking directly west.
20 80 1/2 is over here. This is part of Mr. Nelson's
21 property. And then this is the hundred -foot wide
22 easement for the power line, transmission line. And
23 then this is the plant site.
24 This is if you're looking into the plant
25 site from 80 1/2, similar view. This is a view of where
18
1 batching operations for the temporary batch plant are
2 currently occurring. This is the setup with the office
3 and the temporary batch plant.
4 This is looking from State Highway 257
5 back towards the property. This is a view looking to
6 the west. This is a view looking north from 257 onto
7 80 1/2. View looking down 80 1/2 onto 257 at the
8 intersection. View looking back to the plant.
9 And this is the edge of the berm, so this
10 is 257 over here, a little space, and this is the
11 landscape berm. This is a view looking from the south
12 side by the ditch road that shows it right here, is the
13 canal and the piles. Similar view. And then back at
14 the plant site.
15 And then this is a more recent view. So
16 this is 80 1/2 looking across 257, and this is
17 extraction. It has an oil field for a well site going
18 in currently. And a view from 257 looking back on
19 80 1/2. Similar view.
20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Any other
21 questions for Kim? Commissioner Conway.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Kim, just a
23 clarifying -- and maybe the applicant can cover this.
24 The temporary batch plant right now in that footprint,
25 how much of that print does it take up?
19
1 MR. OGLE: It's about a 31 -acre parcel,
2 and they probably take up about 25 acres of that.
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: It looked a lot
4 smaller, is --
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Any other --
6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: The existing
7 facility takes up 25 acres?
8 MR. OGLE: Approximately, yeah.
9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Commissioner Moreno.
10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Madam Chair.
11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: That's okay.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I know we just got
13 something from Tom Parko here. So the
14 temporary right now is just for the asphalt and
15 concrete, but earlier you mentioned something else,
16 whether materials that would be --
17 MR. OGLE: They would be doing materials
18 processing, so they will be screening the material,
19 making it to spec, and then using it for the batch
20 plant.
21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So is the two
22 products just asphalt and concrete?
23 MR. OGLE: Correct, there's an asphalt
24 plant and then there's a concrete plant.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Other
20
1 clarifying questions?
2 All right. Let's go ahead and go on to
3 Evan.
4 MR. PINKHAM: Evan Pinkham, Department of
5 Public Works. As Kim had stated, access to the site is
6 on County Road 80 1/2. A temporary access permit was
7 issued earlier this year under AP17-00290. A permanent
8 access permit has not been issued at this point and will
9 be based on the determination of today's hearing.
10 County Road 80 1/2 is a gravel road and is
11 designated on the Weld County Functional Classification
12 Map as a local road. The latest traffic count on County
13 Road 80 1/2 was taken on August 11th of 2006 and counted
14 218 vehicles per day with 13 percent trucks. Also, with
15 CDOT's -- Highway 257, on their database, they had a
16 2016 traffic count that was 4,300 vehicles per day with
17 7 percent trucks.
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Can you hang on just
19 a second, Evan? Commissioner Conway had a question. Go
20 ahead.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: The truck ADT on
22 80 1/2?
23 MR. PINKHAM: Is 13 percent trucks.
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Of the 218, total
25 ADT?
21
1 MR. PINKHAM: Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
3 MR. PINKHAM: Correct.
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And can you repeat
5 257?
6 MR. PINKHAM: Yes. The traffic count on
7 Highway 257 was taken last year and was 4,300 vehicles
8 per day with 7 percent trucks.
9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Thank you.
10 MR. PINKHAM: The traffic study was
11 completed to analyze the traffic impacts associated with
12 this site. And in full build -out, an estimated 250
13 truck round trips and 35 passenger vehicle trips are
14 expected daily.
15 Based on the traffic study, Public Works
16 has determined that off -site improvements shall be
17 constructed to mitigate the impact of this site. The
18 off -site improvements required by Public Works would be
19 the paving of County Road 80 1/2 from Highway 257 to
20 50 feet east of the easternmost access of the site.
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Can you show us that
22 on the -- maybe on the other map, Kim, where the paving
23 is going to be required? Can you do that again? Sorry.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So it's not on 80 1/2?
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, that's -- that
22
1 was my question, is it -- does it continue on to the
2 east? No?
3 MR. OGLE: No, it stops at 50 feet past
4 the second --
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Past the entrance?
6 Okay.
7 MR. PINKHAM: Now, the reasoning we
8 wouldn't have it go any farther east is they're not
9 anticipating traffic to head to the east. So CDOT has
10 also looked at the traffic study, and they've determined
11 that off -site improvements are required for Highway 257.
12 They're requiring the construction of a northbound right
13 deceleration lane, a southbound left deceleration [sic]
14 lane, and a northbound right acceleration lane from the
15 site. And that's right off of County Road 80 1/2.
16 The Department of Public Works is
17 requiring tracking control for this site. And for this
18 site, since it will be accessing a paved road, will
19 require a tracking controlled -- tracking controlled
20 device and a hundred feet of asphalt or 300 feet of
21 asphalt, and that would go onto their site.
22 An improvements agreement would be
23 required for this site as well. And the Department of
24 Public Works has a Condition of Approval under "prior to
25 operation" -- it would be, I believe, 7.A -- that we're
23
1 requiring acceptance of construction drawings and
2 construction of off -site roadway improvements prior to
3 operation. The off -site improvements shall include the
4 asphalt paving of County Road 80 1/2 from 257 to 50 feet
5 east of the easternmost access to the site.
6 I also have -- I'd like to add a Condition
7 of Approval under that for "prior to operation." And
8 the language on that would be, "Accepted construction
9 drawings by the Colorado Department of Transportation,
10 CDOT, and construction of the off -site roadway
11 improvements to State Highway 257 are required prior to
12 operation of the facility."
13 This requirement will be effective after
14 the current temporary use permit for the batch plant
15 expires. Off -site improvements for CDOT on Highway 257
16 include construction of a northbound right deceleration
17 lane, a southbound left acceleration [sic] lane, and a
18 northbound right acceleration lane.
19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So you would look at
20 that as potentially a new condition, Number 7.C, it
21 looks like? I've noted that. Okay.
22 MR. PINKHAM: And I would be happy to
23 answer any questions you may have on this.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Questions for Evan?
25 Couuuissioner Conway.
24
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, Evan, you said
2 that the anticipation -- and maybe this is for the
3 applicant to answer --- 250 trucks ADT a day; is that
4 right? Is that above what they're getting right now
5 into that temporary facility?
6 MR. PINKHAM: I believe that is about what
7 is currently at the facility. The applicant, or the
8 person that conducted the traffic study, can --
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So in the traffic
10 study -- because I haven't read through it, and maybe
11 this, again, is for the applicant -- how many of
12 those -- it's being trucked from Laramie County,
13 Wyoming, is that right, down here?
14 MR. PINKHAM: Correct.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And to go back to
16 the question -- again, I can wait for the applicant --
17 for a clarifying question, how many of those trucks are
18 coming down and where are they accessing? Are they
19 coming down I-25? Are they coming down 85? Which is
20 their haul route? And I don't know if that's part of
21 the traffic.
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: If you don't mind,
23 let's have the applicant address that.
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And maybe you can ask
25
1 the question to the applicant when they come up.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. Okay.
3 That sounds good.
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Anything else,
5 Evan?
6 MR. PINKHAM: Just based on the traffic
7 study, I can sort of answer that question. Basically
S what they're expecting is 70 percent of the traffic to
9 come from the north --
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Uh-huh.
11 MR. PINKHAM: -- from State Highway 14,
12 and 30 percent to go from the south.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So they would
14 just -- can I ask a clarifying question?
15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Sure. Go ahead.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So they would come
17 down 1-25 to 14 to 257 to the site?
18 MR. PINKHAM: I would imagine if -- yes.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That would be the
20 most logical.
21 MR. PINKHAM: Yeah.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'll let the
23 applicant go through that. Thank you.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Anything else,
25 Evan?
26
1 MR. PINKHAM: No, thank you.
2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Any other
3 questions for Evan at this time?
4 All right. Go ahead, Hayley.
5 MS. BALZANO: Hayley Balzano, Planning
6 Services Engineer. The applicant has submitted a
7 preliminary drainage report. In that report they are
8 designing the detention of the hundred -year storm and
9 releasing at the five-year historic rate.
10 They're also proposing the use of an
11 alternative water quality. This is an aqua swirl
12 hydro -dynamic separator. The applicant's engineer
13 stated that this was chosen to address the water quality
14 in relation to hydrocarbons.
15 Engineering has asked for more information
16 in relation to this, particularly addressing field
17 monitoring criteria for testing on that device. More
18 information was submitted and is being reviewed to
19 understand if we'll allow for this substitution.
20 Condition of Approval 1.G states that a
21 final drainage report and certification of compliance is
22 required. Conditions of Approval 1.J.17 and 18 are the
23 engineering items to be shown on the map.
24 Prior to disturbing more than an acre,
25 they'll need a grading permit, and Development
27
1 Standards 30 and 31 are the typical drainage development
2 standards. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Any clarifying
4 questions for Hayley? Commissioner Conway.
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Hayley, per the
6 letter from the canal company, did we -- is that
7 addressed in Mr. Frick's letter, in terms of the runoff?
8 MS. BALZANO: The runoff is -- they have
9 shown that it is the minor storm event. Some points
10 that Mr. Frick brought up are in the urban storm
11 drainage, which we use as a reference, that -- that the
12 urban storm drainage does indicate that if the
13 irrigation ditches are used for collection and transport
14 of either the initial or major storm, this should be
15 prohibited unless it is specifically provided by in a
16 master plan, which this one isn't, or approved by the
17 ditch owner. So that part has not been addressed.
18 Again, that's in the urban storm drainage, which we have
19 adopted as a reference.
20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
21 MS. BALZANO: It's not addressed in our --
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Any other
24 clarifying questions for Hayley at this time?
25 Okay. Ben.
28
1 MR. FRISSELL: Good morning. Ben
2 Frissell, Environmental Health. Water will be provided
3 by North Weld County Water District. The applicant is
4 proposing to permit and install a commercial septic
5 system and will need to provide evidence of an
6 underground injection -controlled class 5 injection well
7 permit from the EPA or evidence they are not subject to
8 class 5 requirements.
9 Additionally, if the septic system design
10 capacity is 2,000 gallons or more per day, then the
11 applicant will need to adhere to the state requirements.
12 These items are required prior to the issuance of the
13 certificate of occupancy and captured on Development
14 Standard 22.
15 Portable toilets and bottled water will
16 also be provided to drivers, which is acceptable per
17 policy. Our typical waste and best standards are
18 included as Development Standards 12 and 13. And
19 Development Standards 10 through 26 address
20 environmental health issues. And I'm happy to answer
21 any questions.
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Any clarifying
23 questions for Ben?
24 Okay. If the applicant or the applicant's
25 representative would like to come forward.
29
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Before we do
2 that, could someone please direct me to the letters from
3 the Larimer County --
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'm still -- I'm
5 still looking for them.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'm through like
7 200 of 269, and I can't find them, and they're not in
8 the referrals.
9 MR. OGLE: Exhibit A.J, I think it is.
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, I found
11 A.J. I just can't find it in 269 pages.
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And that says a lot
13 based on her speed reading.
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Of course I am at
15 A.E, so maybe I'll find it here pretty soon.
16 MR. OGLE: 133, perhaps?
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: What is it?
18 MR. OGLE: 133. 133.
19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: 133? Because I
20 couldn't find it either. I'm on -- I was on 82, still
21 looking.
22 So go ahead and state your name and
23 address for the record, and then I'm just going to ask
24 you a quick question.
25 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Good morning, County
30
1 Commissioners. Anne Best Johnson with Tetra Tech,
2 1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1E, Longmont, Colorado
3 80501.
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Ms. Best Johnson, how
5 long do you think your presentation is going to be
6 today?
7 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I anticipate our formal
8 presentation will be about an hour.
9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: We're not going to
10 get through all of it before we're going to have to take
11 a break. So is there a point where you can stop and
12 then we can come back?
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes, we can stop.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. So why don't I
15 just give you kind of the "hi" sign when we need you to
16 wrap it up in a couple of minutes.
17 MS. BEST JOHNSON: That sounds good. I'm
18 going to get my phone. It is on silent, but then I'll
19 watch it as well so that I can kind of gauge when I can
20 get to a good point, if you don't mind me getting --
21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No, that's fine. And
22 I've got the clock right behind you, so I can watch that
23 as well, but go ahead.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Can I ask --
25 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Sure. Commissioner
31
1 Kirkmeyer.
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I have a question
3 for you, Ms. Johnson. One of the conditions here says
4 that you're supposed to be getting -- and I did finally
5 find the letter. It is 133 of 269.
6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The applicant
8 shall submit evidence from the Lorimer County Canal
9 Company that the canal will accept overflow -- overland
10 flows of water. So, it appears you're not going to get
11 that letter. Does your applicant that you're
12 representing, do you have a different solution?
13 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I'm going to have the
14 attorney come up and answer --
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So is that just a
16 yes or -- that's a no or a yes?
17 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I'm going to have the
18 attorney come up and answer your question.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: You'll have an
20 attorney answer questions about --
21 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Because he's been
22 working with the canal company. I have not been
23 directly. So --
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. And the
25 reason I'm asking is if -- you know, we have a condition
32
1 that says you need to get that approval, and if there's
2 no hopes of you getting that approval, I'm kind of
3 wondering why we're moving forward.
4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Oh, there he
5 is. Hello, Mr. Lind. Come on up.
6 MR. LIND: Oh, my gosh. Good morning.
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Please state your
8 name and address for the record, and if you could
9 address Commissioner Kirkmeyer's question, that would be
10 great. Thank you.
11 MR. LIND: All right. Ken Lind,
12 355 Eastman Park Drive in Windsor, Colorado, Suite 200.
13 My name is Ken Lind, and I'm here as kind of special
14 counsel for the applicants.
15 And I'm sorry, I couldn't hear your
16 question totally, Ms. Kirkmeyer.
17 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: (Unintelligible.)
18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Go ahead.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. So my
20 question is this: On page 7 of our documents,
21 condition -- what is it? -- 1.E that states that there
22 has to be evidence from Larimer County Canal Company
23 that the canal will accept overland flows of water from
24 the property into the canal. And it appears from the
25 letters that we have in our documents that that just is
33
1 not going to happen. So, I want to know if there -- if
2 you have some other solution to that or what's going on.
3 MR. LIND: Okay. There is no agreement in
4 place at this time. That is one of the issues regarding
5 that condition that we are going to request today that
6 you modify that condition. And the County Attorney's
7 office has also reviewed that.
8 I don't think it's a situation that
9 Larimer Supply and Storage Company will not issue the
10 letter. We're working on that. But that is the reason
11 we intend to request a change as to the condition. And
12 I think that will all come together when we discuss
13 that. But at this present time, one does not exist.
14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Commissioner
15 Kirkmeyer, did you want to --
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure. I'll have
17 a question for Anne then.
18 MR. LIND: Pardon me?
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: My question is,
20 then, for Anne.
21 MR. LIND: Okay.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So is there a
23 solution other than water going into the canal?
24 MR. LIND: I can also answer that
25 question.
34
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Oh, okay.
2 MR. LIND: And the answer is yes, we have
3 an alternative plan.
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Thank you.
5 That's all -- I'll wait to hear it.
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. All right. Go
7 ahead and continue on. Is there any other questions
8 before Anne --
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No, I just need
10 to know.
11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No, that's a good
12 question.
13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. All right.
14 MS. BEST JOHNSON: All right. Well, good
15 morning. Before we do get started, I did want to let
16 you know that we do appreciate the continuance request
17 that was granted and, again, the special meeting today.
18 So with me today, Jeff Butson, project
19 engineer with Tetra Tech; Jean Capola (phonetic), the
20 traffic engineer; John Pinello, the construction manager
21 with Simon; Rod Haven is the environmental manager with
22 Simon; Bret Baker, the attorney; Ken Lind -- I'm sorry,
23 Bret Baker, the president; Ken Lind, the attorney; and
24 Nels Nelson, the property owner.
25 So Simon Contractors is a construction
35
1 engineering company. They have had a presence in
2 Colorado for nearly 20 years, and the representatives
3 that are here with me have had a presence in Colorado
4 ranging from 10 to more than 30 years in Colorado
5 including projects such as the current Ault to Eaton
6 U.S. 85 project.
7 They provide a number of services
8 including asphalt and asphalt paving, ready -mix concrete
9 and concrete construction, bridge and utility
10 construction.
11 They were recognized in 2016 by the State
12 of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality with an
13 environmental stewardship award. They were nominated by
14 DEQ staff and they were awarded by Wyoming Compliance
15 Advisory Panel. Simon was awarded due to their
16 proactive efforts to reduce environmental impacts.
17 We are seeking approval of the application
18 for a permanent asphalt and ready -mix plant facility
19 along with these listed supporting functions. And those
20 were included in application materials.
21 Now, in 2014, Colorado did produce nearly
22 53 million tons of aggregate materials like asphalt and
23 ready -mix concrete products. 35 percent of Colorado's
24 major urban roads are in poor condition, defined by the
25 Colorado Sand, Stone, and. Gravel Association. Those are
36
1 defined as rutting, cracks, and potholes. In some cases
2 these roads can be replaced -- resurfaced, but
3 oftentimes they're deteriorated and need to be
4 reconstructed.
5 And as aggregate deposits are depleted in
6 northern Colorado, construction costs will increase as
7 materials need to be imported from outside of the area.
8 It's important to locate construction materials in areas
9 of growth to reduce costs to consumers and provide ready
10 access to materials where the materials can be consumed.
11 Simon estimates it will invest
12 approximately $15 million in the development of their
13 Severance facility, generate approximately 60 direct
14 jobs, 20 of which will be on site, with an average
15 salary and benefits of more than $75,000.
16 Potential key customers of this project
17 site include the Colorado Department of Transportation,
18 Weld and Larimer Counties, local communities, general
19 contractors, homebuilders, and agricultural facilities.
20 Simon places a great deal of emphasis on operating sites
21 that are safe for employees, neighbors, and communities
22 in which they work.
23 Simon takes a great deal of pride in being
24 a steward of the environment, and actively seeks methods
25 of protecting air and water quality. Simon deploys best
37
1 management practices that meet and exceed regulatory
2 obligations.
3 So a determination of a use by right was
4 applied for on May 2 and received on May 15 for the
5 temporary asphalt use. Our county pre -application
6 meeting and our first meeting with the town of -- sorry,
7 with Windsor -Severance Fire and Rescue was then held on
8 June 15.
9 Due to the location of the property within
10 the coordinated planning agreement boundaries with
11 Windsor and with Severance, we reached out to them and
12 we met with them early to provide information and to
13 seek their input into the application.
14 An open house was held on July 10th. We
15 invited neighbors within a thousand feet plus three
16 additional neighbors on County Road BO 1/2. Three
17 individuals, including the Town of Severance planner, the
18 property owner, and one neighbor did attend. The USR
19 application was then submitted on July 17th.
20 Letters of notice were mailed by the
21 County to surrounding property owners then within
22 500 feet, as is county standard. Mineral notice was
23 prepared by Cyndi Zeren. Two mineral owners, Extraction
24 and Noble, were noticed. Extraction submitted a
25 referral with no conflict noticed, We reached out to a
38
1 neighbor when we learned that they had questions and met
2 in the field on September 22nd, and we offered solutions.
3 Additional agency meetings with CDOT, Weld
4 County Planning, and Public Works have occurred. After
5 Planning Commission, we had a meeting with Larimer
6 County Canal Company, Water Supply and Storage, on the
7 10th of October and offered to meet with the property
8 owner again on the -- another property owner.
9 Due to the number of questions raised and
10 correspondence, we did request a continuance so that we
11 could have another surrounding property owner meeting.
12 We did that on October 30th, and we invited everybody
13 within a mile, as well as everybody that attended the
14 hearing, we sent them emails as well.
15 So just to walk through the plant site
16 plan --
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Excuse me, Anne.
18 Commissioner Conway.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: How many people
20 attended that October 30th meeting?
21 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I counted the
22 attendance list and there were 55.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
24 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So right now the
25 proposed ready -mix plant is far west. There is an
39
1 alternative site plant right here just east of the
2 asphalt plant. There will not be three proposed plants.
3 There's just an alternative location.
4 So we have the ready -mix plant on the --
5 on the far west, an asphalt plant. And so those are the
6 dark gray boxes. The light gray boxes are all the
7 material stockpiles.
8 This is the washing and this is the
9 screening operation. This is the recycling operation.
10 This is a shop, a future office, and fueling. This
11 could be equipment storage and truck parking. You have
12 down here the water quality feature. You have two water
13 quality features being proposed down along the south
14 side.
15 Now, after the surrounding property owner
16 meeting, we did go ahead -- we're -- we're proposing we
17 could do a privacy fence right here along these parking
18 and equipment storage. And then this feature right here
19 is another berm that's about a 15 -foot tall berm that
20 once this part of the property is stripped, we could do
21 some berming right here as well.
22 So traffic will come in for the ready -mix
23 plant from the westernmost access. It will circulate in
24 this area and then it will leave. Traffic for the
25 asphalt plant will come in from the easternmost access.
4D
1 It will access along this road here to the asphalt plant
2 and then it will exit from the westernmost access.
3 When trucks have to come onto the facility
4 to bring in aggregate material, it will access from the
5 easternmost access, bring the aggregate material on, and
6 then it will exit the site from the easternmost access
7 point.
8 When we did apply for the USR, we did
9 request three access points. And then after meeting
10 with Weld County Public Works, we did agree to remove
11 that third access request and go down to just two.
12 And then Commissioner Conway, I believe
13 that you did request -- right now about 8 acres has been
14 stripped, and that's the footprint.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Can you just put
16 your marker around where the existing facility is,
17 right -- yeah.
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Right in that area.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So about 8 acres?
20 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah, that's about 8
21 acres.
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
23 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Plus or minus --
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I got it. Thank
25 you.
41
1 MS. BEST JOHNSON: So that will be
2 basically the footprint.
3 Let's see. Okay. In the next few slides,
4 we're going to illustrate how we're compliant with the
5 overlay districts, including coordinated planning
6 agreements and then the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
7 and the Agricultural Zone District and the zoning
8 ordinance.
9 As Kim pointed out, we are outside the
10 land use plan and the growth strategy for the Town of
11 Windsor, but we did go and talk to the Town of Windsor.
12 We met with the planning department director. He
13 indicated no concerns at that time. And we reached out
14 again, and he said no -- no concerns again.
15 Meeting with the Town of Severance, as you
16 can see -- and, again, as Mr. Ogle pointed out, it is
17 just outside the development node for the Town of
18 Severance. And in talking with the planning -- planner
19 for the Town of Severance, he indicated that development
20 nodes is not going to be a strict circle on a map. It's
21 more of a -- he called it a nebulous form, and it's not
22 strictly circular.
23 And light industrial is a use by right in
24 development nodes, and heavy industrial is a use allowed
25 by additional review in development nodes. And that
42
1 with the assistant town administrator and the town
2 planner, before even submitting the application, and
3 they submitted a letter of support and came to the first
4 planning -- or first open house.
5 Now, when we met with the town, the town
6 indicated support of the proposed project and facility.
7 They indicated that they were happy that more
8 competition was entering into their market because it
9 was an underserved market and that they could now get
10 more competitive prices. And this particular letter of
11 support was submitted with the application materials.
12 Now, this map, the dark green is prime
13 irrigated farm grounds. The light green is irrigated
14 land that's declared not prime by the U.S.D.A. And the
15 entire parcel is outlined in red. Our part of the
16 parcel is the green part that's south of 80 1/2. So
17 we're located on a narrow strip of land that was flood
18 irrigated, and it's not prime.
19 The plants themselves have been nestled as
20 far west as we can. And as -- if you can remember, it's
21 on that 8 acres of where it is right now, that's in the
22 area that's the -- where the blue circle with the X is.
23 Now, I did measure using Google Maps from
24 approximately from the plants -- not the property
25 boundary, but from the plants themselves -- to the
43
1 nearest neighbor to the south, to the northeast,
2 directly to the east, and directly north approximately a
3 half a mile, and then to the neighbor to the northwest,
4 two-thirds of a mile from the plants, not the property
5 line.
6 Now, the next slides I'm going to show you
7 is a visual simulation of what the facility is going to
8 look like upon construction. So, the silos themselves
9 are not going to be blue. We just used blue so that you
10 could see them. They're proposed to be gray. That will
11 blend in a little bit more with the scenery. But we
12 used blue so they would actually stand out and you can
13 see them.
14 So the white star on the map below shows
15 where that photo was taken. So, this is from the
16 intersection on the west side of 257 looking kind of
17 south, southeast. This is the proposed landscaping that
18 will be on the berm.
19 Drought and disease -resistant shrubs are
20 planned. The communities of Severance and Windsor did
21 ask for this additional planting and the berm. While
22 approval of the landscaping plan is a condition of
23 approval, we wanted to illustrate this for you now, so
24 if it was a concern to surrounding property owners that
25 they could see this now.
44
1 And the shrubs that we selected, this is
2 at the mature height. They're sumac and some other
3 shrubs that grow to about 25 feet in height. We chose a
4 shrub that actually does grow pretty quickly so that it
5 would naturalize in as well. And that just shows the
6 individual plants, but the sumac actually spreads. But
7 we just wanted to show that individual footprint of one
8 plant versus spreading.
9 This is looking from the southwest looking
10 north. This is from the north looking south, southeast.
11 Now, the hay bales you see are located on the north side
12 of 80 1/2. These are stored here for livestock
13 operations south of the proposed site.
14 This is the view from the east looking
15 west along Weld County Road 80 1/2 approximately at the
16 eastern property edge. The existing stockpiles are in
17 the photo. Right here you'll first see the asphalt
18 plant, and then the ready -mix plant is right behind it.
19 The cluster -- so we're clustering the plants as close
20 as we can.
21 Now, property values were brought up at
22 the Planning Commission hearing and in some letters.
23 And the proximity of asphalt or ready -mix facilities
24 have not appeared to affect the future development of
25 neighborhoods such as Ptarmigan, River West, or Ridge
45
1 West in Windsor. They're located in close proximity to
2 Best Way Ready -Mix or Keen Asphalt and Ready -Mix.
3 This slide illustrates Bracewell PUD,
4 which is in unincorporated Weld County. It's right
5 here. This is O Street and this is 83rd Avenue. This
6 happens to be Poudre River Ranch. And this is Aggregate
7 Industries, gravel mining, and they also have batching
8 facilities here. And the operations at this location
9 are as close to (unintelligible) mile.
10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Excuse me. Sorry,
11 Anne. Commissioner Moreno.
12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yeah, I'm trying to
13 follow with what we have in our records here. You
14 skipped one slide here. Is that coming up later? You
15 had in here visual impacts, noise, air quality, water
16 quality, road improvements on your slide here, and then
17 you jumped.
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Maybe do -- you might
19 not have my current --
20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
21 MS. BEST JOHNSON: -- current
22 presentation.
23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay.
24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Go ahead and
25 continue.
46
1 MS. BEST JOHNSON: And so all of these
2 referenced subdivisions were constructed after batching
3 facilities were operational. There's also in your
4 packet, in which I'll discuss in a little bit, studies
5 that have been done all across the Front Range that
6 indicate the location of batch facilities after
7 residents have been in place, versus developments coming
8 in to place upon batching facilities. There's --
9 there's no change in property values.
10 Now, application materials, staff
11 comments, and Planning Commission findings indicate the
12 proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
13 the Agricultural Zone District. Simon Contractors has
14 taken proactive steps to mitigate the impacts.
15 So, Simon has regulatory obligations with
16 the State of Colorado. They have adopted best
17 management practice, and they have operational
18 responsibilities to employees and compliance
19 responsibilities to OSHA. These bolster Weld County's
20 conditions of approval and development standards.
21 Now, again, we really do appreciate the
22 continuance so that we could listen to neighbors and
23 implement changes in our application and in the
24 operations. The packet of materials that I have
25 provided to you, there is a letter, and I would like to
47
1 walk through that.
2 Now, it's going to take some time to walk
3 through that, and it's 11:40 now. If you have to break
4 in ten minutes, maybe this is a good time to break,
5 versus starting walking through that letter.
6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: You think the letter
7 is going to take more than ten minutes to go through?
8 MS. BEST JOHNSON: I do believe the letter
9 is going to take more than ten minutes to go through.
10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. What would the
11 board like to do?
12 UNKNOWN FEMALE: Is there any other
13 portion of her presentation that she could do in the
14 next ten minutes?
15 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Actually, we could. We
16 could skip to the -- we could skip this and --
17 So Conditions of Approval and Development
18 Standards, there are three. We would like Development
19 Standard 4.A.4 just to indicate that if there are
20 private companies and if Simon happens to win a private
21 company job such as a parking lot paving project and if
22 it could be at night, that they'd like to provide notice
23 to the County that they could be there at night, along
24 with CDOT. I do have this in redline format for you.
25 It will be easier to follow.
48
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, I don't think
2 we'll discuss -- I mean, you --
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY; Can I ask a
4 clarifying question?
5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Go ahead. But I was
6 going to just -- before you do, I was just going to say,
7 I don't think we should be discussing Conditions or
8 Development Standards until after we have the public
9 hearing.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I just want to
11 clarify.
12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But go ahead.
13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So that would
14 include the trucks coming and going, correct?
15 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Any others?
18 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yeah, so there are
19 others, but if you would prefer to hold on to those
20 until after, we can do that. But walking through the
21 letter was the last thing.
22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Oh. Did you have
23 other conditions and development standards you want us
24 to look at?
25 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Yes. Yeah.
49
1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think you can go
2 ahead and state what those are and we can come back to
3 them after the public hearing.
4 MS. BEST JOHNSON: Okay. And then
5 Development Standard 4.B and 3 and 5, hours of operation
6 for the ready -mix plant, we just want those to be
7 consistent with the asphalt plant.
8 There's a Condition of Approval 1.E that
9 Mr. Lind is going to ask for revisions on. And then as
10 far as the new Condition of Approval, 7.C from Evan,
11 we're in complete agreement. We want to do the
12 improvements on Weld County Road 80 1/2 and State
13 Highway 257. We just want it clear that our current
14 temporary use by right does expire on November 15th of
15 this year, and we will be seeking an extension of that
16 because the CDOT project on 85 did not get completed for
17 this year.
18 And so there isn't a way to get the design
19 approved from CDOT in a week. So, we have a temp -- we
20 have preliminary designs into CDOT, but the current
21 temporary permit does expire on November 15th. And so we
22 will be submitting an extension for the temporary.
23 And I just wanted clarification on what
24 that wording -- what that meant. And Evan and I had a
25 conversation this morning, and I think we're clear on
50
1 the intent of the language, but we just want it to be
2 clear and transparent here in this forum.
3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. All right. I
4 don't think that we'll ask any questions about that
5 right now. So, anything else?
6 MS. BEST JOHNSON: No.
7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: All right. Well, it
8 is quarter till, so we're going to have to break a few
9 minutes early. We will be back approximately a quarter
10 till 2:00, at 1:45. So until then, we are in recess.
11 (End of audio recording.)
12 (Noted on clerk's notes: Due to technical difficulties,
13 the audio is unavailable from 1:45 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
14 the remainder of this portion of the hearing.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
November 6, 2017
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.
Af.BECC,a J. CDLLI'••-,
-
Notary PubPe
5toie of Colorado
Noiery S2001.1028792
REBECCA J. COLLINGS
Registered Professional Reporter
Colorado Realtime Certified Reporter
Notary Public
DausteriMurphy 303-522-1604
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, November 6, 2017, 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 27th day of April, 2018.
Esther E. Gesick, Notary
Weld County Clerk to the Board
ESTHER E. GESICK
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OE COLORADO
NOTARY 1D 19974016478
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT, 29, 2021
ORIGINAL (1C)
CERTIFIED COPY ( )
Hello