HomeMy WebLinkAbout20152493.tiff 't. ' 1861 J ` LAND USE APPLICATION
II rT i SUMMARY SHEET
Planner: Diana Aungst Hearing Date: July 21, 2015
Case Number: USR15-0027
Applicant: Weld LV LLC & Gerrard Investments LLC, c/o Martin Marietta
Request: An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review
Permit No. USR-1584 for any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or
a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction
business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that
the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a
map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions to include
a Mineral Resource Development Facility including asphalt & concrete batch plants
(materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural)Zone
Legal Lot B of Recorded Exemption RE-2803 being part of the SW4 and SE4; and a tract
Description: being part of the SW4, all in Section 18, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO
Location: East of and adjacent to County Road 13 and approximately one-half mile south of U.S.
Highway 34.
Size of Parcel: +/- 131.42 acres Parcel Nos. 0957-18-0-00-
009
0957-18-3-00-
044
POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS
The criteria for review of this Special Review Permit is listed in Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code.
The Department of Planning Services' staff has received referral responses with comments from the
following agencies:
• Town of Windsor, referral dated May 27, 2015
➢ Town of Johnstown, referral dated June 15, 2015
City of Greeley— Planning Department, referral dated May 27, 2015
Front Range Fire Rescue Authority, referral dated May 6, 2015
• Hill and Brush Ditch Company, referral dated May 20, 2015
• Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company, referral dated May 18, 2015
• Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, referral dated May 1, 2015
y Larimer County— Engineering Department, referral dated June 16, 2015 and July 1, 2015
y Larimer County— Board of County Commissioners, referral dated June 16, 2015
y State of Colorado Department of Transportation, referral dated June 30, 2015
➢ Weld County Department of Building Inspection, referral dated June 4, 2015
➢ Weld County Department of Planning Services- Engineer, referral dated June 1, 2015
➢ Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, referral dated June 5, 2015
• Weld County Department of Public Works—Traffic, referral dated July 6, 2015
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 1 of 18
Department of Planning Services' staff has received referral responses without comments from the
following agencies:
• Union Pacific Railroad, referral dated July 10, 2015
• Weld County Sheriff's Office, referral dated May 15, 2015
• City of Greeley—City Council, referral dated June 26, 2015
• Weld County Zoning Compliance, referral dated April 29, 2015
• City of Loveland — Planning Department, referral dated June 12, 2015
• State of Colorado, Division of Water Resources, referral dated July 2, 2015
Weld County Department of Public Works—Access, referral dated June 4, 2015
The Department of Planning Services' staff has not received responses from the following agencies:
➢ Koenig Reservoir
➢ Little Thompson Water District
➢ Weld County School District RE-5J
➢ State of Colorado Historical Society
➢ Big Thompson Conservation District
➢ State of Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife
➢ Weld County Office of Emergency Management
• State of Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
• State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 2 of 18
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW J
2_ f uNTY
Planner: Diana Aungst Hearing Date: July 21, 2015
Case Number: USR15-0027
Applicant: Weld LV LLC & Gerrard Investments LLC, do Martin Marietta
Request: An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review
Permit No. USR-1584 for any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or
a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction
business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that
the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a
map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions to include
a Mineral Resource Development Facility including asphalt & concrete batch plants
(materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural)Zone
Legal Lot B of Recorded Exemption RE-2803 being part of the SW4 and SE4; and a tract
Description: being part of the SW4, all in Section 18, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO
Location: East of and adjacent to County Road 13; approximately one-half mile south of U.S.
Highway 34.
Size of Parcel: +/- 131.42 acres Parcel Nos. 0957-18-0-00-
009
0957-18-3-00-
044
Case Summary:
The applicant, Martin Marietta, is requesting an approval of a Special Use Permit for an asphalt batch plant,
a Ready Mix Concrete batch plant, a 7,200 foot rail loop spur that will accommodate up to 121 train cars
for transloading, and materials processing including recycling and wholesale & retail sales of aggregate.
This USR request is also for the continued operation of Gerrard Construction as approved under USR-
1584. USR-1584 was approved for 40 employees and hours of operation were 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday—Saturday. The application materials for this USR indicate that the number of full-time employees
for Gerrard Construction will be 36 and for Martin Marietta will be 71 for a total of 107 full-time employees.
There will also be up to 45 truck drivers and 25 field construction workers who will be based out of this
facility and will be off-site most of the time. The hours of operation for Gerrard Construction will be 6:00
a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday — Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday. The number of employees
and the hours of operation are consistent with the original USR-1584.
Martin Marietta operations:
Martin Marietta's hours of operation are 24 hours a day/7 days a week.
Hours of Operation for Asphalt:
o The plant will typically only operate Monday through Saturday
o The standard hours of plant operation will be limited to being between one hour before
sunrise and one hour after sunset.
o Load out from storage silos will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and
one hour after sunset.
o When the plant is operating at night, it will only occur when material is requested by cities,
counties or CDOT for night paving projects. Operations will be considered "night
operations" when they take place between the hours of one hour after sundown to one
hour before sunrise. Depending on the request of the jurisdiction purchasing the asphalt,
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 3 of 18
night operations could occur seven days per week.
o When Martin Marietta becomes aware of projects that require night operations, they will
email the Weld County Planning Director to let him/her know about the plans to operate
outside of daylight hours, who the project is for, how long it will be occurring, and where
the materials are being delivered.
Hours of Operation for Ready Mix Concrete:
o The Ready Mix Concrete Plant will only operate Monday through Saturday.
o Actual operating hours of the Ready Mix Concrete Plant will vary depending on weather
and business levels. The plant will generally not begin operating until daylight.
Occasionally, it may need to operate earlier to accommodate daily business demands;
however, in no instance will the plant ever operate before 3:00 a.m.
o The plant will not operate more than 16 hours per day.
o Ready Mix trucks will generally operate during plant operations, but may return to the plant
after plant shutdown to be cleaned and parked.
Hours of Operation for Aggregate and Recycling:
o Aggregate sales and recycling operations will only occur Monday through Saturday.
o Aggregate washing and recycling operations will only occur during daylight hours (dawn
to dusk or 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the winter), actual operating hours will vary
dependent on weather, and business levels.
o Train unloading operations during the summer will only take place between the hours of
6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the
site.
o Train unloading operations during the winter will only take place during daylight hours,
actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site.
Asphalt plant:
The asphalt plant will utilize sand, gravel, and rock in conjunction with recycled asphalt and various
additives to produce bituminous asphalt for utilization on various road and construction projects. The
asphalt plant will be powered by natural gas. As part of the asphalt plant portion of the facility, asphalt
cement will be transported to the site and stored in tanks to be utilized in the process of making asphalt.
The asphalt produced will be trucked offsite for use by the local market. The asphalt plant and related
equipment will be 100 feet in height.
Ready Mix Concrete plant:
A Ready Mix Concrete plant will use sand, gravel, rock, cement, and various additives to produce concrete
that will be trucked off-site for use on various construction projects. The Ready Mix Concrete plant and
related equipment will be 110 feet in height.
Transloadinq
Martin Marietta will construct a rail loop spur which will accommodate up to 121 train cars off the existing
Union Pacific Railroad line for the unloading (transloading)of aggregates and asphalt cement. Aggregates
will arrive by train up to three times per week and will be unloaded and prepared for sale or used by the
Ready Mix Concrete plant and asphalt plant.
Crushing/screening of recycled materials:
A recycled materials processing plant will crush and sort recyclable materials including, but not limited to,
concrete and asphalt. The recyclable materials are byproducts of existing processes and/or material that
will be brought onsite from local construction projects. The recycling plant is portable so it may be moved
around the property from time to time.
A portable wash plant for washing, screening, sorting, stockpiling, unloading, and loading of sand, gravel,
rock, crushed stone, recycled materials, overburden, clay, and topsoil type products.
Sales of aggregate and recycled materials:
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 4 of 18
Up to 680,000 cubic yards of aggregate and recycled asphalt and concrete will be stored on the site in
separate piles.
Parking and Lighting:
The application materials show adequate parking for both the existing and the proposed uses. There is an
existing fence and gate along County Road 13 that was installed for Gerrard Construction that will continue
to be used.
New buildings:
• Asphalt plant- 100 feet in height
• Ready Mix Concrete plant- 110 feet in height
• 14,400 square foot-office building
• 1,200 square feet- modular dispatch trailer
• 14,500 square feet- maintenance building
• 4,800 square feet -scale house
• 1,800 square feet- asphalt trailer
• Fueling station
• Wash plant
• Truck wash
• Recycled materials processing equipment
• Conex buildings
• Maintenance sheds
• Electrical substation - Power will be delivered to the site at 14.4 kV and Martin Marietta will
transform it down at a 7.5 MVA substation proposed at the facility for internal distribution.
• 3 vertical asphalt cement tanks- 10-15 feet in diameter and 40-45 feet in height (30,000 gallons
each)
• 1 vertical emulsified asphalt tank- 10-15 feet in diameter and 40-45 feet in height (24,000
gallons)
• 2 large capacity Asphalt Cement(AC)storage tanks— 100 feet in diameter and 45 feet tall (2.2
million gallons each)
Screening:
As approved under USR-1584 Gerrard Construction has installed some evergreen trees along County Road
13 at the entrance to the facility. Some of the trees will need to be removed to make space for the secondary
emergency access road required by the fire protection district.
Martin Marietta will install a landscape buffer/berm along the eastern edge of the property between the rail
loop spur and the nearby residential subdivision (Indianhead Subdivision).The berm will be 11 feet in height
on the north end and 24 feet in height on the south end. The variation in height is required because of the
topography of the site.
Traffic:
There will be up to 2,260 daily site trips. The traffic impact study states that 95% of the daily site trips will
travel north towards U.S. Highway 34.
Trucks will haul in specific aggregate products to the site to complete the concrete and asphalt mix. These
same trucks may be re-loaded with on-site aggregate and deliver to customers.
Access:
The primary access is an existing access point on County Road 13 and is currently being used by Gerrard
Construction. All traffic entering and exiting the site will use the new bridge that will be installed over the
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 5 of 18
train. Since a train will be on the rail loop spur a great deal of the time this bridge is required to allow access
into the interior portion of the rail loop spur
A 20 foot wide secondary emergency access off of County Road 13 will be constructed just north of where
the Union Pacific Railroad tracks cross County Road 13. Another emergency access will be constructed at
the north end of property this will be a 20 foot wide at-grade crossing of the rail loop spur. This at-grade
crossing will allow access for emergency vehicles when the bridge is not accessible.
The applicant has had two neighborhood meetings one in January 2015 and one in June 2015.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES'STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-
260 of the Weld County Code.
2. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is not consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect.
A. Section 22-2-20.G.1. - A.Policy 7.1. states, "County land use regulations should support
commercial and industrial uses that are directly related to, or dependent upon, agriculture,
to locate within the agricultural areas,when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal,
or can be mitigated, and where adequate services are currently available or reasonably
obtainable."
Martin Marietta is proposing to locate on two parcels; the parcel to the east is currently
productive agricultural land. The soil designation on both these properties is "Prime
(Irrigated)" per the 1979 Soil Conservation Service Important Farmlands of Weld County
Map. The proposed USR does not directly relate to nor is it dependent upon agriculture
and it will be removing about 90 acres of Prime (Irrigated) Farmland from production.
Additionally, as with all land uses, there may be impacts to surrounding properties from the
proposed use. The noise created by the train is exempt from regulations and may interfere
with the neighbor's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of their property. The odors from
the facility are expected to meet federal, state and local odor regulations. However, odor
is subjective and has the potential to be an annoyance to the nearby residential properties.
Section 22-2-20.G.2. - A.Policy 7.2. states, 'Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban
residential, commercial and industrial uses should be accommodated when the subject site
is in an area that can support such development, and should attempt to be compatible with
the region."
The site is located within the three (3) mile referral area of the Towns of Windsor and
Johnstown and the Cities of Greeley and Loveland. The site is also located within the three
(3) mile referral area of Larimer County. Since the site is adjacent to Weld County Road
13/Larimer County Road 1 both counties provided comments on the traffic and road impact.
All of the affected jurisdictions submitted referral agency comments and most of the
comments indicate that the proposed Martin Marietta project is incompatible with the area,
the region, and the vision for the future for this gateway to Weld County.
The Town of Johnstown submitted referral agency comments dated June 15, 2015, in the
form of Resolution #2015-07 opposing Martin Marietta's application. The Resolution
states, in part:
"...that if this use is permitted it would create undesirable, offensive and harmful
consequences, inconsistent with the Town of Johnstown's long-range planning
and inconsistent with the best growth and development along the U.S. Highway 34
corridor."
The Town of Windsor and the City of Greeley submitted referral agency comments both
dated May 27, 2015, which state that this development is inconsistent with the existing
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 6 of 18
2008 Windsor/Greeley Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Both municipalities in their
referral comments state, in part:
"...the property is located within a sensitive location with various competing
interests. It is important to consider — and, ideally, master plan this area in a
collaborative manner due to the proximity of this site to three municipalities, an
established unincorporated neighborhood, large swaths of productive agricultural
land, and major regional transportation systems.
In 2008, the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley entered into an amended
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), that identified a defined Cooperative
Planning, Land Use and Utility Area (CLUA)as a means to attempt to identify and
support a land use pattern for the U.S. Highway 34 corridor that would be
consistent with the jurisdictions' visions and infrastructure planned and existing in
the area. The CLUA outlines permitted uses and site design characteristics within
the Principal Employment Corridor and Secondary Corridor Area. The proposed
facility for Martin Marietta is located within this Secondary Corridor Area.
The proposed use is incompatible with this particular vision that the Town of
Windsor and City of Greeley have developed for this area. The proposed batch
plant is an intensive industrial use unsuited for the nature of this corridor, and its
impacts likely cannot be fully mitigated. Furthermore, approval of this Use by
Special Review,as proposed,would likely establish a sprawling and overly-intense
land use pattern for future development of the corridor.
The Town of Windsor and the City of Greeley urge careful consideration for the
proposed uses and its regional impact, particularly concerning future land use
patterns for the area and along Highway 34. You are aware of the decades of
discussion about preserving the unique identities of the Northern Colorado
communities, with community buffers that allow cities and towns to maintain their
character and thereby contributing to a larger regional economy. With the
proposed scale and location, this proposal may frustrate that vision, or at least
contribute to the beginnings of a land use pattern with significant impacts to the
gateway into the City of Greeley and Town of Windsor."
The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners submitted referral agency comments
dated June 16, 2015 that state:
"Based upon the attached letters [please see the PC Exhibits and the referral from
Larimer County] and discussions with our staff, the proposed use represents a
significant change to the area with regards to traffic, noise, dust and odors, to
mention a few. While this area of our County is comprised of a variety of
agricultural, rural residential and non-residential uses, compatibility of land uses
should still be at the heart of consideration when making a determination of the
appropriateness of the proposed use and the mitigation of potential impacts.
We understand that decisions on land use such as this are difficult, especially in
areas experiencing significant growth, and would therefore respectfully ask that
you consider the concerns raised by property owners in the attached letters."
The application was sent to five jurisdictions to review. All five jurisdictions provided a
response with the majority stating that the proposed use is incompatible with the
surrounding land use and the area. The placement of a heavy industrial use, such as
Martin Marietta is proposing, is a disturbance to the existing residential area and is not
compatible with the existing land uses or the vision of this region. This area is a gateway
into Weld County and the land uses in this area should reflect this significance to the
residents of-and visitors to Weld County.
Section 22-2-80.C.2. -I.Policy 3.2. states, "The land use applicant should demonstrate that
the roadway facilities associated with the proposed industrial development are adequate
in width, classification and structural capacity to serve the development proposal."
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 7 of 18
The application material state that the traffic generated by Martin Marietta will be up to
2,260 daily site visits. The roadway facilities associated with this industrial development
require a number of upgrades before they will be adequate in width and structural capacity
to serve this facility and this has been noted by CDOT,and Larimer and Weld County traffic
engineers. The traffic from this project poses safety concerns for the surrounding
community and commuters of U.S. Highway 34. With the addition of 2,260 vehicles
accessing the site on a daily basis the potential for accidents between trucks & cars and
trucks & trains increases significantly.
The Town of Johnstown Resolution states, in part:
"...the applicant forecasts a significant increase in the generation of traffic along
U.S. Highway 34 and County Road 13 arising from its operation, with the potential
to negatively impact residents of the area and drivers along the roadways."
And
"The proposed uses also include an increase in the use of the railroad line across
County Road 17, which presently has only a rural crossing that may not be
adequate to address safety and delay concerns arising from the increased traffic."
The Weld County engineer in the Department of Planning Services states:
"There was no information in the traffic study concerning the train related traffic
and safety issues."
The traffic impact study stated that 95% of the traffic will travel north on County Road 13
and 5% will travel south. The comments received from CDOT, the Larimer County and
Weld County traffic engineers indicate that this is extremely unusual. If this site is a
regional distribution center then it would seem that there would be a higher trip distribution
to the south. The Weld County Traffic Engineer has stated that a more realistic trip
distribution would be 75% of traffic traveling north on County Road 13 and 25% of traffic
traveling south on County Road 13.
The intensity of the traffic proposed for the intersection of County Road 13 and U.S.
Highway 34 warrants signalization as pointed out in by at least four referral agencies.
Additionally, the auxiliary lanes on County Road 13 and U.S. Highway 34 will need to be
extended in length and acceleration and deceleration lanes will need to be installed on both
County Road 13 and U.S. Highway 34. Both the signalization of the intersection and the
improvements to the auxiliary and acceleration and deceleration lanes requires
coordination with the affected railroad companies. At this time there has been no
comments submitted from Great Western Railroad Company concerning the expansion of
the lanes along U.S. Highway 34.
The addition of 2,260 site visits daily from this project poses safety concerns for the
surrounding community and commuters of U.S. Highway 34. The increased traffic
increases the potential for accidents between trucks&cars and trucks&trains. The impact
of the traffic will adversely affect the roadway facilities in the area.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.3 -- The uses which will be permitted will not be compatible with the
existing surrounding land uses.
There are 14 single-family homes/lots within 500 feet of this site. Indianhead Subdivision
(approximately 100 lots) is located northeast of the site. Currently there is a single-family
residence on the site adjacent to County Road 56. The application materials state that
some of the outbuildings associated with this home will need to be demolished in order to
build the 24 foot high berm for the rail loop spur. The Department of Planning Services
has received 763 letters and many phone calls concerning this USR. 534 letters — 70%
are in support of this USR and 229 letters — 30% are in opposition to this USR. The
supporting letters primarily originate from outside of Weld County: 42% supporting this
USR are from folks living outside of Weld County, 27%are from folks living in Weld County
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 8 of 18
in Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etc. and 1% are from Weld County Citizens living in the
Johnstown area including Indianhead Subdivision.
The opposing letters primarily originate from Indianhead Subdivision: 23% are from Weld
County Citizens living in the Johnstown area including Indianhead Subdivision, 5%
opposing this USR are from folks living outside of Weld County, and 2% are from folks
living in Weld County in Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etc. The table below shows the
breakdown for the letters.
Table 1 —Surrounding property owner letters*
Support—total number of letters 534 70%
Live in Johnstown area including Indianhead Subdivision 5 1%
Live in Weld County (Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etc) 208 27%
Live outside of Weld County (Fort Collins, Westminster, etc.) 321 42%
Oppose—total number of letters 229 30%
Live in Johnstown area including Indianhead Subdivision 175 23%
Live in Weld County (Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etc) 18 2%
Live outside of Weld County (Fort Collins, Westminster, etc.) 36 5%
*Letter count as of July 13, 2015 Total 7_63
The issues cited in the letters that oppose this project include, but are not limited to: traffic,
noise, dust, visual impact, lighting, odors, health concerns, air and water pollution, and
safety concerns due to increase in rail and truck traffic.
The following is an incomplete list of the concerns from letters of opposition:
• Health concerns from the processing of asphalt including, but not limited to, nitric
oxide, styrene (ethenylbenzene), benzene, methyl ethyl ketone, hydrogen sulfide,
heavy metals,formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter, and toluene.
• Health issues due to long term exposure to low level carcinogens
• Health concerns related to toxic odors
• Escalation of respiratory ailments (i.e. asthma) due to odors, smoke, dust and
pollution
• Health issues for those who have allergies or who are sensitive to the emissions from
the plant
• Visual impacts for the residents to the west including those who live in the Indianhead
Subdivision
• Visual ugliness/degradation
• Obstructed view to the west
• Excessive dust from the processing of Ready Mix Concrete and recycling materials
in the crusher/screener
• Dust, noise, and odors from the transloading conveyor belt
• Dust from traffic
• Hazardous dust
• Caustic dust that is detrimental to plant life, livestock, and humans
• Odors from the processing of asphalt and concrete
• Odors from train cars unloading asphalt cement
• Odors from diesel trucks
• Inability to sleep with the windows open due to odors
• Light pollution
• Noise from train and machinery
• Noise from the recycling crusher/screener
• Noise from the rail
• Backup beeping noise
• Noise from the site interfering with those who work at home
• Traffic concerns
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 9 of 18
• Increase in commute times due to increased traffic
• Traffic congestion at the intersection of U.S. Highway 34 and County Road 13
• Damage to the roads due to increase in truck traffic
• Traffic delays on U.S. Highway 34 the gateway to area that will kill future growth
• Increase in rail traffic
• Potential for train derailment
• Vibration from trains
• Increase in train traffic may mean more trains at night that will disrupt sleep
• Noise from rail including horns, whistles, car switching (uncoupling), and screeching
wheel noise
• Trains blocking County Roads (County Road 15, County Road 17, 54, etc.)
• Decrease in property values
• Decrease in quality of life for the residential properties surrounding the site
• Air pollution
• Water pollution
• Seeping of chemicals into the ground water
• Inability to sell or re-sell homes
• Pollution draining into the Big Thompson River, the Koenig Reservoir, and the
adjacent ditches
• Setting precedent for more heavy industrial operations to locate in this area
• Disruption of the peace and quiet
• Diminish the desire of people from outside the area to visit or relocate to this area
• Negative impact to the ducks, geese, loons, pelicans, and herons in the area
• Negative impact to the wildlife
• Improper use of viable cropland
• Safety for the workers at the asphalt plant
• The high winds in Northern Colorado will sandblast the homes to the east
• Safety concerns due to the potential for lightning strikes
• Wildfires caused that may be caused by railroad sparks and human activity
• Safety concerns due to the potential for dust explosions
• Endangering the residents, travelers, and business people due to a potential for an
accident or explosion at the Martin Marietta site
• Explosion or accident due to deliberate human actions at the site
• Families not being able to enjoy the outdoors due to odors, dust, and noise
• Safety concerns for children due to increased truck traffic and rail
• Deception from Martin Marietta in presenting the information about the project
• Letters of support are from people who do not live in the area and the negative
impacts will not affect them
• Flawed traffic impact study
• Flawed environmental study
• Safety of pedestrians, equestrians, and bikers on the County Roads
• The revised rail (making a smaller loop and moving it further west)will require more
trains will be required for the same amount of product to be delivered
• The definition of the batch plant is not part of the Weld County Code and this asphalt
manufacturing facility should be a continuous plant because batch plants 'make
asphalt as needed' and continuous plants operate 24/7; Martin Marietta's asphalt
plant is proposing to operate 24/7 therefore it is probably a continuous plant.
• An aviation safety light may be required
• Air quality for those who exercise outside
• The placement of Martin Marietta at this location is not good planning
• Screening the asphalt and Ready Mix plats will be nearly impossible because of the
uphill slope of Indianhead Subdivision as compared to the Martin Marietta site
• Negative impact on the future development in the area
The noise, odors, and traffic from the proposed uses will cause disruption to the nearby
residential properties and safety concerns due to truck traffic on County Road 13 and U.S.
Highway 34 especially where the truck traffic acceleration and deceleration lanes cross
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 10 of 18
over Great Western rail on U.S. Highway 34. The Department of Planning Services
believes that the negative impacts are such that there are no conditions that could be
placed on this USR that would ensure the compatibility with the surrounding existing land
uses.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
Should the Planning Commission approve the proposal, the Department of Planning Services recommends
the following conditions:
1. Prior to recording the map:
A. An Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement is required for offsite improvements at
this location. Road maintenance including dust control, damage repair, specified haul routes
and future traffic triggers for improvements will be included. (Department of Public Works)
B. A Final Drainage Report and Certification of Compliance stamped and signed by a Professional
Engineer registered in the State of Colorado is required. (Department of Planning Services -
Engineering)
C. The traffic study should be updated to address the comments from CDOT, Larimer County,
and Public Works. The study should include information pertaining to the additional train traffic
and discuss local traffic impacts that may be created by additional train traffic. (Department of
Planning Services- Engineering)
D. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of CDOT, as stated in the referral
response dated July 6, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services and Department
of Public Works)
E. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County Department of
Public Works, as stated in the referral response dated July 6, 2015. Evidence of such shall be
submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services and Department of Public Works)
F. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County Department of
Building Inspection, as stated in the referral response dated June 4, 2015. Evidence of such
shall be submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services and Department of Building Inspection)
G. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of Larimer County, as stated in the referral
response dated June 16, 2015 and July 1, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in
writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
H. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Town of Windsor, as stated in the
referral response dated May 27, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
I. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the City of Greeley, as stated in the
referral response dated May 27, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Hill and Brush Ditch Company, as
stated in the referral response dated May 20, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in
writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 11 of 18
K. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Reorganized Farmers Ditch
Company, as stated in the referral response dated May 18, 2015. Evidence of such shall be
submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
L. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, as stated in the referral response dated May 1, 2015. Evidence of such
shall be submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
M. The map shall be amended to delineate the following:
1) All sheets of the map shall be labeled USR15-0027. (Department of Planning Services)
2) The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3) The map shall be prepared per Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. (Department
of Planning Services)
4) The applicant shall delineate the trash collection areas. Section 23-3-350.H of the Weld
County Code addresses the issue of trash collection areas. (Department of Planning
Services)
5) The map shall delineate the approved landscaping/screening. (Department of Planning
Services)
6) The map shall delineate the lighting for the site. (Department of Planning Services)
7) The parking areas shall adhere to Appendices 23-A & 23-B of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
8) Show and label the approved access(es), turning radii, and access permit number(s) on
the map. (Department of Public Works)
9) Show and label the entrance gate set back a minimum of 100ft from edge of shoulder.
(Department of Planning Services - Engineer)
10) Show and label all off-site auxiliary lane improvements. (Department of Planning Services
- Engineer)
2. Upon completion of Condition of Approval #1 above, the applicant shall submit one (1) paper copy
or one(1)electronic copy(.pdf)of the map for preliminary approval to the Weld County Department
of Planning Services. Upon approval of the map the applicant shall submit a Mylar map along with
all other documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar map shall be recorded in
the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by the Department of Planning Services. The
map shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld
County Code. The Mylar map and additional requirements shall be submitted within one hundred
twenty (120) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
3. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance #2012-3, approved April 30, 2012, should the
map not be recorded within the required one hundred twenty(120)days from the date of the Board
of County Commissioners Resolution, a$50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each
additional three (3) month period. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The Department of Planning Services respectfully requests a digital copy of this Use by Special
Review, as appropriate. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation);
acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles or ArcGIS Personal GeoDataBase (MDB). The
preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to maps@co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 12 of 18
5. Prior to Construction:
a. If more than one (1) acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County Grading Permit will be required.
(Department of Planning Services - Engineer)
6. Prior to Operation:
a. Accepted construction drawings and construction of the offsite roadway improvements are
required prior to operation. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer)
7. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur, nor shall any building or electrical permits be
issued on the property, until the Use by Special Review map is ready to be recorded in the office
of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder or the applicant has been approved for an early release
agreement. (Department of Planning Services)
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 13 of 18
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Weld LV LLC & Gerrard Investments LLC, c/o Martin Marietta
USR15.0027
1. An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit No. USR-
1584, USR15-0027, for any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by
Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(construction business with two shop
buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an
approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any
regulations controlling subdivisions to include a Mineral Resource Development Facility including
asphalt & concrete batch plants (materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural)
Zone, subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The number of on-site employees for Gerrard Construction shall be 36, as stated by the applicant.
(Department of Planning Services)
4. The number of on-site employees for Martin Marietta shall be 71 full-time employees, 45 truck
drivers, and 25 field construction workers, as stated by the applicant. (Department of Planning
Services)
5. The hours of operation for Gerrard Construction shall be 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday— Friday
and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Saturday, as stated by the applicant. (Department of Planning
Services)
6. The hours of operation for Martin Marietta shall be 24 hours a day/7 days a week.
Hours of Operation for Asphalt:
o The plant will typically only operate Monday through Saturday
o The standard hours of plant operation will be limited to being between one hour before
sunrise and one hour after sunset.
o Load out from storage silos will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and
one hour after sunset.
o When the plant is operating at night, it will only occur when material is requested by cities,
counties or CDOT for night paving projects. Operations will be considered "night
operations" when they take place between the hours of one hour after sundown to one
hour before sunrise. Depending on the request of the jurisdiction purchasing the asphalt,
night operations could occur seven days per week.
o When Martin Marietta becomes aware of projects that require night operations, they will
email the Weld County Planning Director to let him/her know about the plans to operate
outside of daylight hours, who the project is for, how long it will be occurring, and where
the materials are being delivered.
Hours of Operation for Ready Mix Concrete:
o The Ready Mix Concrete Plant will only operate Monday through Saturday.
o Actual operating hours of the Ready Mix Concrete Plant will vary depending on weather
and business levels. The plant will generally not begin operating until daylight.
Occasionally, it may need to operate earlier to accommodate daily business demands;
however, in no instance will the plant ever operate before 3:00 a.m.
o The plant will not operate more than 16 hours per day.
o Ready Mix trucks will generally operate during plant operations, but may return to the plant
after plant shutdown to be cleaned and parked.
Hours of Operation for Aggregate and Recycling:
o Aggregate sales and recycling operations will only occur Monday through Saturday.
o Aggregate washing and recycling operations will only occur during daylight hours (dawn
to dusk or 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the winter), actual operating hours will vary
dependent on weather, and business levels.
o Train unloading operations during the summer will only take place between the hours of
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 14 of 18
6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the
site.
o Train unloading operations during the winter will only take place during daylight hours,
actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site. (Department of
Planning Services)
7. The parking area on the site shall be maintained. (Department of Planning Services)
8. All signs shall adhere to Chapter 23, Article IV, Division 2 and Appendices 23-C, 23-D and 23-E of
the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
9. The landscaping/screening on the site shall be maintained. (Department of Planning Services)
10. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed
development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds,
pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services- Engineer)
11. There shall be no tracking of dirt or debris from the site onto publically maintained roads. The
applicant is responsible for mitigation of any offsite tracking and maintaining onsite tracking control
devices. (Department of Planning Services- Engineer)
12. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On-site parking shall be utilized.
(Department of Planning Services - Engineer)
13. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained on the site. (Department of
Planning Services - Engineer)
14. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features.
(Department of Planning Services - Engineer)
15. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that
protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
16. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. The applicant shall operate in accordance
with the accepted Waste Handling Plan, at all times. The facility shall operate in accordance with
Chapter 14, Article 1 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
18. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions should be controlled on this site. The facility shall
be operated in accordance with the accepted dust abatement plan, at all times. Uses on the
property should comply with the Colorado Air Quality Commission's air quality regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
19. Adequate drinking, handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons
of the facility, at all times. For employees or contractors on site for less than 2 consecutive hours a
day portable toilets and bottled water are acceptable. Records of maintenance and proper disposal
for portable toilets shall be retained on a quarterly basis and available for review by the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment. Portable toilets shall be serviced by a cleaner
licensed in Weld County and shall contain hand sanitizers. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 15 of 18
20. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a Stormwater Discharge Permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
21. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County
Code, pertaining to On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems. A permanent, adequate water supply
shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes, as needed. The facility shall utilize the public
water supply. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
22. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be handled in a safe manner in accordance with product
labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). All chemicals must be stored securely, on an impervious surface,
and in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
23. A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan, prepared in accordance with the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR, Part 112, shall be available on site. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
24. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as
delineated in Section 14-9-30 of the Weld County Code.
25. The facility shall comply with all provisions of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
Division of Oil and Public Safety Underground and Above Ground Tank Regulations, as applicable.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
26. Any washing areas shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental Protection
Agency. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
27. Process wastewater (such as floor drain and laboratory wastes) shall be captured in a watertight
vault/container and hauled off for proper disposal. Records of installation, maintenance,and proper
disposal shall be retained. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
28. The facility shall comply with the Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) permit requirements as
stipulated by the Air Pollution Control Division, of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
29. Material being recycled shall be separated by material type or use. Incoming loads shall have all
non-concrete, non-asphalt and non-rebar material removed from concrete and asphalt materials
within thirty(30)calendar days. Non-concrete, non-asphalt and non-rebar material shall not exceed
10% of the total material onsite by weight or volume. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
30. Odors detected off site shall not exceed the level of seven-to-one dilution threshold, as measured
pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
31. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
32. Sources of light shall be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties
where such would cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties in
accordance with the plan. Neither the direct, nor reflected, light from any light source may create
a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets. No colored lights may
be used which may be confused with, or construed as, traffic control devices. (Department of
Planning Services)
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 16 of 18
33. A building permit may be required, per Section 29-3-10 of the Weld County Code. Currently the
following has been adopted by Weld County: 2012 International Codes; 2006 International Energy
Code; 2014 National Electrical Code; A building permit application must be completed and two
complete sets of engineered plans bearing the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or
engineer must be submitted for review. A geotechnical engineering report performed by a
registered State of Colorado engineer shall be required or an open hole inspection. (Department
of Building Inspection)
34. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design and Operation
Standards of Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
35. Necessary personnel from the Weld County Departments of Planning Services, Public Works, and
Public Health and Environment shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time
in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Conditions of Approval
and Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
(Department of Planning Services)
36. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the
foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the
plans or Development Standards, as shown or stated, shall require the approval of an amendment
of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the
plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of
the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
37. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may
be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of
Planning Services)
38. WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM: Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural
counties in the United States, typically ranking in the top ten counties in the country in total market
value of agricultural products sold. The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious,
but they are intensively used for agriculture. Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and
accept there are drawbacks, including conflicts with long-standing agricultural practices and a lower
level of services than in town. Along with the drawbacks come the incentives which attract urban
dwellers to relocate to rural areas: open views, spaciousness, wildlife, lack of city noise and
congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life. Without neighboring farms, those features
which attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County would quickly be gone forever.
Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural
practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well-run agricultural
activities will generate off-site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment; slow-moving
farm vehicles on rural roads; dust from animal pens,field work, harvest and gravel roads;odor from
animal confinement, silage and manure; smoke from ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes; hunting
and trapping activities; shooting sports, legal hazing of nuisance wildlife; and the use of pesticides
and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying. It is common practice for agricultural
producers to utilize an accumulation of agricultural machinery and supplies to assist in their
agricultural operations. A concentration of miscellaneous agricultural materials often produces a
visual disparity between rural and urban areas of the County. Section 35-3.5-102, C.R.S., provides
that an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the agricultural
operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably
associated with agricultural production.
Water has been, and continues to be, the lifeline for the agricultural community. It is unrealistic to
assume that ditches and reservoirs may simply be moved "out of the way" of residential
development. When moving to the County, property owners and residents must realize they cannot
take water from irrigation ditches, lakes, or other structures, unless they have an adjudicated right
to the water.
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 17 of 18
Weld County covers a land area of approximately four thousand (4,000)square miles in size(twice
the size of the State of Delaware) with more than three thousand seven hundred (3,700) miles of
state and County roads outside of municipalities. The sheer magnitude of the area to be served
stretches available resources. Law enforcement is based on responses to complaints more than
on patrols of the County, and the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency
responses, including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually provided by
volunteers who must leave their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. County gravel roads,
no matter how often they are bladed, will not provide the same kind of surface expected from a
paved road. Snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be
cleared for several days after a major snowstorm. Services in rural areas, in many cases, will not
be equivalent to municipal services. Rural dwellers must, by necessity, be more self-sufficient than
urban dwellers.
People are exposed to different hazards in the County than in an urban or suburban setting. Farm
equipment and oil field equipment, ponds and irrigation ditches, electrical power for pumps and
center pivot operations, high speed traffic, sand burs, puncture vines, territorial farm dogs and
livestock, and open burning present real threats. Controlling children's activities is important, not
only for their safety, but also for the protection of the farmer's livelihood. (Department of Planning
Services)
USR15.0027-Martin Marietta
Page 18 of 18
H N DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
a $6i 1555 N 17th AVE
GREELEY, CO 80631
WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us
E-MAIL: daungst@co.weld.co.us
�f PHONE: (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3524
C v i FAX: (970) 304-6498
r
June 08, 2015
HORA PAM
1900 S SUNSET ST STE 1-E
LONGMONT, CO 80501
Subject: USR15-0027 -An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review
Permit No. USR-1584 for any Use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings,
office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded
subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling
subdivisions to Include a Mineral Resource Development Facility including asphalt & concrete batch
plants and transloading in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
On parcel(s)of land described as:
PART SW4 SETION 18, T5N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
PART SW4& PART SE4 SECTION 18, T5N, R67W LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-2803 OF THE 6TH P.M.,
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
Dear Applicants:
I have scheduled a meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission on July 21, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.
A subsequent hearing with the Board of County Commissioners will be held on August 12, 2015 at 9:00
a.m. Both hearings will be held in the Hearing Room, Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O
Street, Greeley, Colorado. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance to
answer any questions the Planning Commission members or Board of County Commissioners may
have.
Colorado Revised Statute, C.R.S.24-65.5-103 (adopted as part of H.B.01-1088) requires notification of
all mineral estate owners 30 days prior to any public hearing. The applicant needs to provide the Weld
County Planning Department with written certification indicating the above requirement has been met.
A representative from the Department of Planning Services will be out to the property a minimum of ten
days prior to the hearing to post a sign adjacent to and visible from a publicly maintained road
right-of-way which identifies the hearing time, date, and location. In the event the property is not
adjacent to a publicly maintained road right-of-way, one sign will be posted in the most prominent place
on the property and a second sign posted at the point at which the driveway (access drive) intersects a
publicly maintained road right-of-way.
The Department of Planning Services' staff will make a recommendation concerning this application to
the Weld County Planning Commission and will be included in the staff report one week prior to the
scheduled Planning Commission hearing. You may view the staff report at
www.weldcou ntyplanningcases.org
Page 2 of 2
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call.
Respectfully,
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
l��sa Ieason:I am the author of thisdocument
Date:2015.06.0813:28:38-06'00'
Diana Aungst
Planner
h N/ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
"••••• Lia fi 1555 N 17th AVE
j ' r ^ GREELEY, CO 80631
WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us
� E-MAIL: daungst@co.weld.co.us
iri_ �j, PHONE: (970)353-6100, Ext. 3524
ti ' FAX: (970)304-6498
April 29, 2015
HORA PAM
1900 S SUNSET ST STE 1-E
LONGMONT, CO 80501
Subject: USR15-0027 - A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development Facilities including materials processing, asphalt & concrete batch
plants, transloading, and any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings,
office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded
subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling
subdivisions in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
On parcel(s)of land described as:
PART SW4 SECTION 18, T5N, R67W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
PART SW4 & PART SE4 SECTION 18, T5N, R67W LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-2803 OF THE 6TH P.M.,
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
Dear Applicants:
Your application and related materials for the request described above are complete and in order at this
time. I will schedule a meeting with you at the end of the review period to discuss the referral
comments received by our office.
It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application of this nature to any town or municipality lying
within three miles of the property in question or if the property under consideration is located within the
comprehensive planning area of a town or municipality. Therefore, our office has forwarded a copy of
the submitted materials to the following Planning Commission(s)for their review and comments:
Greeley at Phone Number 970-350-9780
Johnstown at Phone Number 970-587-4664
Windsor at Phone Number 970-674-2400
Please call the listed Planning Commissions, for information regarding the date, time and place of the
meeting and the review process. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance at
each of the meetings described above in order to answer any questions that might arise with respect to
your application.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call.
Respectfully.
y �L Digitally signed by Kristine Panslem
(�N �s �((_/ytp�/ Fèason:lam the author ofthisdocument
Date:2015.04.29 11:01:52-06'00'
Diana Aungst
Planner
FIELD CHECK Inspection Date: 7/10/2015
Case Number: USR15-0027
Applicant: Weld LV LLC & Gerrard Investments LLC, do Martin Marietta
Request: An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special
Review Permit No. USR-1584 for any use permitted as a Use by Right, an
Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial
Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office
buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an
approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed
prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions to include a
Mineral Resource Development Facility including asphalt & concrete batch
plants (materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural) Zone
Legal Lot B of Recorded Exemption RE-2803 being part of the SW4 and SE4; and
Description: a tract being part of the SW4, all in Section 18, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, CO
Location: East of and adjacent to County Road 13 and approximately one-half mile
south of U.S. Highway 34.
Size of Parcel: +/- 131.42 acres Parcel Nos. 0957-18-0-00-009
0957-18-3-00-044
Zoning Land Use
N A (Agricultural) N Agricultural/Residential
E A (Agricultural) E Agricultural/Residential
S A (Agricultural) S Agricultural/Residential
W Larimer County/Agriculture W Agricultural/Residential
COMMENTS:
The parcel adjacent to CR 13 contains a modular office, a shop and a fence storage yard with
covered parking area. The site adjacent to CR 56 contains a single family residence and a few
outbuildings. There is an access to the site off CR 13.
lalAk Q
Diana Aungst, Planner
MID 11111 11111111111 111111 III HIED 11111 IIII IIII
ti 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
1 of 19 R 96.00 0 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF GREELEY AND TOWN OF WINDSOR
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is made this
b tie'''. day of 2008,by and between THE CITY OF GREELEY,Colorado,a home
rule municipality (" reeley") and THE TOWN OF WINDSOR, Colorado, a home rule
municipality ("Windsor") establishing the terms and conditions for land use site and building
standards and utility services with a Cooperative Planning, Land Use and Utility Area. The parties
hereto,when referring to both, may also be referred to hereinafter as the municipalities or the parties.
WHEREAS, Greeley and Windsor entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement in June
2001, for the purpose of preparing a development plan for US Hwy 34 between WCR 13 (county
line) and SH 257, and along SH 257 between the corporate limits of each community; and
WHEREAS, the Development Plan was completed and has been accepted by the Greeley
City Council and Windsor Town Board; and
WHEREAS,the implementation of the plan requires cooperation and coordination between
the municipalities for the provision of various municipal services such as utilities,planning/land use,
transportation, parks/recreation/open space and public safety; and
WHEREAS, the adopted Plan envisions future intergovernmental agreements which will
outline the specific procedures to provide the necessary services to implement the Development
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the municipalities desire an agreement for planning, land use and utility
services; and
WHEREAS, the parties approved an Agreement dated August 9, 2004 regarding the terms
and conditions for such planning, land use and utility purposes, and
WHEREAS, certain amendments to that Agreement are now deemed to be in the best
interests of the citizens of Greeley and Windsor to further this cooperative community planning
process.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PROMISES HEREAFTER
SET FORTII, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN TILE PARTIES AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Cooperative Land Use, Annexation and Utility Area. The Cooperative Planning, Land
Use and Utility Area("CLUA"))consisting of a Principal employment corridor area and a secondary
corridor area is hereby amended and described as follows:
1 111111 11111 11111 11111 111111 III 1111111 III 1111111111111
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
2 of 19 R 96.00 0 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder
(a) Principal Employment Corridor. Principal Employment Corridor includes
all land depicted on Exhibit A and described on Exhibit B, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference, and is generally described as that area
one-half mile north and south of US Hwy 34 between SH 257 and WCR 13
(County Line Road). The distances are measured from the right-of-way lines
of the affected roads and highways on the same side as the area stated above.
(b) Secondary Corridor Area. There is hereby established a Secondary Corridor
Area which includes all lands depicted on Exhibit A and described on Exhibit
B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and is
generally described as that area extended one-half mile from the principal
employment corridor areas,outer boundaries north and south of US Hwy 34.
2. CLUA Land Uses. Within the CLUA,the parties agree that the land uses are prioritized
as follows:
(a) The Principal Employment Corridor is primarily for employment, industrial
park and other uses as defined, conditioned and limited by Section I. A of
Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
(b) The Secondary Corridor Area is primarily for residential, neighborhood,
commercial and their related uses as defined, conditioned and limited by
Section I. B. of Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
3. Land Use, Site and Building Standards for CLUA. Road Improvements and
Maintenance Master Costs.
(a) The land use, site and building standards for both areas of the CLUA are described on
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Access to Weld
County Road 17 (WCR 17) shall be in accordance with locations agreed to by the
parties on Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Access to US Hwy 34 shall be as approved by the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
(b) The parties agree that they shall equally share the costs of any and all general
improvements to WCR 17 north of US Hwy 34 to WCR 60. The party intending to
make general improvements on the above stated roadway shall give the other party
180 days notice prior to the commencement of construction of the general
improvements to the roadway. The party receiving notice of said improvements
and/or maintenance shall provide comment as to the nature and timing of general
improvement along with its prospective cost to that party. The parties agree that the
jurisdiction which has annexed the affected road shall perform general improvements
2
MOH 1111111111111111111111III1111111 1111
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
3 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
in accordance with its ordinances, rules and regulations; and further that each party
shall pay its one-half of the total cost of the general improvements within thirty (30)
days after invoice of the same, subject to annual appropriation. The parties agree
that each party shall use its best efforts to budget and/or appropriate sufficient sums
to defray the costs of its expense for construction of the general improvements of the
road stated herein. Any roadway improvements that are deemed to be in addition to
customary and general road maintenance such as, but not limited to, the addition of
medians, traffic control devices and like improvements must first be agreed to in
writing by both parties prior to their installation.
(c) The parties agree that the parties shall equally share the costs of any and all
maintenance for WCR 17 north of US Hwy 34 to WCR 60. Windsor shall perform
the annual maintenance and Greeley shall pay Windsor one-half('A) of the cost of
such annual maintenance. The parties agree that they shall meet and agree as to the
nature, extent and maximum cost for annual maintenance of the road on or before
July 1 of each year to provide sufficient time to budget necessary funds for the
succeeding calendar year.
(d) The parties agree that the intersection of WCR 17 and US Hwy 34 may require an
improved road interchange in the future,and as such,the parties agree to negotiate in
good faith with each other and CDOT to determine the land areas to be
reserved/dedicated;the nature and type of interchange improvement; and any and all
costs for construction for the same.
4. Required Notice for Development. . For both areas within the CLUA each party shall
notify the other of all intended development, redevelopment, or variances, within said area no later
than four (4) weeks prior to the initial official consideration of the land use matter by the
municipality reviewing the intended development. All notifications shall be provided to the other
party in writing and shall include a brief written description of the development proposal and
accompanying vicinity, any development maps.and graphics for review and comment by the
receiving party. The receiving party shall renew the documentation provided and shall respond in
writing to the other party with its comments regarding the proposed development. Each party agrees
that it shall use its best efforts to make and receive comments through timely communications. The
parties expressly agree that all such information, documentation and communication is a courtesy
exchange of information and any negligent oversight of any referral or project for comment shall not
require the delay of hearings or decisions on any land use or related case by the approval authority of
either Greeley or Windsor. However, when making a land use decision, the approval authority of
the affected municipality hereby agrees that it may not approve any land use in contravention to those
uses stated in Exhibit B, without the prior written consent of the other party. Each party shall
provide the other party, in writing, a single point of contact for the transmission of all
communications and documentations contemplated and described in this paragraph.
3
HBO 11111111111III1111111III111111111VIII
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
4 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
5. Annexation
(a) Greeley shall have exclusive authority to exercise its annexation powers and,
subject to paragraphs 4 and 5, to provide all urban services within the CLUA
for those areas identified as the "Greeley Annexation Area" on Exhibit C,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
(b) Windsor shall have exclusive authority to exercise its annexation powers and
subject to paragraphs 4 and 5 to provide all urban services within the CLUA
for those areas identified as the "Windsor Annexation Area" on Exhibit C.
(c) Both parties specifically agree that upon the receipt or preparation by either
party of any documents proposing annexation within the CLUA,copies of all
such documents shall be submitted to the other party for review and comment
at least thirty (30) days prior to initial action thereon.
(d) The parties specifically agree that in the event either of them has extended
and/or agreed to any financial or other incentives in connection with a
proposed annexation within the CLUA,that the contents and specifics of such
financial or other incentives shall be submitted to the other party.
(e) The parties specifically agree that Greeley retains and Windsor shall honor
any and all contract rights of first refusal for the purchase of water upon any
properties within the Principal or Secondary Areas which are subject to such
rights under the Greeley Loveland Irrigation Company(GLIC) Shareholders
Agreement. regardless of whether or not those properties are annexed by
Windsor. A map generally depicting the land area subject to the GLIC
Shareholders Agreements is shown on Exhibit D, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
(1) Any property annexed by Windsor which ultimately is developed for
commercial purposes and which commercial business is partially or wholly
located upon a property currently or formerly subject to a GLIC Shareholders
Agreement shall be subject to sales and food tax revenue sharing between
Greeley and Windsor. Windsor shall remit to Greeley, on a monthly basis,
40% of the gross sales and food tax revenue received by Windsor from all
sources upon property stated in this subparagraph(f). The parties specifically
agree that this revenue sharing agreement is authorized pursuant to Colorado
Revised Statutes 29-20-I05(2)(b)and is perpetual in nature and survives any
termination of this Agreement, with said land area subject to the GLIC
Shareholders Agreements shown on said Exhibit D.
4
HBO 11111 11111111111 111111 III 1111111 III 11111 IIII IIII
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
5 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
(g) The terms of this Agreement shall not be construed as to require Windsor or Greeley
to annex property in their respective annexation and growth boundaries.
(h) If either Greeley or Windsor is presented a petition for annexation of land located in
the agreed upon annexation and growth boundary of the other municipality,they each
shall direct the petitioner to the community within which the land is planned for
annexation and service in accordance with this Agreement. Only upon the written
denial of the proposed annexation petition by the community within which the
petitioning land is identified for annexation may the other municipality consider any
such annexation, and then only upon the written amendment of this Agreement.
(i) Windsor shall submit a petition to the North Front Range Regional Planning Council
to exclude the Properties from Greeley's 208 Waste Water Planning Area ("208
Planning Area") and include the Properties in Windsor's 208 Planning Area.
6. Water Service within the Cooperative Land Use, Annexation and Utility Area.
(a) Water service for Windsor properties within the CLUA shall be provided by
Windsor in accordance with the existing Windsor-Greeley Intergovernmental
Agreement for Treated Water Service (dated January 4, 1996), as amended
from time to time by the parties.
(b) To provide all potable water service to the CLUA, a sufficiently-sized
transmission line carrying Zone 4 pressure will be required upstream of a
Windsor master meter from Greeley's Zone 4 pump station to the west along
US Hwy 34. The cost of the transmission main upstream of the Windsor
master meter shall be borne by the municipality or private entity requiring the
service in accordance with the annexing municipality's determination.
It is anticipated that the annexing municipality will require one or more developers
to construct the transmission main upstream of the Windsor master meter. Such
municipality may thereafter choose to afford such developer or developers an
opportunity to enter into a reimbursement agreement providing for reimbursement
when subsequent properties develop and benefit from the main. It is also likely that
certain of such properties will not be located in the municipality that caused the main
to be constructed in the first instance. Both parties agree that if reimbursement is
requested and approved by the municipality constructing the main, the other
municipality will enforce the terms of any such reimbursement agreement for
properties developing in that municipality and benefiting from the main.
5
1111111 11111 11111111111 111111 III 1111111 ��� 1111111111111
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
6 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
7. Sewer Service within the Cooperative Land Use Annexation and Utility Areas.
(a) General. Pursuant to the terms of this intergovernmental agreement, Greeley
agrees to deliver sewage originating within the CLUA to the Windsor sewer
system for treatment and Windsor agrees to provide treatment for such
sewage. Greeley shall maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the
wastewater collection lines which are within its city limits. For purposes of
Colorado water law, Windsor agrees that Greeley shall maintain dominion
and control of water in sewage, originating within Greeley's city limits, and
delivered by Greeley to the Windsor system for treatment such that Greeley
may fully consume (by any means, such as its own municipal use, reuse,
successive use, exchange, substitute supply, or by sale or lease to other
entities) any re-useable effluent resulting from such treatment. Greeley
agrees that a portion of water in sewage delivered to the Windsor system for
treatment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement may be consumed prior to
discharge due to treatment or evaporation and that Windsor does not
guarantee that any specific percentage of the water in sewage delivered by
Greeley will be discharged after treatment of Greeley's water rights
throughout Windsor's system. The amount of re-useable effluent resulting
from treatment shall be calculated in accordance with applicable decrees.
(b) Points of Delivery. Sewage transmitted through Greeley's system delivered
by Greeley to the Windsor system shall be delivered by Greeley to a terminal
manhole(s)at or close to Greeley's city limits. The point(s) of delivery shall
be mutually established and agreed upon in writing by both municipalities.
Sewage metering station(s) will be established in the terminal manhole to
assist in tracking the amount of sewage delivered to Windsor.
(c) Payment of Plant Investment Fee and Measurement of Discharge. Greeley
agrees to pay Windsor a plant investment fee (PIF) reflecting Greeley's
acquisition of capacity in Windsor's wastewater treatment facility. The PIF
for additional capacity shall be annually established,based on the then current
PIF in effect for Windsor residents. The plant investment fee shall not
include any surcharge or additional payment for any lift stations required for
Greeley to deliver sewage to Windsor because Greeley is responsible for such
costs.
As an example of the initial PIF calculation, currently the Windsor PIF is
$2,600 per residential tap and the average residential winter water use,which
is equivalent to sewer use, is 204 gallons per day per tap. Consequently, the
current residential PIF is $12.75 per gallon per day.
6
1111111 11111 111111 Mil 111111 III 1111111111 1111111111111
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
7 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
Plant investment fees due from Greeley to Windsor shall be purchased in
blocks of 100,000 gallons per day capacity, or other quantities as mutually
agreed. Windsor shall regularly monitor the amount of wastewater received
from Greeley at the points of delivery. Whenever the 30-day average flow
from Greeley exceeds the capacity previously purchased by Greeley,Greeley
shall purchase additional capacity within 90 days at the then current PIF.
(d) Treatment Capacity. At such time as the existing Windsor wastewater treatment
plant is using eighty percent (80%) of its capacity, or Windsor determines that the
existing plant will soon be at or over eighty percent (80%) of its capacity, Windsor
shall define the plant capacity that can be issued before the existing plant is using
ninety percent (90%) of its capacity. The additional capacity shall be allocated
seventy percent (70%) to Windsor and thirty percent (30%) to Greeley, unless the
municipalities agree otherwise in writing. When the existing plant is using ninety
percent (90%)of its capacity, or at any time that the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment or other agency responsible for the discharge permit for the
existing plant directs Windsor that additional sewer taps shall not be issued,Greeley
agrees not to issue additional taps. Both municipalities agree to cooperate to
anticipate the need to treat sewage produced within the CLUA and to plan for any
expansion of the Windsor system to accommodate growth of demand within the
CLUA. Windsor agrees to expand the Windsor system as necessary to accommodate
growth of demand within the CLUA. Windsor shall make reasonable efforts to
provide treatment capacity for Greeley's sewage, including expanding the existing
plant when at ninety percent (90%) capacity and/or building a plant capable of
meeting future discharge limits. Should Windsor fail to begin construction of such
capacity when at ninety percent(90%)capacity, Greeley shall have the right to make
alternative arrangements for any and all sewage treatment contemplated under this
Agreement. Such option shall be in addition to any other remedy available under this
Agreement.
(e) Monthly User Fees. Charges for sewage treatment shall be paid by Greeley to
Windsor. The rates for sewage treatment shall be consistent with rates charged to
Windsor resident customers and calculated per hundred (100) cubic feet of
wastewater discharge as measured at the flowmeter(s). The service rates shall be
reviewed by Windsor annually and shall reflect Windsor's actual costs of Greeley's
wastewater treatment and conveyance. Greeley shall use its best efforts to enforce
its environmental standards, restrictions and limitations on all waste water discharge
treated by Windsor.
(f) 'Treatment of Other Sewage. Greeley and Windsor agree that it may be
feasible and cost-effective for Windsor to treat sewage originating within
portions of the City of Greeley that are outside the CLUA;however,nothing
7
1111111 11111 IJJUJ IIIII IIIIII III 1111111 III 11111 1111 IIII
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
8 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
in this agreement shall commit Windsor to treat such sewage and Greeley
agrees that it will not deliver any sewage originating outside the CLUA to the
Windsor system for treatment without the express written consent of Windsor
that it will accept and treat such sewage.
(g) Billings. Windsor will submit one invoice to Greeley monthly. Invoices shall
be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt, after which time interest penalties
shall begin to accrue at the rate of one percent per month,or fraction thereof,
during the period in which the invoice remains unpaid.
(h) Industrial Pretreatment. Greeley shall cooperate with Windsor to enforce
Windsor's EPA-approved industrial pretreatment program to protect the
Windsor's system front undesirable sewage discharge.
(i) Discharge Permit. It is understood and agreed that Windsor shall be solely
responsible for obtaining and complying with any discharge or other permit
required for the operation of its sewage treatment plant, or any modifications
thereto.
8. Release,Hold Harmless, Indemnification. Both Windsor and Greeley are public entities,
as that term is defined pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act,Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-
10-101, et seg. The parties to this Agreement have the benefits and responsibilities enumerated in
the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. Each party shall defend any and all claims for injuries or
damages pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements and limitations of the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act occurring as a result of negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the
parties, their officers,agents,employees and assignees. In addition, Greeley shall be responsible for
any and all liability for injuries or damages caused by any negligent acts or omissions of Greeley,its
officers, employees, agents, and assignees performing functions or activities upon the property of
Windsor. Greeley shall provide adequate workmen's compensation insurance for all of its
employees, agents and assigns engaged in activities and functions upon the property of Windsor or
Greeley. Windsor shall be responsible for any and all liability for injuries or damages caused by any
negligent acts or omissions of Windsor, its officers, employees, agents, and assignees performing
functions or activities upon the property of Greeley. Windsor shall provide adequate workmen's
compensation insurance for all of its officers,employees,agents and assignees engaged in activities
and functions upon the property of Greeley. Each party shall furnish the other party current
certificates of insurance stating that the coverages outlined above are in full force and effect.
9. No Public Utilities Commission Control. Greeley,its employees and elected or appointed
officials, agree neither to assert nor support any statement, policy, petition, rule making, or
legislative attempt to place the Windsor's sewage treatment services system under the authority or
jurisdiction of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission by virtue of this intergovernmental
agreement or otherwise.
8
11111111111111111III1111111III11111IIII Ill
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
9 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
10. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the terms and the
enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such
enforcement,are strictly reserved to the undersigned parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give
or allow any claim or right or cause of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this
Agreement. It is the express intention of the undersigned parties that no person and/or entity, other
than the undersigned parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed
any more than an incidental beneficiary only.
11. Non-Compliance. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, if either
party fails to comply with the provisions of this Agreement, the other party, after providing written
notification to the noncomplying party and upon the failure of the noncomplying party to achieve
compliance within a reasonable time after such notice under the circumstances,or ninety(90)days,
whichever is less, may refuse to provide and/or disconnect the water and sewer services stated in
paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Agreement. Additionally, that party may maintain an action in a court of
competent jurisdiction in Weld County for specific performance, injunctive, or other relief against
the non-complying party. In the event of such litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
payment by the defaulting party, of its actual attorney=s fees and costs incurred.
12. Additions and Modifications. The parties hereto agree that they shall cooperate with
one another and Weld County in making such additions and modifications to this Intergovernmental
Agreement as may be necessary to effectuate its purposes.
13. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of twenty
(20)years from its effective date. Thereafter, it shall be automatically renewed for successive five
(5)year terms unless at least five (5)years prior to the scheduled expiration,either party notifies the
other party of its decision that the Agreement shall not be renewed. As noted in Paragraph 5(f), the
revenue sharing agreement contained therein is perpetual in nature and survives any termination of
this Agreement.
14. Colorado Laws. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Colorado with venue in Weld County.
15. Waiver. A waiver of a breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not
constitute waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or another provision of this
Agreement.
9
MID 11111 11111111111 111111 101111111111111111111 IIII
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
10 of 19 R 96.00 0 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
16. Notices. All notices or other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and
shall be deemed given when personally delivered, or after the lapse of ten business days following
mailing by certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
TO GREELEY: City of Greeley
1000 10`h Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
ATTN: City Manager
TO WINDSOR: Town of Windsor
301 Walnut Street
Windsor, Colorado 80550
ATTN: Town Manager
17. Effect of Invalidity. If any portion of this Agreement is finally held invalid or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction as to either party or as to both parties,the parties
agree to take such action(s)as may be necessary to achieve to the greatest degree possible the intent
of the entirety of this Agreement. If any portion of any other paragraph of this Agreement is finally
held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction as to either party or as to both
parties, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the other paragraphs of this Agreement,
except that any corresponding right or obligation of the other party shall be deemed invalid.
18. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended in writing only by the mutual
agreement of the governing bodies of the parties hereto.
19. Reliance by the Parties. Windsor and Greeley understand that each is relying upon all
of the promises made by the other in this Agreement, and each agrees(i)not to assert to any court or
other body the invalidity or unenforceability of any portion of this Agreement;(ii)to promptly notify
the other party of any legal action which might affect this Agreement; (iii)to allow the other party to
participate in such legal action as the other party deems appropriate; and (iv) to defend this
Agreement in such legal action.
10
1111111 11111 11111111111 IIIIII III 1111111 III 111111 III II
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
11 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement the day and year first written above.
CITY OF GREELEY TOWN OF WINDSOR
s ';c Fes` ' By:C' ���iC�
/'Yi T.,,-, ' Mayor . ires:tsrjr
o tli 7 Lod\
iiI A* s e QF ATTEST: f°
°
��.I _��. ♦ t •i •
®N 4 ' B y: �,-
8 ,— -" By:
1S , -City C 'erG• /
Town CIe�APPROVED AS AS TO SU I S ANCE:
By: 1�/ � By:
ity a:: �®'�� To nager
APP`d ED AS TO ,GAL FORM: c---
By: f/ By:
City At :r - Town Attorney
AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
By:
Director of m ce
11
Exhibit A - Cooperative Land Use Annexation and Utility Areas (CL UA)
11 l k r.
t a '
County Road 681,]_ & �4
e :. ,. 5
O
@ 8 3
6tate'Hwy 392
rl sa�•rlwr3s2 a`I—>U _.� Ewa �s1 �,.Ji V'�irtpEuaa�p Via♦ $
c2"1. , betas Park Or County Road 68 wd
" oobRoad•9a3i4,'Lit rf Windsor 3 EC
r
ur I t
d11 .-
a Y °r 7)
oveIand
�XYI � 1 Burn
34es
h �yc ,i Yt i
ra, r, rrc 1
'Q
34
�� s"" a - I I
Johnstown �•�� � � .
s ii
/.%
a
cro
fi
z ,.
d
1 V
` 5cLate Mwy902 .. - I County Road 4 3TMSF d
\ \)
1 ' ' I 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' I ' ' ' 1 ' I t 1 ' I ' I ' ' ' I ' ' I 1
0 O5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Miles
" \\\\' Primary Cooperative Land Use Annexation and Utility Area
-,. fir
y A Secondary Cooperative Land Use Annexation and Utility Area
Q County Line Rail City Limits
Created:September 24th 207
6t-C;ty of Greek% GIS Parcels Street Centerlines
12 HIED 1111111111111111111111 III 1111111 III 111111 III IIII
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
12 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
HIED 1111111111111111111111 ��� 1111111111111111 ��� IIII
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
13 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder
Exhibit "B"
US HWY 34 LAND USE, SITE AND
BUILDING STANDARDS
The following land use and development standards are blended elements of the City of Greeley and
Town of Windsor Development Codes and provide Overlay Development Standards for a portion of
that area known as the"Strategic Employment Development Corridor(SEDC)" as described in the
City of Greeley 2020 Comprehensive Plan west of State Hwy 257 (SH 257) as illustrated on the
attached Exhibit A and hereinafter referred to as "Greeley/Windsor Employment Corridor
(G/WEC)."
I. LAND USE
A. PRINCIPAL EMPLOYMENT CORRIDOR
1. Physical Area Defined:
The boundary of the principal G/WEC is '/3 mile north and south of the US
Hwy 34 west of SH 257 and east of WCR 13 (County Line Road);
2. Allowed Land Uses:
As described in the Comprehensive Planning documents for Greeley and
Windsor the US Hwy 34 travel corridor is the preferred location for a mix of
regional employment and community separator types of land uses. The
principal land uses allowed in this corridor shall relate to principal employment
functions, such as professional business park uses (e.g. "FIRE: Finance,
Insurance, Real Estate"), light industrial and select medium industrial uses and
special regional destination uses. Outside storage is not permitted in this area
unless fully screened from all rights-of-way and adjacent non-industrially
zoned lands,and where incidental clearly subordinate to the principal land use.
The following land uses are considered principal uses in this corridor; further
subject to the zoning district standards and review processes in the governing
jurisdiction.
* adult schools, e.g. college or university facility, trade or business school
* amusement park
* arena or auditorium
* assembly
* beverage processing
* driving range
* fabrication
* farming
* financial institution
13
1111111 11111 111111 11111 111111 I I 11111111 I I 1111111 1111111
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
14 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
* food processing (fully-enclosed facilities with no adverse environmental
impacts)
* golf course
* greenhouse or nursery
* hospital
* kennels and animal care facilities
* mail center
* manufacturing (fully enclosed, light manufacturing activities)
* medical supply
* office
* open space
* publishing firms
* quasi-public facilities (museum, fire &police, zoo, aquarium)
* radio station
* research/development lab
* sports arena
* stable
* studios
* television station
* testing lab
* theme park
* transportation facilities (light rail stations and public transportation depots
are permitted. Truck terminals and truck stops are prohibited)
* veterinary clinics
* warehouse
* wholesale goods
Other accessory and supportive land uses,such as restaurants,are allowed only
if incidental to the principal land use and located within an established
employment, business or industrial park setting.
Retail operations representing"destination commercial"uses may be allowed
on a case by case basis following the development referral process as
described in this Exhibit and when mutually agreed upon by Greeley and
Windsor in writing.
B. SECONDARY CORRIDOR AREA
1. Physical Area Defined:
The boundary of the secondary G/WEC area begins '/2 mile back of the
Principal Employment Corridor boundaries north and south of the US Hwy 34.
14
1111111 11111 11111111111 111111 III HIIIII III 111111 III IIII
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
15 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
2. Allowed Land Uses:
Allowed land uses are those permitted within the annexing jurisdiction and
may include residential, retail,restaurant,neighborhood commercial and other
institutional uses as may be defined by the annexing jurisdiction.
II. SITE DESIGN
A. BUILDING ORIENTATION:
All portions of buildings facing a right-of-way shall be designed and oriented to offer a
"front door" level of design to the traveling public (criteria for architectural treatments
defined in Section III, below).
B. BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACK:
All buildings and other structures, such as parking lots,shall be setback at least 100' from
US Hwy 34. Setbacks from other rights-of-way shall be in accord with the jurisdiction
within which the site is located.
C. LANDSCAPING:
Landscaping and buffering shall be designed and approved in accordance with the
landscaping requirements of the jurisdiction within which the site is located and shall be
designed in such a way as to present a coordinated entryway treatment along US Hwy 34
and WCR 17.
D. FENCING
Fencing used as part of a landscape treatment shall be designed and approved in
accordance with the fencing requirements associated with landscaping of the jurisdiction
within which the site is located and shall be designed in such a way as to present a
coordinated entryway treatment along US Hwy 34 and WCR 17. No chain link fencing
shall be permitted within the principal corridor area. Any proposals for chain link fencing
within the secondary corridor area(I)shall meet all any chain link fencing requirements of
the jurisdiction within which the site is located, and (2) must be approved by the
municipalities.
E. VEHICULAR ACCCESS:
Site access will be provided in limited locations from adjacent arterial roadways and
provide inter-connectivity between internal and adjacent land uses.
F. PARKING, LOADING, STORAGE:
The location and design of parking, loading and storage operations shall be designed and
approved in accordance with the parking, loading and storage requirements of the
jurisdiction within which the site is located.
15
11111111111111111111111111111 �ll1111111 �ll1111111111111
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
16 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder
III. BUILDING DESIGN
A. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STANDARDS:
The design of all buildings and structures in the Principal Employment Corridor shall be
designed and approved in accordance with the corridor architectural requirements of the
jurisdiction within which the site is located.
B. BUILDING HEIGHT:
The heights of all buildings and other structures shall be designed and approved in
accordance with the height requirements of the jurisdiction within which the site is located.
C. SIGNS:
Allowed signage shall be limited to wall or monument signs and shall be designed and
approved in accordance with the sign regulations of the jurisdiction within which the site is
located. Pole signs are prohibited.
IV. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & REFERRAL SYSTEM
The Overlay Character Zone standards for the G/WEC shall be administered by the jurisdiction
within which the site is located. Greeley and Windsor shall employ a Development Referral
System wherein any project proposed for a land use action including development,
redevelopment, subdivision or variance is automatically referred to the other jurisdiction for
review and comment in a manner as established herein
16
Exhibit C - Growth Management, Annexation and Cooperative Planning Area
�L_. r " , _county-Road681/2 .ja
te.Rwy.392
a stala,Rwy�ge2 ? ` \ .. a walm,I sI l
Tji!_ . �
Eashnan•Pa*"Dr County Roa1.66 C °d"SR.i1roe4
�L
I. ( k Goun1y"Road 64.3/4
Fl �_ ..Windsor - `II 7�
`ice t
J; A`►-7r, r 'If; I I ICI ,- '
}Loveland
t
34I
i/ e�.: u5 . cyA i
_
Johnstown
R \
.\V
cc
�►� � � ���`
a
25
i. Sla@'MVY Got Countr Rand 56 , fie" 3TIh sr rc
Iii git$CJ y
F i = CO
e-3 co
I / , 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 , 1 , , , , 1 i , i , , , 1 I ) .1 1 i = 4,
-N d
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 61 �? N
VI
f Cooperative Planning Area Rail w O
,..,,,fo C
X00
Greeley FN Greeley Annexation Area Street Centerline =
-0,O
Windsor Annexation Area J Parcels N •
- up
en
Created:lanuan 15th 2006 - a K
By:Greeley Planning.GIS City Limits CM
cc—
Q County Line 17 ) =N—
Ern COO
CN.
_Cr
11111111111111111111111111111 III 1111111 III 111111 III IIII
3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO
18 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder — I
W tirmt(i.,' 5Z.Peotl.Nuno� II
- ntlIUISB- r4. c 3I�^/r--tar-i-SLDeoil HunoJ— fITT) zrn
~ tI 1 ^_
vl
tl PULOI r '`1 VU
r 4rc C 6 . d
❑ -ir'b_a- a x I U Ui f 7 I� U
! fi in;
1� ES V + I I
1,. i I 4 �JeI �J b1
ii �I,.�
1 . fr_-_ \ AM IIeiS� •4s �N m
`r'q 3SZ HII
e I F— z h
L.
I I � u
/
f. rr S Q
_ f6r Peoy.HunoO_ -' r7 a,
�r I d d
O y
.mfg +� ��,f.�j t --I
zn c r=Pena--___ , ;I .q e y y
1 a �-L^9 p i L o f
cl� u r"*'i� -a out , .a-,,c e.2atioO„ -- v N _- I ` C3,
k t� m
G,mow' I I -_r }.. _' .` a oe;+noo. y� Z 4 U V
v _
v - o ---96 peon Aluno0 - rc ci
I ' v I 11 u _0
.14
-J JS 011 y C
CC I t.� \ I a� � �� •
°
A
I •m oo I a .LE ar,V
sY J a oin 6 0
I `gyp V o I A3uno3 PIaM Pe i r �I I ID
uPeoats o etfPeoa`Nun j ' ��� ,y<
I I __. /- u°>•PMl---1 unooiSa�EtfPeoyrqunag� , I w
^� r ' , �/Ijuno��awl�ei / W I
%
/ _ t v Slit/ K c
m FlPeoa NunogN n W 3
/of Na.
o I j =P e °
<f" Iw u Li, - w... EPeo/J:AluneO 2D� 'u1' r
Il viwned '4'- I/ t - ' T' - _ ! B Yi 6 11.
I I I ii
h.. -9Peoa•Hunoo � ^ lm0' n I I_ I _ °mr� 5 c S
I 52
�✓� •R i I SeEconw9a0.d Pek ;4g s4t
NISL91M$LI PNe6ewwd "nkno � J
l a,niar... �O N i= ��: i !� py a6eluoii aN - l-r c b : t;51
J..I y_ _i/ F-KI '
L. E97�- Y.. A i � �t 'by�8�. - Isol 3 � u � g82c
II- °E 0{ ��o° W I- ,a, .A —7f L.peoy'H Iwo d z
/ ....ca r I m' 18 - I . EV1 §,I
.e".'I`G I I : - / L'Ff 2 i.7: '6'1 fl -;
WCR60
C
— v
•
— ea
I- t
= c <-120� FUTURE ROW
O 2
I.00
-'0 2
3 "
�0-
-t0
—00
ENO
X00 •
0
•
t_OD
cm •
to
=Crl0
_ ec
1.0
S 0
T J ti FULL ACCESS
N„ r
•co G
—-ID In
f7 T
LO
O
FULL ACCESS T
Fa 4N, L
' P
POMIBLE Yi wersEdfWN
PENDING 1RAFIC SNOT
ANO APPROVAL BY TORN
NG4TJN/ RIGHT NI
RIGM-0Uf
0 semi,vc
'spuate'Fx'M
-- USHWY34
t::ii Kitla Exhibit E
Weld County Road 17
arseTown of Windsor CIS
8-7-2004
Access Design ExhibitE.dwg
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www pdffactory.com
19
Diana Aungst
From: Hora, Pam [Pam.Hora@tetratech.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:52 PM
To: Diana Aungst; Janet Lundquist
Cc: Morgan Gabbert; Britney Guggisberg (Britney.Guggisberg@martinmarietta.com); Moore,
Robert
Subject: Fire District's request for secondary emergency access for USR15-0027
Attachments: Front Range Fire District Authority re access.pdf.docx
Diana and Janet,
As requested in our meeting earlier this week, attached is a letter from the fire district explaining that they have
requested the secondary emergency access onto WCR 13. As stated in their letter and as I explained in our meeting
earlier this week,the reason it is not feasible to connect to WCR 56 is the railroad on the property is constructed on a
berm and on the south end it is elevated about 20'from existing grade. The cost of going over or under this railroad and
the potential impacts on adjacent property owners associated with building this type of access road make it not
feasible. Martin Marietta has no problems building a gate on the edge of the ROW at the secondary emergency access
point out to WCR 13 to make sure it is never used unless it is truly needed for an emergency. If you have any questions
or need any additional information in order to process the access permit application, let me know.
Thanks,
Pam
Pamela Franch Hora, AICP I Senior Planner/ Deputy Operations Manager
Direct +1 720-864-45071 Business+1 303-772-5282 I Fax +1 303-772-70391 Mobile +1 720-201-10731 Pam.Hora(a�tetratech.com
Tetra Tech I Complex World, Clear Solutions T'°'
1900 S. Sunset St., Suite 1 E. Longmont. CO 80501 I tetratech.com
Please consider the environment before printing. Read More.
This message. including any attachments, may include privileged. confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this
communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
1
Diana Aungst
From: Wayne Howard
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 10:59 AM
To: Diana Aungst; Michelle Martin; Janet Lundquist
Cc: Jennifer Petrik
Subject: Martin Marietta/UPRR
Attachments: UPRR Track.pdf
I attended a meeting yesterday with the Martin Marietta Manager and several Union Pacific representatives to discuss
the site questions I had sent to Pam Hora concerning traffic safety issues with the increased RR activity.
Attendees include:
David Hagerman/Martin Marietta
Wayne Howard/Weld County
Steven McGill/UPRR
Cheryl Schow/UPRR
Sara Cassidy/UPRR
Robert Burnham/UPRR
Sherman Spear/UPRR
Gerrard Representative(name?)
Below are several discussion items that were covered:
1. What issues, safety or otherwise, does the UP have servicing this site?
The UP has several limitations with the RR line from their main line along SH 85 to this site. A) load
limitation on a RR bridge over the South Platte River and B) the track itself it structurally deficient and
needs replaced which would include new ties and possibly road crossings (similar to what the GWRR it doing
along the line from Greeley to Windsor near O St.)
2. Length of the train cars
The length of the cars are 52'from coupler to coupler. Martin Marietta leases these cars from the
UPRR.
3. How many cars will make up a full train?
It is estimated that in the first three years the number of cars will be around 55 with an average of 2-3
per week. Several engines on front and back. Once the track and bridge are replaced this could double the
number of cars depending upon need. David estimated that 3M would not be under full production in the
beginning years of operation so the shorter train lengths and deliveries per week will suffice. As they get
under full production they will need more product and either the trains will need to be longer or they will
schedule additional deliveries/week.
4. Normal speed the train be traveling from SH 85 to the site
Because of the deficient track and at least one sharp curve they will be traveling a maximum of 25 mph.
As they approach the sidings of the proposed 3M site they will need to reduce to 10 mph several
hundred feet in advance.
1
5. Where do the UPRR tracks go north from the site?
The tracks head north and end at the Holcium Concrete plant near Ft. Collins.
6. Will the UPRR cars be delivering to the 3M site from the north at any time in the future?
The tracks did go up to Owl Canyon at one time but have been removed and the ROW has been vacated;
therefore, no trains will be bringing rock products to 3M from the north at any time.
7. Are there any warrants that must be met before new RR signals can be installed at road crossings?
Since the majority of new signalized crossings are installed with safety funds they believed it could be
tied to accident formulas but did not know for sure. They recommended contacting Pam Fischhaber
with the Public Utilities Commission for more information. Pam may also be able to furnish train/car
accident information along this route.
8. Switching of track for business sidings
UP does not need to stop the train in order to switch the track to enter the 3M site as it will be remotely
controlled; therefore,the engineer will not need to stop and manually switch the track to enter the site.
This will minimize how long the train delays the opening of any roadways that might be blocked near the
switching station.
Attached is a map of the UPRR line that was used for discussion purposes. The numbers on the map are mile markers
along the route.
Calculating the road closure time for this train to clear the crossings being 2860' long traveling 25 mph is approximately
1.3 min from the time the train engine crosses the road to the end of the train. Since the train is relatively short it will
likely only close one road crossing at a time as it travel from US 85 to 3M except for SH 60 and CR 23 in Milliken. Once
the site goes to full production the train would likely double in length and this would close several road crossings at one
time.
I have not counted the number of crossings that are currently gated but the locations on collector roads and arterials
should be considered. CR 17 in particular as the skew of track to the roadway and site distance is dangerous.
Wayne Howard, P.E.
Development Engineer
Development Review Division
Department of Planning Services
P.O. Box 758, 1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80632
970-353-6100, Ext. 3551
970-304-6498,fax
41910*
Website: http://www.co.weld.co.us
2
Confidentiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for
the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return
e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the
contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
3
MMM @ Kelim, CO
Potential ready mix/asphalt plant site
MP 15.5 "' Fort Collins Sub
152
MMM Proposed '2
Ready mix/asphalt site 5,
11Pr
IT
F:' n>
,? �a8
,2 Platte River Bridge
NN
11 263K restricted °� sot;
,G 4C0
1 4C 14t
4 cprtt _____sutir 1
JOY'. SL Own 4r�•' 45
1\ /'
9 /, 14
r
est
[-it'
TETRA TECH
June 26, 2015
Ms. Diana Aungst, AICP
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Johnstown's Resolution regarding USR15-0027
Dear Ms. Aungst:
Thank you for forwarding us a copy of Johnstown's Resolution No. 2015-07 regarding Martin
Marietta's Highway 34 Development project (USR15-0027). We wanted to let you know the
steps that Martin Marietta has taken to reach out to the Town of Johnstown regarding the
application.
Back in early May when you let us know that you had sent out referrals to each of the referral
agencies, including the Town of Johnstown, I contacted Johnstown's Planner, John Franklin to
offer to meet with the Town about the application and to help answer any questions. John
Franklin let me know that he would be forwarding the application on their Planning
Commission for a general discussion as to relationships to their plans, potential impacts on the
Town, and then ask for their consensus on issues for comment. He let me know that it was not
a hearing, but that there could be questions. Representatives from Martin Marietta and I
attend the Planning Commission meeting at which time the Commissioners did have a few
questions that we were able to answer for them. At the meeting, Mr. Franklin brought up that t
the project was not in compliance with the residential density designation that Johnstown
shows on their Comprehensive Plan and that the principal impact was traffic. Mr. Franklin also
indicated that the fact that Martin Marietta would be installing a traffic signal at the intersection
of WCR 13 and Highway 34 would benefit future development in Johnstown, which is
proposed at the northwest corner of that intersection. The Planning Commissioners did not
have any other concerns or comments to add. Mr. Franklin then indicated he'd be asking for
additional referral time from the County so that the Town Council could weigh in on the matter,
if desired.
Later in May, Mr. Franklin let me know that the Town Council was going to weigh in on the
application and that they were going to discuss the application in a work session on June 1
Tetra Tech
1900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I-E, Longmont, CO 80501
Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com
Nit)
Ms. Diana Aungst
TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 2
after their Council meeting. He explained that unless they had questions, it would just be a
discussion among the Council Members. We let John know that we would attend to help
answer any questions. Martin Marietta attended the work session and the Town Council was
well aware of their presence in the audience. At the start of their discussion, the Town Council
made it very clear that Martin Marietta was not welcome to speak to them about the
application. They then proceeded to discuss the application amongst themselves and with
staff. The Council did ask one question of Martin Marietta in regard to the traffic lights at the
intersection of Highway 34 and Weld County Road 13. The discussion included some
inaccurate information which Martin Marietta was not allowed to help clarify and then the
Council made the decision to push forward with a resolution to oppose the application.
While Johnstown is not the decision making body associated with this application, Martin
Marietta took the time to be available to the Town and was very interested in helping to answer
questions and discuss and address concerns. We felt welcome and very much appreciated
the chance to dialog with their Planning Commission. Unfortunately, their Town Council chose
to respond in a manner that did not allow for any constructive interaction with Martin Marietta
before making their decision to oppose the project.
It is true that Johnstown's Comprehensive Plan designates the property on which the Highway
34 Development is proposed to be for low density residential development. However, it is
important to also note the following facts:
1. Johnstown designated the property for low density residential development without any
input from the existing landowners.
2. Johnstown has not acknowledged the fact that a portion of the property is already
approved for an industrial use (Gerrard Excavating).
3. The low density residential land use designation is inconsistent with the IGA set forth by
Windsor and Greeley.
4. Designating the property for low density residential land use is not the best future use of
land that has direct access to two railroads; is immediately adjacent to WCR 13, which
is planned to be expanded to a four lane, north south arterial through the County; and
just '/ mile from Highway 34.
5. There is no incentive for the landowners of the two parcels to annex into Johnstown
because Johnstown cannot provide sewer service, water service is already provided by
Little Thompson Water District, and the Front Range Fire Rescue already provides
service to this property.
Nit)
Ms. Diana Aungst
TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 3
We recognize that Johnstown's response was probably largely driven by feedback received
from people living in the area. Johnstown's current boundary is a mile away from the project.
We understand that neighbors of the proposed project are worried about the potential impact
that this project could have on the area. However, we also know that the types of concerns
raised are the types of concerns that Martin Marietta regularly hears from neighbors in just
about any community in which they operate because people have a hard time accepting the
fact that industrial land uses exist and are necessary in order to have healthy communities.
In planning for the future of Weld County as a whole, it is in the best interests of the County for
Martin Marietta to locate their facility on land that has access to Union Pacific rail and direct
access to the arterial street system to be able to get to Highway 34 and the 1-25 corridor where
future growth is expected. If there was another site in Weld County that provided this same
level of access to the rail and road systems that was away from any residential development,
Martin Marietta would be proposing their facility on this property. The problem is, Martin
Marietta has not been able to find a better site.
The good news is that Martin Marietta cares very much about being as good of a neighbor as
possible to people living around the facility. As indicated in information submitted to the
County, Martin Marietta is going to great lengths to identify and address the concerns of the
neighbors as much as possible. Industrial land uses can and do coexist next to residential
development in a compatible manner and Martin Marietta is committed to taking steps to make
this happen at this site so that they can continue to help support the economic health of Weld
County.
If the USR application is approved by Weld County, Martin Marietta plans to set up a
"Community Group", the purpose of which would be to help make sure Martin Marietta's facility
operates consistent with all development standards and conditions of approval as well as
provides a way for Martin Marietta and the neighbors to regularly communicate regarding any
issues of concern. While Johnstown has decided to set forth a resolution to oppose the
project, Martin Marietta would still welcome the involvement of a representative from
Johnstown to be a part of the "Community Group", if they are interested.
( 1 Ms. Diana Aungst
It) TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
l J Page 4
Thank you and if you have any questions about this response, please let me know.
Sincerely,
TETRA TECH 4
Pamela Franch Flora, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: John Franklin, Town of Johnstown
David Hagerman, Martin Marietta
P:\24097\133-24097-15002\Deliverables\Referral Responses\Letter responding to Johnstown resolution.docx
[-it'
TETRA TECH
June 9, 2015
Ms. Diana Aungst
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Response to Referrals Received from the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley
Regarding USR15-0027
Dear Ms. Aungst:
Thank you for sending us copies of the referral letters from the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley
regarding USR15-0027. The content of both letters was very similar and so, rather than duplicate our
response, we are sending one response with our thoughts regarding the feedback received in the
letters.
We want to begin by addressing the initial comments made in the letters about the long-range plans for
the Highway 34 corridor. Both letters state that, under the 2008 intergovernmental agreement (IGA)
between Windsor and Greeley, the area in which Martin Marietta is proposing the Highway 34
Development project is part of the identified CLUA (Cooperative Planning, Land Use and Utility Area).
The CLUA consists of the Principal Employment Corridor, the area that falls within one-half mile of both
sides of Highway 34, and the Secondary Corridor Area, the area one-half mile to one mile from the
highway.
According to the letter from Brad Mueller on behalf of Greeley, uses for the Principal Employment
Corridor are envisioned to be those such as "community separators, business parks, and select
industrial uses. Heavy industrial and outdoor storage uses, particularly along the highway, are
discouraged unless they are incidental and completely screened." Martin Marietta's Highway 34
Development project is outside the boundary of the Principal Employment Corridor so there are no
conflicts with the vision for the Principal Employment Corridor. The uses within the Secondary Corridor
Area are envisioned to be more neighborhood-oriented, but as Mr. Mueller also stated, the Area is
meant to include uses that support the Principal Employment Corridor. Martin Marietta's proposed
Highway 34 Development is an industrial use that makes sense in the Secondary Corridor Area
because it is a use that is absolutely necessary to support all of the growth and development that is
planned in both the Principal Employment Corridor as well as in other portions of the Secondary
Corridor Area. Martin Marietta's operation will provide the construction materials that are essential for
economic development to continue to occur in the region at a lower environmental and financial cost
than would be possible if the use were to be proposed in a remote area of the County. In addition,
Martin Marietta will be providing more primary jobs in the area and they take very seriously the need to
Tetra Tech
1900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I-E, Longmont, CO 80501
Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com
Ms. Diana Aungst
J lTh TETRA TECH June 9, 2015
Page 2
screen their use and be compatible with other uses in the area. This is clearly demonstrated by the
extra steps they have taken to truly understand the impacts of their use and identify ways to mitigate
those impacts.
It is also important to recognize that, in addition to this site being centrally located in the region where
extensive economic development is expected, it is also along railroad tracks and in close proximity to
the highway. As indicated in the site selection report included in our USR application package, this site
was found to be the best possible site along the Union Pacific rail line out of the 13 sites that Martin
Marietta evaluated. From an environmental perspective, Martin Marietta's facility needs to be located
along a rail line and as close as possible to the highway corridor in order to serve the region in the least
impactful way. The rail line connection is necessary to import the aggregate product from Wyoming, as
this resource is quickly becoming depleted in Colorado. If the resource doesn't come in to Colorado on
a train, it will need to come in on trucks which would have a much larger carbon footprint than a train;
each train eliminates the need for up to 400 truck trips to and from Wyoming just to deliver the
aggregate product to a regional processing facility.
Economic development cannot occur without the aggregate, concrete, and asphalt products that Martin
Marietta provides. It makes good regional planning sense for the County to work with Martin Marietta to
allow the facility on this centrally located site so that these essential products will be available to the
region at a lower financial and environmental cost. Martin Marietta's business plan dictates that they
plan for serving the entire region, not just one particular community. Weld County, Windsor, Greeley,
and Johnstown, as well as all of the other communities within a half-hour drive of this site, will benefit
from this facility. This site is the most efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly location to
serve the needs of the region and support its long-range commercial development plan.
As suggested in Brad Mueller's letter, having a master regional plan for the area that considers all of
the land uses that are necessary to support the vitality of the region makes sense. Any accepted
master regional plan that is developed for the area should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans
of Greeley, Windsor, and Weld County. Martin Marietta's proposed use of this particular piece of
property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of all three jurisdictions, as evidenced by the
following statements:
• According to the City of Greeley's Comprehensive Plan, heavy industrial and manufacturing
uses should be located "to take advantage of existing freight rail corridors, air transportation,
and major arterial roads."
• Windsor's Comprehensive Plan indicates that "siting requirements for industry should include
parcel size, topography, access to rail and transportation and other infrastructure requirements."
Ms. Diana Aungst
J lTh TETRA TECH June 9, 2015
Page 3
• Weld County's Comprehensive Plan indicates that the County should "recognize the importance
of railroad infrastructure to some industrial uses," "support the continued and expanded uses of
existing railroad infrastructure for industrial uses," and "promote the location of industrial uses
within municipalities, County Urban Growth Boundary areas, Intergovernmental Agreement
urban growth areas, growth management areas as defined in municipalities' comprehensive
plans, the Regional Urbanization Areas, Urban Development Nodes, along railroad
infrastructure or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable."
As an important member of the business community in northern Colorado, Martin Marietta seeks to
utilize the rail corridor in order to continue to serve the region with the construction materials needed to
support the area's economic vitality. Locating the Highway 34 Development facility on the property
makes sense according to all three Comprehensive Plans.
As evidenced by Martin Marietta's 35th Avenue facility which has mining, aggregate processing, a
concrete plant, and asphalt plant and is also located adjacent to residential development in Greeley and
Weld County, this type of industrial use can operate compatibly with adjacent residential development.
Martin Marietta has been listening to feedback from the neighbors and making modifications to the plan
in response to feedback they have heard. They are doing this because they know it is important to
develop a comprehensive plan for the facility that will ensure that they will operate as good neighbors in
the community for years to come.
The Highway 34 Development facility should also not be considered a standalone facility that will
establish a "sprawling and overly-intense land use pattern for future development of the corridor." Each
proposed land use in this area must be considered on its own merit. Martin Marietta's proposed facility
should be considered an essential industrial land use that should be integrated into the community to
support the area. Without construction materials nearby, the cost to build roads and develop all other
land uses will only increase thereby making economic development a challenge.
We also want to address Windsor's and Greeley's suggested conditions of approval. Below are their
two suggested conditions followed by our thoughts regarding their requests.
1. Earthen berms and substantial landscape buffers should be incorporated into plans to screen
views of industrial uses from U.S. 34 and from neighboring residential uses.
The proposed project includes screening berms to help screen the facility from the adjacent
neighborhood. We are also willing to consider additional landscaping, but at the same time, we
want to be respectful of protecting our neighbors' views of the mountains to the west.
Therefore, Martin Marietta plans to work with the neighbors who own land immediately adjacent
to the proposed project to find out what they might like to see. On June 24m, Martin Marietta is
hosting a design charrette with neighbors adjacent to the site to decide how best to incorporate
additional landscaping into the plan.
Ms. Diana Aungst
J lTh TETRA TECH June 9, 2015
Page 4
Regarding concerns about views of the facility from Highway 34, the site is set back a half mile
from the highway. As a result, drivers along Highway 34 will not notice the facility unless they
turn their heads to look for it. In addition, the land between the Highway 34 Development facility
and the highway will eventually be developed and just having development on that land will
visually block views to the Highway 34 Development facility. Based on the model, we do not
believe that additional berming and landscaping to screen views from Highway 34 is necessary;
however, it is something Martin Marietta would be willing to discuss with the County, if desired.
2. Light sources should be concealed or shielded as to minimize uplight, spill-light, glare and
unnecessary diffusion on neighboring properties.
In accordance with the Weld County Code, all sources of light will be shielded so that light rays
will not shine directly onto adjacent properties where such would cause a nuisance or interfere
with the use on the adjacent properties. Neither the direct nor reflected light from any light
source will create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets. No
colored lights will be used which may be confused with, or construed as, traffic control devices.
Martin Marietta offered to meet with both Greeley and Windsor about the project when the referrals
were sent out and so far neither community has taken us up on the offer. However, Martin Marietta
would still be more than happy to meet with both communities to further discuss their concerns, if that is
desired.
Sincerely,
TETRA TECH
Pamela Franch Hora, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: Josh Olhava, Windsor Planning Department
Brad Mueller, Greeley Planning Department
David Hagerman, Martin Marietta
P:\24097\133-24097-15002\Deliverables\Referral Responses\Letter to Windsor.docx
[-it'
TETRA TECH
June 9, 2015
Ms. Diana Aungst
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Response to Referrals Received from the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley
Regarding USR15-0027
Dear Ms. Aungst:
Thank you for sending us copies of the referral letters from the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley
regarding USR15-0027. The content of both letters was very similar and so, rather than duplicate our
response, we are sending one response with our thoughts regarding the feedback received in the
letters.
We want to begin by addressing the initial comments made in the letters about the long-range plans for
the Highway 34 corridor. Both letters state that, under the 2008 intergovernmental agreement (IGA)
between Windsor and Greeley, the area in which Martin Marietta is proposing the Highway 34
Development project is part of the identified CLUA (Cooperative Planning, Land Use and Utility Area).
The CLUA consists of the Principal Employment Corridor, the area that falls within one-half mile of both
sides of Highway 34, and the Secondary Corridor Area, the area one-half mile to one mile from the
highway.
According to the letter from Brad Mueller on behalf of Greeley, uses for the Principal Employment
Corridor are envisioned to be those such as "community separators, business parks, and select
industrial uses. Heavy industrial and outdoor storage uses, particularly along the highway, are
discouraged unless they are incidental and completely screened." Martin Marietta's Highway 34
Development project is outside the boundary of the Principal Employment Corridor so there are no
conflicts with the vision for the Principal Employment Corridor. The uses within the Secondary Corridor
Area are envisioned to be more neighborhood-oriented, but as Mr. Mueller also stated, the Area is
meant to include uses that support the Principal Employment Corridor. Martin Marietta's proposed
Highway 34 Development is an industrial use that makes sense in the Secondary Corridor Area
because it is a use that is absolutely necessary to support all of the growth and development that is
planned in both the Principal Employment Corridor as well as in other portions of the Secondary
Corridor Area. Martin Marietta's operation will provide the construction materials that are essential for
economic development to continue to occur in the region at a lower environmental and financial cost
than would be possible if the use were to be proposed in a remote area of the County. In addition,
Martin Marietta will be providing more primary jobs in the area and they take very seriously the need to
Tetra Tech
1900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I-E, Longmont, CO 80501
Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com
Ms. Diana Aungst
J lTh TETRA TECH June 9, 2015
Page 2
screen their use and be compatible with other uses in the area. This is clearly demonstrated by the
extra steps they have taken to truly understand the impacts of their use and identify ways to mitigate
those impacts.
It is also important to recognize that, in addition to this site being centrally located in the region where
extensive economic development is expected, it is also along railroad tracks and in close proximity to
the highway. As indicated in the site selection report included in our USR application package, this site
was found to be the best possible site along the Union Pacific rail line out of the 13 sites that Martin
Marietta evaluated. From an environmental perspective, Martin Marietta's facility needs to be located
along a rail line and as close as possible to the highway corridor in order to serve the region in the least
impactful way. The rail line connection is necessary to import the aggregate product from Wyoming, as
this resource is quickly becoming depleted in Colorado. If the resource doesn't come in to Colorado on
a train, it will need to come in on trucks which would have a much larger carbon footprint than a train;
each train eliminates the need for up to 400 truck trips to and from Wyoming just to deliver the
aggregate product to a regional processing facility.
Economic development cannot occur without the aggregate, concrete, and asphalt products that Martin
Marietta provides. It makes good regional planning sense for the County to work with Martin Marietta to
allow the facility on this centrally located site so that these essential products will be available to the
region at a lower financial and environmental cost. Martin Marietta's business plan dictates that they
plan for serving the entire region, not just one particular community. Weld County, Windsor, Greeley,
and Johnstown, as well as all of the other communities within a half-hour drive of this site, will benefit
from this facility. This site is the most efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly location to
serve the needs of the region and support its long-range commercial development plan.
As suggested in Brad Mueller's letter, having a master regional plan for the area that considers all of
the land uses that are necessary to support the vitality of the region makes sense. Any accepted
master regional plan that is developed for the area should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans
of Greeley, Windsor, and Weld County. Martin Marietta's proposed use of this particular piece of
property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of all three jurisdictions, as evidenced by the
following statements:
• According to the City of Greeley's Comprehensive Plan, heavy industrial and manufacturing
uses should be located "to take advantage of existing freight rail corridors, air transportation,
and major arterial roads."
• Windsor's Comprehensive Plan indicates that "siting requirements for industry should include
parcel size, topography, access to rail and transportation and other infrastructure requirements."
Ms. Diana Aungst
J lTh TETRA TECH June 9, 2015
Page 3
• Weld County's Comprehensive Plan indicates that the County should "recognize the importance
of railroad infrastructure to some industrial uses," "support the continued and expanded uses of
existing railroad infrastructure for industrial uses," and "promote the location of industrial uses
within municipalities, County Urban Growth Boundary areas, Intergovernmental Agreement
urban growth areas, growth management areas as defined in municipalities' comprehensive
plans, the Regional Urbanization Areas, Urban Development Nodes, along railroad
infrastructure or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable."
As an important member of the business community in northern Colorado, Martin Marietta seeks to
utilize the rail corridor in order to continue to serve the region with the construction materials needed to
support the area's economic vitality. Locating the Highway 34 Development facility on the property
makes sense according to all three Comprehensive Plans.
As evidenced by Martin Marietta's 35th Avenue facility which has mining, aggregate processing, a
concrete plant, and asphalt plant and is also located adjacent to residential development in Greeley and
Weld County, this type of industrial use can operate compatibly with adjacent residential development.
Martin Marietta has been listening to feedback from the neighbors and making modifications to the plan
in response to feedback they have heard. They are doing this because they know it is important to
develop a comprehensive plan for the facility that will ensure that they will operate as good neighbors in
the community for years to come.
The Highway 34 Development facility should also not be considered a standalone facility that will
establish a "sprawling and overly-intense land use pattern for future development of the corridor." Each
proposed land use in this area must be considered on its own merit. Martin Marietta's proposed facility
should be considered an essential industrial land use that should be integrated into the community to
support the area. Without construction materials nearby, the cost to build roads and develop all other
land uses will only increase thereby making economic development a challenge.
We also want to address Windsor's and Greeley's suggested conditions of approval. Below are their
two suggested conditions followed by our thoughts regarding their requests.
1. Earthen berms and substantial landscape buffers should be incorporated into plans to screen
views of industrial uses from U.S. 34 and from neighboring residential uses.
The proposed project includes screening berms to help screen the facility from the adjacent
neighborhood. We are also willing to consider additional landscaping, but at the same time, we
want to be respectful of protecting our neighbors' views of the mountains to the west.
Therefore, Martin Marietta plans to work with the neighbors who own land immediately adjacent
to the proposed project to find out what they might like to see. On June 24m, Martin Marietta is
hosting a design charrette with neighbors adjacent to the site to decide how best to incorporate
additional landscaping into the plan.
Ms. Diana Aungst
J lTh TETRA TECH June 9, 2015
Page 4
Regarding concerns about views of the facility from Highway 34, the site is set back a half mile
from the highway. As a result, drivers along Highway 34 will not notice the facility unless they
turn their heads to look for it. In addition, the land between the Highway 34 Development facility
and the highway will eventually be developed and just having development on that land will
visually block views to the Highway 34 Development facility. Based on the model, we do not
believe that additional berming and landscaping to screen views from Highway 34 is necessary;
however, it is something Martin Marietta would be willing to discuss with the County, if desired.
2. Light sources should be concealed or shielded as to minimize uplight, spill-light, glare and
unnecessary diffusion on neighboring properties.
In accordance with the Weld County Code, all sources of light will be shielded so that light rays
will not shine directly onto adjacent properties where such would cause a nuisance or interfere
with the use on the adjacent properties. Neither the direct nor reflected light from any light
source will create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets. No
colored lights will be used which may be confused with, or construed as, traffic control devices.
Martin Marietta offered to meet with both Greeley and Windsor about the project when the referrals
were sent out and so far neither community has taken us up on the offer. However, Martin Marietta
would still be more than happy to meet with both communities to further discuss their concerns, if that is
desired.
Sincerely,
TETRA TECH
Pamela Franch Hora, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: Josh Olhava, Windsor Planning Department
Brad Mueller, Greeley Planning Department
David Hagerman, Martin Marietta
P:\24097\133-24097-15002\Deliverables\Referral Responses\Letter to Windsor.docx
[-it'
TETRA TECH
June 26, 2015
Ms. Diana Aungst, AICP
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Response to Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company Comments regarding Martin
Marietta s Highway 34 Development (USR15-0027)
Dear Ms. Aungst:
We received the Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company comments pertaining to the site improvements
and stormwater infrastructure for Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Development project (USR15-0027).
We appreciate the in-depth review of our Final Drainage Report. Below is a listing of each of their
comments followed by our response to each comment.
1. It appears that the calculations in the "Final Drainage Report" for the impervious area at the site are
underestimated. The site represents approximately 131 acres with only about 37 acres that will not
be considered impervious. This represent 71% not the 46% represented in Table 6. MMM claims
that Basin Area 3 will remain primarily undeveloped, however, the worst-case scenario is that this
area will be used for some aspect of the development. Immediate development in this area, i.e.
spur railroad system and access roads will have an impact on runoff and the water quality if allowed
to run freely off-site. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to consider this area
when calculating the runoff into the detention pond and not allowed it to free flow off site as
described in their plan but channel it to the detention pond.
Impervious percentage for the site was determined by calculating the area for each proposed cover
type (asphalt, base course, vegetative cover, roofs, etc.) and using the recommended impervious
percentages shown in Table 5-3, Recommended Percentage Impervious Values, of the Weld
County Engineering and Construction Criteria, April 2012. In summary, different values of
imperviousness are used to estimate the amount of runoff for different conditions due to the relative
amount of runoff a surface is estimated to generate. For example, the imperviousness of the gravel
road surface (40% impervious) is less than the imperviousness of the asphalt road surface (100%
impervious) because gravel roads allow some precipitation to be absorbed instead of running off.
Please refer to Appendix 8-5, Developed Runoff Calculations, of the Final Drainage Report for
reference of the imperviousness percentage for each sub-basin.
Tetra Tech
1900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I-E, Longmont, CO 80501
Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com
Ms. Diana Aungst(Thi
TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 2
Calculations for the detention pond sizing will be updated to include the portions of development
within Basin Area 3. The imperviousness of the rail and access roads alignments will be
considered to be equivalent to that of base course material and flows will be routed to the detention
pond. Tetra Tech is in the process of revising the Final Drainage Report and a copy will be
submitted to Weld County as soon as it is complete.
2. In the Final Drainage Report, Table 6, sub-area 1g and if are missing from the table.
Table 6 pertains to Detention Pond data. We are assuming they meant to reference Table 4, On-
site Drainage Basins Peak Flow. We will update the Table to include the information for sub-basins
1f and 1g.
3. In the Final Drainage Report, Historic Runoff calculations were calculated for "Basin A" which
includes 567 acres. These calculations did not take into consideration that the Greeley Loveland
Irrigation Ditch, the Reorganized Farmers Ditch and a RFDC lateral that encompasses most of the
site intercept stormwater drainage from "Basin A". Thus, historic drainage calculations should only
be calculated for the proposed development site of 131 acres. Historic stormwater drainage from
the proposed development would be minimal based on soil type and vegetation cover. The concern
is that with this development there will be a substantial increase in impervious area, which will result
in additional volume of stormwater generated from this site. The additional water flowing into
laterals beyond historic levels will result in increased erosion, increased volume with sediment and
a decrease in water quality for farmers. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to
address this issue and adjust their calculations regarding minimal historic stormwater runoff of the
site. In addition, require the applicant to pipe stormwater that is above the historic volume to the Big
Thompson River.
In analyzing the historic and developed drainage conditions for the site, the team assumed that the
ditches and associated laterals surrounding the site were flowing full during the design storm event.
This assumption was made to portray the "worst-case"scenario for run-on to the site. This
assumption is in conformance with the Weld County Code, Chapter 8, Section 8-11-30. Under this
section of the Code, it is stated that Weld County adopted Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District's Urban Storm Drainage Criteria with the addendums presented. One of the addenda
(amendment of Section 1.5, Technical Issues) states that irrigation ditches cannot be relied on for
mitigating upstream runoff. Therefore, the historic basin limits were extended beyond the ditches
as shown on the Historic Drainage Plan presented on Appendix A-2 of the Final Drainage Report.
Per Weld County regulations, drainage is designed to maintain historic drainage conditions after
development. Off-site run-on collection channels and the site detention pond have been sized to
convey the historic drainage flows to release to the historic release point. Erosion of the channels
is mitigated by installation of erosion control mats capable of withstanding the anticipated shear
Ms. Diana Aungst(Thi
TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 3
forces and by vegetating disturbed areas during construction that are not to receive base course or
asphalt. The developed condition will not release at a flowrate greater than historic conditions.
4. Based on the design sketch and observations at other similar developments, they have under
estimated the number of acres that would have an impervious calculation of 90% or more. Again
they have not considered the ramification of Basin Area 3 and their miscalculations. As an example,
in the most recent storm event, May 09, 2015, the proposed development received about 4 inches
of rain, which is equivalent to approximately 21 ac-ft of water on Basin 1 and 2 (62.14 acres). This
would be approximately twice the proposed storage volume in the proposed detention pond and
over flow volumes would potential cause water quality and sediment issues for farmers south of the
proposed development. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to consider the two
worst case storms that have occurred recently on the proposed development site, 2013 and 2015,
approximately 4-6 inches over a very short time span when calculating the runoff into the detention
pond and not allowed it to free flow off site as described in their plan.
The final drainage plan, including supporting calculations, were prepared in accordance with the
Weld County Code and the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria. The rainfall
depths, storm durations, and other design considerations are stipulated in these publications.
Detention ponds were designed to attenuate increased flows to lower runoff rates. Weld County
rules require detention ponds to release at a rate that is significantly less than that which would
occur in the pre-developed condition.
5. The Final Drainage Report does not addressed ground water or farm irrigation water that takes
place from April to November. Generally, the water table in the site area is within 4-6 feet of the
ground surface. During irrigation season the water table can be closer to the ground surface and in
some cases, water that moves through underground drains comes to the surface. The amount of
irrigation water used on farms directly adjacent to the site is over 1,400 acre-feet of water during the
growing season. The concern is that this water source could be impacted from different
contaminants from the proposed development. RFDC requests that the County require the
applicant to address how they will protect ground water and irrigation water from the proposed
development pollutants. This may require installation of impermeable geotextile membrane under
the proposed development and a retention pond instead of a detention pond.
The groundwater table elevation was a key site constraint that was considered during the grading
design of the site. Martin Marietta has performed two site investigations to evaluate groundwater
conditions (one in January 2015 and one May 2015). The shallowest groundwater condition that
was observed was at 6 feet below grade. Since both investigations were performed during a period
of light to no irrigation, it was assumed that groundwater could be as shallow as 3 or 4 feet below
the ground surface. This resulted in a design of the site that will almost entirely be built on fill. It is
assumed that irrigation to the site will be discontinued on developed portions of the site.
Ms. Diana Aungst(Thi
TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 4
To assist with water quality, an onsite water quality capture volume (WQCV) feature was
incorporated into the sizing of the detention pond. The calculation for this volume, detention time,
and allowable release was performed per the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Urban
Storm Drainage Criteria, Detention Basin Volume Estimating Workbook, as required by the Weld
County Code. Calculations for the WQCV can be found in Appendix C-5 of the Final Drainage
Report.
A Spill Prevention and Control Plan (SPCC Plan) and associated spill prevention measures will be
developed and implemented by Martin Marietta once the site is operating. This is in compliance
with the Environmental Protection Agency's Code of Federal Regulations 40 Part 112. The site is
operated by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) in regards to storage of
onsite chemicals and operations.
An erosion control plan will also be developed and implemented during construction to protect
stormwater quality when the site is disturbed and to keep sediment from being transported off-site.
This is a requirement from both Weld County to obtain a grading permit and from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment to obtain a construction permit.
6. Water Quality Issue: The enormity of this site and various activities conducted onsite will generate
highly contaminated runoff, i.e. oils, grease, sediment, salts, emission particles, silica and other
products. Most of these will be in excess of those typically found in stormwater. The detention pond
is not adequately designed to address these issues both from a sizing and retention time period.
RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to address this issue.
Please refer to the response to Concern #5 for water quality discussions. The site construction and
operations will meet all County, State and Federal regulations like any other use.
7. Water Quality Issue: The construction of a railroad spur that transverse the entire site (into Basin 3)
has not been considered as a significant affect on the water quality of runoff. The spur will be built
with more than 8,000 new creosote railroad ties. Each of these ties will "bleed" creosote onto the
ground surface and leach into ground water affecting the water quality of runoff. Again, there has
been no consideration on controlling contaminated runoff from the newly constructed railroad, the
rail cars, or contaminants that leak from train engines. RFDC requests that the County require the
applicant to address how they will protect ground water and irrigation water from the proposed
development pollutants. This may require installation of impermeable geotextile membrane under
the proposed development.
Steel and/or Concrete ties will be used for the proposed railroad loop. A Spill Prevention and
Control Plan (SPCC Plan) and associated spill prevention measures will be developed and
implemented by Martin Marietta once the site is operating. This is in compliance with the
Environmental Protection Agency's Code of Federal Regulations 40 Part 112. Weld County alone
Ms. Diana Aungst(Thi
TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 5
contains over 275 miles of rail that provides significant economic benefit to the region through the
transportation of goods and services.
8. Water Quality Issue: The proposed channels, some that are 10 wide at the bottoms to drain water
on-site and off-site will actually increase the flow rate and volume causing erosion, sediment and
water quality issues off-site. Drainage from the site to off-site especially from Basin Area 3 would
overwhelm farm irrigation ditches adjacent and to the south of the site. RFDC requests that the
County require that an agreement be entered into between the applicant and surrounding RFDC
land-owners on how the applicant will maintain water quality before leaving the detention pond and
maintenance of lateral ditches after the POA for removal of increase sediment.
The design of storm water infrastructure has been prepared per the Weld County Drainage Criteria.
Channels will be protected from the water erosive shear forces with the use of erosion control
blankets lining the channels. The channelization of captured off-site run-on has been designed to
accommodate historic run-on flows, calculated as described in the response to Concern #3. On-
site channels have been designed to accommodate developed drainage volumes and the point of
discharge is to the proposed detention pond. The release of the detention pond was designed
taking into consideration the historic flows for the facility. Detention pond sizing and release
calculations via the use of a restrictor plate can be found in Appendix C-4 of the Final Drainage
Report.
Irrigation laterals north and east of the property will remain undisturbed during construction and
operation of the site.
9. Water Quality Issue: Historically, runoff and ground water movement from the site drained into
Koenig Reservoir, which is used for irrigation and recreational uses such as fishing and hunting,
and into two irrigation ditches south of WCR 56. This water is used to irrigate crops and field water
livestock. Ground water via underground drains in the site will still move water to the reservoir,
however, by channeling the runoff in Basin Area 3 and Basin 1 and 2, more runoff will be directed
into to farm irrigation ditches south of the proposed development. The volume and flow rate will
increase and the water quality will be impacted.
Historic drainage patterns were evaluated prior to providing the developed condition drainage
design. The proposed grading shown in the Final Drainage Report returns drainage runoff to
historic points of discharge. As previously discussed, drainage flow rates to offsite receiving points
will not be greater than those of the historic condition. Seepage of groundwater generated due to
field irrigation to downstream users does not require Martin Marietta to irrigate.
Ms. Diana Aungst(Thi
TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 6
10. Water Quality Issue: The detention pond should be equipped with a release control value that will
prevent water release for up to three (3) days following a storm event until an onsite analysis of the
water quality can be performed to determine if contaminants from the proposed development are
reduced or eliminated. Thus the current design of the pond is not large enough to retain water for
this period from Basin Area's 1 and 2, let alone channeling Basin Area 3 to the detention pond site.
RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to install a release control value on the
detention pond that will prevent water release for up to three (3) days following a storm event until
an onsite analysis of the water quality can be performed to determine if contaminants are reduced
or eliminated.
To comply with Colorado water law, the detention pond has been sized to re/ease detained flows
within 72 hours of a storm event. Sizing and release rates were estimated in accordance with Weld
County Code. Martin Marietta will follow CDPHE, Weld County, and EPA requirements for water
quality.
11. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant not to build or install any structures, fences, or
other obstructions within 35 ft of the center of the RDFC main ditch and lateral ditches so
maintenance can be performed.
No obstructions will be constructed within any legally recorded easement granted to the RFDC for
the purposes of maintenance and access without written consent of RFDC (Easement and Right of
Way Agreement Recorded 12/21/2000#2814989).
12. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to agree that all earth moving and landscaping
shall be accomplished so that all return flow and waste water from Irrigation will return to the historic
point of discharge. For example, historic flows for Basin 3 discharges into Koenig Reservoir and at
a point east of the POA described in the Final Drainage Report.
Surface historic drainage patterns, as shown in the report, will be maintained with the proposed
grading plan.
13. The site design for the proposed development indicates that the rail spur will be in close proximity to
RFDC main concrete ditch at the northeast corner of the site. Most of the ditch in this area is
relatively new, completely redone within the last 4 years. RFDC concerns are that the repeated
vibrations from the train running pass the ditch will cause structural damage, ditch failure and
interruption of water delivery. The applicant indicates that at least 3 unit trains will traverse the spur
each week. Studies have shown that trains running past structures can actually make the earth
around them move. Over time, rumbling vibrations from the passing trains can affect the structural
integrity of the structure. RDFC requests that the County require the applicant to address this issue
by conducting engineered tests or modeling the affects of the train vibrations would have on the
Ms. Diana Aungst(Thi
TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 7
structural integrity of RDFC concrete-ditch. If there are potential issues, require the applicant to
mitigate the problem.
In the new revised site plan, the rail has been pulled back another approximately 450 feet from the
RDFC main line. In addition, Weld County contains over 275 miles of rail that provides significant
economic benefit to the region through the transportation of goods and services with no effect to the
structural integrity of said ditches.
Looking at the alignment of The Farmer's Ditch it was noticed that the ditch runs closer and crosses
the Union Pacific and Great Western rail lines at closer distances than the proposed Highway 34
Site rail alignment.
14. RFDC notifies the applicant and County that there may be subsurface waters that arise in the areas
of this development and that there are periods of time when, due to water flowing within the ditch
system and otherwise, that portions of the proposed development site receives significant amounts
of subsurface water that is very near to the surface, or resides on the surface. Due to this problem,
the utility of certain portions of the site for construction of structures could potentially be unavailable.
RFDC has no plans to alter its operation to resolve this surface and subsurface water issue.
Martin Marietta understands this to be the case.
15. The land for the proposed development and surrounding agriculture lands are considered "prime
farm land" under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act 1981, 1-25 Environmental Impact
Statement and Weld County Comprehensive Plan. RDFC respects land owner rights, however,
being an agriculture ditch company we do not see that this proposed development which reflects
Weld County "industrial zoning" is compatible with surround agriculture uses and would not meet
Weld County policy and goal for agriculture benefit.
The land is currently partially developed and the portion that will be removed from agriculture has
been kept in pasture grass and is not a significant generator of food product for people or animals.
Therefore, the agricultural land being removed from production has not been used as prime
agricultural production land. The property is in an area that is planned for future development and
the property owner is pursuing the option of developing their property in order to achieve the
highest and best use of their property considering its location in relation to the Union Pacific
Railroad tracks, WCR 13, and Highway 34.
In addition, conversion of the property for development is supported by the Weld County Code.
According to Weld County 3. A.Policy 7.3., "Conversion of agricultural land to urban residential,
commercial and industrial uses should be considered when the subject site is located inside an
Intergovernmental Agreement area, Urban Growth Boundary area, Regional Urbanization Area or
Urban Development Nodes, or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably
1 Ms. Diana Aungst
(T I TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
l J Page 8
obtainable. A municipality's adopted comprehensive plan should be considered, but should not
determine the appropriateness of such conversion."
If you have any questions or comments regarding our responses to the Reorganized Farmers Ditch
Company's comments, please feel free to contact me at 720-864-4600 or at
fernando.delmonte@tetratech.com.
Sincerely,
TETRA TECH
{` •
Fernando del Monte, P.E.
Project Engineer
cc: Jim Croissant, President and John Cummings, Vice President, Reorganized Farmers Ditch
Company
David Hagerman, Martin Marietta
Pam Hora, Tetra Tech
[-it'
TETRA TECH
June 26, 2015
Ms. Diana Aungst, AICP
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Response to Hill and Brush Ditch Company Comments regarding Martin Marietta s
Highway 34 Development (USR15-0027)
Dear Ms. Aungst:
We received the Hill and Brush Ditch Company comments pertaining to the site improvements and
stormwater infrastructure for Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Development project (USR15-0027). We
appreciate the in-depth review of our Final Drainage Report. Below is a listing of each of their
comments followed by our response to each comment.
1. Water Quality Issue: Historically, runoff and ground water movement from the site drained into
Koenig Reservoir, which is used for irrigation and recreational uses such as fishing and hunting,
and into two irrigation ditches south of WCR 56 which ends up in the HBDC ditch. RFDC Request
that the County require the applicant to address this issue and adjust their calculations regarding
minimal historic stormwater runoff of the proposed development.
Historic drainage patterns were evaluated prior to providing the developed condition drainage
design. The proposed grading shown in the Final Drainage Report returns drainage runoff to
historic points of discharge. Drainage flow rates to offsite receiving points will not be greater than
those of the historic condition.
2. Water Quality Issue: The enormity of this site and various activities conducted onsite will generate
highly contaminated runoff, i.e. oils, grease, sediment, salts, emission particles, silica and other
products. Most of these will be in excess of those typically found in stormwater. The detention pond
is not adequately designed to address these issues both from a sizing and retention time period.
RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to address this issue.
The drainage plan, including supporting calculations, have been prepared in accordance with the
Weld County Code and the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria. The rainfall
depths, storm durations, and other design considerations are stipulated in these publications.
Detention ponds are not intended to fully store runoff, reducing runoff to nothing. Weld County
rules require detention ponds to release at a rate that is significantly less than that which would
Tetra Tech
1900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I-E, Longmont, CO 80501
Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com
Ms. Diana Aungst(Thi
TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 2
occur in the pre-developed condition. To assist with water quality, an on-site water quality capture
volume (WQCV) feature was incorporated into the sizing of the detention pond. The calculation for
this volume, detention time, and allowable release was performed per the Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District's Urban Storm Drainage Criteria, Detention Basin Volume Estimating
Workbook, as required by the Weld County Code. Please refer to Appendix C-5 of the Final
Drainage Report for the WQCV calculations.
3. Water Quality Issue: The proposed channels, some that are 10 wide at the bottoms to drain water
on-site and off-site will actually increase the flow rate and volume causing erosion, sediment and
water quality issues off-site. Drainage from the site to off-site especially from Basin Area 3 would
overwhelm farm irrigation ditches adjacent and to the south of the site. RFDC requests that the
County require that an agreement be entered into between the applicant and surrounding RFDC
land-owners on how the applicant will maintain water quality before leaving the detention pond and
maintenance of lateral ditches after the POA for removal of increase sediment.
The design of storm water infrastructure has been prepared per the Weld County Drainage Criteria.
Channels will be protected from the water erosive shear forces with the use of erosion control
blankets lining the channels. The channelization of captured off-site run-on has been designed to
accommodate historic run-on flows, calculated as described in the response to Concern #3. On-
site channels have been designed to accommodate developed drainage volumes and the point of
discharge is to the proposed detention pond. The release of the detention pond was designed
taking into consideration the historic flows for the facility. Detention pond sizing and release
calculations via the use of a restrictor plate can be found in Appendix C-4 of the Final Drainage
Report.
Irrigation laterals north and east of the property will remain undisturbed during construction and
operation of the site.
4. Water Quality Issue: Historically, runoff and ground water movement from the site drained into
Koenig Reservoir, which is use for irrigation and recreational uses such as fishing and hunting, and
into two irrigation ditches south of WCR 56. This water is used to irrigate crops and field water
livestock. Ground water via underground drains in the site will still move water to the reservoir,
however, by channeling the runoff in Basin Area 3 and Basin 1 and 2, more runoff will be directed
into farm irrigation ditches south of the proposed development. The volume and flow rate will
increase and the water quality will be impacted.
Ms. Diana Aungst(Thi
TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 3
Historic drainage patterns were evaluated prior to providing the developed condition drainage
design. The proposed grading shown in the Final Drainage Report returns drainage runoff to
historic points of discharge. As previously discussed, drainage flow rates to offsite receiving points
will not be greater than those of the historic condition. Seepage of groundwater generated due to
field irrigation to downstream users does not require Martin Marietta to irrigate.
5. Water Quality Issue: In the Final Drainage Report, Historic Runoff calculations were calculated for
"Basin A" which includes 567 acres. These calculations did not take into considerations that the
Greeley-Loveland Irrigation Ditch, the Reorganized Farmers Ditch and a RFDC lateral that
encompasses most of the site intercept stormwater drainage from "Basin A". Thus, historic
drainage calculations should only be calculated for the proposed development site of 131 acres.
Historic stormwater drainage from the proposed development would be minimal based on soil type
and vegetation cover. The concern is that with this development there will be a substantial increase
in imperious area, which will result in additional volume of stormwater generated from this site. The
additional water flowing into laterals beyond historic levels will result in increased erosion, increased
volume with sediment and impacts on water quality for farmers. RFDC requests that the County
require the applicant to address this issue and adjust their calculations regarding minimal historic
stormwater runoff of the site. In addition, require the applicant to pipe stormwater that is above the
historic volume to the Big Thompson River.
In analyzing the historic and developed drainage conditions for the site, the team assumed that the
ditches and associated laterals surrounding the site were flowing full during the design storm event.
This assumption was made to portray the "worst-case"scenario for run-on to the site. This
assumption is in conformance with the Weld County Code, Chapter 8, Section 8-11-30. Under this
section of the Code, it is stated that Weld County adopted Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District's Urban Storm Drainage Criteria with the addendums presented. One of the addenda
(amendment of Section 1.5, Technical Issues) states that irrigation ditches cannot be relied on for
mitigating upstream runoff. Therefore, the historic basin limits were extended beyond the ditches
as shown on the Historic Drainage Plan presented on Appendix A-2 of the Final Drainage Report.
Per Weld County regulations, drainage is designed to maintain historic drainage conditions after
development. Off-site run-on collection channels and the site detention pond have been sized to
convey the historic drainage flows to release to the historic release point. Erosion of the channels
is mitigated by installation of erosion control mats capable of withstanding the anticipated shear
forces and by vegetating disturbed areas during construction that are not to receive base course or
asphalt. The developed condition will not release at a flowrate greater than historic conditions.
Ms. Diana Aungst
J lTh TETRA TECH June 26, 2015
Page 4
If you have any questions or comments regarding our responses to the Hill and Brush Ditch Company's
comments, please feel free to contact me at 720-864-4600 or at fernando.delmonte@tetratech.com.
Sincerely,
TETRA TECH
Fernando del Monte, P.E.
Project Engineer
cc: Jim Croissant, President, Hill and Brush Ditch Company
David Hagerman, Martin Marietta
Pam Hora, Tetra Tech
P\24097\133-24097-15002\Deliverables\Referral Responses\Response to Hill&Brush Ditch Company.door
STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS, LLC ACEC
VII:AII I R
ENGINEERING FOR LIFE
June 26, 2015
Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Response Letter by Mr. David W. Kisker and Ms. Marjorie Klitch Concerning the Martin Marietta
Materials Highway 34 Development Submittal
Job No.: 4572-003
Dear Ms Aungst,
This letter is to confirm that Stewart Environmental is preparing a response to the letter by Mr. Kisker and Ms. Klitch
dated June 18, 2015. Their letter concerns our report on the Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) Assessment of Air
Emissons dated April 1, 2015. This report was submitted to MMM with a copy included in the Use by Sepcial Review
(USR) application to Weld County.
We appreciate the technical issues that Mr. Kisker and Ms. Klitch have raised and will respond to each issue. We are
preparing a list of specific questions for Mr. Kisker per his email of June 25, 2015. We have also requested from Mr.
Kisker the calculations that he has made regarding our report. As you are probably aware, we made available to Mr.
Kisker through a Dropbox site all of our calculations, data, and computer runs, which was the source of most of his
issues in the response letter. We have not been able to confirm some of their assessments and will need to better
understand the factors that they have included in their response. This can be clarified once Mr. Kisker provides that
information to us. Most of the response has come from Mr. Kisker with a review by Ms. Klitch. Ms. Klitch does not
have any specifics other than pointing out a mathmatical error in the report.
We will either verify or dispute their claims. At this time, we reserve any comments on their submittal, but will have
a full response in the coming week once we have received the information requested from Mr. Kisker. Our response
will be submited to Weld County Planning Department prior to the planning meeting on July 21, 2015. We will also
revise the initial assessment report to include the corrections and additional information that has been developed
since the April 1 submittal.
If you require any additional specific information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Stewart Environmental Consultants, LLC
David R. Stewart, PhD, PE
President
3801 Automation way, Suite 200 I Fort Coll ins, Colorado 80525 I T. 970.226.5500 I F. 970.226.4946 I W stewartenv.com
Consulting Engineers and Scientists
Hello