HomeMy WebLinkAbout20152492.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY , COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Jordan Jemiola , that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for
CASE NUMBER USR15-0027
APPLICANT WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC . C/O MARTIN MARIETTA
PLANNER DIANA AUNGST
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
EXHIBIT 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
e- 0)% SUBDIVISIONS TO INCLUDE A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
FACILITY INCLUDING ASPHALT & CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS ( MATERIALS
PROCESSING) AND TRANSLOADING IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-2803: BEING PART OF THE SW4 AND SE4 AND A
TRACT BEING PART OF THE SW4 ALL IN SECTION 18 T5N . R67W OF THE
6TH P M , WELD COUNTY. COLORADO
LOCATION EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 13 AND APPROXIMATELY 0. 5 MILES SOUTH
OF US HWY 34
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners 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
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC. O/O MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 2
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 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.
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC. C/O MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 3
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. O 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 . "
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
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC, CIO MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 4
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 in Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etc. and 1 % are from
Weld County Citizens living in the Johnstown area including lndianhead Subdivision.
The opposing letters primarily originate from lndianhead 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 lndianhead 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 763
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 east 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
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC. 0/O MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 5
• Noise from the rail
• Backup beeping noise
• Noise from the site interfering with those who work at home
• Traffic concerns
• 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
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC. 0/O MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 6
• 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 especiallyw r g y where the truck traffic acceleration and deceleration lanes cross 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 Board of County Commissioners approve the proposal , the Planning Commission 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 _
g 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)
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC. 0/O MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 7
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)
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 at the access location . (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)
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC. 01O MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 8
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[c�co.weld .co. us (Department of Planning Services)
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)
Motion seconded by Benjamin Hansford
VOTE:
For Denial Against Denial Absent
Benjamin Hansford
Bruce Johnson
Bruce Sparrow
Jason Maxey
Jordan Jemiola
Joyce Smock
Michael Wailes
Nick Berryman
Terry Cross
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I . Kristine Ranslem. Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on July 21 . 2015
Dated the 21 ' of July. 2015.
Digitally signed by Kristine
'6V:ban 9 Ranslem
Date: 2015.07.28 08:17:49 -06'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
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 74 75 full-time employees, 45 50 truck
drivers, and 25 30 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:
However, Martin Marietta will operate under the following restrictions:
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
Load out from storage silos will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and one
hour after sunset.
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.
c 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
The Ready Mix Concrete Plant will only operate Monday through Saturday.
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
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
Aggregate sales and recycling operations will only occur Monday through Saturday.
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.
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_
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC 0/O MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 10
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)
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC_ CIO MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 11
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
9agencies
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)
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC, O/O MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 12
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.
RESOLUTION USR15-0027
WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC. 0/O MARTIN MARIETTA
PAGE 13
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 (3700) 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, sandburs, 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)
<ea mvoinEs
-11 ?- \ \ \ c
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday. July 21 , 2015
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building . Hearing Room. 1150 O Street, Greeley. Colorado This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Jason Maxey, at 9:00 am .
Roll Call.
Present Benjamin Hansford . Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow. Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola. Joyce
Smock. Michael Wailes . Nick Berryman . Terry Cross.
Also Present Diana Aungst and Michelle Martin . Department of Planning Services. Wayne Howard,
Department of Planning — Engineering Division: Janet Lundquist. Public Works. Lauren Light. Phil Brewer
and Heather Barbare. Department of Health : Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem.
Secretary
Motion : Approve the July 7, 2015 Weld County Planning Commission minutes. Moved by Joyce Smock,
Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion passed unanimously
CASE NUMBER . USR15-0027
APPLICANT WELD LV LLC AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS LLC. 0/O MARTIN MARIETTA
PLANNER DIANA AUNGST
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 DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-2803. BEING PART OF THE SW4 AND SE4 AND A
TRACT BEING PART OF THE SW4 ALL IN SECTION 18, T5N , R67W OF THE
6TH P M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
LOCATION EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 13 AND APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE SOUTH
OF US HWY 34
Michael Wailes stated that he is an adjacent property owner of the proposed site. At the time that the
surrounding property owners. including himself. were informed of this request, he approached the
applicants and their consultant about relocating this project to a different location . one that would benefit
him financially. Therefore, Mr. Wailes stated that he would like to recuse himself from this case.
Terry Cross stated that because his employer, Rush Enterprises, has a business relationship with Martin
Marietta and upon advice of legal counsel, he stated that he would also like to recuse himself from
hearing this case.
Diana Aungst. Planning Services. presented Case USR15-0027. reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms Aungst stated that this USR is also for the continued operation of Gerrard
Construction as approved under USR-1584. Ms. Aungst outlined the applicant's proposed landscape
plan as well as two (2) proposed accesses and the rail loop on the property_
The site is located within the three 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 mile referral area of Larimer
County. 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.
EXHIBIT
e--76
0- al ,
She briefed the Planning Commission on the concerns received from the public. As of July 13. 2015 the
Department of Planning Services received 763 letters and many phone calls concerning this USR
application. 534 of the categorized letters, or 70 percent. are in support of this request and 229 letters, or
30 percent. are in opposition to this request. In the past week, staff has received additional letters and
they are part of the record .
The supporting letters primarily originate from outside of Weld County. 42 percent supporting this USR
are from individuals living outside of Weld County. 27 percent are from individuals living in Weld County
and 1 percent are from Weld County citizens living in the Johnstown area including Indianhead
Subdivision .
The opposition letters primarily originate from the Indianhead Subdivision. 23 percent are from Weld
County citizens living in the Johnstown area including the Indianhead Subdivision, 5 percent opposing
this USR are from individuals living outside of Weld County. and 2 percent are from individuals living in
Weld County in places like Greeley. Windsor, and Longmont
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 Department of Planning Services recommends denial of this application with the attached conditions
of approval and development standards.
Wayne Howard, Engineering. reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site. Mr. Howard provided a visual slide with the vicinity of the roads in the area and
how the applicant proposes their traffic to come to the site and leave the site. Additionally. he noted the
railroads that enter and leave the site as well as the crossings on the Weld County roads and State
Highway 34 Mr. Howard said that in Stage 1 there are approximately 560 daily round trips. 490 are
expected to be trucks and 70 are expected to be passenger vehicles and Stage 2 there will be
approximately 1 . 130 daily round trips. Several referral agencies have expressed concerns regarding the
amount of traffic and the impacts to the roadways.
Janet Lundquist, Public Works. outlined the requirements as part of their review through the Public Works
Department. She said that with the proposed traffic volumes, the facility triggered a southbound left
deceleration lane and northbound right acceleration lane out of the proposed facility. Ms. Lundquist
reiterated that a traffic signal will be required at the intersection of County Road 13 and US Highway 34.
She indicated that CDOT, Larimer County and Weld County will not participate in any of the cost designs
or construction of the traffic signal_
Ms. Lundquist said that the requirements for the railroad crossings will need to be worked out between
the railroads and CDOT. She added that there are various railroad crossings on the county roadways
and they may trigger additional safety requirements. Therefore, staff has requested railroad signalization
to be required at the crossings on County Road 13. County Road 17. County Road 52, County Road 54
and also US Highway 34.
Ms. Lundquist said that in her opinion the traffic study is not entirely correct. They believe a more realistic
trip distribution from the facility would be 75-25 percent. She added that it is very rare that we get such a
low trip distribution of 95-5 percent attributed at a "regional" facility Assuming a trip distribution of 75-25,
Public Works identified a northbound right deceleration could be warranted and also the potential upgrade
of County Road 13 between County Roads 54 and 50 may also be necessary. Additionally, she stated
that there could potentially be auxiliary lanes at County Roads 54 and County Road 13.
Lauren Light. Environmental Health . reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements Ms.
Light said that Little Thompson Water District will provide water and there will be two (2 ) commercial
septic systems on the proposed site.
Heather Barbare, Environmental Health , stated that the applicants will need to manage all waste and
comply with all state and federal regulations. Any chemicals to be stored on site will need to be
addressed as well.
2
Phil Brewer, Environmental Health . stated that he oversees the noise. odor and dust concerns in Weld
County Odor and fugitive emissions are regulated by the State of Colorado Air Pollution Control Division .
Permits to Martin Marietta will be addressing the rigid control of the emissions of odor and particulates or
dust_ The investigations of any complaints of dust or particulates will be handled and managed by Weld
County Environmental Health Services.
Noise will be evaluated for compliance with Weld County Code Chapter 14, Article 9. Sections 14-9- 10
through 14-9-90_ Noise complaints will be investigated by an employee of the Weld County
Environmental Health Services and will be conducted by utilizing an annually certified noise meter and
calibrator Any complaints found to be in possible violation of the Weld County Noise Code will be shared
with a representative of the Martin Marietta Materials Company and forwarded to the Weld County
Planning Department officials for possible enforcement of action .
Pam Hora, Tetra Tech. 1900 South Sunset Street. Longmont. Colorado. provided an introduction of the
representatives for the applicant. Martin Marietta Ms Hora said that Martin Marietta has supplied
construction materials to several industries and development in Weld County. She stated that the 35'x'
Avenue mine site is home to the only plant that operates in Weld County. Once the mining wraps up at
this location , the asphalt plant and other equipment will need to be taken off the property. She added that
it is nearing its completion . She added that the only other asphalt plant in Weld County is located in the
Firestone area and that site is also a mining site and once it wraps up mining it will go away. Therefore
Weld County will have no asphalt plants if another asphalt plant is not approved
Ms. Hora stated that the site suits the location of development of commercial and industrial development
in Weld County The best location was to site this facility west of Greeley as it provides access to 1-25 and
Highway 34 as well as along the Union Pacific Railroad Additionally. County Road 13 is designated as a
future arterial roadway.
Ms. Hora stated that Martin Marietta identified 13 sites and provided a visual slide on the criteria that was
used to determine which location was best suited for this facility After evaluating the site criteria, the
proposed Highway 34 development site was determined to best meet the criteria. It is located on two (2)
parcels encumbering 130 acres.
Ms. Hora noted that initially start there will be one ( 1 ) train per week. however at full build out there will be
2-3 trains per week. These trains will not cross Highway 34
Ms. Hora provided details on the primary and secondary accesses to the site. Based on Martin Marietta's
knowledge of their business and the future growth projections, the service area for the proposed facility is
Greeley as well as the 1-25 corridor between Loveland and Fort Collins. Therefore the proposed haul
route from this facility is north on County Road 13 to Highway 34 and either east or west to Greeley or the
1-25 corridor It is possible that some trucks could turn south to be able to make local deliveries Based
on the market, it is anticipated that 95 percent of the truck traffic will head north and the rest will head
south for local deliveries After heading north, approximately 67 percent of the trucks will turn west and
the remaining 33 percent will head east into Greeley_ Currently. Highway 34 carries approximately
42. 000 vehicles per day and by 2035 is expected to have 68. 000 vehicles per day Martin Marietta's
traffic will account for 2-3 percent of all traffic onto Highway 34
Poudre Valley REA currently provides power to the site Additional power will be required by Martin
Marietta and so Poudre Valley REA will build a dedicated supply from their substation in order to meet
Martin Marietta's needs so there will be no impact on the residents in the area to power.
Ms Hora said that the site is planned to be fully operational by 2017 She added that rail construction
and the Ready Mix facility will be constructed by 2016. She said that they do recognize the fact the offsite
road improvements need to be made before the facility can begin operating and therefore that may
impact some of the timing.
Ms. Hora said that they understand the concerns of the group (CLR 34) in opposition . As a result of
listening to the neighbors. Martin Marietta has made significant changes to the application and have
reached out multiple times to the neighbors They have held several open house neighborhood
3
•
meetings Additionally. Martin Marietta has set up a website to provide the public with information about
the project as well as a way to submit emails for any concerns or questions they might have
Ms. Hora referred to a visual slide providing examples of noise and their decibel levels She said that
Martin Marietta will be compliant with the required noise levels She noted that the majority of time, the
facility will not be operating at night. Ms Hora stated that they plan to have a 700 foot setback from the
residential development as well as vegetated berms that will extend 10 feet higher than the railroad
tracks She added that the proposed below grade hopper will also help with the noise.
Ms. Hora provided a visual slide on how the proposed landscaping will improve the visual effects of the
site to help soften the view Additionally. neighbors have indicated that they would be acceptable to
landscaping. such as trees. to be installed on their property to help mitigate the views Therefore Martin
Marietta has reserved up to S100. 000 for this landscaping
Ms. Hora provided copies of the requested changes to the staff report and when time allows they would
be happy to explain the requests She requested that the Planning Commission consider these changes
and forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
Patrick Groom, 822 7'" Street. Suite 760, Greeley, Colorado, represents the landowner. Gerrard
Investments LLC, who owns the 42 acres locate to the west_ Gerrard Investments LLC is currently under
contract to purchase the approximately 90 acres located to the east and will be included in the proposed
development by Martin Marietta It is Gerrard Investments intention to lease the property to Martin
Marietta to occupy the property for up to one ( 1 ) year and then relocate its facilities to a separate location .
Mr Groom said that the challenge today is the need to balance the right of the property owners to
develop their property along with the impact on neighboring property owners. Mr. Groom said that the
property located east of the Gerrard property (90 acres) has been on/off the market for 15 years and no
one has shown any interest. He added that given the infrastructure available at this location this is the
appropriate location for this facility Mr. Groom stated that the recommendation of denial by the Weld
County Planning Department is based in part that this location is prime agricultural farmland. He said that
there is farmland throughout this area that has been taken out of production such as the residential
subdivision to the northeast. Gerrard's property directly to the west. the Iron Horse development across
Highway 34 He added that the Highway 34 corridor is going to be developed and unfortunately that land
will be taken out of production . He said that the question is not whether it is being taken out of production
but whether this is the best use for that land and added that they believe it is.
Chase Mullen, 1167 Logan Street, Denver provided video segments that provided visual models of the
facility from the Highway 34 corridor. County Road 13 and also within the Indianhead subdivision .
Ms. Hora asked if the Planning Commission had any questions There were no questions from the
Planning Commission .
Brad Mueller. Director of Community Development. City of Greeley. referred to the referral they submitted
to Weld County Mr. Mueller said that Greeley does want to recognize the need for aggregate in the
region and the important role it does play for economic development in the future He wished to speak to
the regional perspective and the context with this facility in the region and the potential implications long
term Mr Mueller referred to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Greeley and the
Town of Windsor and provided a brief outline of the vision they have for this area He added that there is
a concern of establishing a potential industrial land use pattern
John Franklin . Johnstown Planner. stated that the Town Council has provided the resolution in response
to the referral He added that Johnstown is in agreement with Windsor. Greeley and Loveland and also
Weld County in looking at the future of the US Highway 34 corridor He further added that Johnstown
believes that this location is not the right place or time and should be reconsidered
Commissioner Berryman referred to the resolution provided from Johnstown and said that it appears the
vision from Johnstown is a mixed use or maybe residential/commercial type development in this area.
Mr Franklin said that was correct and added that the frontage of Highway 34 is important from a retail
and professional standpoint.
4
The Chair called a recess at 11 54 am .
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 1 02 pm
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application .
Tom Haren , AGPROfessionals, 3050 67"' Avenue, stated that he is Chairman of the Board of Upstate
Economic Development He said on behalf of the Board of the Directors of Upstate Colorado Economic
Development Corporation they wanted to extend their support for Martin Marietta and the jobs and the
support of these necessary operations in northern Colorado He added that with the future growth of this
region this type of business is needed He urged the Planning Commission to consider approval of this
project
Commissioner Maxey asked how many businesses or entities are represented by Upstate Colorado
Economic Development. Mr Haren stated that the membership includes 350-400 businesses throughout
Weld County He added that he is speaking for the Board of Directors and not individual members of
Upstate Colorado Economic Development.
Dave Kisker, 6681 Apache Road. Indianhead Estates. stated that he is one of the organizers of the
group, called CLR 34. that opposes this application This group represents approximately 250-300
people and is funded solely by donations.
Mr. Kisker stated that this proposed facility needs to be compatible with the health and welfare of
surrounding uses and they will show that it fails to meet those expectations.
John Cummings, 26700 CR 13. Johnstown, stated that he lives 1500 feet from this proposed
development. He stated that Martin Marietta's development is incompatible as it removes prime farmland
and does not meet the intent of the agricultural land use regulation as well as the agricultural goals and
policies of the Weld County Code. It is also incompatible with the existing and future uses of the
neighborhood Mr. Cummings said that there have been several research studies that show dust
decreases the respiration between the leaves of crops and the outside climate.
Mr. Cummings said that water quality is a large concern as the site will generate highly contaminated
stormwater runoff which contains oil, grease, sediments, etc. and potentially contaminate groundwater
Mike Chrisman , 6713 Apache Road, Indianhead Estates, presented the traffic impact study technical
review and comments. Mr Chrisman stated that the Traffic Impact Study did not include analysis of the
railroad impact on the road network . He added that it assumes an unfunded future condition of US
Highway 34 from a four-lane condition to a six-lane condition _ He noted that local jurisdictions have
worked to develop a regional plan to provide parallel routes to US Highway 34
Gary Oplinger. 27687 Hopi Trail, stated that he lives 500 feet from the Gerrard property line. He
presented the review of the projected noise levels of the Martin Marietta facility_ He noted some errors in
the Martin Marietta data regarding noise analysis. The noises from train coupler slacking noise were not
addressed and railroad car wheel squeal were omitted Effects of vibration must be evaluated and
mitigated. He concluded by stating that the neighbors should not have to police the noise emissions.
Mr Kisker stated that all emissions sources must be considered and this was not done. He added that all
fugitive dust must be included and this was not done Additionally, all emission calculations should be
done at worst case conditions and this was not done. Mr. Kisker provided an overview of the
inaccuracies of the Stewart Environmental Report.
Mr Kisker provided visual slides on the visual impacts to the Indianhead Subdivision . He stated that the
landscape plan does not address the fact that much of the surrounding area is at a substantially higher
elevation then the proposed facility.
Ellen Kisker, 6681 Apache Road , Indianhead Estates. stated that she is an economist and added that she
consulted with a leading researcher in the area on the effects of environmental disamenities on residential
5
property values Ms. Kisker reviewed the report provided by Martin Marietta in looking at the affect of the
proposed project on residential property values. She said that this report includes only comparisons that
are hand-picked and selected in a scientific manner and the results are biased Ms. Kisker provided
details on the approach of analysis and price models.
Mr. Kisker talked about general compatibility in the area. He stated that there is roughly 44 million dollars
worth of homes in the area based upon Weld County records. In conclusion he added that there is a lot
of uncertainty with this project.
Mr Kisker played a video providing testimony by surrounding property owners on the incompatibility in
the surrounding area .
Commissioner Sparrow understands that this will affect the residents property rights: however he added
that they are being asked to deny the landowner the ability to benefit from his property rights Mr. Kisker
said that when they started looking for their property it took two years for them to find their home. He
added that they looked at the plans of the surrounding communities to see what the intentions or plans
were for the area. Commissioner Sparrow said that you purchased property next to a railroad and asked
if he had any expectations that this property could be used for anything other than residential. Mr. Kisker
said that the railroad, as it currently exists, comes through and it is there for about 5 minutes He added
that they asked the applicants on the schedule of the trains and haven't gotten clear answers on this. Mr.
Sparrow said that the railroad existed and added that things have a tendency to develop along a railroad .
Mr. Kisker said that the existence of railroads does not necessarily mean further industrial uses.
Commissioner Smock referred to a previous comment that the property was for sale for 15 years and
asked why it was for sale so long Mr Kisker said that there was a severe recession and that had a lot to
do with it as well as it may have been what the expectations of the property owner were.
In response to Commissioner Berryman's inquiry of what they envision for uses in the area. Mr. Kisker
said that this application is such an intensive use and added that the communities talk about having
commercial activities such as a bank or electronics assembly facility He added that lighter or less
intensive uses is more appropriate
The Chair called a recess at 2: 53 pm and reconvened at 3 07 pm .
Sharon Collins, 27811 Hopi Trail. resident of Indianhead Estates stated that there are real risks from this
proposed facility of catastrophic industrial accidents. Ms. Collins expressed concerns of fire and
explosion . safety, noise, odor, and traffic.
Janet Ross. 6248 CR 56, supports the denial of this application . She expressed concern on traffic
backing up at the intersection of Highway 34 and County Road 13 and provided suggestions on adding a
left turn lane. right turn lane and straight lane. Additionally. she requested that the noise levels be
adhered to residential limits and not the industrial limits.
Jacqueline Ross, 6190 CR 56, said that her two-year old plays outside and is concerned with the traffic.
She requested denial of this application
Sandra Cole. 2538 14"' Avenue. stated that she has watched the agricultural areas of Weld County
shrink She believes that this proposed facility will be destructive and expressed concerns of pollution,
noise, odor. and traffic Ms Cole urged the Planning Commission to deny this application
Dr Craig Wilson. 27790 Hopi Trail . opposes this application . He said that he is a physician and provides
care for some individuals in the Indianhead Estates and emphasized concerns regarding the health of the
surrounding community
Commissioner Maxey noted the applicant's testimony of hospitals that are in close proximity to other
Martin Marietta facilities and asked if that is inaccurate. Mr. Wilson said that he didn't look at that
information but added that he takes care of a lot of asthma and COPD patients and said that he believes
the added pollution in the air will affect these individuals
6
Eric Wingerson. 27601 Hopi Trail . said that air pollution is generated by particulates processed from this
plant. It accounts for 45% of lung cancer in the world . The health impact study provided by the
applicants is focused on the asphalt component It does not talk about concrete and the transport of it.
He provided a brief outline of the particulates and how it affects health and the development of cancer,
asthma, etc.
Denise Rhoades. 6771 Algonquin Drive, stated that she has health problems and will be directly impacted
by this facility_ She said that over and over she heard that this site was the best for Martin Marietta and
not what is best for the location . She urged the Planning Commission to deny this case.
Paula Oransky. 10170 Church Ranch Way, 9278, Erie. Colorado, stated she is in support of this
proposed facility. She joined Martin Marietta as it is a world class business that has integrity and assures
that everything they have said they will do.
Marsha Mendenhal , 19231 CR 22 . stated that she is an employee for Martin Marietta and requested
approval of this project.
Renata Meusch. 27647 Hopi Trail. stated that this location is the most beautiful spot_ She asked that this
case not be approved .
David Jordan , 5371 South Eaton Parkway, Aurora, Colorado, stated that he has worked for Martin
Marietta for 16 years. He believes that Martin Marietta is a very responsible operator and they are
prideful of being part of a community He added that they are at a standpoint of where their reserves are
running out and if they do not find a location in northern Colorado project costs will be increased as well
as lost jobs. If this is not approved . this could affect thousands of people negatively
Preston Kunkel. 10402 Butte Drive, Longmont, stated this area was all farmland and added that this
subdivision was developed on that farmland He is in support of this project as it creates jobs and
revenue for the county and cities. He believes that this company has high integrity and added that they
work with their neighbors to mitigate concerns.
Aaron Coulter. 3509 Columbia Court, said that he supports this case He said that he does not want to
lose his job and wants to continue to support his family
Jamie Garcia. 455 Buckeye Avenue. Eaton, Colorado. said that he has been with the company for 18
years. He works next to an asphalt and concrete plant and recycling plant all day long and he does not
have any medical issues.
Dale Henry. 127 North 23rd Avenue, Greeley, stated that he has worked for Martin Marietta for 18 years.
He said that this will negatively affect a lot of people in Weld County through loss of jobs and an increase
of project costs.
Russell Brynjulson, 5164 East 129th Place, Thornton , Colorado. stated that he supports this project He
works for Martin Marietta and said that the safety and environmental standards are above anything he
has ever seen.
Harriette Eastman , 6731 Lakota Court, Indianhead Estates, stated that she has lived in Weld County
since 2003. She has enjoyed their retirement home and added that both she and her husband have heart
and respiratory conditions She requested denial of this case
Alice Anderson . 6995 Commanche Court, lives in the Indianhead subdivision She is in agreement of the
CLR 34 presentation. She said that she is not against Martin Marietta but believes that this is the wrong
location for it. She encouraged denial of this application
Carol Pernicka, 27848 Arikaree Road , lives in Indianhead Estates and is concerned with a large industrial
center and doesn't hear how this will benefit agriculture. She said that they are not against Martin
Marietta but doesn't believe that this should be turned into an industrial site
7
Electra Johnson , 2036 Ridgeway Ave, Colorado Springs. said that she represented Chris Friede who was
recently approved for a wedding venue by the Board of County Commissioners She said that they are
not trying to demonize Martin Marietta but this is not necessarily the most appropriate site. She added
that this facility would destroy Ms Friede's property She encouraged denial of this project.
Timothy Hodsdon. 903 Uran Street, said that he also worked with Chris Friede on her project Mr_
Hodsdon said that it is a matter of balancing economics with quality of life. He said that the issue of
precedent should be reviewed. He urged denial of this application.
Ellen DeLorenzo, 1744 Goldenvue Drive, Johnstown . stated that the health and welfare should be first
and foremost She read an article from the Loveland Times Call regarding train noise_ She hasn't heard
how this will affect the 1-25 corridor She is opposed to this application
Larry Sipes. 6900 Commanche Court, expressed opposition to the proposed facility He chose to live
here because of the location and has lived there since 1987 He stated that he is opposed to this
proposed facility.
Rene Wingerson, 27601 Hopi Trail , lives in Indianhead Estates. She asked the Planning Commission to
deny this application .
Josh Kruchten . 9100 Harlequin Circle, Frederick. Colorado, said that he is a Martin Marietta employee.
Of several companies he has worked with . he has found that Martin Marietta is one that has the highest
integrity and most ethical . Mr Kruchten said that as a site manager for Martin Marietta he is directly
responsible for dealing with the neighbors and they are directed to go above and beyond to meet the
needs of the neighbors and they try to be good neighbors He encouraged support of this application .
Commissioner Sparrow asked if the employees wear dust masks Mr Kruchten replied that no one wears
a dust mask
The Chair asked, for the sake of saving time, for advice from counsel if we can ask for a show of hands
from the employees of Martin Marietta or do they all need to come up and say they are in support of this
project Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, said that you need to look at whether any information is relevant
of proving the USR case. Unless there is something new and relevant you might ask to just take names
The Chair said that he has been hearing the same theme from the employees of Martin Marietta and
therefore asked that anyone else who wishes to speak that they give their name and they are in support
of this case
Tom Donkle. 1717 Mountainview Boulevard , Greeley. stated that he works for Gerrard Investments, who
is the landowner of the proposed site He referred to the Greeley/Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement.
He added that he was a City of Greeley employee at that time and played a part in that agreement
process. Mr Donkle referred to the 2013 floods and added that a lot of the gravel resources were not
readily available as they were located along the river This site would allow the materials to be more
readily available to any natural disasters in the future. He recommended approval of this application_
Preston Pierson. 660 Dakota Bay, Windsor. stated that he is a Martin Marietta employee and also a Weld
County resident. He is in support of this application
Troy McWhinney, 4054 CR 20E, Loveland. stated that Colorado is one of the fastest growing states in the
entire nation He added that Weld County is one of the fastest growing regions in Colorado. He said that
it is unfortunate for these homes to overlook this site but for them to purchase a 1 acre site and then
expect to control the acres next door is not right. He believes that this area is the right location for this
business.
Jim Piraino, 22776 Hopi Trail. said that he is concerned with the noise He asked if the noise is constant
or if there will be peaks of noise He said he has the right to use his land as he wants as well
Lucas Brown 6859 CR 56. stated that he is opposed to this project and requested denial of this case
Jack Daniels. 1327 Poplar Street. Johnstown , said that he is opposed to this project.
8
Roxanne Chrisman. 6713 Apache Road , Indianhead Estates. stated her opposition to this proposal She
requested denial of the proposed use
Laurie Hockheimer. 6767 East CR 18. stated that she wonders why a special use permit would be
allowed if this is zoned agricultural She is opposed to this project
Nick Ferguson, 5724 Prairie Circle. Frederick. stated that he works for Martin Marietta_ He supports this
proposal .
Dan Ensrud . 2434 26'h Ave. Greeley. stated that he is a ready mix operator for Martin Marietta . He said
that they are passionate about air quality and standards He asked for approval of this project.
Steve Lloyd . 1515 Harpendan Court. Windsor. works for Martin Marietta as plant manager in Fort Collins.
Mr. Lloyd stated that Martin Marietta has high standards that they need to comply with for air quality He
added that here are several inspections and people to monitor this
Bernard Lucero said that he has been with Martin Marietta for 27 years and 15 of those years in Weld
County. He is in support of this project.
Anita Comer, 503 North CR 3. lives in Larimer County. She moved to Kelim in 2000 and said that no one
has come up with a good solution for the Kelim frontage road access She is opposed to this project_
Tammy Brown , 27400 Hopi Trail , requested denial of this proposal .
Ron Pernicka. 27848 Arikaree Road , Indianhead Estates, expressed concern regarding air quality and
pollution from the idling of trains and trucks.
Dale Horn. 1074 Poplar Street. said that Martin Marietta is one of the best companies but he is opposed
to this proposal. He is concerned about the traffic.
Lori Horn, 900 N Grant, Loveland. said that the railroad loop is away from the property but there is still an
idling problem Every time a train turns they are required to blow their safety horns and the applicant has
not spoken about how they will mitigate that She requested denial of this case
The Chair called a recess at 5' 04 and reconvened at 5 25 pm
Brett Mills. 6433 CR 56. is opposed to the proposed facility He said that they moved there in 2010 and
inquired about purchasing the subject property and at that time was told it wasn't for sale.
Barbara Moe 1209 North County Line Road . asked the Planning Commission to think this through and
encouraged denial of this application
Melanie Schlotter. 27700 Hopi Trail. stated that they are in the direct line of site of this area . She asked
where the jobs are coming from From what she heard from the employees of Martin Marietta, she
believes these jobs will be transferred rather than new jobs created .
Becky Martinez. 27840 Hopi Trail, stated that she has a four-year old daughter with heart disease. If this
is approved they will be forced to move due to the possible impacts to her health
Chad Niesent stated that he works for Martin Marietta He said that he is the fourth generation of his
family to work for the same company and none of his family members have had adverse health effects
from working there.
Todd Loose, 25201 CR 53. stated that he drives Highway 34 twice a day as well as his wife travels daily.
He said that this doesn't mean that Martin Marietta will go away it just means that we are challenging
them to find a better location . He requested for denial of this project.
9
Peggy Peters. 27819 Arikaree Road. Indianhead Estates stated that she has lived there for over 30
years. Ms. Peters asked the Planning Commission to think about this and to deny the proposal . She
added that she is not opposed to Martin Marietta but rather is opposed to the plant at this location
Earl Wellnitz. 4700 West O Street. stated that he works for Martin Marietta and manages the Greeley
asphalt plant. He said that the plants have really changed from the 1960's. He provided a description of
how the particulates are captured and added that he has not had any health effects from working at the
Martine Marietta site for 40 years. He added that if this is approved he will live one ( 1 ) mile away from the
facility
Sara Cassidy. Union Pacific Railroad, 1400 W 52nd Avenue, Denver. spoke in favor of this application.
She stated that she is here to answer any follow up questions regarding the railroad.
Lester Eastman , 6731 Lakota Court, Indianhead Estates stated that he has had two (2) heart attacks and
is maxed out on medications for breathing problems. He is opposed to the proposed facility.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing
Ms Hora said that industrial uses are not unique to the area as there are other industrial uses in the
surrounding area. As to why this hasn't been developed or residential activity hasn't occurred. Ms. Hora
said that they learned that there are expansive soils and high ground water and that may be a reason why
development hasn't occurred.
Ms Hora said that the property is prime farmland and added that this prime farmland was taken out of
production for the existing subdivision when developed_ She said it was mentioned to find another site;
however she added that if there was another site they would be there. She said that this facility also
needs good access to the road network and rails CLR 34 suggested optional sites: however some of
these sites would create additional problems such as taking traffic through the towns and impacting more
people. She added that the Milliken site has an elevation drop issue and there are also two subdivisions
next to that site.
Ms. Hora said that the hours of operation are better explained in the application on how Martin Marietta
has reduced those hours The planting of vegetation was a result of the neighborhood working group and
Martin Marietta would not tell them where to plant vegetation.
Ms. Hora said that trains will be parked at night and will not be idling_
Commissioner Johnson said he likes the 65 mph speed limit on Highway 34 and added that he doesn't
like stop lights. He asked if there have been any thoughts on something other than stop lights such as a
round-a-bout or overpass. Ms. Hora said in CDOTs Master Plan they intend to have a traffic signal at the
intersection and added that there may be an overpass when it is warranted based on the traffic.
Gene Coppola stated that he is the traffic consultant for this project. He said that he was not provided a
copy of the comments from the CLR 34 group and he would like to get a copy of those comments so he
could respond to them. He added that several entities including Greeley, Loveland, Windsor, Larimer
County and Weld County reviewed the traffic study and didn't have any further inquiries or comments_
The intersection at Highway 34 and County Road 13 is. at best, difficult during peak hours. There is a lot
of delay on County Road 13. According to his calculations. the wait will average from 3. 5 minutes to 20
minutes depending on the afternoon peak hour He added there will be a traffic signal installed at that
intersection and that will drop the wait time. Currently all right turning traffic going towards Greeley have
to wait for the people turning left before they can go: therefore the addition of the right turn lane will allow
the right turn traffic to keep going . He added that the other acceleration/deceleration lanes will be brought
up to current standards
Mr. Coppola said that round-a-bouts are not typically used as they are associated with a lot of turning
traffic that conflicts with a lot of other traffic movements and this case is not that situation . He added that
the speed in round-a-bouts is typically 25 mph and not 65 mph.
10
Mr. Coppola said that they will have to work with CDOT on the design of the Kelim frontage road and
Highway 34.
Commissioner Hansford referred to the peak hours and the proposed traffic entering and leaving the
facility and added that according to his calculations there will be 5. 3 vehicles per minute entering or
exiting one ( 1 ) access. He added that it appears that will be a mess. Ms. Lundquist clarified that the
clearing of traffic is addressed with the proposed turn lanes. She added that the MUTCD has nine
warrants to determine whether the warrant is required or not. One of the warrants is volume and in that
warrant they analyze the traffic in an 8 hour period and then also a peak hour period . With the use of the
turn lanes and the traffic signal that traffic will be cleared to meet an acceptable level of service.
Commissioner Maxey asked what triggers the next warrant as it was mentioned in CDOT's referral the
possibility of an overpass and on/off ramps. Mr. Coppola said that Highway 34 will have about 60.000
vehicles in the future and County Road 13 is projected to have 17.000 vehicles by 2035. He added that
within that time frame some sort of grade separation will need to be reviewed .
Dave Stewart. Stewart Environmental Consultant, prepared the preliminary air report for this application .
The report was for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and is not the
final report. Mr Steward provided a brief explanation of what air screen and air mod is and how it will be
used in this project. He stated that Mr. Kisker was looking at worst case scenario and was giving high
capacities and longer run times than the plant is allowed and uncontrolled emission factors. Therefore
this will find much bigger values.
Paul Burge prepared the noise analysis for this project. He added that this report was fairly conservative
and assumed that everything was operating at once The train activities. the asphalt and ready mix plant,
loading. internal truck movements. truck washing station . rail car movements and locomotive, and idling
were all included in the report.
Commissioner Maxey referred to a visual slide that showed the line of sight of the subdivision and asked
about sound with the elevation of the subdivision . Mr Burge said that in the design they would make sure
that the berm would be higher than the train so that it blocks the noise from line of sight. Ms. Flora noted
that the homes at the higher elevation would be further away so distance would be accounted for as well.
The Chair called a recess at 7: 23 pm and reconvened at 7: 38 pm .
Fernando del Monte, 3225 W 23`d Avenue, Denver, stated that he is a civil and geotechnical engineer.
Mr. del Monte prepared and submitted the drainage report. He said that he reviewed the topographical
data and looked at what run off there will be and where it will go. He said that they designed two off-site
channels and routed it around the site. Additionally, the erosion control sediment plans have been
designed and submitted for the site.
Commissioner Johnson asked where the water will be discharged and also how they will monitor the
cleaning of any water that leaves the detention pond. Mr. del Monte said that the detention pond
captures the runoff of the site and is discharged at the other section of the railroad and County Road 56
where there is a system of culverts in the southeast corner_ Mr. del Monte said that the detention pond
will be inspected to make sure that there is not an oil sheen and when clearance is given the control valve
is released and complied with water rights. Commissioner Johnson asked how this will be handled in a
large storm event. Mr. del Monte said it is outlined in the Spill Prevention Control Plan. He added that if
there is a spill EPA will be notified Walt Wrights, Senior Environmental Engineer for Martin Marietta, said
that they are required to obtain a discharge permit from the State of Colorado Public Health and
Environment. Within this permit are requirements for testing parameters for oil, total suspended solids,
total dissolved solids and different metals.
Mr del Monte said that they came up with load equivalency factors for the proposed structures. He
added that the soils in this area are not the best as it is clay and it is expansive_ He provided an outline of
things that can be added to create a stable foundation for these types of structures.
Dave Hagerman , Martin Marietta. Regional Vice President/General Manager for Aggregates. stated that
initially they asked for 24/7 operation but the reality is the majority of the operations will be Monday
11
through Saturday. He added that during the winter the asphalt plant will not operate. The asphalt plant
may operate at night, however they will be loading out trucks and the plant itself will not be operating He
added that this is to meet the demands from local municipalities On the aggregate site, train unloading
operations will take place between the hours of 6 am and 8 pm During the winter. the train unloading
operations will only take place during daylight hours He added that typically when they are open on
Saturdays it is for sales and not for operations.
Mr Hagerman said that they reviewed several locations He provided a list of criteria that they used when
reviewing 13 potential sites. He explained their grading scale and why these sites were or were not able
to accommodate the criteria Mr Hagerman said that they really focused on avoiding travel through
towns or school zones to get to the highway system
David Lemesany. Regional Vice President/General Manager of Asphalt said that these plants are being
retrofitted now for odor control He added that odor is a strange thing and not everyone recognizes odor
the same way
Commissioner Maxey asked if there is a nasal ranger on site Mr Lemesany said that there is one at the
Ft. Collins plant and added that there will be one on this proposed site as well . He added that when a
complaint comes in , Weld County will contact them and they will take a reading. Phil Brewer. Weld
County Environmental Health . stated that they would arrive to the complaint site as soon as possible.
The Chair referred to the document which the applicant has proposed changes to the staff report. He
explained the changes made above the listed conditions of approval will not be changed as it is not part
of the resolution The Chair asked to start with the proposed change on Condition of Approval 1 C and
asked staff for their opinion Wayne Howard, Engineering , believes that the train information is relevant
and important to the area and asked the applicant to compile the data and submit that. Janet Lundquist,
Public Works, asked that the railroad crossing analysis be included in the study as well.
Sara Cassidy, Union Pacific Railroad, 1400 West 52' Avenue, Denver, Colorado said that she
understands that train traffic would come from the south to the facility and will go back the way it came.
She said that there is a process involved in conducting diagnostics at railroad crossings
Mr. Coppola said that he doesn 't have a problem with the evaluation but he doesn't have a way of
including these types of assessment in his report. It is usually a Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
function
Ms. Lundquist said that typically a diagnostic with the PUC is pretty lengthy and can take up to 30-90
days to complete. She suggested making a condition to signalize and have crossing arms at the
intersection unless the requirement is waived by PUC Ms. Cassidy said that they are proposing 2-3
trains per week. Given the train traffic in this proposal . she said that they didn't see that threshold trigger
to warrant a full diagnostic and upgraded signals .
The Chair said that it sounds better to leave the condition as it is written and the applicants and Union
Pacific can address this prior to Board of County Commissioner hearing . Ms Cassidy said that the road
authority does share in the cost of upgrading the crossings She added that if the crossings are not
warranted for signalization the cost would be up to the road authorities.
The Chair said that Conditions of Approval 1 . H, 1 . 1 , 1 .J . and 1 K are ones that the applicant stated have
been completed. He added that these conditions say that the applicant shall attempt and therefore they
have made the attempt and the Planning Commission does not need to address them at this point.
The Chair referred to Condition of Approval 1 M . 10 as the applicant proposed changes Mr Howard
understands what the applicant is proposing and as long as it is included in a note. he is acceptable to the
change. Mr Howard recommended amending Condition of Approval 1 . M. 10 to read "Show and label all
off-site auxiliary lane improvements at the access location. "
Motion : Amend Condition of Approval 1 M . 10 as recommended by staff. Moved by Bruce Sparrow,
Seconded by Nick Berryman Motion carried unanimously
12
The Chair referred to the proposed changes to Development Standard 4 regarding the number of
employees Ms Hora said that they do not want to be held to a set number of employees therefore she
suggested limiting the number of trips generated by the site Commissioner Sparrow suggested rounding
the number of employees up to 75 full-time employees, 50 truck drivers. and 30 field construction
workers. After consulting with Martin Marietta, Ms. Hora stated that the applicants are acceptable to
those numbers. Ms Aungst stated that staff had no concerns with this request
Motion : Amend Development Standard 4 to read The number of on-site employees for Martin Marietta
shall be 75 full-time employees. 50 truck drivers. and 30 field construction workers, as stated by the
applicant" . Moved by Bruce Johnson. Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion carried unanimously
With regard to the proposed changes to Development Standard 5, Ms Hora wished to clarify that Gerrard
Construction will only operate on site for one year_ Michelle Martin , Planning Department. stated that the
USR does not have a time limit with respect to Gerrard Construction She added that this application is a
request for an amendment to the existing USR permit to include the Martin Marietta facility. The Chair
clarified that this is more of an agreement between Gerrard Construction and Martin Marietta: therefore
no action will be taken on this item .
The Chair referred to the proposed changes to Development Number 6 by adding "however. Martin
Marietta will operate under the following restrictions"
Motion : Amend Development Standard 6 as proposed Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Bruce
Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Commissioner Johnson said he has known about this case for the past month and added that he has
struggled with this. He said that this is the most professional approach he has heard from the applicants
and the public. He indicated that by moving to other places isn't always suitable either With the regard
to the public and their professionalism and staff working with the applicant to bring it to a safe
environment and mitigating these issues, he believes the integrity of the company will uphold to these
standards He is in support of this proposal
Commissioner Smock said that all the presentations were outstanding She said that there are a lot of
unknowns. such as pollution into the atmosphere. She added that she has concerns when she hears
terms like "generally" and "typically" because they don't know.
Commissioner Sparrow agreed with both Commissioners and added that he is also concerned with
removing farmland from Weld County. However. as was pointed out the homes that are lived in were
once prime farmland_ He believes in property rights. As far as traffic, there is a concern in this area . He
added that this is very difficult
Commissioner Hansford said that there are too many variables and uncertain things. He believes it is an
intense industry for this location.
Commissioner Berryman said he is still concerned about traffic in the area. He said that the applicant has
done a good job of addressing a lot of the concerns When he boils it down . he asked if it is still generally
compatible with surrounding uses and added that he is leaning slightly against that
Commissioner Jemiola concurred with Commissioners Berryman and Hansford and added that it is a very
intense use of the site. He is having difficulty with compatibility, specifically with traffic and the intense
use
Commissioner Maxey said that after reviewing the criteria and the duties of the Planning Commission, it is
hard to answer the questions relating to compatibility He said that there could be an argument that it is
compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, however with regard to compatibility with future
development. there is growth in the area and trends and speculation He believes the public has had very
13
good testimony and did the evaluation based on information submitted. He believes the applicant has
done a good job of stating why this could be located in the agricultural zone district. He said working
together with the municipalities is key; however Weld County does not have any intergovernmental
agreements that says the County will or will not allow development in this area of the county_
Commissioner Maxey said that when the County's standards are stricter than EPA or State standards, he
has a hard time believing that this facility will not comply with the health , safety and welfare
Commissioner Sparrow asked for opinions regarding traffic. Commissioner Jemiola said that the site
itself, the fact that it has the rail access and its proximity to 1-25, there is no question that this is the site
for this facility. However, he doesn't believe it is compatible with the surrounding area He is a private
property rights advocate and believes that they have the right to have the property at its fullest. highest
and best use However. he doesn't feel convinced that this proposed use is compatible with the
surrounding properties.
Commissioner Jemiola said that the applicant made a valiant effort in terms of what they were willing to
offer to the community Commissioner Maxey said that the applicant has done a very good job to try their
best to make this compatible with the area. Commissioner Berryman said that it is a very strategic
location and makes sense; however when he asks if it is a good idea to plop that amount of activity right
there with the existing surrounding uses he said it is a very grey area for him .
Commissioner Maxey stated that in Weld County there are a lot of things that can be a Use by Right and
since this is zoned agricultural with 130 acres there is the potential of having over 400 cows or dairy or
poultry barn and there is no process for that whatsoever In his opinion that is the beauty of Weld County,
the special review process allows them to look at other entities like this proposal Commissioner Johnson
noted that when you look within 4 miles of this site there is a lot of activity that has taken agriculture out of
production He said that agriculture will be taken out of production and no matter what it is it is going to
impact the neighborhood . He added that he believes they have addressed the controls of what needs to
be done to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Commissioner Sparrow said it is not
100 percent compatible but doesn't believe that it is incompatible either.
Motion : Forward Case USR15-0027 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial.
Moved by Jordan Jemiola citing Section 23-2-220.A. 3 , Seconded by Benjamin Hansford
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4 , No = 3. Abstain = 2) .
Yes : Benjamin Hansford . Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman_
No: Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey.
Abstain : Michael Wailes, Terry Cross,
Commissioner Berryman said that his objections relate to Section 23-2-220.A. 3.
Commissioner Maxey said that he believes these issues can be mitigated and would be compatible with
the area
Meeting adjourned at 9: 39 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
45\466- u,, janeihmeuDate: 2015.07.30 13: 11 :45 -06'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
14
Hello