The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20153559.tiff EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case COZ15-0001 -WELD 34, LLC C/O ENVIROTECH SERVICES Exhibit Submitted By Description A. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 9/1/2015 and B. Planning Commission 10/20/2015) C. Planning Services PowerPoint Presentation D. Applicant Continuance Request E. Ellen De Lorenzo Letter of Opposition F. Sharon Collins Letter of Opposition G. Scott Fenton Letter of Opposition H. John Boedekker Letter of Opposition I. Robert Emmerich Letter of Opposition J. Michael Chrisman Letter of Opposition K. Tom and Diane Lord Letter of Opposition L. Sharon Collins Letter of Opposition M. Tom and Diane Lord Letter of Opposition, dated 11/13/2015 N. Dave Kisker CLR-34 PowerPoint Presentation O. Dave Kisker Speaker#1 Notes P. Judy Leinweber Speaker#2 Notes Q. Ellen Kisker Speaker#3 Notes R. Barbara Moe Speaker#4 Notes S. Joanne Fenton Speaker#5 Notes T. Susan Oplinger Speaker#6 Notes U. Bradford Thomas Speaker#7 Notes V. Melanie Schlotter Speaker#8 Notes W. Susie Straub Speaker#9 Notes 2015-3559 X. Mel Bickling Speaker#10 Notes Y. John Wallace Speaker#11 Notes Z. Lisa Piraino Speaker#12 Notes AA. Kari Scott Speaker#13 Notes AB. Deborah Johnston Speaker#14 Notes AC. Gary Oplinger Speaker#15 Notes AD. Alice Anderson Speaker#16 Notes AE Bob Emmerich Speaker#17 Notes AF. Diana Beccue Speaker#18 Notes AG. Royal Kupec Speaker#19 Notes AH. Sue Thomas Speaker#20 Notes Al. Jim Piraino Speaker#21 Notes AJ. Applicant PowerPoint Presentation AK. Tom Haren/Upstate CO Letter of Support AL. AM AN. AO. AP. AQ. AR. AS. AT. AU. AV AW. 2015-3559 sp... -1 ! •f .-,,,A ; Sr .. .. kIa ,, r �,- _ a ' J a ... - �� • /rT At re nay t . u y� -_ aft 4 illillt,^ a — J ', 4 Cam. 1•11,'•; _ Y • _ ' •" - � • .. ss ' a r4 P t , z` 1 O _ \J 14 Public hearings concerning this property will be heard before the County Planning Commission and , Board of County Commissioners. ` • • Both hearings will be held at: a WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • 1150 " O" Street • Greeley , CO 80631 It ' Planning Commission Hearing will be held on • a4)12______tr 20.15, at • -----CLIXDPO1- , , 4. • h J Board of County Commissioner Hearing will be held on • , ,, ,` • t r ' >1• Al - 7 '� . • elk '/. g--- • ill* . - . 1\jalala 13: at . JM 1.1 ,j• _ ;Pr•�f"` sir a. Jr f li di /% w' i' . y r /a , ,f,fir' ic.. 7.0-7/.„4:„..., , ie. : it. _ .. 1 /em 40 N • Applicant: pJd z_ d..t _ n F__ Qr 1�c -•l pr ','. ',,f arc y ` 1 K1�! sd a e 1 ° , ,, 31+ .SF /`" , ' Wi ! ?- 4 ' tr c ' f Request: . - . r•1, - r - f 11 ° ; t ,- • <{ ' • • .fit a 'J�_' ' a• / �_ r✓ r \ / , / • .. _ _ -• I 4 _ • • _ __ 11‹ •' ' i /- I fie. f�rr .�V r A,. it -, a vs,. . it �jr ≥,t I '� ' , ‘. , 7 .0.00,e. , .P • 4 � r-‘ ire.k 1- Acres+ firtuber : ��-,_- ► '� - - i . r1Y V \4 ' 11\11 1: it 4I Case N u � .�. : -z ,• r, --��,-:. nwp-a--- ,. „ ' Arlse-44 400" I ' /il � , FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT I-- ,.- ,r tIlliilliinalkia3 AT THE WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF __ / 41, r 2 r -353-6100, ext. �' ' i t �.. •Y I . f 1 PLANNING SERVICES, AT 970 _ 3iVFo i ' / .e. r / r 1 r I t , ion visit www.weldcountyplanningcases.org i � ,toorti......... ..."4...'"- • ' For Additional Information t �,�"' !`-'' It . , , i / .• , . /' , / • ` ' 1 • p • , 41, ri.4tN")N nopt,sedcanont rrsrckalydrllrhn SirrSI"MS(L?mfelopttentAkrnandU3C Y 1a+'tat toetvrc ,, • ,. ' ." �, r ,/ 4 / s r $ /IOu,f�yta�seraieots stntrt�nq and member tit allow J• . . J ;I ( l J,� / . ,,( r:r;r 'rmpr<trn r; rrnamU.,. r7rnrirr.caUlrrmyluyCC J r �S w• -! .i / I r • n .,.tJr;rr:, chungcvrrrrnrnnl,�rLatnttuilann/ngCtunmr� wnp,rd Board olC aunt) turrmr, . ,:' & --- 1.: �AS :I / es %1 - ; ' :,► .41c; rte- ' wrir. me 41111, .. - • c;i t 1`1 ,, v ' / i Ja 4 ,►• -b i !. !' /� iii /�►s7' • -IF4. 71 I, �, S - r ,Jr, % I` �J �. i/"� ' `�, . / - i�. '� : jy �J/y�ij•1,,f`'. ` _/ - • !• .♦!e'er,. !��-. �� `.-,: • ' \ � • f ,+, �.JI ''/'' 1 r lib r y i� �� , i w .� J I ' a� r / • � 11 tr 1- .. �mlr •I r,f • .;.. . , - 4 � .!� A,44•-• '• ' ! 1 r . \ -�ir •� ( 117 ASI 41000EXHIBIT ., . ._ ., r de / f >I( • I , /'A + • + /7 7r ./ . / I •r- ' / , cfr / , -sr - .O %.._ . p --.-- mat' • a el , rir.• .11 / '1 dri: , .O. ‘ / r ,,,,, ...---r ,A ,,,, 4, ,-, _ iteirids<, . et — / , 0. 0 0.1 / - it 111. ,‘p \ r . 'Pe N i %. "ItI / 1/ li ! Vfj t _.✓L.T. >1#pey,er - / ,• '4' try ti• Ji � ' -�'f, ` `: '^ �i ` -�— • :.: .• • • er N • . • r or • • se • • f f ,Iv • .0 . ,, • Ear • N• a X• / ,• , I• i/ t . W .. :r..i:_ �yy,j, g V •fit+ •• 4 it 4114. Sr Public hearings concerning thi • ` • ;r '"'444 `' :. . . Si g s property will b . t• p y e heard before the� County Planning Commission a• ,r N r ., . r . and _ 4ir + � . County Commissioners -. , � • ` � a .4• Board of Co y arm `�: . is 4 , • ;�. ' , r, . Both hearings will be held or .,rAt sir - , .' r � WELD COUNTYADMINISTRATION g - s� � , � NIA- DING , �, f . . ,.- 11,,,.._ 11#11::-.. . . .. 1150 Q Street • �- ,= •A43 If ' *� � , _.., }a , �, . ., *-- . , ,..„.. ..,..„.i.„ l '. - 9 , � ) . tl , Planning fortlifettie • +.:f " le' ; ''; s�� -_ _.. , ;_ ,, __ , g Commission Hearing will .. be _is,/ ,, .,f � -- ,, held on 4-. /. •.._ _4, p / • r r_Ht. t. ' a li.51, at . if ....... , 4-?, I I gillblop M"PWI.:1F7P. 'Ti; -�- � = �� ,.• Board . :03., r , 1 , ' •,,;� of County Commissioner�� H , . rHear" will be held on tt r r Sec-±1S2litrAL2 at : gs___Qa_ et• 401 • " ii . f / rig � ` ► , ppiicant\I •p dr :: • ujim..., ..„:„:„.„,„, -� r is. c, .,, IF � ' '4. • tt e....(Xic fan •fr WI': / tia...faill t : ; 114 / t . • " '� Eiper, 14 ,ic 1 A Request - - �4 ..:�-.e .fa • . .,: . .•) ga,1 i . ,f relik '1,1' el CHANGE _.,„,......,... A, ji? OF ZON •• - . 1 c . •• #i I co, 111, , - it; i7 r 1 , , , ,9.4 (AGRICULTURAL ) f - . ._. . ,, , , , !� _ DISTRICT0 ,„:// • hiii i . I To TI ...2 ' r� 11 • • r i I/ i , ‘ , . ,, �i ,• fit ( INDUSTRIAL ) 4/ Z9N ' ' i / , „ , -, , , , , /, �- ,,... . , . , i / • A ‘, . . , „it ,t , cl + / - -_ • tr �_ /' • j� I • ,fti . Case Number : ; ' ; 7 -� Ipia •' �/ M Acres : +i. � i FOR FURTHER .!%� / INFOFZ a;: MATIpN pLEgS � �' ` r ,CO NTACT _ .;* T THE WELD COUNTY ' • t , ` I EPART NT � • PLANNIN SE ' • �' /I / i , i s SERVICES , OF f , AT 970.353-6100 , e titilAi For Additional nformation ' ' % . • j>a ,. 41TfMfloN Nraliti I Visit www' Weidcour) ( %j , / ! d whiff rrS ►e`IUtc d rlt lhi5 5 'T I n I. / hl f not ltrti}rt� to. thy rte' �he� ill: n ng 1 • r • flambe rlullc)uyblptm (kvIW�/nrerlf ,', JritIrlc1 ( ' . • - org r • ' t t; lun,rips lJ ;o. tit' ntot'frUl !? (I Moyee 1rUll/S ( �If�r 'lli(:i11 - ( !4NIiI , Y / 11cW , +l 1� r le ( ul !�'r lit t at ll}(� r',i1(}f}il{, f .,l ii1', 1 , 1..117 1• ,• . , I /+t • I .. .. � �f.4 TaIr7l5 S11 )!1 lN1, r01 L)llcl►Yc F , I • r I � / gir 1' Jtulll � rlt � �� 1 , r1�_ il 'r.al,l 't) r I ' , , , • • - , - i� t A it : . -""uut"......":"."""aaa'aeasni.......,LS /aall""aaallPtlrrl 44 / , l y it I. \ tO \lki li 'I/I . • • , . \ . iiiiii • r• Nibl . , 1, • irI • it • .1 .—••••74.L r• 1 - IC' • H r ... .-.0 A All ji..4..1 - _ it ,,. . 4 •1 1 r _ '. _ --+[".-•' .,, t; f ', 4. e .^�,�.l1 in , - '- 1 1 . l I' , .� � ' .r• • . • - 1 • V'_t .-). • of- • . , 1 r1it 1, r 7 ,. ICI • 1 ��. 4,' 1 , •'S PUMN-fIQe(T G�It:.lrrIllig Vint llYllpkll? t f., rr,:4.: tic t- �\ �!l,3y * ) .' ft A .' #' _♦ s r t. ' 1 Y r • - 1 Jr 41 1.u..'., • ; . .., •a c,, r - t.- , CIR,i4;vit., Q co.,,,npinc,+ ra K' yj r � •e ` t . r . . ;ex. 7 �. .. _ tv , i`l ♦1 l,l �? .4 yt 1 ` i .t rX) r s 1 Idm.uwln ,r` .- ,1 1 r •?,• • vie .. . j f I.r,' �dtaw+Kr Y t + ,-.. �`p • 1 y -i �` 1 �� i . j R / '' , • �. "' !• �t , 1. • /.'' :tilt. YirMlll Milli al ' f /'� { .. Sy A „l, Y' \ '; ,� I• �Y iY - _ - yr - ; • L •f.' 1 ,- 4 .14,.. ,,:i., ij rfkar f1 I 1 ,1 V f 1 +ref i ii' • I" r / .r Ji % � ' r, ` , � . w� WELD COUNTY AD#AINt8TRATiON BUILDING l t 1 r ,,�� :v s'• r _ $ '!� O., Street Groeley. CO 80631 . .+ - 11� • s Lt • .... �s , , t a If W 1150 1t".1 - r r...: r 1 r ,)1�11nNt17.:ur*InyAnn l.eerly'>++n ;.,Q/y r1�� r : •PR. 'r I •. - - • ., 'L' ♦ r `�' r MI hn OW Al 1�In 1 ti�i li, .. I.I • • ^- . r /' r 1 /% .yyl J J Seorll`• ..Wm, 17 Ur41n'IiRlp 1M -Will V •r '. r /�. �1 ,1i Ic •�.' r r"v....4'1'4,mo ` . ' J. tr .r I r ` Il c M S:.�O1�1 'tilt, , 1Y 1T + _ 1 s _`71 ;� . .� K. it. .]j' ) I I.{i/. a`_1S .{4.1.I r,,,,�, •l!., a ,` 1 l "- �S -� • . ^t , /rte / - ' 1 I I' T l O�,(11�t�.a,a"'•16�•r�•�``7 it r , 1 "0 i I f I r .,'0, r • 4, i \ ''� ' ,f r, '� ` • 1 ' % :yi} r- ,.{• - r 1 A cl�.;�.,1 54-�W-� iL I 1C '�f ,,,/, i 7 r�(4♦ '', r1 1 l ':1 • \ p 1�, tR' - •�I ,J. �� f !): '�/ li • ' '' • I 1 1 �•yl h x ♦' y• , t , 1` ' -44+ , �. 4 , / J ,'J y al a.1. F AlNE Fhglvl TIME A . ,Ih dr. 11 �(p aI l ,1 th ! t ' r CMANGG U d ` / a 1,1, t o t �� // tNE r svi t" ► r Z • r ' I 'r v . - � ¢ I r AURICLIL"1 FU z l ' �;� V ��4 t 4 I t ' ' r 1 _- y TIME 1.2 I ' I I I l'. . " . o r. L �. 1. •-• I TO r li. Ai . � f,• ,,4 . ', ' ` , - ` I- '� .�, ( 1 df 1 •• ,- 14 '. ,•t. (INl7U5TRIAL) 7.ON I •'! ,, I j' ' 1 ' 51' l►'r t , • \'{ •f. • I . 'r \ , , /� •. ' y i `i + 1 {�• ,� rte ' i � ' . r � rl rll I ' I ' � A. Y '.� X ,/4 (- •, t _ l� :! ,y / T '♦., I, , I �14�• r/ r !, • i ' .\ �I��lI rir`, 1 r '� I. I(/' ii, dl .rte , I�S�-'ryy I �'.1 I \ , '+ ' rr r ' , 1'. . ke ' '1 I it- rl \ I .� �+1 it 1 I ', �1 II 1/4I I I I li II 1 .` Ja. /• , •, •\ !' t , 1' , I • ; r •,.. View looking south from 11' yyyyy '; Il ' •it '• ' ' y I =.,' r U . S . Highway 34 ma I , ' - , ir ,Isispw- .. , . • . _ ., _ .�p�y _ _ 3 •. ��, III i _• `_•; _ ' .) •�Ji . .. a .4 •;„ . r • 44."•"Pr" •T` i'tT- •4Wfal,. ` i•4Y' s' ' 1'�+ ' A'�I •�+` , , •f. r �. , :' ' �.(' iy .1' t'�j pli! •. :S it r •/i TJp FI 1 ,'i ��j +• 1 ' • de i sr t 'F•.•.} - t + t r t ii%. W. ifr r , l: ' • -��' i ii,/r�� - . (� , `lµ,� { • .:t r, r. ��4 , �' .! ! �j , j . `� '41 .y r •II' . i • •i,_' ./ : )c,,qi 3 • �r • f•.a - • 3 .� J / ' . �1 / fpiti 1 , f1� '!: I i ; • & .14 - • volam.'. 1 { •i• 1 ' ?��r4. ` � �1 I. 1 • �,r\! ! ' ... \ � L _ , 7's' i ',� ,� ..1 I 1 / r � / I I f ., '/r. r 1 •. y J ;. � •. R t 11y, '� t + i • ,:_,y y ..?T � J•- C r•' .. .. - ~ .1. . ' • r / . 1 C. ' '1 I I I , ty { ? • 4 ` 1 . P!, ' � \• � �' � 5 � 1 a . a- t /4- li 1 r1• ♦ ,�,y�1�ri+f�r�. - •,� yy ( / II I'•i � 1 .1 d� • . 1 , • r `�� ' �1,. 1 SI �!`!ri �t '0 I if I , •, ' 1 i -I s' e Pr 4 i7 S. 1i. . ' , — Y/ Jr �y j. • JI ' I ,. el ; • `.� ��r ( • 111"'kw ' .. 1 ', � r'1 View looking southeast �. 1 di r 1 / • • -;s - from U . S . Highway 34 z � • '• f • I - - ! / I 1 / 1 . I , fir • • - ry __ �.1 / '/ ,• is, , " . '�• �.'r 1 r. •R 1 • • a . .IIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIWIPIIIIIIII7--Ze- _ • • - _ all --- _ _ I. tom Jy ' F :I It .7_ , i d %: • i y{lfy4' ♦�/ i• vy�. . ir - Al A t !I t . , _ . • View looking east along ^.: U . S . Highway 34 { • • K 1 1 _ . = -,„c 4 f_. fi r Jr r. • View looking northeast • from U . S . Highway 34 11 i. Y _ •.. - . • • _. .;. - . - es. .. . : . View looking north from U . S . Highway 34 • -- ,� • aitillilillill,ter : s `' ��- 1 i a'ri y r, 'r: a - - L r` _- - - F View looking northwest from U . S . Highway 34 : Kickatc _tank ,.- I • taggillillic‘ . 1t; In 1 - •\M1 1"�. I _ -1_ 1 i - 1 • • 1 • View looking west along I _, . U . S . Highway 34 • AUG 8TH&9TH ',tillages d twsfri ` 'Y'_ • _ V. "tic r , 1111P"'hi-- ., f- - .. _ -_—___.c. es . '' ' :is; , .nePipir____ J.13 .T1 .I M - a -za.t la rib.*u - a. ly,gg .�\.Ire '�, ..,• °••.. .'� (I- Y `: ?" - ' ••,t• • ••••••T ) c a_1s C " ,��.Sl /•_sty, .di •• :s'It rZiff.; , Jf Ii • ` � ..-1; •F V,' r, . -I < Imo • Mea II.•�1 '.• . • .1/ . .• • 1 { 1 ei / / • fie. t - ::' 44fVijL '�. • J ".1 .1III I• Lf - j i •�r`'A , �7 tad' ",.f • .• �{ ' ' /y ey.�// .1 _ '; ' "fir - L1• `. I it .// , ' 1♦ I _3 •1 1 ,`•*=~I } • 4T'Rk r .• _ a•,` Y ;: . • View looking southwest • a " T from U . S . • Highway 34 i • *Par". ,40- ^! ' ~ mss- ,� •+ - - a r-�. fl- • . .- • . _ . t —. 4�i�'-�-1..x7► Was- •. - _ _ 4 .. •- - ..•n S. . • - ter • y.�,j _ -.•s. ♦ - .r .-.r.:# n.- - • lf'.r•.vr:G..' `F., � . �.aLS OR 's .. s _ ♦ Y � r_ L. u - c e % . .•7. �~ ' .y :1 s.� _ ''! '1 ii \'•- n•�_{ . 4 „' {-_.I ..5 Y,• 'el t.'" � .` •- _ _ ♦.y. •` \ ..••:'I• j . .t.:-..s.- „vit.. : :. - �lT .i•' .Tom.. .n'Li '' _ 4 ^� r `- _ _ '�` I .1� '' v !'i / ♦ ,t1 1 • . ti � 1.4. C ♦One.f ,r •, i .ri .i'" ,'` ., tys1'y ��.f -�•• ' \'{ / } •! .7 ��'. �. /, -S�. i�r�,. ( ..v. Lr' _7S� / rs 1 '`� r , It.-" '•. / r.. • �. �;.' — ' '\. '1 �� • ' r -- - \ � '{'• .../• • I C. l f ♦ i �, • •i/ r/�4.� I y 1 i� 1 it -,�. /ter JT�' 1j• 1 , I, , . �,e I .1.�" ' :• 'L . }. �'} • 1 �,.i h 14 / ' ♦ j `' ! r y ! Y ��22 ��y/j�� •, p .i •• I • �� .i I.. ,fir ! t•1 v '•_;: View looking east from CR 13 j ,�• ' /- r l,, ^- '%:. A —' • —a% II- ni II ICI 'P 'i •' 44 4 .'6 `... .a —�.^' - - .• 'J -A •ii . ,. • ♦ r '1 - - .� I • . r • 14 . I. �. _ rf l• a � '!"a . ■ - , • . • . ° ♦Skit • rocs'a..tailor • • a I�.�_y '�r 4 .��-yam. . 1 ",1 - -_.F • •� -'T' ~ _ a Wit•_ ` - �M :Tr. * -1 1: , --- . - r'� �^' '..;Y.i Y1s?�re .. C ��% •�� a • •t Z - - - - �iit.Thilaporer- -. •.fir ✓ ♦ •, . - ' . ✓it •- ` - , f.,-.. 1 .. -)ar. ti - 1,'y -- -- ♦r_� :y 2 . •• _ - _ -.a ,.�}�-y-..f:•_ _ / yy y I�iv I (.�- - -S . f r`t• ` ,• t• -1le �'r '1 •r .�� r _-. r `{'y- T • \. '-.4�i,.., . ..'.r };• i if. - • -'1,-,`4•1, 1 '� / � .R tr- =:'L'4-� AQft " ~s.. -'�.. �..., .��r.\7r* �. �,y1 a T °i• J'i _ 1 . 444�� 1..; ; , ` .. v .•1fv,•,�}' )�,. ••'r -jam../ I�x }y`� i .:)ST'r .r/ .y - w'F �JC 71- _ fl '` r r ,CS J ' I '��'14+*a�" }y��t •�y .,♦ i '}Yir gy. • •!� ,}• " .1 r. • .y r. . . -..Z : Tt • • f ' 1. I, •' ` •Lt,. •it. , _ = o r _4IP• — - ,• � ..J •' ... [w ..',Iry , . " I� . Y _ tT: .� j-•.� •- z i• •�''• -�• - ' 1 _• . ,. ,•• w.,,:•‘, r " • rirl. �'1 f� `• � r�lr 1, 71�'�:vr_`_,' ! v- � ar T., \ ' _ ^"' �• - i • - •Cif `., a r, r w� I•.�/• i ,�, :tilt '�'- >"� T ,„,..,.0 ' ° ;s i ,: �� ` v 11 r''t. • J ' ' . /• r ..` Nt-•„, .y• k-- ! y •_•� rj�' 1_wNe�_- . - rprl 1 ' '•I 1, • 9 Z a • r`• \• i 1 1•'•'a !`` I • a ,/41 ` ! .t �- • r` ' a14e - s. 'ra • •••••••.a. ' f r -114.•‘•• I�! �.••••”•‘. . •• J/ 1 '•44%• • ` • � =-` ` ••r ti \-r: it ale*. -� '- -__ ' 7. _- lam ' 1 _ . f/ f geT•A 1 d I' * \ L_ -�- .-_ 1.•r . .._ z'_ 5''?', t r i� ‘" \r .a-� • .�,. '\ _ , ' 4it d ♦�f` `_Ar•a 'T' a �. 7 r - t .i •` A ! PI' �- 4.- " _ 01 ,$•,! •lit 11 4 itficiaiga . _ _ . • J . - al ‘ 1,1"4 1\di • r .. .:, . ,-7.., . 4 • vhf' i� ,t../. i . • ; j/ j ' `' ` . 1y . r ! IT .� . ,� • 1 i 4 I: r - ( . - JP rr. , ' it1 • 1 1 a , • � "' • f -Jr, View looking northeast from CR 13 a z tits j••• 1- • 'j. I. r/•ry••, • "" .fir •: J•! Gc' J. :it.i �, 4 • ,,. 1 •` , ,, , . . .• '�` 'a,�,� \ r ♦ I1� �• a 1._ ., • . y- y ! `, . ,•' ter_ ,_ k i•,_ ,, %4!. \r, ',.,y,,�' ! ` ['u_ . .$ • I 1 � .• -.L_ _.{�.Ai a"t \ li`�a"� !�•`_'L,-!l'. 4 ' ? :�. • T4 •_ - - - ' r a ' • 'liar' • 3 \Or -. J� „_:_--___-z.- •Y ! - .� • • , _ _ __ _ . ' \ry 1 •A 1 • is . 14...4-0 �•\\yl-nMX • :•. .y�� • • • ,- -_,G sue: �r' �. ... - :,. -1s�.- ) . $-NI, 1• 1 • •/ 4} .. ... . ore:E♦ • it.•,„,,,•-o-o 2 ,- -. • -1•11,a-� ' '� _ _ r. ti iti •• 1 . '' View looking north along CR 13 it•` 't . 111, . A•1 y �' . , . • ... . . • .t ; :•%, :. Ai l► -ate. _ . �. j _ it_• <` ti4...T• •,� ^ . w. •. . 1^t'� `'e-04.-.1•. f tir 11;+P• f • .144:7 i = . f'• i` �y Is‘ ....‘i 4 , t . A 11.41:1./. ••7C V. _ \. t � • 4 " •• ' L 4. , _ . r L . Zt. in r ,. , Abir -.. _ : ..„,_ 4 .,%,. AT:.If 4� —, i. • • t r ' - _ _ - it �i1 -.,, -., M_ �•�-Y1 _ �._ .. View looking northwest from CR 13• •41 . •• ♦ .1 Y� • ) 'I 2 ' t .Q ' • 11 .\. 0 s1l \' ,! ,1� \l1 • • 11 • `'1,.,•'t it �:1 r S' l 1 f , r11/4 la t • • • • r .1461 II • •. 1,• • `\ •. . V 1 •1,M^~1• t•\. y11 �•, �4• • 1 ♦ ♦ '•FI • ,. . i '}• . . >V 4 •• •.. tr ��. t ►Tt. l�r4r . Q 1 \ 1- 1r . �,, „ . • r . ..,� l • . •n��♦,��1~ it h'. - ♦L' r^•yy` f ▪ i •►• • ' %II• .r ' '''1, 4w`t ,�Itl`� • „r1 '. \ I re 1 'M�J' 1 ��•t'+ , t1/4 �• s+ ', In •�,��',� la cr•/' P. .t .• 4• 4.4 10 .s'�rti.r i ` . '•� 7. M _ ' � 1�c j� r �^ �•;r "1/ • 'r` Y � �� A1 ♦ a ... X1."0�� , •�•J r '♦ . 12 ti♦ 1' • 4. r 5 4:1 $1/4,. •71. • ty. ...•0 ;Ikb. •"tilt •w: • • s . TGe• ,4k,VS .�t��"�Cvr 1 .1 l .i{t- •f • • :-.r ;jam•., �•. • • '� • •••��,,, Z ` �, Ott ,. .`+}; 7� f' •lry•'ts•' S -4•• •- r�. �a".y(7, L. \ — t ; , .4,/,„ 4‘i • i� P' - , r• ' ill 4 " , , — .►a. =� ► - - �'• /Illiellprep•-- --•►s rr a �/y. •r _ - . _ _ _ - i' • - i4 :\ -v ► ••• . . f„ ` . •. 1lt 7 t lir\ 6, 4_ 4 1. f(µ1rfrii41 ' x;1 ' 11 ' i. hit•..� • •x •_• w. n , c - l , ✓ . 1•I t 'f' - ' 11.. t . ;4 A1. `-'. J •, \ ., • p 1 _ .,.}I(. *a. , t 9v 1 � � �1 � N ��•• •� t� �•�, tIr• e • • yT ' J _ • '• \ t t; a qrs ^.sJ_ } �,y is Ct •/7 1• ,- • • `t 1 • 1 •1 '�. NI .1 M ...'1. _ 1 'y.' I/ t • • • : '14 • I s tii _ _ 11 .i, .. -v. •f{ I r r • , .. Gil' 1. ` *"•j'h' � ' ��.. . rte ��' •"'SEW • ..`._•..�:_ . �►. ' l . . s. 1 .';1/ •. 1Y' Z' l . ,►r• r 1. Q _ ires....• ,�•F,! �. . 't? l: • ' ; �Y' C• •Y � ;'''',‘. .'1•4014' r'141.4-- 'e j I �T� •{ j.. •"�' 1 ' •Lli.•. 1 . 1 t 4 l.. l;l / ~,•' _ _ •* ti ' ? .r' a� is1,441 • �H .(• \• •. t •' .'I` j � .1' t1 r1 � t l.qql i :•�. • 1 '•:••.•-= arl 'Y •`�► .irrt !' .' tit, ..y . . a• • ` '' «�+•di.. :5 • f •••• 1 .� Iu1, �/y! t(I �' f , j 4, al r 'f A ` " ' ` 4 r �! en •. '4'r. ti • . • '�J• ♦ 1{ 4 `•1 Vrt r !•. r' 'T' !y... .,t t ,:,.. ,7 1 .y1� r• -\ , . •.� c _ . •_. • "1 1' • .?'` i i•. r •'�y � •�; F: '.1t,J�� y ,ar �r J`p � > �..rA l�.,P, t43„ . . .►�r! \)'ra >�' i:b• ,t11Vd�^I •-. 'S -Ir�N•,'1 '?' �, »\r,y''�j _ r`•� r'. _ "1i•, '.`�, _ _ / 4 •-• r. •••• T .� r �•� 1• , �N 4'l.k l�aT.j(ry(1,{ 4 • l.4 rTt. r .Y 1. 1`I i ,i•' a�Ji' ._ .\ ` •_L, _• _ }. `� ., \ l0S* . .h.al. `iMil •f r I4 '1 !. rr • ' 'f•. A'.. ` .tom • �. . • r lij .,1.. . - • 1 S'R^•�.^ � �d a• .\� .r."-• M •&r••.,- i. f ..1 l ^• f •s 'f. • ., 1• • ��.. 1 ' q� [t • ,��`•; . � . , N J •, R. . 4, .• - 'r yf r 1 ' ate• •��'\�`:11 1l •'ik `` • t Ss , .4 - 6„, • r. �,I,�. / 7/:-r. ••1 ♦ ••.lt fir • �S" iw.3~Y ` ]fj •. ,').� •,w!• �1�1,�j�� .. ';lj,, � 'w'lR !S'�- `�'��`�P .•. - ''4•�-.�. . r "ti - - _ rn .•t't " "�'T I`rl t "ti 1^f j+ti `Y,.'if 4 • ,J.11�'\ - '` 1 ,• /'{(' ' ,`• •: F ` :• ?_t.! • , - • it _•x . , �, � � View looking west from CR 13 - _ y _ • .. 1 • ' ► 6711 , r''• , �'' 4' ♦ :. •J ,_ ' . ' , , • • -.4". , ,i , ...) . ,:si, •.t__,. .. e• - pi'ik., ' . • e • / 't"It T "g•- . ' .� '' •r . � w�. yr ,� ♦. r 1 'M- 'w t r • •• j✓�r,/ _ .C_ / 11� �� fiits Se r,J,��,,. •' s 'r • • rv. 'ter /} et. ''' . '' ''•.S ` '♦ �\ - r••r- Sat,- t, 9'.....F. , r t1 /, , .,t1. • 4 ,,.„, . J. • • letto r .7. t .t t .. j• top.? / - - ` y4. t PS.: ..„. ♦,• jN�_ . . • •• r . - _ it Si tr. 4. .jr:::::41:14. 7=A. " !a �• •:•. y++ t„� *i.� '•,rt - • may . • a1 i SL • ,:ii.dal../1 •74.1,..i ,Ll ' ..::::It''' . :a4. / • -j. ttmay: i = 1. ..1 .- -_ . • I.', .1 J'� ill .1.-4,‘, .... t' •i . ^� p 1 :,ii � - 11y. ♦♦^• •. 14 , 'etc le v -.-♦ -. •.1. , • • , .a �. S .• 7 ,••—. ��"lit ♦�., ..I�� . am,,' \ 1- . • .�-• �tl rfY1 Ya►• } . • . : A / f40 .ti • -yr-.. .;...re •i .; - 0 it. ,...4 -:3"..71\1.t: . li.. .. 4-%t„ , . ...,... --• 14 - 'V `1 ,4 q �`�^J• • .,. _ ,�,,,♦� - • I - - l.- a __= - ` I '. ` - • `•..r1 1. . uj,,f.trn•. - �r _ i lr:atlit_ strive;FFFF r, . t..-% t ,. •• . r.. . •4I 1.-O 1 , f ,• to , { ,b t• Y •, V. •S a_ ,'.14- • ' 1 J■,\ Ai • IlIS - -`�``..ellillW-S View looking southeast from CR 13 N - I N. IN _ 1 • t. - r • � $ _ '! • • 1. . . ` ,. •i r , • t / View looking south along CR 13 a �\ , I -- - r. "`_ - • , _ . 'i4 r• • r: ��j�•' -,.:` T `;11r-f` jj,?,T- • 7. 1 } '�r[ 1�+'�7�±, /�r�,{i�t I� itj �j'f',, ,// •`.i / ,�-� t . ' r T 1 ' / 1}L l le _''•" il 7 View looking southeast from CR 13 . , loll r % 13.14 h: ' ► �,`,7 Diana Aungst • From: Tim Pike <tpike@envirotechservices.com > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 8:36 AM To: Diana Aungst Cc: Melanie Foslien; Michelle Martin; Tom Parko Jr. Subject: Re: COZ15-0001 postponement All, We have requested a delay in staff referral as well as the Planning Commission hearing in order to evaluate a recent potential opportunity for the development of our piece of land. Part of this evaluation may lead to a better idea of track and site layout that may prove beneficial for the review, and could help clarify the potential use of the property. In terms of which dates work for us, I am unsure what dates are available. In our last discussion. September 1 5th was brought up. I am good with that date, but am unsure about when that would have us before the BOCC. Can you see what that date would be please? Again, I appreciate your help with everything to date, and if I can provide you with anything more, please let me know. 0 Sincerely. On Sun, Aug 2. 2015 at 8:5 I AM, Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us> wrote: Hi - Please send me an email stating that you want to postpone, which dates work for you in the future, and the rationale for your request. Thanks, Diana Aungst. AI( 'P. ( 'FM Planner ll EXHIBIT 0 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 1---) 970-353-6100 ext. 3524 , ` _NCO I 1 Tisa Juanicorena SFrom: Karla Ford EXHIBIT ent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:40 AM To: Tisa Juanicorena Subject: FW: Opposed to COZ15 -0001 Jr, .1/ III ' Karla FordL] Deputy Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 tel : (970)336-7215 X4228 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . --Origina l Message tom : Diana Aungst Sent : Sunday, November 01, 2015 3 :27 PM To : Karla Ford < kford@co .weld .co. us> Subject: FW : Opposed to CO115-0001 From : Ellen De Lorenzo [nvr2grn@gmail .com ] Sent : Sunday, November 01, 2015 2 :28 PM To : Diana Aungst Subject: Opposed to COZ15-0001 Case # COZ15-0001 For Public Record Date: November 1, 2015 Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 M70) 353-6100 ungst@weldgov.com<mailto :daungst@weldgov.com> 1 Weld County Commissioners: Re : Planning Application COZ15-0001 Weld 34, LLC • am writing in opposition to the Weld 34, LLC Rezoning to Industrial application . Valuable agricultural land, deemed a Prime Agricultural area by the US Department of Agriculture, is growing scarcer. We have an obligation to protect these lands for future generations. In addition, surrounding incompatible impacts include increased traffic, rail noise and potential chemical fall out (depending on who sets up shop on these lands) and unsightly opportunities for entering Weld County. Are you looking to make us the next Commerce City? What is your position on protecting the safety and welfare of our residents? You have claimed you do, however your votes continue to support industrial calamities. Vote no and prove to us you care. Thank you . Ellen De Lorenzo 1744 Goldenvue Drive Johnstown, CO 80534 • i EXHIBIT 9 • To: Weld County Board of Commissioners Re: COZ 15-0001 Date: November 2, 2015 I oppose this rezoning of ag/residential/commercial to 1-2 heavy industrial. I live in Indianhead Estates and my backyard shares the boundary of the property under consideration. I retired here from Illinois - a state well-known for political "innovation," based on the number of governors and other politicians who have gone to jail. I was attracted to Indianhead Estates for the reasons stated in the Weld County Right-to-Farm document: " Incentives which attract urban dwellers to relocate to rural areas include open views, spaciousness, wildlife, lack of city noise and congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life." Unfortunately, my realtor did not explain to me the ominous significance of living near local railroad tracks. I noticed the " For sale" sign on the property under discussion and assumed this farmland might well be developed for residential or commercial use - as it is currently zoned. But I never imagined my Shangri-La could be next to Dante's Inferno. Of note, the Weld County Planning Commissioners have already twice failed to approve either of the I-2 proposals for this area. IF the adjacent 1-2 heavy industrial development, approved by USR, goes forward, this rezoning to I-2 would add insult • to injury, in an even less controlled way. Proposals have also been submitted for a flyash transloading facility and a crematorium nearby. How much pollution can one area take? Don't multiple I-2's in close proximity functionally equate to 1-3? This property is planned to have multiple lease tenants building facilities with railroad tracks leading to each. It is anticipated that tenants will likely be manufacturing from raw materials and transloading product. We can assume that the profit motive will assure that the most aggressive uses allowed in I-2 zoning would occur here. The site plan shows the main railroad loop to be along the entire length of the property's Eastern border, immediately adjacent to Indianhead Estates. Since railroads keep their cargos private, transloaded products could well be many types of hazardous and flammable materials, including oil, chlorine, ammonia, etc. which typically require at least a 500 foot separation from adjacent habitation or dense human activity. This site plan is especially worrisome to the safety of neighboring Weld County residents, and travellers on Hwy 34, since at the Planning Commission hearing the landowner refused to consider any buffer zone. Substantive restriction on hours of operation at the overall site would also be • impossible with variable railroad schedules servicing multiple tenants, mostly at night. Continuous, inescapable noise leading to sleep deprivation is the • internationally recognized definition of torture, which is illegal - and therefore actionable. With the houses in Indianhead Estates now being essentially unsaleable because of the threat of heavy industry next door, residents are now a captive audience. This situation functionally constitutes "eminent domain" - but without compensation. It's also hard to see how compliance with County, State, and Federal regulations could be assured for even part of the time, with multiple, diverse operations on site and no on-site overseer of the whole property. The planning staff report recommended effective management of fugitive dust. This usually implies periodic "watering" of service roads. But this would not address the main source of dust at this and adjacent sites; from outdoor stockpiles - often massive. This area could well become a new Dust Bowl - obscuring vision of travellers on hwy 34 and increasing accidents. No on-site or nearby structure would be impermeable and dust entering industrial facilities can amplify the risk of dust explosions. One catastrophy at an asphalt plant resulted when winds impacting the building displaced hot "fines" inside, causing a fire and explosion which affected a 9 mile radius. The dust problem would be aggravated at this particular location where Front Range Chinook winds combine with straight-line winds of the Great Plains with 165 • mph potential - as documented in the Northeast Colorado Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2009). We who actually live here unlike planners who only visit once or create plans from supposedly "comparable" modeling - can attest to the fierce winds in this corridor which occur for hours at a time, almost daily/nightly. I've been trying - unsuccessfully - for a year to get official's attention to this compelling reason not to have heavy industrial development at this site. The planning staff also suggested a barrier and berm, but "screening and buffering may vary in size and density depending on uses proposed." Whereas neighbors would want the most effective sight and noise protection - which would best be subserved by a uniform structure along the length of the property boundaries - the tenants would likely create a cheap, variable, fragmented, and therefore ineffective hodge-podge. And yes, even with varying tenant operations it is possible to put up effective, uniform barriers, as at other industrial "parks." It's hardly necessary to comment on the traffic debacle which would result from having multiple adjacent sites of heavy industrial development at this location, all competing for the same roads. I-25 used to be 5 minutes away; now it may be 5 hours away, counting car, truck and train accidents. Not to mention the added traffic of moving vans leaving Weld County, when residents realize that their mandated "public health, safety and welfare" is not protected here. To what roads • will FedEx, UPS, and US Mail divert to avoid the inevitable gridlock and deliver in a timely fashion? • Based on past experience, we in the opposition have no reason to hope that this rezoning proposal will not be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. We have been resisting heavy industrial development in this area for nearly a year. We are exhausted and disillusioned, and despair of getting a fair hearing - as manifested in decreased audience attendance and fewer letters of opposition. Although the overall situation can't be mitigated except by not allowing heavy industrial development here, there should at least be consideration of the following accomodations: 1) Make the property in COZ 15-001 subject to USR approval rather that blanket rezoning. This would allow additional control over what is permitted, rather than laissez-faire activities which allow ongoing changes and would be difficult to regulate. This means, do not approve this COZ application and make future applications about this property subject to the USR approval process. This would be consistent with what occurred with USR 15-0027 for the adjacent property 2) Mandate that there be a knowledgeable supervisor for the whole site present 24/7 who can respond to emergencies and complaints. This would help avoid "The other guy did it" excuses and provide accountability 3) Mandate a 500 foot buffer zone on at least the North and East boundaries, for • safety of neighbors and travellers on hwy 34 4) Mandate a uniform barrier around the entire perimeter of adequate height and with state-of-the-art sound protection 5) Mandate substantive restriction of hours of operation, avoiding conditions like "Unless necessary." Sincerely, Sharon L. Collins, MD, FACS 27811 Hopi Trail Johnstown, CO 80534 • Rafaela Martinez From : Diana Aungst Sent: Tuesday. November 10, 2015 3 : 08 PM To : Rafaela Martinez Subject: COZ15-0001 For COZ 15-0001 Original Message From= Scott Fenton Imailto=fentonscott508@gmail.comI Sent. Tuesday, November 10, 2015 3=01 PM To= Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us> Subject. USR 15-0001 Dear commissioner, I am a resident, of West Indianhead Estates . Again I must protest the rezoning of our adjacent land west of our neighborhood! I Understand that none of the industries have clearly stated their real intentions on the land usual proposals and those who have are still in violation of the surrounding communities and townships , original, land use plant W Scott Fenton 6720 Apache Rd. Sent from my iPhone EXHIBIT 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: Diana Aungst Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 12:22 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena; Karla Ford Cc: Rafaela Martinez Subject: FW: Planning Application COZ15 -0001 Weld 34, LLC Another exhibit for COZ15-0001 11 /18/15 From : coloradomima@aol.com [mailto :coloradomima@aol .com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11 :05 AM To: Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld .co . us> Subject: Planning Application COZ15-0001 Weld 34, LLC November 12 . 2015 Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 353-6100 daungst(a�weldgov.com Weld County Commissioners: Re: Planning Application COZ15-0001 Weld 34, LLC I am opposed to Envirotech rezoning (COZ15-0001 ) because it will effect the quality of life at my home in Indianhead Estates, because of the unknowns of the type of use of this property and the undesired outcome it will bring to this area. I feel the Weld County Commissioners have not respected the concerns of "WE THE PEOPLE" that live in the surrounding areas. My feeling are that there are plenty of areas that are already zoned with access to railroads that could accomadate this type of application . Respectfully, John J . Boeddeker EXHIBIT 6736 Algonquin Drive Johnstown , CO 80534 s Any response can be made to: Coloradomima@aol.com 1 Tisa Juanicorena From: Diana Aungst Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 1:13 PM To: Tisa Juanicorena; Karla Ford Cc: Rafaela Martinez Subject: FW: COZ15-0001 Application for Public Record Attachments: COZ15-0001.pdf Another exhibit for COZ15-0001 Thanks Diana Aungst, AICP. C 'FA'I Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-353-6100 ext. 3524 Fax: (970) 304-6498 daungst a)..weldgov.corn www.weldgov.corn ter► ,,� iatei • er ` eV• no ir Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: SpectrumEngr@aol.com [mailto:SpectrumEngr@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 1:09 PM To: Diana Aungst <daungst@co.weld.co.us> Subject: COZ15-0001 Application for Public Record CASE #COZ 15-0001 For Public record (please see attachment) July 16, 2015 To: Weld County Commissioners EXHIBIT C/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 ' (970) 353-6100 daungst@weldgov.com RE: Planning Application COZ15-0001 Weld 34, Lie 1 CASE #COZ 15-0001 For Public record July 16, 2015 To: Weld County Commissioners C/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17`" Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 353-6100 daungst@weldgov.com RE: Planning Application COZ15-0001 Weld 34, LLC Dear Ms. Aungst: I am completely opposed to this application and would like to respectfully request that this COZ15-0001 permit application be denied. Reason for denial : This application is a request for an incompatible zoning of land that is surrounded by land that is zoned completely differently. The request is for an industrial zoning ( I-2 ), but the surrounding land is zoned agricultural and residential. Res ectfully, laes ‘e.,:e44-42-* te-A Robert Emmerich (spectrumengri&aol.com 970 669- 1084) 6915 Algonquin Drive, Johnstown, CO 80534 Case # COZ 15-0001 For Public Record 6713 Apache Road, Indianhead Estates, Weld County Johnstown, CO 80534 November 14, 2015 To: Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM, Planner I1, Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado RE: Planning Application COZ 15-0001 : Weld 34 LLC Rezoning Request Weld County Commissioners: I am writing this letter to STRONGLY OPPOSE the subject rezoning request submitted on behalf of Weld 34 LLC. I am unable to attend the BOCC hearing scheduled for November 18, 2015 as I am out of the area for an extended period. I attended the Planning Commission hearing on October 20, 2015 and provided comments during the public comment portion of the hearing. I would provide comments at the BOCC hearing as well if I was in attendance. This request is akin to attempting to place a "square peg in a round hole" — It just is NOT a good fit for this location. The request to insert Industrial use in the proposed location is categorically INCOMPATIBLE with the surrounding area and is in direct conflict with surrounding jurisdictions' Growth Management Areas contemplated in their respective Comprehensive Plans. There is NO amount of mitigation that will make an as yet unidentified industrial land use in this location compatible. Spot rezoning is very risky and asks you to disregard a comprehensive and collaborative approach to appropriate land use and instead employ a careless and narrow focus which completely discounts thoughtful and professional land use planning. Industrially zoned areas are typically set aside to afford those types of uses with an appropriate, established location where the opportunity to impact surrounding land uses is greatly minimized. The uses allowed by right have the potential to allow an extremely intense use that may irreversibly impact the surrounding property owners and severely impact their own property rights. I respectfully request that you DENY this change of zone application. Should you determine that this request is compatible for the proposed location I urge you to consider requiring comprehensive conditions of approval to at least protect the surrounding property owners. I ask that you consider requiring residential noise standards, building height restrictions, visual screening and appropriate buffer zone. Respectfully submitted, EXHIBI Michael D. Chrisman 2 Email: chrismanmr@gmail.com a �J N1 .1S . : : Tom and Diane Lord 6820 Commanche Ct. Johnstown, Colorado 80534 COZ15-0001 Rezoning request November 13, 2015 Clerk for the Weld County Commissioners 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80634 Dear Weld County Commissioners: We are writing this letter to voice our opposition to the request to rezone the land next to HYWY 34 and Indianhead Estates. If approved developers can build just about anything they want right next to an established residential neighborhood. Approval without any kind of knowledge of their intention would be irresponsible. Our family moved to Greely in 1962 and at that time our elected officials helped to support the folks who lived here. After attending many meetings regarding railroad access, road congestion, asphalt/ concrete, compatibility, health and safety, right to farm, noise, pollution, and possible future growth, we have come to the conclusion that Northern Colorado is messed up. Don't make it worse by allowing rich developers to control this beautiful place. We know that you have to make difficult decisions, but we will remind you that your most important duty is to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of all of the residents of Weld County. Please listen to the people who will have to live next to an industry that hasn't even been identified. Sincerely, Tom and Diane Lord EXHIBIT TO: Weld County Board of Commissioners RE: COZ15-0001 - c/o Diana Aungst, Planner EXHIBIT FROM : Sharon Collins MD, FACS 27811 Hopi Trl, Johnstown, CO. 80534 s DATE: November 16, 2015 _ 9 I'm a resident of Indianhead Estates, and my backyard shares the boundary of the property under discussion, so I oppose this rezoning to heavy industrial. Among the many unknowns here are the amount of tax revenue to come to the County and the number of jobs to be created - since employees could be shifted, as needed, from the landowners' other operations. What types of hazardous/flammable/explosive materials might be transloaded right next to a populous neighborhood and a busy State highway, since railroads keep their cargoes private? With multiple tenants on this site, how can County, State and Federal regulations be complied with for even part of the time? Without responsible overseers for the whole operation on site 24/7, it would be easy to just say "the other guy did it." A whole-site overseer could also manage scheduling to help decrease the very real risks of industrial and train accidents. With the "laissez faire" of rezoning, we also don't know what subterfuge or collusion might become apparent once its approved. We do know that the intermediary doesn't have the authority to commit to any accomodations, as we saw at the planning commission hearing. The planning staff recommended screening and buffering, but "this may vary in size and density depending on uses proposed." This is a recipe for a cheap, unsightly, variable, fragmented and therefore ineffective hodge-podge of barriers - especially if left to the individual tenants. (The only barriers which we now know from experience would exist would be to complaints from neighbors to the landowners). Assuring a uniform, state-of-the-art sound and vision barrier should be the responsibility of the property owner. Specifically refused was any buffer zone, even in principle - including our proposal for 500 feet; a number considered to be a minimum safety gap between human habitation and hazardous materials, processes and transportation. This much space along the 2 tenths of a mile of shared boundary equals only 10.5 acres - about 7.5% of the 136 acre property. Relevant to this, with just the threat of heavy industry coming in next door, 10% of the properties in Indianhead Estates have been put on the market - formerly a very rare event - and are not selling. So we would certainly be sacrificing much more than 7.5% of our property values as a result of this nearby intrusion. This represents inappropriate use of eminent domain and without compensation. The planning staff noted that effective fugitive dust containment would be necessary, but the frequent fierce winds in this precise corridor would no doubt make this impossible. As distinct from wind in other areas of Weld County, we have the conjunction of Front Range Chinook and straight-line winds of the Great Plains right here, with 165 mph potential. As we neighbors can attest, these winds often occur daily and last for hours. Tenants won't like it when their raw material stockpiles keep blowing away; an irremediable factor that would decrease their profits. Visibility on hwy 34 would sometimes be obscured in this new Dust Bowl, predisposing to more accidents. And wind-driven dust permeation of industrial facilities amplifies the risk of dust explosions. The biggest gap in all these proceedings about industrializing this small zone (in vast Weld County) is the absence of actual details about schedules from the railroad companies and about integrating more trucks and trains into existing traffic flow; without which information intelligent decisions can't be made. It's been " If you approve it, we'll get it done somehow." This is a strategy without tactics which, historically, gives bad results. It's simplistic to assume that just because the trains approach hwy 34 from the South, that everything will be OK. Certainly any industrial component should be brought into this area cautiously and sequentially, assessing - after the fact - how each addition impacted the overall situation and environment, since combined negative impacts would be additive or multiplicative, and likely irreversible. What's the rush? Do we have to actually do it to see that it doesn't work? Surely it's predictable that piling on multiple I-2s in close proximity equates functionally to 1-3 or I-4 zoning. Especially with the fate of industry on the adjacent property currently unknown, a decision about rezoning this property should be tabled, or at least be made subject to USR rules, rather than carte blanche rezoning. That way some of the current unknowns would become known before considering approval, which allows substantive evaluation of proposals and appropriate management. It's inconceivable to me that the County would be willing to give up such controls in such a critical spot. Having multiple, major industrial operations so close to hwy 34 is obviously dangerous and has negative ramifications far beyond the interests of "mere" neighbors. Considering all of these unknowns and potential problems there doesn't seem to be any rational reason to approve this rezoning now. And maintaining the current zoning provides some lower intensity diversity. Since for every action an opposite Reaction is possible, having such a "no man's land" at a major entrance to what's referred to on the County website as "Beautiful Weld County" may well quell the anticipated influx of new residents. But now is an opportunity to balance deference to Big Business by considering your mandate to protect the health, welfare, property values, and safety of Weld County residents and travellers. Otherwise, with stacks spewing combustion products, trains coming and going at all hours with piercing whistles next to our bedrooms, inability to escape from bad smells, noise and sleep deprivation in our unsaleable houses, ignored complaints and even a crematorium in the offing (really?! ), what is being created here seems much more like a concentration camp than a boon to Weld County's economy. RECEIVED Tom and Diane Lord 6820 Commanche Ct. NOV 1 7 2015 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COZ15-0001 Rezoning request November 13, 2015 Clerk for the Weld County Commissioners 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80634 Dear Weld County Commissioners: We are writing this letter to voice our opposition to the request to rezone the land next to HYWY 34 and Indianhead Estates. If approved developers can build just about anything they want right next to an established residential neighborhood. Approval without any kind of knowledge of their intention would be irresponsible. My family moved to Greely in 1962 and at that time our elected officials helped to support the folks who lived here. After attending many meetings regarding railroad access, road congestion, asphalt/ concrete, compatibility, health and safety, right to farm, noise, pollution, and possible future growth I've come to the conclusion that Northern Colorado is messed up. Don't make it worse by allowing rich developers to control this beautiful place. I know that you have to make difficult decisions, but I will remind you that your most important duty is to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of all of the residents of Weld County. Please listen to the people who will have to live next to an industry that hasn't even been identified. Sincerely, $7 XI 7 c__ Tom and Diane Lord EXHIBIT I U ( -In eas- 3q EXHIBIT 7exusr?oCitt CLR -34 Neighborhoods Assn . COZ15 - 000a. BOCC Hearing 11 / 18 / 15 Introduction * Restrictive limits on public input unfairly preclude systematic presentation so that the proposal can completely be considered by this Board . Restricts our Due Process and First Amendment rights . Cu, qy Nrighbci hoods Assn Basis for Consideration of COZi - 000i If approved, C0Z would grant the applicant with a vested property right to develop the property to the maximum intensity allowable under the new zone. Therefore, consideration of the application must focus on the most intensive uses, as these could be practiced, either by the current applicant or by a future property owner. If this property is rezoned 1 - 2, permissible uses could include heavy manufacturing, fertilizer production, oil and gas facilities, and/or transloading facilities to move materials between truck and rail, including the construction of a new rail loop with all of the attendant noise, dust, and traffic. If this COZ is approved, the County cannot prevent any of these uses without infringing upon the property owner's vested property rights . Accordingly, consideration of whether or not this rezoning is consistent with surrounding land uses should take into account the existing surrounding land uses and contrast these with the most intense possible l -z uses. CLR-3i, NeighborhoodsAssn 3 Weld County Code Criteria for Review of Rezoning , 2 - 2 -3 0 4 The Applicant must show that ALL of the following criteria are met : 1. The proposal must be consistent with the policies of Chapter 22; 2 . The USES which would be allowed on the subject property by granting the Change of Zone must be compatible with the surrounding land USES; 3 . Adequate water and sewer service can be made available to serve the site; 4. STREET or highway facilities providing access to the property must be adequate in size to meet the requirements of the proposed zone district . CLR- 34 Neighborhoods Assn Criterion s .• Chapter22 Is the proposal consistent with Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code ? ;_ _P - ;6 Neigl loot hoods Assn Sec . 22 - 1 - 120 . - Comprehensive Plan guiding NI Private Property Rights . One ( s} of the basic principles upon which the United States was founded , which it continues to preserve, and Weld County upholds, is the right of citizens to own and utilize their property. Private property rights are not unlimited rights but, rather, rights balanced with the responsibility of protecting community health, safety and welfare . It is the goal of the Comprehensive. Plan to promote opportunities for County citizens, while protecting private property rights . CLR-3y Neighborhoods Assn 6 Sec . 22 - 1 - 12O . - Comprehensive Plan guiding principles . ( cont ) C . Fairness in the Land Use Change Procedure . The County has established various regulations forthe process of land use change . This process must be fair and equitable to all parties in the following ways : . 4 . It maintains consistent requirements, coupled with flexibility, within the implementation criteria . CLR -gy Neighborhoods Assn 7 Sec . 22 - 1 - 12O . - Comprehensive Plan guiding principles ( cont ) E . Regulations Addressing Land Use Changes . Land use regulations which address land use changes should be written so they protect the rights of private property owners and the public health, safety and welfare . The property rights do NOT override the health , safety and welfare of the public . CI.R it, Neiy'hbohood, Assn 5 Chapter 2 : Lonausion # 1 COZ15 - 000i is NOT consistent with the Guiding Principles of the Comprehensive Plan Approval of this application would give the applicant excessive property rights which would not be in balance with the requirement to protect the health, safety and welfare of current and future residents of the County CRITERION IS NOT MET CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 9 SeCL : .,� Ems. ., t ig' u ' 'il. re cloak and • - - n � �. ► s B . A . Goal 2 . Continue the commitment to viable agriculture in Weld County through mitigated protection of established ( and potentially expanding ) agricultural uses from other proposed new uses that would hinder the operations of the agricultural enterprises . B . 2 . A . Policy 2 . 2 . Allow commercial and industrial uses, which are directly related to or dependent upon agriculture, to locate within agricultural areas when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal or mitigated and where adequate services and infrastructure are currently available or reasonably obtainable . These commercial and industrial uses should be encouraged to locate in areas that minimize the removal of agricultural land from production . CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn io WCC; 22 ‘,12 -% 80 . Avacselndustrial H eveDevelopment Goals and Rohcles " Promote the location of industrial uses within municipalities, County Urban Growth Boundary areas, Intergovernmental Agreement urban growth areas, growth management areas as defined in municipalities' comprehensive plans, . . . " There can be no demonstration that the rezoning is consistent with "growth management areas as defined in municipalities ' comprehensive plans " because all surrounding municipalities (Greeley, Johnstown, and Windsor) have formally stated that this use is inconsistent with their long term plans for the corridor; CRITERION IS NOT MET CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 11 ti WCC w ad Car-1 n o t r k a i Dev& opment Goa s "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 applicant has made no showing that the traffic impacts resulting from this change will not be significant . This demonstration must be made prior to the rezoning and cannot be pushed out until the Site Plan Review process . CRITERION IS NOT MET CLR-3i4 Neighborhoods Assn 12 WCC 22 - 6 - 20 . C . 1. Economic Development Goals and Policies . ECON . Policy 3 . 2. " County activities and regulation should protect the rights of private property owners and the public health, safety and welfare , recognizing that these basic rights and protections allow the free market to prosper and grow the local economy. " The rezoning does not protect the rights of adjacent landowners . Adjacent landowners have invested in their properties in reliance on the existing zoning scheme and heavy industrial is fundamentally incompatible with organic farming, single -family homes, and a special events venue . CRITERION IS NOT MET CLR-34 Neighbor hoods Assn ,3 WCC 2 . . E . 1 - - Economic Development Goals and Policies ECON . Goal S . " Recognize and promote specific places and resources in the County that can uniquely support economic development . " There is nothing in the record that demonstrates that there is an adequate supply of " both services and land suitable for industrial development and redevelopment . " In adopting the current zoning designations, the BOCC previously determined the appropriate amount of land zoned for industrial uses . CRITERION IS NOT MET C . R 34 Nei,hbor-hoodsAs',n 14 WCC. 2� 2a2 B rb f (�CK C1� Devekprnent " . . . heavier industrial uses are segregated into areas around the perimeter of communities . . " Heavy industrial should be located on the perimeter of development and not in the middle of a mixed use corridor that all surrounding jurisdictions would prefer to develop into residential and supporting retail uses . CRITERION IS NOT MET CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 1S chapter 22 Londuson 2 There are many aspects of this application which are not consistent with either the Guiding Principles or the specific goals and policies of Chapter 22 , which means that this criterion is NOT SATISFIED . CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 16 Compliance C apter 23 Application must be compliant with 23 - 2 - 40 . B . 2, B . 3 and B . 4 CLI' Nriiinl)OrI,00dsAssn 17 General Compatibility The impact of noise, odors, air pollution, traffic, property value losses, and other effects of an industrial activity is likely to cause unacceptable conflicts which would require substantial behavior changes by nearby residents . Loss of " quiet enjoyment" of their property A compatible operation would not require behavior changes from the neighbors . CLR-3r, NeighborhoodsAssn ,g - i P L _ - _ Compatibility Noise ... . ___ i z, :,......------fre; : . . . ...,..,:: If residential noise , ~ ' - - - -- -- ._-f-._- - standards can't be met �, -r � f • 1 on residential i Lydon property, then the •' rezoning is -11 9 , INCOMPATIBLE with k;, I _: , _- DB Farms the surrounding area ' : 4 . 1_ Collins Straub and would be classified • ! , i‘ . .. Kupec as a nuisance under � ' `� Tali Warnock / Casey Colorado Law - f - Hoskinson /Smith � . Oplinger Morris --- 4 - • Indianhead West HOA I .1- i Ilirc CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 19 Effects o ' -- incom, ,...., .- fteis ibil ity Causes economic, physical , and social " drains " on the community Creates barriers to new investment and discourages existing land owners from investing in their properties Creates a drain on the vitality of the community as a whole CLR-34 NcighborhoodsAssn c) 61 if IC er_ Land use compatbliity rnatnx 'Figure 1 ^ Land the Oliva Iihility Matt ix Both light and heavy industrial forms are classified as 5 undesirable neighbors of Future Land Use Compatibility Matrix — residential land uses, especially .� s 7 € l igg J single-family development. A E g F $ .3 .3 3 i 'a a • k 4 * F a Lew DensityRetldtntlal The various characteristics of Medium thornily Residential V NIOhDensityRestdenUal _ industrial development are Professional Office a e generally not harmonious with Neighborhood Commercial a e Corridor Commercial the atmosphere sought in Mixed Use Residential/Office 4 sal Lea El Mixed Use Office/Commerdal• 4 t residential areas Mixed Use 0tfIce/Research/IndustrIei4� [j a a Government/lducational/Institutional aD a Recreational e a 0 0 0 Utilities a a Rural Density Residential a e a a legend campatltrie aOrnaliusaUw(compatible Only it Impact Can tit Properly Mnssated) ncompattle ' Note: Compatibility of Mixed Use dewIteprnrnt4 h dependent an the txopoud mature of tars CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 21 Greeey 's ConyNansavc I best Industrial Land Use Characteristics " . . . Industrial uses include manufacturing , fabrication , processing, and distribution uses . These uses are typically not compatible with many other uses because of the impacts they can create, including noise, lighting , vibration , and odor. " "While some low intensity industrial uses can be designed to be compatible with residential areas, . . . heavier industrial uses usually cannot be made compatible and are best located within larger industrial -zoned areas . " CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 22 wcc £ 1l ri s:l ra / �^ tl B = Compatibihty: r a rs. "The applicant shall demonstrate that the USES which would be allowed on the subject property by granting the Change of Zone will be compatible with the surrounding land USES . " The proposed rezoning is fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding land uses . Indianhead Estates has been located to the east for almost 40 years . MMM's proposed USR is presently being challenged on appeal and is not final . Regardless of the zoning designation to the north, those properties have not been developed and continue to be used for agricultural purposes. The characteristics of the neighborhood have not significantly changed and any such change is trending towards additional residential and retail uses— not heavy industrial . CRITERION IS NOT MET CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 23 WCC 2 :14a2 " 40 . B . 1 "The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate water and sewer service can be made available to serve the site . " Because there has been no clarity regarding the ultimate use of this site, there has been no demonstration that the applicant can access adequate water and sanitation services . This material element of a rezoning determination cannot be left to the Site Plan Review stage . CRITERION IS NOT MET CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn ,i, WCC 23240eB4 "The applicant shall demonstrate that STREET or highway facilities providing access to the property are adequate in size to meet the requirements of the proposed zone district . " Again , there has been no showing that the existing transportation infrastructure is capable of supporting 1 - 2 uses and/or that such uses will not significantly impact surrounding land users ' use of existing infrastructure . CRITERION IS NOT MET CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn �5 EvIdence Evidenceabased decision needed The zoning code does not permit the BOCC to consider whether this is the best site for this use compared with other possible sites . Also, this decision cannot be based solely on the expected economic effect or jobs created . If ANY of the factors set forth above have not been shown, the application MUST be denied . This is not a political decision if any of the factors set forth above are not demonstrated by reliable evidence, the application must be denied . CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 26 Spot Rezoning CO715 - 000a requests a "spot rezoning " of this parcel for the sole benefit of Weld 34 LLC CL.- 4 NcighboihoodsA sn 1 Is this a SPOT REZONING ? The "classic" definition of spot zoning is " the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner o such property and to the detriment of other owners. " - -Anderson 's American Law of Zoning, 4th Edition, 5 5. 12 (1995). CLR-3r, Neighborhoods Assn 28 Colorado provides reme Sup Court a test There is a precedent from the Colorado State Supreme Court which provides a test: Clark v. City of Boulder, 362 P. ad i6o ( 1961) Colorado State Supreme Court, 362 P. 2d i6o (1961), en banc "In determining whether spot zoning is involved, the test is whether the change in question was made with the purpose of furthering a comprehensive zoning plan or designed merely to relieve a particular property from the restrictions of the zoning regulations. " CLR-34 NeighborhoodsAssn 29 " Public Interest " includes ofpropertyvalues preservation Property owners have the right to rely on existing zoning regulations when there has been no material change in the character of the neighborhood which may require re - zoning in the public interest. gClark q In addition, the development and growth of a comprehensively zoned area in accordance with the uses permitted under the plan, does not permit emasculation of such plan under the guise of changed conditions . . . . Clark In determining whether a zoning change was valid, a court may consider any impact on the value of surrounding properties and/or any organized opposition by surrounding land owners. g pp City & County of Denver v. AMOCO, 374 P. 2d357, 359 (Colo. 1962) CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 30 CONCLUSION This application should be denied. It does not meet the Supreme Court's test for a legitimate rezoning . It would benefit the applicant at the expense of surrounding landowners and neighboring municipalities. • Loss of property value of neighboring subdivision and surrounding farms • Disruption of Master plans of Johnstown and Windsor No Use has been put forward that will further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, or benefit Weld County at large. The fact that no Use has been put forward appears to be an effort to avoid scrutiny by the Commissioners and the public. It violates the spirit and intent of the "Fairness Clause " of the Comprehensive Plan . SLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 31 Neighborhood Concerns Based on discussions with the surrounding neighbors who will be most impacted by this land use change CLP ;e. Neighboi hoods Assn {� Concerns that were mentioned to Mr. Pike on 10/ 8 / 15 sr Noise- Industrial and train ,t Odors Visual impact • Dust _, Traffic Unhealthy emissions Mr. Pike's response was that Envirotech would not commit to any limits except the County- mandated buffer and screening . Asserted that neighbors were " unreasonable" because they wish to preserve their home values and quiet enjoyment of their property. Unwilling to eliminate any of the Allowed Uses by Right, including crude oil transloading, one of the most negative impact activities possible . CLR -34 Neighborhoods Assn Concern about " setting pprecedents " At the PC hearing , Mr. Pike expressed considerable concern about setting precedents, especially for the protection of the nearby residents . Expressed a willingness to " sacrifice " the adjacent properties by letting them be a " buffer" . . . In fact, the BOCC should be concerned that they do NOT set a precedent that ANY home in Weld County could have heavy industrial sited adjacent to it without warning . C. R .34 Neiyht)ornnooth Assn Minimum necessary mitigations soo foot buffer that would be converted to a conservation easement, preventing future use, similar to the oil and gas setback requirements . Building height restrictions--4o feet Visual screening of 15- 25 feet, consisting of berm, sound wall, trees, etc . NO chain link or barbed wire fencing . Must be decorative--- stone, brick, iron, etc . All outdoor storage of more than 10 feet in height must be screened CLR-34 NeighborhoodsAssn 35 Rail loopfeasibility I' Lat;1rn o;l:i7 ::14 - - ,I _- s GQJcicin�:4s r1f1., r ii i`i2,4f 14',a'a. ;�►t��'�, s« I4; Apparently, a q . 600 WI S. sufficient 1•' • rail loop would be 800_ ! radius possible while still allowing a 5 5oo foot setback . co Jav% AI• rJ I' a re. . - CLR-34 NeighborhoodsAssn 36 Minimum necessary mitigations , ations , ( cont ) . Tighter odor restriction than Colorado baseline . Must meet residential noise limit at the property line . NO train noise between loPM and 6AM Short duration (e . g . 5 minutes ) may be negotiable Limit normal operating hours to 7AM to 7PM , M - F. Haul routes must go north to US - 34 All loads must be covered CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 3/ Keymiti ation -- no oil services g NO oil services or oil transloading allowed on this property CLR 34 NeighborhoodsAssn CLR -34 NA requests that this application be denied Foundation for Denial of COZi - 000i Foundation for Denial - - 1 ■ Section 23 - 1 - 40 Purpose and Intent of Chapter 23 This amendment to the zoning map would NOT promote the health, safety, convenience, morals, order and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the COUNTY. It is NOT COMPLIANT with the purpose and intent of Chapter 23 U.It 34 NCiyhuorhuoAs Ptisn Foundation for Denial - - z Section 23 - 2 - 40 . B . 1 Compliance with Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan ) Application does not conform to multiple sections of Chapter 22 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles of Comprehensive Plan are not met No evidence that changing land use patterns would justify this amendment Surrounding municipalities do not envision need for 1 - 2 Nearby USES have been similar for nearly qo years ! CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn pa Foundation for Denial - - 3 Section z3 - z -3o . B . z Allowed Uses would NOT be compatible with current and future uses in the neighborhood Surrounding municipalities say it's not compatible Organized opposition has expressed strong concerns about incompatibility Sound Land Use Planning practice would confirm that this re - zoning would not be compatible . CL R-34 Neighborhoods Assn 42 Foundation for Denial - - 4 section 23 - 2 - 30 . B . 3 and B . 4 Applicant has not demonstrated that adequate water and sewer service will be available, nor that their water use would not have a negative impact on the neighbors Applicant has not demonstrated that the road infrastructure will be adequate for their indeterminate use . CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn 43 Summary This is a spot rezoning for the benefit of the applicant and at the cost of all other parties Specified criteria in the Weld County code are not met Rather than a political decision, this should bean evidence - based decision . The evidence says that this application must be denied . CLR 34 Neighborhoods Assn ,t4 CLR -34 Neighborhoods Assn . COZi - 000i BOCC Hearing n / i8 / i 5 Conclusion App lication must be rejected It violates WCC 22 - 1- 120, the Guiding Principles of the Comprehensive Plan 9 It's inconsistent with numerous sections of Chapter 22, including sections 22 - 2 - 20 . B, 22 - 2 - 30 . B, 22 - 6 - 20 . C . 1, 22 - 6 - 20 . E . 1, 22 - 2 - 80 . A and 22 - 2 - 80 . C la It's fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding uses and therefore it violates WCC section 23 - 2 - 40 . B . 2 is Adequate facilities and infrastructure have not been demonstrated so it violates sections 23 - 2 - 4o . B . 3 and 22 - 2 - 40 . B . 4 It is a spot rezoning for the benefit of a single land owner, to the detriment of the surrounding landowners, residences and businesses . CLR 31. Ne ighborhoods Assn Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker # 1 . Dave Kisker Good morning. My name is Dave Kisker. I live at 6681 Apache Road, Johnstown . I have a vested, personal interest in this proceeding because I live less than 1/4 mile away from the proposed rezoning site and the resulting disruption to my quiet enjoyment of my property would threaten my health, safety and welfare . On behalf of myself and many of the speakers in organized opposition that you will hear from this morning, I would like to formally object to the restrictive hearing process that the Commissioners have selected for public comments in opposition to this application . It was not until late yesterday afternoon that we were informed that speakers in opposition would be limited to two minutes each and that each would be required to speak on different topics with no overarching presentation being allowed . In the past, the organized opposition to a land use proposal has been given far more flexibility to present their case in a systematic way to this body so that a thorough and complete consideration was possible . As taxpayers, property owners, and constituents, we are dismayed that the Board would move to unreasonably limit public discourse and dissent. These unduly restrictive procedure violates our First Amendment right to petition the government and our Due Process Rights to a full and fair adjudication of our rights . EXHIBIT Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ1s-0001 18 November 2015 Now, to ensure that we are not accused of having waived any legal challenge, I formally state for the record that I am presently aware of the following reasons you should deny this application : 1 . It violates WCC 22- 1- 120/ the Guiding Principles of the Comprehensive Plan 2 . It' s inconsistent with numerous sections of Chapter 22, including sections 22-2- 20 . B, 22-2-30 . B, 22-6-20 . C. 1, 22- 6-20 . E . 1, 22-2-80 . A and 22-2-80 . C 3 . It's fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding uses and therefore it violates WCC section 23-2-40 . B . 2 4 . Adequate facilities have not been demonstrated so it violates sections 23 - 2-40 . B . 3 and 22-2-40 . B .4 5 . It is a spot rezoning for the benefit of a single land owner, to the detriment of the surrounding landowners, residences and businesses . Thank you . Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker #2 : k jtL Lci pi 4 be,r- ctetec nocco , , Good mcag . , y name is y6erd " Jaand I live at a 7 giri ? ORIC fvc, /.Ut-,c. 5 not ki . I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR- 34. Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slide 3 . Today, we consider the rezoning application , COZ15 -0001, submitted by Weld 34 LLC, an organization led by Envirotech Services and McWhinney . The application to rezone the parcels in question to heavy industrial , 1 -2, must be considered within the context shown in slide 3, no matter what promises or suggestions that the Applicant may have made . • If approved , COZ would grant the applicant with a vested property right to develop the property to the maximum intensity allowable under the new zone . • Therefore, consideration of the application must focus on the most intensive uses, as these could be practiced, either by the current applicant or by a future property owner. If this property is rezoned 1 - 2, permissible uses could include heavy manufacturing, fertilizer production , oil and gas facilities, and/or transloading facilities to move materials between truck and rail , including the construction of a new rail loop with all of the attendant noise, dust, and traffic . EXHIBIT - tnr' e) Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 ■ If this COZ is approved, the County cannot prevent any of these uses without infringing upon the property owner' s vested property rights . Accordingly, consideration of whether or not this rezoning is consistent with surrounding land uses must take into account the existing surrounding land uses and contrast these with the most intense allowable 1 -2 uses. As we proceed with our presentation, it is this criterion, and ONLY this criterion that must be used to evaluate this land use application . Thank you . m ra 4-- ID 0 cu Olc ri j — � O N • u> > •-N o 4-1 �' O W 4+/-1Q.) � � ° � O VI a L � � L >, L_ 0Ln c � . 1 -� p �O > 4-1 U D v0 D cu a� a) o � a) `" � D O C t U O C O1U �, N N -0 _ CD- cu c co _a O � � � � � Oui ox 0 j ' N In •*-) ]� •�-J >- /. ■ • _ 4 U -0 > �.�, LW a1 0 kmi) (113> 0 ai _ = V1 O O U ro .-=' ra .�_, ' '= O �m en — 4-1 11 O • —1 E r1� 4u O O C c 4-) L- 0 ro 4-; O .O U 4-) O c `n is O 4., ■ � �--- �D 4J ._cp- O 2 aJ 4, to CI E u in lO Q.t'nj CU • — 0 �'1- a CU Q O W +-, E -c . v CU a4_'-+ O O O -- o V c 0 0 § co C -5 4-j 117-4 i ilj a) O M _p O _ � _ N n a1 WS O it ") N Q_ • 0 V) �+°)- CI) r Q_ 0ap a LI p o > • Qc o L u � ova - � o � ruo u.� � �., . � c •n • cn n >, � 0 O --ca a s O D O p N a1• — > Q. O cn � � — OE ' • _ � � � A O V 6) '2 D D. Q_— N N cn D :.+.- s cn U 0 ° Lai sru> 2 (Dv) 2 4_, roe_ m0 octi +..) 4..t. V ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ1.5-0001. 18 November 2015 Speaker #3 : Good morning . My name is -III Kisker and I live at 665 I Anna dui fps/ <101144t . I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR-34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 4, 5, and 6 . [slide 4] The Weld County Code lays out 4 specific criteria for the consideration of a rezoning application . In section 23 -2-40, the code specifies that ALL of the following criteria must be met . N umber 1, the proposal must be consistent with the policies of Chapter 22, the Weld County Comprehensive Plan; N umber 2, the USES which would be allowed on the subject property by granting the Change of Zone must be compatible with the surrounding land USES; N umber 3, adequate water and sewer service can be made available to serve the site; N umber 4, STREET or highway facilities providing access to the property must be adequate in size to meet the requirements of the proposed zone district. [slide 5 ] EXHIBIT Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 First, we will consider whether or not the application meets criterion # 1, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan . [slide 6] We begin by reviewing the Guiding Principles of the Comprehensive Plan , Section 22- 1- 120, which addresses the role of " private property rights", with this statement : ■ One of the basic principles upon which the United States was founded , which it continues to preserve, and Weld County upholds, is the right of citizens to own and utilize their property . ■ Private property rights are not unlimited rights but, rather, rights balanced with the responsibility of protecting community health, safety and welfare. ■ It is the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to promote opportunities for County citizens, while protecting private property rights . Thus, we see immediately that although the property rights of landowners such as the applicant are important, they are NOT unlimited, and , in fact must be balanced with the need to protect the health , safety and welfare of the community. As we proceed today, we will consider in some detail whether or not this important criterion can be met by this land use application . Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker #4 : Good .morning My name is t rbar-7tt. I7)oe and I live at -13 At] J O ?4;� (kw /if1 / / /,) t' Pc//toCR 13 (/�, . Tam represented by the st)5. organized op/Position group, CLR-34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slide 7 . [slide 7] Continuing with the Guiding Principles of Chapter 22 of the Comprehensive Plan , we note that in Section 22- 1 - 120 . C, a "fairness doctrine" is articulated in the section titled " Fairness in the Land Use Change Procedure . " In this section it states : The County has established various regulations for the process of land use change . This process must be fair and equitable to all parties in the following ways : It maintains consistent requirements, coupled with flexibility, within the implementation criteria . This means that the approval or denial of an application must be consistent and appropriate within the wide range of possible uses . For example, the consideration and approval of a heavy industrial rezoning such as COZ1S--0001 must not be allowed to meet a lesser set of requirements than the requirements for a much lower impact use such as a home- based business . Yet, the code states that a HOME OCCUPATION must not create ANY negative impacts to the public health , safety and general EXHIBIT Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 welfare of the adjacent property owners . It requires that there be little or no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, lighting, traffic congestion , trash accumulation , heat, glare or electrical interference , or other hazard or nuisance noticeable off the property. All this seems very reasonable . But, if allowed to move forward as proposed , this higher impact, 1 -2 use, would be allowed to meet a MUCH less stringent requirement, as currently allowed by the draft resolution . This would clearly be inconsistent with the Weld County Fairness Doctrine . Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker #5 : Good morning . My name is A6c-,nre _\c' kRci, and I live at -r �. _ ., ` � • -. _ -�i am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR- 34. Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 8 and 9 . [ slide 8] Lastly, in the final portion of the Guiding Principles of the Comprehensive Plan , found in Section 22 - 1 - 1200E, the emphasis on protecting the health , safety and welfare of the public is again found -- although important, private property rights DO NOT override the health , safety and welfare of the public, including the immediately neighboring landowners . [slide 9] In sum, COZ15-0001 is clearly NOT consistent with the Guiding Principles of the Comprehensive Plan , and , as such , this application must be denied . If approved , the applicant would be given excessive vested property rights which would not be in balance with the requirement to protect the health, safety and welfare of current and future residents of the County . Since the Guiding Principles of the Comprehensive Plan are violated in several ways, the requirement for compliance with Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code is not met. Thank you . EXHIBIT ja r ton Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker #6 : Good morning . My name is u9o4 \ :) I , lr-and I live at Z 0,) IN) Ot n lam re resented the , � � � I � �-� � p by organized opposition group, CLR- 34 . Today, I will be making a g pp g p, Y� statement that addresses the content of slide 10 . The Comprehensive Plan also sets a requirement for non - agricultural uses within agricultural areas . [slide 10] Because of the long history and large economic value of Agriculture in our County, a special emphasis has been put on preserving and enhancing agricultural activities . In Section 22 - 2 -20 . B, the Comprehensive Plan states that land uses should "Continue the commitment to viable agriculture in Weld County through mitigated protection of established ( and potentially expanding ) agricultural uses from other proposed n ew uses that would hinder the operations of the agricultural e nterprises . " To accomplish this, the stated policy is to "allow commercial and industrial uses, which are directly related to or dependent u pon agriculture, to locate within agricultural areas when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal or mitigated . . . " k ‘ p [•L c u,- ' \ \ ) 1s Clearly, CO24:5=0001 does not meet) criterion as set forth in Chapter 22, resulting in a requirement that it be denied . EXHIBIT Sae ► r fns Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker #7 : Good morning . My name is, 'cr') c_M cal Ti' njicnnd I live at 7O dKO sa j� ""es - tv,i arc'E. '`1 m represented by the organized opposition group, CLR-34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 11. and 12 . [slide 11 ] Moving now to later sections of Chapter 22, we find more issues . In Section 22 -2 -SO . A, the Comprehensive Plan clearly sets forth the goal to respect the Growth Management Areas of Surrounding Communities when considering the siting of Industrial activities . • Yet in this case, there can be no demonstration that the rezoning is consistent with "growth management areas as defined in municipalities' comprehensive plans" because all surrounding municipalities ( Greeley, Johnstown , and Windsor) have formally stated that this use is inconsistent with their long term plans for the corridor; Clearly, this is another example in which the requirement for consistency with Chapter 22 is not met . [slide 12 ) Later in the same section of Chapter 22, a roadway infrastructure requirement is set, as shown in the first bullet of this slide . EXHIBIT Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 However, the applicant has made no showing that the traffic impacts resulting from this change will not be significant . This demonstration must be made prior to the rezoning and cannot be pushed out until the Site Plan Review process . Thus, the Chapter 22 consistency criterion is again not fulfilled . Thank you . Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15 -0001 18 November 2015 Speaker #8 : Good morning . My name is \C atarnQ, lrdo- , - and I live at Mcu(► ) SMS \-CY; n . I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR- 34. Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 13 and 14 . We move now to Section 22 -6- 20, Economic Development Goals and Policies . Policy 3 . 1 states that "County activities and regulation should protect the rights of private property owners and the public health , safety and welfare , recognizing that these basic rights and protections allow the free market to prosper and grow the local economy. " The key recognition is the balance of private property rights with the health, safety and welfare of the public as the enabling factor for a prospering free market . Yet, the rezoning does not protect the rights of adjacent landowners. Adjacent landowners have invested in their properties in reliance on the existing zoning scheme and heavy industrial uses are fundamentally incompatible with organic farming, single -family homes, and a special events venue . Later in the same section of the Plan , the need to cluster certain activities to take advantage of services is stated : EXHIBIT Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 " Recognize and promote specific places and resources in the County that can uniquely support economic development . " However, there is nothing in the record that demonstrates that there is an adequate supply of " both services and land suitable for industrial development and redevelopment ." In adopting the current, existing zoning designations, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS previously determined the appropriate amount of land zoned for industrial uses, and arbitrary changes are not suitable . Again the requirements and policies of this section of the Comprehensive Plan , Chapter 22, are not met by this rezoning application . Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker #9 : Good morning . My name is .: (,( .5. / L STREoz3 and I live at ovf7rzys' •4-p/ TEL- /ICI'µ-f Co o . I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR-34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 15 and 16 . [slide 15 ] The last section of the Comprehensive Plan that we will consider is 22 - 2 -30. B, Urban Development, which states that " . . . heavier industrial uses are segregated into areas around the perimeter of communities . . " Of course, heavy industrial uses should be located on the perimeter of development and not in the middle of a mixed use corridor that all surrounding jurisdictions would prefer to develop into residential and supporting retail uses . By placing a heavy industrial activity in this location, the regional development would be stifled for an indeterminate period . Once again , the criterion for consistency with Chapter 22 fails to be satisfied . [slide 16 ] There are many aspects of this application which are not consistent with either the Guiding Principles or the specific goals and policies of Chapter 22, which means that this criterion is NOT SATISFIED . This application must be denied . ,EXHIBIT Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker # 10 : Good morning . My name is M e S , j / 4 ; and I live at g � iAlt i J� ns v �H . I am re resented L49W p by the organized opposition group, CLR- 34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 17, 18 and 19 . [ slide 18] The remaining criteria for approval of a rezoning application are stated in Section 23-2 -40 . B . 2, B . 3 and B . 4 . These criteria , as well as consistency with Chapter 22 must ALL be met for a valid approval to be issued . Section 23-2-40 . B . 2 requires that "The applicant shall demonstrate that the USES which would be allowed on the subject property by granting the Change of Zone will be compatible with the surrounding land USES . " Compatibility is critical to approval because the impact of noise, odors, air pollution , traffic, property value losses, and other effects of an industrial activity is likely to cause unacceptable conflicts, resulting in the nearby residents losing the quiet enjoyment of their property, to which they are entitled . [slide 19] Taking noise as an example of a major source of incompatibility, in this slide, we see just how close the neighboring residences are . The COZ parcel shares a property boundary with several EXHIBIT 1 Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 residences in Indianhead Estates as welt as others . Weld 34' s complete unwillingness to commit to suitable mitigation of noise means that we will be faced with an unacceptable situation due to the operational and railroad noise that may be emitted from this site . Thank you . ' Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0002 18 November 2015 Speaker # 11 : Good .morning My name is 3ct-Y3 1�'�} � 1 � z and I live at a-7657 3LA- (".E 1 (T ( RP 1_��4 ) ; Tc4 . I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR-34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 20 and 21 . [slide 20] Much has been said at this and other recent hearings about "highest and best use" of an applicant's property. However, it needs to be understood that when considered on a more regional basis, an incompatible use cannot possibly be its highest and best use, at least in regards to its negative impacts . There are several negative impacts of incompatibility, including that : • It causes economic, physical , and social " drains " on the community, • It creates barriers to new investment and discourages existing land owners from investing in their properties, and • It creates a drain on the vitality of the community as a whole . Consider what will occur on the north side of US-34 if this rezoning is allowed — the much more appealing vision of EXHIBIT ' Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Windsor may never be realized as potential developers seek to avoid the negative impacts of incompatiblity. [slide 21 ] In fact, many jurisdictions understand this conflict and assemble a matrix of land uses that explicitly denotes and avoids these incompatibilities . Weld County should implement a similar process so that both current residents and potential applicants understand the rules and can use them to plan for the future . • (.1 _ _ . . .. _ 7.3 . ro c E ., . . ro o a)V 4.) La_ >%i O C 4- S • 73• 4a tn CU (an 4-0 co Lea o ■ C � C - XI ro Lan) >% .— >� > o 4111 ro 4._) C — as u us c . _ no :47) 4_, • _ ' Q. arip;, S c s- ro cu > I - E = ro E a) c cm or-- 1- a) (I) , s o :coci 4—, 0 c -6) 0 04 -1 iso . - a. c O U ' a U tn CD 8 CE cu tn . . - „ ,- • _ O .c r CU ros ro M c 4-) 5_ -� cL 4— O 1.... van es >% d Q V . cu _ ro VI tn In to 1_ C lil D +EP CU C CU D -47, CU c V tn r - o `n W j r13 L . L 0 t w -O ccu E a) = Ut . _ V u LU • • • —t--- . H N M 4-1 V 4-a D 4 LA.1 c V LJ VI C - - - i X . __C tn v)--- (11°_, E ra a1 to 4J ro Q L. tri njv) a) 7:5 —O a) —C L. O ; +III CU -— CD C v > 4-_ N ra v 4J _ -- o c a -e_, o JD r6 e V) ro. E Ol ro I. c 1+— .1. • L — E _ >'14 . 0 tin a) a) Co - u1 I- . - Ol s CU a ■ in lelivaplsaa Ausuad 'eau b. i . +11 �u�ItcJ,�aa N. C tetiognmisublieuoimnp3platUtlie.A09 in I l Pu;j4�masaH fa)I1J( wit PaxlW Q al Ie wwo,jaal��p �st� PJxI W \ > 0 O n 0 E ..,,,fluapixa� asflpinlw E e s rem awruu) etipl•Ja, \ \ - A> \ a Ie�,auxuct� p<1a►i�uyia� 4 4 , 2 9 ~� o az 3�! euo�stia o loo wkl `s > > R> . > > 2 ....„ Ilisi v d rn �elwapIsa� A�Isuap t mlH \ ` ` S $ ' 7 7 \ I R M IeIwaPlsa8 As,suap wunlpavj \, iv I� 1 °' ° V iv, iv, a Y (II) Klit? it p13uap!seuAs!sua N+ctry ; tAi t / m ice / a Di 1 i a N c to z J1I 13 1/4.) sic ?fe 3 t _7 J C T.: yIt V V �I AT Y ,e' 341141; I I] t i1tji1ii _t y 1111 lia -, 4 A. C u c4 Ji 34 s U Nom! 2.94 2 = i 2 2 2 . 1 et et Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker#12: Good morning. My name is L5 (-cL:no and I live at Rek 1 nhi 7660 T(au I lokidanot M3gf . I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR-34. Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 22 and 23. [slide 22] In the materials that the Applicant has submitted, there is a representation that the surrounding communities are somehow in support of this land use change, despite the fact that the referrals all objected to it with complete clarity. At the Planning Commission meeting we clarified the intent of these communities, but, in fact, the clearest statement comes from Greeley's Comprehensive Plan, which states: "These [industrial] uses are typically not compatible with many other uses because of the impacts they can create, including noise, lighting, vibration, and odor." "While some low intensity industrial uses can be designed to be compatible with residential areas,... heavier industrial uses usually cannot be made compatible and are best located within larger industrial-zoned areas." There is really no uncertainty. This sort of industrial activity IS, in fact, completely incompatible with the surrounding uses existing in the area. EXHIBIT CO?) -()on Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ1S-0001 18 November 2015 [slide 23 ] Returning now to the explicit criteria for approving a Change in Zone, we find that the proposed use is fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding uses, including Indianhead Estates, which has existed for nearly 40 years . Independent of the ultimate plans for the section of Windsor to the north , it is currently agricultural . In fact, the characteristics of the neighborhood have NOT changed , and if anything are trending towards additional residential and retail uses, not heavy industrial . This Criterion is not met. (btu 0 {; k (dy Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ1S-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker # 13 : Good morning . My name is a { , 7 ( and I live at ) (, 10 /4 '; r a y l : �� ,� �� 1,�� >. I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR-34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 24 and 25 . [slide 24] The remaining requirements for approval of a change in zone deal with infrastructure issues . First, the Weld County Code, Section 23-2-40 . B . 3 requires that "The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate water and sewer service can be made available to serve the site ." However, compliance with this requirement is simply not possible, given the uncertainty about the use ! Not only has the applicant not demonstrated that there will be adequate water and sanitation services for their own use, there is also no possibility of demonstrating that there will not be a negative impact on the surrounding homes and businesses as a result of their demands ! ! This material element of a rezoning determination cannot be left to the Site Plan Review stage . [slide 25 ] Similarly in Section 23-2-40 . B . 4, the Code requires that "The applicant shall demonstrate that STREET or highway facilities EXHIBIT A/4 Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing . COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 providing access to the property are adequate in size to meet the requirements of the proposed zone district . " If this is not the case, then the applicant can either defer the change in zone until the improvements are made, or, agree to pay the cost of necessary improvements at this time . Again, there has been no showing that the existing transportation infrastructure is capable of supportingt2 uses and/or that such uses will not significantly impact surrounding land users' use of existing infrastructure, and the applicant has not agreed to fund the necessary improvements . In sum , neither of these key elements for approval have been met, which requires that this application be denied . N W CU =IC til W VI a a;O +-� W ■ �� . — ■ r0 ma) ._ 73 TD 03 „lir; 6 Ile C r0er4J . a -}-ii n3 C U vi . 14. 11 (13 ell E ra G) O) w m _ •_ 4_, m 4a w 4_, . - in crna)IN IMS In (30) E a: - V O in: SI . C tri C ka.) el ra a ro ra O s a.. u o o C +-� ap C N I-. , E ci) c e _c irri a) 4_..) umil ,... . m ass) u a) 4_, 4..ii ta v, 2 littcl t III v V�! T `n - ilill a� - ■ C� ` • — Q o C� fm, Z ^^ `` V1 L - — E �--. ilf—Lis r, ,. , v W as al. W W � W WVrill a) — Z _ -- -� 4_, w as aj 0 4-0 rn Cl, 0C a) L D prill ow ro as) voll4—• C (13 m 4-1 �- p W aUa) a ) � E �' � C I- U ._.:. a4_, r� 4� m c .• : U oice -� CO D '1O to E u LI Ilo ■ In ■ ii Ln - N J - - .;4 C O CD L . O O v o a) 1.... 4-- ti i . N a� (1) tr ,. _ ...__ ': _ =1._ _ • — a) �� 1/41/) L ogi co +.5 D - aH O cn sD � " E � D O -� . � C N O ro 73 w �, c� _ LA co x � � u0 r0 CU CU a_ � u r� to +a c fO C +��. . +.+ 441.1 a. 1... an E . _ v, ,, _ .. , . 4_, 4--) aJ ,44,-, as a) O D O- , ...C E ..... . ,_ .,.. c 4..) -1-1 D CU 0 L4— O • — o_1 • E cn O Lui .. .. 0 a) v) a) , 4_, ,.. 4--) E c a) , . ... _O c a, 2 • • • _ .2, . . _ _ vi, v,, • _. •. -O u c 44.1CO aJ .� ,.. 43) 9nu �- z :E I ra O, E }' a� .o ro 4.- V O M_c c • ,.. a) 2~ E c D 2 -J 01 (1) • NIMES Lon 0 Li . _ >a) ifjtWerl r° O n rn n "U_ L Q U i D O 4- 2 6 a) .4-) E Q.) _c u aO 4D ZS eft +j ?� C W +-) .�, - o c tin . -_- --. ' 4 1/4.0) ' — L .� '! s.- , 4. to +-' F-...c • ...rik U V CL1 s--- 14— ' X Ce•- Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker # 14 : p 'fl Good morning . My name isc_DQLcyoA - Ja/irjc/3r1 and I live at 1;10,(11 g 05M/ . I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR-34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slide 26 . So, having reviewed the criteria for the rezoning decision , we come to the point where we must consider the decision - making process itself. First, it must be pointed out that the zoning code does not permit the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS to consider whether this is the best site for this use compared to other possible sites . This means that the applicant' s statements about the justification for this particular site selection must have no bearing on the decision , as this is not one of the criteria . Second , the decision must not be based on any supposed economic impact or jobs created ; this consideration is neither certain nor a criterion , and so these claims also must be ignored . Third , if ANY of the factors set forth above have not been clearly shown to be entirely satisfied , then the application must be denied . And , note that it must be explicitly clear that the EXHIBIT t Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 criteria are met — close is not good enough for a decision with this impact . Finally, this must not be a political decision . It must be evidence- based, or else the application must be denied . Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker # 15 : Good morning . My name is Gary Oplinger and I live at 2.7(451 Hopi Trail 'fc . I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR-34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 27-31 . G\- hs G v- r\ c-' 5 3 EXHIBIT _ , 1 n N 0 Cita a) C a) a) 0 C) LI— v (13 Q to manC +I 4— cn Cn o „, N Q Q1 oc 0 -c to • Q,ro N l/J m CUI D us) 4 o u Ln m O- H N O °' tin U CO N O ti 0 t Ci CI e 0 , O C31 ,seta • FL: t a5 "'Raft `, O 1 ■ (2\44 2 W 0 „_v) z cl- c Z Q) 4., V) Lin � o S Z ,...0 Z Cass ifla Qj Z 0 --C � o r N N . O . `� 11 � :4---1 ‘<2 0, Ce C CS O N o O h_ limm• O V vi Z o Qcm il 0 tn ' a ) t c 4--' z �S i L. C O O Oa) rn 0O " .1010 1 cam - rata a, WI � � � * --- tl (1) C "CC (0 (4Z Cika (1) 0, zin , o ,. .--- ' • • U �/ Q Q) W 13: c'L 's Z. ?=. 1 An ... , (an --cs -NE- ro � a) Q H -� ccc H to 4.-J 4..) I lr� ■ FI_ _ Ql N (13 z ci . ..... ..._ _ _...... ,, , CD QJ CX. :Id Q Lem • ---- O qj N o > 1/40 c (I)01 L.o � . Z � L Q v, O co Qi CD L ID C v t CS IA a) . in C H � � E 0 0 D "C) 0 L., N -C • - i U -i-J L U :C N pi j Q. (1) ‘. V N 64.h0 E E fV .0 Q 4? L V) •. V) a) a. C) M cl) cl.O O 00 _ . � c L )a. tti O _°n s N '°ts O +`' -k' z D m U in I... CIC Vo, tat, 4s) v E ii. -- .4...) lit., 0p vi EEIPJ � -� O L `O 10 -►`�, nui S • V ro vita O O w la) •° • - iziito.vi 1...Q 2 sa) ..... L. o Lu U . Co '"1 >-• vi >% �! 01 > CU 01 t L- r1 a) c • — to • CcO tea, ,_re: 0) -4-) C CU s- 4.) 8a) OU CU D O a) cu N 01 L- I-, -, c -' Lo 01 E a) E -o D CL ID nl c (° • O c 01 01 U 4--I > C C LC) . .VI X `'- t cuL � ra c c � ° CU V > > N 1.0 t c>i% cu - E ra s n D ai O � O O 00 V) V) O1 DL1.. .4„co E - _ O cn O co cn cn> cu Lis CDD Alrn L O u- - 01 p cuo U 4O >. kJ CI O c C 0 4-) c ec -+7) .--. ma) c U oto0 +1 :-, vVc > 4=' � CL • L cn O C cn ON ul Q aft (1) O -o... 4... al) w L 4) ra '• m _ O- ' °o � O V E � L Cl- t LMin OVW Lcl) O � s LC ro -C • - > E • -" cu U• caJ E z 2 0 Ln C C m IV) -O Li arP. a. E 9 en C glima: c s u L 4. Oc L V O � Q1 � �VI 46 ' —C ris: (0--- c ta) 1E. c � U > >. oa, . _ tL o L - i., � a +� n3OCi- w 4J ra D La -O -iio 2 -2370 8O 06 Jo Q, 5 i• ci O 4J V � L-71 51), oO ci,1 (tw (VCro - -0c ≥, D 43) a- U NN 0 0 _ OU W U 0- I- L . "I. ,i4 DD. . Cr M O1 ______ O s c '` o n s ° . v -o , -O Ca..`� ._ o ° c O v lt : l.) a s VI CU c � she. v) E o.) N9 (:s L w -a CL c O Qt. `-' C.) cu.� ID w cn Lit+� o o c � , Q ,�„a _ w---- L a o c 0viEs L tv O E .7. 4_, 4- N -C nnW'' ( CU cu O 3 t v c O Q. -> T) 4- E QJ O 0 -Q CU -v g Qu 1 4a s m e � � o • +, c, o > 1 ,� -c 0 $ 'V +4 c 4-' C s o a Coal(f) w Q. M '}v cL . L La z b.)) v ii.D. D M +�•+ > can• �- � O . ` Q� O O1.C cn ao av ci O V) J -O IO O .0N m4. ° a °' -kJ Z`S 0J }, ai -a ,a. o = - O v cv 03 Q) So z 03 L ,n u, in VTr •}—i •v a 3 'n30 � c LP i`' Pr � (5 E • z .0 CD O i 0 ro , c • � O � +.' ■ ■ > V r• Li) s cn F- w ■ Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker # 16 : Good n -r- My name is nJ; c,e s and I live g � � � v�. at Co 44 Cpmmc y . c_4-1 rAnSiThaikt ' % I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR- 34. Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 32, 33 and 34 . [slide 33 ] As Mr. Pike has indicated , several members of CLR-34 have met with him on 2 occasions with the hope of finding out what Uses would be conducted on this property . In fact, nothing useful was accomplished at either meeting . Rather, when the local residents raised multiple concerns, Mr . Pike asserted that we were being " unreasonable" because we wish to protect our investment in our homes and continue to partake in our right to quiet enjoyment of our property . In addition , Mr. Pike expressed a complete unwillingness to eliminate even the most extreme uses that would be allowed , such as crude oil Transloading, even though he has repeatedly said they will not do this . [slide 34] Mr. Pike has also expressed concern about setting precedents which would allow neighbors to be protected from heavy industrial activities being thrust into their backyards . EXHIBIT Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 In reality, the precedent that should be avoided is the precedent of NOT fulfilling the County's responsibilities to protect the health safety and welfare of its current and future residents, which would potentially impact ANY home in the County with empty space nearby . Latin"; Lika, Ana cu) a, Ud Sae "A AL L .,rte Dr a Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker # 17 : Good morning . My name is L )fQr( LC and I live at u7 l C A- ,Pc . l`ingti am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR- 34 . : Today, I will be making a N. statement that addresses the content of slide 35 . --r „frt., e,„, ii-ein4o ,611-2 Lr [slide 35 ] I� t � I , ) wel-6, - At the Planning Commission hearing, Commissioner Wailes instructed the applicant to take seriously the willingness of CLR- 34 to propose a substantial mitigation plan . Despite this, Weld 34 has made no effort to discuss any potential solutions to the fundamental incompatibility between their plan and the surrounding land uses . However, here we repeat our proposal , in the event that the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS decides that this application should be approved despite the non -compliance with the code requirements . There are, of course, a number of appearance related issues, since one of the major impacts of 1 -2 zoning is visual impact . Thus, there should be height restrictions as well as screening . In addition , the 500 foot buffer/conservation easement would assist with noise management as well as other visual impacts and dust . EXHIBIT z. r -c Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 [slide 36] At the PC hearing, it was claimed that this large of a buffer on the east side would preclude the possibility of a rail loop large enough for a unit train . As shown here, this does not appear to be correct, and, in fact, such a buffered site would accommodate both such a rail loop and the necessary switching requirements . While we have not done a complete engineering study, it' s clear that this proposal deserves more consideration than the applicant has been willing to offer. (ai (,? Li re.ck_Q to ice -4s I h 0 _Los- 01 I S -6 0-fr ‘ u-A-4-;1 4-O , I 41` 7, (AO I 4-,0 roJi-;± O cr 4-42 Pact -r--17 1 roe-el --1--/r cl---s- 0 LLPs to -tot e ou -1-4u2 iii171‘ l Tier/ I-go 4; Id 4 1O 0 ) 41/4e c-1-- vi-t-t- man 4 tt_d u h chi soc , kO P r-e p CIO 61-7-trYttAs kreAL 14,02 � �! G L ,n om ,��'` re- �-` t`` 171,- 4 e 14 r Afrae f� o f u s AM defi40 - b . .4-v pra� ro.C/l . • c•-s ("4_ c e Cny. /vs-, [ L Iry AAA ec g C a Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker # 18 : Good morning . My name w 4 , , ,and I live at a' \ \erg , r,. a0 5 . 1 am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR- 34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 37 and 38 . [slide 37] Continuing the discussion of minimum necessary mitigations, we turn to compatibility issues, including noise, odor, traffic and dust . To deal with odor, we ask that the odor restriction be made tighter than the Colorado minimum requirement, as found in some other jurisdictions . In addition, we need to have operating standards that protect the neighbors from excessive noise, especially at night . To deal with traffic and dust, we ask that the defined haul routes be limited to northbound WCR 13 and that all loads be covered . [slide 38] Finally, based on the repeated claims that Mr. Pike has made that they do not intend to do oil Transloading anyway, we ask that this site be restricted so that neither oil Transloading nor EXHIBIT Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker # 19 : /.4!oo� Good . My name is (0)01 / �J 4f -e--c-- and I live at 2 »G ( /o, ir-;(, John571-oetkis a. I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR- 34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 39 and 40 . [slide 39] As we have demonstrated during the last few minutes, this application , COZ15 -0001, fails in numerous ways to meet the requirements for approval . This amendment to the zoning map would NOT promote the health, safety, convenience, morals, order nd welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the COUNTY. Therefore it is NOT COMPLIANT with the purpose and intent of Chapter 23, and should be denied . [slide 40 ] This application does not conform to multiple sections of Chapter 22 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan a The Guiding Principles of the Comprehensive Plan are not met . g There is no evidence that changing land use patterns would justify this amendment . j7 Surrounding municipalities do not envision a need for 1 -2 h&cAlb* c L* -oaf for . zonin , nd been s nearly 40 years ! EXHIBIT 46_ Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ1S-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker #20 : Good morning . My name is , ) / ;\ and 1 live at ccijás I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR-34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slides 42 and 43 . [slide 42] Continuing the consideration of why this application should be denied, we turn to the other parts of Chapter 23 : Section 23-2-30 . B . 2 is not satisfied because the Allowed Uses would NOT be compatible with current and future uses in the neighborhood • Surrounding municipalities say it' s not compatible, • Organized opposition has expressed strong concerns about incompatibility and documented the reasons, and • Sound Land Use Planning practice confirms that this re-zoning would not be compatible . [ slide 43] Sections 23-2 -30 . B . 3 and B . 4 are not satisfied because • Applicant has not demonstrated that adequate water and sewer service will be available, nor that their EXHIBIT Iit -14 ___0:21 -0x30 Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 water use would not have a negative impact on the neighbors, and ■ The applicant has not demonstrated that the road infrastructure will be adequate for their indeterminate use and has not agreed to fund the necessary improvements . iikz ge414lirg Q.clwean-iivg c__Sakftsket_co„ c-te9, ftika r\ic 1-kis iDert(14 . (tat, lauvi `l ai2f omos ttat \IL ktit\A- V\-4 US-ft) ttSe5 afikurh(ni Gait r ‘01\ 102- \kkt GIcW IC \1"C1. c_s Ms rncx4- Cfrus ` -Qa too - °Iraq- Weld County BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Hearing COZ15-0001 18 November 2015 Speaker #21 : � 4 Good morning. My name is tY V \ \`.i\ , NC) and I live at .)C (cLi,t \\cv ``vi>>v_ , \ wA,\K1J ‘t,c) kLL I am represented by the organized opposition group, CLR- 34 . Today, I will be making a statement that addresses the content of slide 44. [slide 44] In summary, this application must be denied, as it does not meet the criteria for a modification of the zoning map . In addition, it consists of a spot rezoning, as indicated by two of the Planning Commissioners at that hearing. If this is an evidence- based decision, as opposed to a political decision, the conclusion is clear: The application must be denied . This would enable the County to exert more control and implement more design and operation standards if a future USR application was submitted, which would be more effective at protecting the health, safety and welfare of current and future residents of Weld County . EXHIBIT I ATI, C> 2 - 0Uc) Gpiatic.ettit 770.40.a. EXHIBIT if / -oao e COZ15 - 0 0 0 1 November 18 , 2015 Tim P ike Weld County Population Projections Increase of 290,000 people by 20402 .0400,102 api 277,6901 I + I ' 2014 20)5 10.10 'Smarr•*Kb lam(rntiuslard nit)/swlr.ttU8Am!3 sous 'Ncn therm Cnlgrado' boom buntunkrnwa1.ungxia ,Cohxadnali08/111101`. "As a Weld County commissioner, I know firsthand that for communities across the country like ours, a strong rail network means more economic development, more jobs, less congestion and pollution and a stronger American economy." • Sean Conway, Weld County Commissioner at-large, Upstate Development board of directors and Chairman of the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization. • Guest Columnist Greeley Tribune September 5, 2015 Weld County, CO Charter and CountyCode Sec . 22 - 6 - 10 . - Economic development . • Sec. 22-6-20. - Economic development Goals and Policies . • ECON .Goal 5 . Recognize and promote specific places and resources in the County that can uniquely support economic development . • ECON . Policy 5 . 1 . The County should encourage an adequate supply of both services and land suitable for industrial development and redevelopment . • Recommended Strategy ECON . 5 . 1 .a. Develop a program to create "shovel-ready" industrial sites throughout the County, where primary job providers would be able to develop or re-develop . Zoning, infrastructure and services would ideally be immediately available for use in such areas. • ECON . Policy 5 . 3 . Recognize and support existing railroad infrastructure . •,Ma. f�? • - -'- J l 4 IEDI i Ili? 4 'I li s`�L a - re JY<3titrin' F' •. J //� - - 11'liln OW 1 '• � . . • Weld 34 ( 136 55 ars. re; - -1 " f tc �F" .-� ill 7 ` atl na Oi �weiI iIdlit • ;:r 1 • ` 1/0rco. Jr Q l dr ' 11' I •• lifrlhlh. I --".. •%Is' : :� ♦ ;` /✓ ',ill ion nc fir. lirec! 'r • 4 , . .. Inbound/Outbound Service •,, • ': e Inbound/Outbound + from Union Pacific ( UP ) 'es 1) Service from Burfingt'o•n','', . Northern ( BN ) \ t2 \ ... C ,OO��IC e I _ te -- 1 St 14 ,rt ' Ill + i -- .. •t'"j ' , ' pra '�0 ......• . to1 _ trt. ,, /4\ i +Itit«rrttilJ(Jutlt tunci r t, Scrvirc From UP t •-a'?� + { ► WC 1-eZ—13 �, ` +11�r I _ 1 sa 1 \Ne s t e:i n i-2 f- -i, A� ' -•�lj� t~1w 4.c-r-- • ... :o?' k: Y ► -,.^'� h/ s ti ti — Artt‘r weld 34 ( 1 36 59 ac ) m.'kii1/4...., . _ :`� '44_ __ �l � ` ti DU- !•`• I .); • • LM(1(• . I . Meetings with CLR - 34 • 1St Meeting June 16th - 2 hours in duration • Discussions included : • Uneasy and unsure that no use was identified or planned . • Felt that Weld 34, LLC had an end use that was not being shared with neighbors. • Neighbors suggested that a transition between industrial and residential be provided . • Commercial? • Weld 34, LLC does not know who or what will be on property nor their needs/requirements. • Neighbors suggested that a 1,000 foot setback be made into conservation easement • Would result in cutting Weld 34 property in half. • Not practical for development of rail or warehousing • 2nd Meeting October 8th — 2 hours in duration • Meeting was cordial and used to explain : • Rail movements • What has happened in the time we were granted for continuance. • Preferred mitigation options • Varied between homeowners Compatibility I "mai ZONING MAP Maleo Vu cow.*Nam unlit ohm) _� Legend • MAJOR AR1 ERIAL 'Donb s '1 HIGHWAY ( • •1 - MilneCO. ;+rr. l- I�I . I r. RAILROAD ICED BOUNDARY Of •MID CtX16-O00T w lag t,u-moutei • Land Use _ EXISTING x7 • • COMMERCIAL • 1'ROI•OSLD I•LT EXISTING Cur IAATalr,U INDUSTRIAL Walt)COUNIV .41/41% W MAI1f1 I I 'Act WV r"1 PHOI't=>ST U Min O COLOtt•I u COMMERCIAL. • QPROPOSED INDUSTRIAL In401001KO OWWIO I'ACMty MKI o COIM/1y1 u + KOCEINO•AAHC•• • WrYIOWG WAAL c1 • • 'Et.rtY AM. 7,1AN`Il CIMINO .4 rAC1l IIY MAUI CO ~ l�r Greeley/Windsor Employment Corridor la or lb Pi 8E1.00 a aim sieve MolenoCtortt S Recorder Exhibit "C" US HWY 34 LAND I.JSR, SITE AN7n 13UILDINQ STANDARDS The following lend use reed development etandwrds are blended elements of the City ofOleetey and Town of Windsor llavolnpinent Credos and provide Overlay Development Standards for a pot lion or that nrear know.. as the "Strategic Employment fovelopntant Corridor (9l3l0C)"am dencrihed in the City of Orceley 2020 Comprehensive Plws wort of State Hwy 257 (EH 247) as illt.strstcd on the nttnched tixldbit A and heroine Ear reterrad to as ••Clraoley/Windsor IScapiuyntorn Corridor (s'i/W riC:)... 2. Allowed Land Uses, ' hospital As described in the Coraprchennive Planning documents for Oroeley and • kennels and animal care facilities Windsor the US Hwy 34 travel c o ridor in the preferred location for a mix of • mail cent regional employment and community separator types of land uses. The anufncturing(fully enclosed, light manufacturing activities principal land uses allowed in this corridor shall reintc to principal employment Stsnctions, much nn profcs nee. • me 1 Insurance, Real Batate' i t induntrinl and select medium industrial aid • office special regional destination tab In thin area • open space unless /Lilly screened /Yom all rights-of-way and adjacent non industrially * publishing firms zoned lands. and where incidental clearly aubonllnatc to the principal land use. the fotlowina land owe are considered orincionl uses in this corridor, further ' quasi-public facilities (museum, fire & police, zoo, aquarium) sut,jeet to the :Janina district ptandnrcls and review processes In the govcrni. . radio station jurisdiction. • research/development lab adult schools. e.g. college or university facility, trade or business achuu) • sports arena • amusement park * stable •�r-nw�- 01%011um '`�ssombly.. • studios • beverage processing. * television station • L.;f.. • e • testing lab 'r fabrications • theme park • transportation facilities(light rail stations and public Transportation depots are permitted. Truck terminals and truck stops are prohibited) • lines • warehouse Noise Limits DECIBEL SCALE (dBA) S .TA.seKe.Id eel..au. Sec. 14-9-40. - Maximum permissible noise levels. % 44 0 o tr6 A. Sound levels shall be measured as provided for in Section 14-9-50 below. B. Sound levels are hereby established for each type of property during specific hours of the day. Any sound level which exceeds the level set for a type of property at any time of day is prohibited. Land Use Maximum Noise (dB(A)) Maximum Noise (dB(A)) 1 7:00 a.m. -- 9:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Residential Property or Commercial Area 55ZtB(A) 50 dB(A) Industrial Area or Constructlon3Artivltiec 80 dB(A) 75 de(A) Nonspecified Areas1-----_ III J 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) __0 n. C. Between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. the [noise levels set forth above may he exceeded by up to ten (10) decibels for up to fifteen (15) minutes in a one-hour • eriod. rural-- . - 3.l I 1 i if., nrsper ru -'- �( sating • Threshold of hearing Weld , LLC COZ15 - 0001 November 18 , 2015 TroyMcWhinney , , ;. .'' . ' .�. _ • Windsor Lake t . /"", . eir . . .2-_.4).,..i Y c.. • it: ' . N. °n' .. . ./ �° + 1 . . ` �-.:. • i 1 Su .�, r• ", :,�_ .. __ , ., 4, c , ii . _ _ c - f . . i _. a. .3 .... v.9 . .. . _ lig Feet � - _- , _ : . .... , . _ . , .. _,__,,m, wt . _, . . ..k . , . .., ,. . , ,, - . • •,. is... . . . ,._ ... •-, • • • , •••••--,, , _ '764 a. 4 • Lin :.,1 PL. trt in e , _ • ti .1 is i Li- r ; • 4 :t . - • - `' o` I vu II. of it- • Fortr �� ,, �`; - Collins id t�i►f►ri ui. _ II I ' . a A t.i , f• . .. L.,. , ,, , I •• •kiri " 4 Ali muss, LE W-171 *. i t �` r ‘• fig'Mgriga L, 1P\ %- ' - ", eel' " t-141114 52 Feet '� .11 f • ;.� - i • r Ai • 1 ii • a ••. 4shl If 1 1 ilw .� , t� L 4 t • t I. '- 1: 1 li 4 , . , ill) il- IIII;i -' • [ --:re. - - . 'ilk.: ‘k ‹? ' , 7 / ,..„..„. • Iv . i et. - - - • - cliwitsc -- , -, -7LN, . \ in--- in , meirtie • .• :, . r. Ali ' 4-&-..;k. -..-. r. .. . ._ .. 1 fix „bit -vis.&,..z..itt, - . i . , • .) , .... . :21 . 14.-... °I t. ! Wk.pir I . At v9. • a.- ' - Ti5: .: _ .r Thompson Crossing (Johnstown ) ; �` � sold for $425,000 in 2015 'iI . n • . • •, I -"Is 4 illi f • . t. . I. cit -J '-- .- .- .s - � ._._ :�. . 55 Feet a, • f ,..�, tr— a'�",•.I C - i-rte.`7 fr ,... _ - - tii .r tit• 41-"'aia W r - l , ,i , IA c ft-&fled ;$ : j ,,1 V I. �%� t �; i `` , 'tom • r.k vall• '.. ' • 1 - t r {� • , A> • pi 'rest ''' . ,.. 0.... s_ „ Lowed a+nod-�\ " r i �= Walrlar# 1 \ ♦ . ' sir • :,,c.. 4 _,,,,,, .. ..., _ ..,,, . _._ , ._ ).... ..,. .. rcp ,e _ L. mo - . . .: 11/41 _ IIP a a 1 fen 1 JMNIIIMkp tfr. - ; .. 4,3 ...:•: _ s< • 74t4 l �T�f11 1 i our C.7 ? . -1 f • f i� '1 4} % 1- 1 • •f• i 'I I • r e ir. 1 eV 70 r CI ! II — . _ . iimaleareasamessA � „• AI as L• 4 70 Feet - .; 4 l • . I .1 1 , .�!' • 1 �. • Lk. e• • __ . !. gl, ••• 111 f ^r ss . • � • � '��\ f... . +'rb l.• '. I 1 NIP :i'aZiA l' 11! 1111 � I. t1 r �,j • • 1 -J •.lt - - , _, � - I ...,1 " J ( ,1 . ' �� - _ _ _ 1 f / 1 14w 1 T \ i• i .4 .0, -. ?rot \ . }Is -� :xIc Y 1 t •r P i l'+1` '+ 11 r' * i ', '", :, I - 'h. :. P. . d .. .. . a" ' , I Y•; • kits i !t *:}a ;:"t.% r '� - % �50 Feet, `� • irgy 1 II \-r-.176 • . .... I; •L. • - i,.. # I f 7/\...H%\.ell r e. 4 iT ; Jt / Is \ — r • •t• �` ; -• $ 1 i I. V 1. - • ! �. ,, 4 i Grp �� ' f -- - - . ! c`lair `IJJ�i�t • r `f tea._, ' Water Valley ' t" sold for $ 1 , 200,000 in 20,13 �.` h f r 4. . . ? Ke 4 �I r, - :;. I ` � � 110 . . r !'t✓ 'd ‘.• . ice-_- _a , , .� ( I, 1 a __.a 1 1.-*- 4 :. i . H ii - .. , - _ . .. , • . adt. ‘ •1\iit)- - 7.\ .. k , ). 9 r t A -/-_ - '69 Feet 41 , ... 7415 i iit 1 Setback Summary • Windsor 39 ' • Fort Collins 52 ' • Johnstown 55 ' • Loveland 70 ' • Windsor 50 ' • Water Valley 69 ' Weld County Code Not Regulated Weld 34 Proposal 150 ' Self- imposed Restrictions from East Property Line ( Indian Head Estates) Weld 34 Plan • Rail Road Setback 150' A, County Code does not regulate setback • No Build Open Space Buffer 100' A, County Code does not require setback for storage or equipment • No Buildings 150' A, 1500% County Code 10' minimum setback Design Ideas Higi1wcay 4 e • O • • J� �l -\ I r. _ 7 . i MI 1. a : • %II t 1% r drilleatatt:14.) Lot 1 Lot 2 , I Lot 3 h / �§t.•U Yard Yard O N ' tAs Yard I1 f +'� : I -v �' of p. t .,i UU' Buffet r , • tb r•-. ,r . s .i�.w►..� �� - r' I50' to RR Tracks IL. ) 0-4 c- ---_,. .77 blot - r Yard • % 1 Lot a Lot 5 Lot.6• L! cZ YaFd d Sillal rej If. -16 $. bi,_ flaVi ,i Concept 1 ,, �� ....-/hi o so no boa' 42,0 _ _ • ,. -, ii, i•rlmi I___ NC)R III - -- Highwpy_34 - `'' f • • j} 1~ 1 IIII PrX •u= I • • , � . 1° • • fir. - ib j v _ ! Jr ter v` 100` Buller • • - ' O 4 Iirto' 5otcmns t r • Yard la ' •- tor 0. r III . Orel » ) 1� "" IP, - 1%.„ . . 4-- • ' • I 6 1 \ 1-S 0 c444.! �' lLa .. ,� I e j1 4• Concept 2 1Y ir a in r a •; �J �4Pa*t o 15D soo• oco .--Y V NOR Tlr ) ‘ i _ _ - - - -LHigr;wa , a4 --a 4_- b i SJr le: a ` r / _ 5. tt f it-1 t �4 t H F ' 4 4 t • ZL ' f6 tt ,,,,,-Lb pp ` f 1 jtij ' ., . Ycid - f . ) 1 I e � 100' Buffer I . /p • f 60.1 . ( ` S - 150' tc RR Tracks • II r 1 rilbil • Yom lb Al • IP I ii . Yore! 'o* i ' 1:4‘.- a ..1,. 1 . 1 • ` ("I • �• � � f • - - Pe • _� 'i Concept 3 i rile. • A \ 0 150' 300' 6C0' 0 4f , NORTH Nest Ecst Property Line Property Lino 80' 50' max +i 2.�C10' i, no ' TO Tcacicc so•tat '/N\ syKrra. M MIS' . tQl. dl /._i / elrati r(r /flyd3ilir!llrt� �� I Rt�Wra�r t r t.4*4* Pasta sn/� Sections Prospect ._ ., _ _ . . . ,. , On -going direct discussions over past 12 months . :. ♦ • : . ; : 1 . - . 1 . Fortune 100 Company 2 . Over $ 50 Billion in annual sales 3 . Over 20,000 employees worldwide 4 . Agricultural Industry ( Not the energy industry) Keywords : Corn, Cotton, Sunflower Seeds, Wheat, Rice, Barley, Liquid Feed 5 . 3- 20 acres 6 . Waiting to hear the status of our approval 4r ' " , Looking for location in Colorado, Wyoming or Nebraska t .4 ift . d ? iI ' Weld 34 , LLC Questions ? \\- _‘ UPSTATECOLORADO ECONOMTC DEVELOPMENT 970 356 4565 phone 970.352 2436 fax 800 320 8578 toll free 822 Seventh Street. Suite 550 Weld County Commissioners Greeley, tatC 80631 �Jvw��v.upstatecalorado.org do Diana Aungst (USR15-0027) Weld County Planning 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear County Commissioners, On behalf of the Upstate Colorado Economic Development Corporation we are writing to express our support for the creation of primary jobs and the support of the necessary operations that will help build out our infrastructure in northern Colorado. We encourage an effective solution to developing a strong transportation network, affordable housing, a robust business environment and stronger communities. We hope that as you work with existing Weld County businesses you will support their efforts to grow and expand as appropriate. Enviro Tech Services has been a primary sector employer with production plants located in and around Weld County for years. U state Colorado supports the need for these types of properties in Weld County. Reg T are oard airman Upstate Colorado Economic, evelopment Corporation EXHIBIT I co-a. 5 -bob Supporting Job Opportunities in Greeley and Weld County Communities Hello