The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20152495.tiff SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE DATE RECEIVED: 4/28/15 RECEIPT#/AMOUNT# /$2,500.00 CASE#ASSIGNED: USR15-0027 APPLICATION RECEIVED BY D. Auncist PLANNER ASSIGNED: D. Auncist Parcel Number 0 9 5 7 1 8 3 0 0 0 4 4 and 0957-18-0-00-009 (12 digit number-found on Tax I.D.Information,obtainable at the Weld County Assessor's Office,or www.co.weld.co.us) Legal Description part of the south half of , Section 18 , Township 5N North, Range 67 West Zone District:Agricultrual , Total Acreage: 131.42 , Flood Plain:No , Geological Hazard: No Airport Overlay District: No FEE OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERTY: Name:Gerrard Investments LLC(Tom Donkle, contact) Work Phone# 970-669-1463 Home Phone# Email tdonkle@gerrardinc.com Address:27486 County Road 13 Address: City/State/Zip Code Loveland, CO 80534 Name:Weld LV LLC(Jack Holler, contact) Work Phone# 702-4331551 Home Phone# Email HollerCRE@hotmail.com Address:3821 Derby Trail Address: City/State/Zip Code Round Rock,TX 78681 Name: Work Phone# Home Phone# Email Address: Address: City/State/Zip Code APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT(See Below:Authorization must accompany applications signed by Authorized Agent) Name:Martin Mariettan (David Hagerman, contact) Work Phone# 720-245-6405 Home Phone# Email david.hagerman@martinmarietta.com Address: 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201 Address: City/State/Zip Code Westminster, CO 80021 PROPOSED USE: An aggregate transloading facility with concrete batch plant and an asphalt plant operations as well. H,ll!(:10;VFIO :RUCEX\UAWP FR5LEXHWRSHUDAIIDMWIRJXSWED-I.\FEUD\NJ18S(9tyDCRIIJ4 1/O-V 8651 I (We) hereby depose and state under penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals, and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my(our)knowledge. Signatures of all fee owners of property must sign this application. If an Authorized Agent signs, a letter of authorization from all fee owners must be included with the application. If a corporation is the fee owner, notarized evidence must be included indicating that the signatory has to legal authority to sign for the corporation. 410,A L9 •io,r Signature: Ow a or Authorized Agent Date Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Date QUESTIONNAIRE Highway 34 Development 1. Explain, in detail, the proposed use of the property. Martin Marietta is an American-based leading supplier of aggregates and heavy building materials with operations throughout North America. The company supplies materials needed to build schools, homes, and roads by providing the materials that build our communities. Primary materials provided are mined naturally occurring aggregates (crushed stone, sand, and gravel),which are used as the primary constituents for asphalt and ready-mix concrete. Aggregate resources available to be mined in both Larimer and Weld Counties are depleting; therefore, it is becoming increasingly necessary to transport these materials into northern Colorado from other locations to meet the demands of our growing communities and sustain economic growth. New production facilities are also needed in northern Colorado to meet the need for road repairs, new road construction, and general construction occurring in our communities as the economy improves. Key customers that Martin Marietta serves in Weld and Larimer Counties include county and city governments, the Colorado Department of Transportation, general contractors, homebuilders, and oil and gas companies. Martin Marietta has been evaluating potential aggregate rail yards and asphalt/ready-mix production-sites along railroads in Weld County that meet specific transportation and production criteria. The most favorable site that they found along the Union Pacific Railroad corridor is 133 acres of land currently owned by Gerrard Investments, LLC ("Gerrard") and Weld LV II, LLC ("Weld LV") that is located in a portion of the south half of Section 18, Township 5 North, Range 67 West. There are two parcels that will be leased, Parcel 095 71 83 00044, located at 27486 WCR 13, and Parcel 095718000009, located at 6433 WCR 56. The parcel at 27486 WCR 13 is currently owned and occupied by Gerrard and the parcel at 6433 WCR 56 is currently owned by Weld LV. Gerrard has a contingent contract to purchase 6433 WCR 56; the contract is contingent on approval of this USR application. Upon approval of the USR application, Gerrard would then lease all of the land to Martin Marietta so that the Highway 34 Development facility could be constructed. The parcel at 6433 WCR 56 is primarily agricultural farmland. There is a single family residence, a barn, and some miscellaneous outbuildings on the south side. The home and other buildings are all leased for use as a residential property(the current lease expires in January 2016). When the Highway 34 Development facility is constructed, this home will remain on the site, but some of the outbuildings north of the house will need to be removed to accommodate the grading for the railroad and proposed berm. Martin Marietta is seeking to permit the proposed Highway 34 Development facility to operate as an aggregate rail unloading facility. A rail loop will be constructed off the Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 1 of 22 existing Union Pacific Railroad line to allow for the unloading of aggregates. It is anticipated aggregates will arrive by train one to three times per week and will be unloaded and prepared for sale to local customers or utilized by the ready-mix concrete plant and asphalt plant that are also proposed to be on this site. Following is a more detailed list of the uses proposed for the site. Approximately 7,200' of rail loop spurring off of the Union Pacific Railroad line allowing for unloading of various products consistent with and supporting the various on-site uses. Products that could be unloaded include aggregates and asphalt cement. One to three times per week (depending on market demand for product), a train with up to four locomotives and up to 117 cars will pull onto rail spur planned on the site and remain parked on the spur until such time that all of the rail cars are unloaded. A recessed hopper under the train will be constructed on the south end of the rail loop. This will allow the train cars to bottom dump aggregates into the hopper and then onto a conveyor where they can then be conveyed into stockpiles on the site for utilization in the facility or sale to the local external market. It is possible that top unloading could occur if, for some reason, the bottom unloading system could not be used. To top unload a railcar, an excavator would move along the top of the railcars to remove aggregates and place them in a dump truck that would then drive along a road that parallels the rail. If the need for top unloading were to occur, Martin Marietta would notify the County Planning Director to explain the situation and let him/her know how long the activity would be occurring. If asphalt cement is brought in on the train, it will be unloaded from the train via pipeline to the asphalt cement tank. - Aggregate trucks will be used to bring specific aggregate products to the site to meet regulatory specifications for the concrete and asphalt design mixes. These same trucks may be used to re-load with on-site aggregate and deliver to local customers. — A portable wash plant is proposed at the facility to allow for washing, screening, sorting, stockpiling, unloading, and loading of sand, gravel, rock, crushed stone, recycled materials, overburden, clay, and topsoil type products. The wash plant discharge will enter a 12-foot diameter/60-foot tall thickener tank. The clean water from the thickener tank will be diverted into a 30-foot diameter/20-foot tall water tank, which will recycle back to the wash plant. The sand from the thickener tank will be discharged into a multi-bin wash out bay. These sands will be properly disposed off-site by either selling the product externally, transporting the material to another Martin Marietta site for use, or disposed of in a landfill. This will be determined based on demand. These finished products will be utilized onsite or loaded onto trucks and delivered to the local market for use. The wash plant equipment is portable so it may be moved around the property from time to time. - A recycled materials processing plant will operate to crush and sort various recyclable materials including, but not limited to, concrete and asphalt. The recyclable type materials would either be byproducts of existing processes or they would be brought onsite from various local construction projects. The recycling plant is portable so it may be moved around the property from time to time. Martin Marietta will ensure that any non-asphalt, non-concrete and non-rebar materials that are brought onto the site with recycled materials will be removed from the site within 30 days and the Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 2 of 22 amount of this type of material will not exceed 10% of the total materials on-site by weight or volume. Any material that needs to be removed from the site will either be hauled off to a landfill or recycled accordingly. The asphalt plant will utilize the natural products (sand, gravel, and rock) in conjunction with recycled asphalt and various additives to produce bituminous asphalt for utilization on various road and construction projects. The asphalt plant will be powered by natural gas. As part of the asphalt plant portion of the facility, asphalt cement (AC)will be transported to the site and stored in tanks to be utilized in the process of making asphalt. The asphalt produced will be trucked offsite for use by the local market. Asphalt paving equipment, parking, and supporting facilities for the paving crews will be located near the asphalt plant to allow for greater efficiency of the operation. The asphalt plant equipment will be set on foundations. - A ready mix concrete plant will also operate at the facility. It will utilize sand, gravel, rock, cement, and various additives required for the production of concrete that will be trucked off-site for use on various construction projects. The ready mix concrete plant will be set on a foundation. - Aggregate as well as recycled asphalt and concrete will be stored on the site in separate piles. It is estimated that up to 680,000 cubic yards of material could potentially be stored on-site at any one time. Temporary Continuation of Uses Permitted under USR-1584 The parcel owned by Gerrard Investments, LLC located at 27466 WCR 13 is currently encumbered by USR-1584. Upon approval of Martin Marietta's proposed USR, USR-1584 will need to be vacated and Gerrard will make plans to vacate the premises within one year. Due to the fact that USR-1584 will be vacated and Gerrard will need to be able to continue to operate at the facility for up to one year after USR15-0027 is approved, the uses currently permitted under USR-1584 will need to be allowed under the new USR for that year. All existing structures on the Gerrard facility are shown on our USR plat map and those structures will remain on the site once Gerrard vacates and only Martin Marietta is on the premises. For up to one year after the approval of USR15-0027 Gerrard will operate their construction business out of the two existing modular office buildings and the existing shop. Other structures that they will continue to use will include the existing fueling station and covered parking area. Their access to the facility will continue to be in its current location onto County Road 13. During this time period Martin Marietta will be constructing their facility and the construction activity will be east of where Gerrard needs to operate. Power Poudre Valley REA (PVREA) provides power to this site and they will continue to provide electric service to Martin Marietta's facility. PVREA will require additional power. It will be brought to the site from one of their existing substations within 5 miles of this site. Power will be delivered to the site at 14.4 kV and Martin Marietta will transform it down at a 7.5 MVA substation proposed at the facility for internal distribution. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 3 of 22 Fencing There is an existing fence and gate on the Gerrard portion of the property that will continue to be used. It will need to be slightly modified due to the new improvements that are proposed by Martin Marietta. Proposed modifications to the fence are graphically conveyed on the USR plat map. Areas on the east side of the property will be enclosed with a barbed wire fence. A fence detail for the barbed wire fence is shown on the USR plat map. Screening to Mitigate Visual and Sound Impacts The railroad and activities within the site will be screened by grassy earthen berms to mitigate visual and sound impacts on surrounding parcels (see USR Map for exact locations). There is a berm that wraps around the outside edge of the railroad spur on the northeast, east and southeast sides of the parcel. This berm is designed to be 10' taller than the rail bed for the rail spur. When looking at this berm from outside of the property it will range from 11 to 24 feet above grade. It is about 11 feet tall on the north end of the site and transitions to be about 24 feet tall on the south end of the site. The reason for the range in berm height is related to the fact that the rail spur is designed to remain relatively flat around the property and since the natural grade is higher on the north than on the south, the rail bed is more elevated on the south than it is on the north. In addition, two more berms are proposed to be constructed on the interior of the rail spur loop to further shield activities and noise from surrounding properties. These two berms are both approximately 12 feet above grade. Accesses There will be one main access into the facility off of WCR 13. The access will be the same access currently used by Gerrard for their existing business. The majority of the activity at the facility will occur within the rail loop planned on the site. A train will be parked on the rail spur intermittently; therefore, a bridge will be installed over the train to allow access into the interior portion of the rail loop. At the request of the Front Range Fire Authority, a 20' wide secondary emergency access only connection to Weld County Road 13 is also planned on the property just north of where the Union Pacific Railroad tracks cross Weld County Road 13. This access will be closed off with a gate and can only be used in an emergency situation when the primary access into the site cannot be used. In addition, a 20' wide at- grade crossing of the railroad loop within the site is proposed on the north end of the site. This at-grade crossing is proposed to allow for emergency vehicles to enter the site when the bridge access is not accessible. Assuming a train is parked on the rail loop, Martin Marietta employees will be trained to operate the locomotive, move the train, and be able to break the train at this at-grade crossing, if necessary, to get access to the interior of the rail loop. Parking All existing parking on the site currently used by Gerrard will continue to be available for Gerrard to use while they operate for up to one year following approval of USR15-0027. Martin Marietta's proposed facility will provide ample parking for employees and visitors. The table on the following page outlines how the number of parking spaces required for the site was calculated along with information about the actual number parking spaces proposed on the USR plat. Parking for structures proposed to be occupied was calculated per the land Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 4 of 22 use code. However, since some employees at the site will be truck drivers and field workers who will not work out of a building, we also calculated the amount of parking required and provided based on the number of each of these types of employees. The table below explains the parking calculation in more detail. Parking is distributed throughout the site, as shown on the USR plat map. I Parking based on building size Building Building Number of Parking Required Parking Size (sl) Employees Based on Code Provided Modular office 1,200 5 5 5 (existing) Modular office 900 5 4 4 (existing) Modular 1,200 5 5 5 dispatch (proposed) Office 14,400 10 34 34 (proposed) Shop (existing) 14,500 7 15 15 Shop (proposed) 14,500 7 15 15 QC lab 4,000 6 4 4 (proposed) Scalehouse 4,800 5 12 12 office Ready Mix Plant 100 1 .5 .5 Control Room Asphalt Plant 100 1 .5 .5 Control Room Asphalt Trailer 1,800 5 6 6 SUBTOTAL 57 101 101 Parking for Truck Drivers and Field Workers Employee type Number of Parking Employees Provided Truck drivers 45 45 Off-site field 25 25 workers On-site field 14 14 workers SUBTOTAL 84 84 TOTAL 141 185' PARKING SPACES Out of the 185 parking spaces that are provided,we have provided six (6) ADA accessible parking spaces and one(I)of the six (6)is van accessible. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 5 of 22 Traffic Generation Gerrard's existing facility will continue to generate some traffic during the period that they continue to operate on the premises. Their traffic generation is estimated to be as follows: The following make one trip in/out in the morning and one in/out in the evening: Employee vehicles (approx. 30) Straight Trucks up to 54,000 GVW (10) Semi w/ Trailer up to 80,000 GVW (10) The following are in and out randomly throughout a business day: Heavy equipment transport(2) Supervisor pickups Deliveries—UPS, truck/equipment parts, fuel/oil, office supplies Customers Beginning in 2017, when Gerrard is no longer operating from this site, it is anticipated that Martin Marietta's facility will generate approximately 1,120 daily site trips. This number will grow over time to an estimated 2,260 site trips per day by the year 2035. It should be noted that these estimates are indicative of the peak summer season and have not been adjusted to reflect off-peak season conditions. During the off-peak season, significantly fewer trips are expected. The lower count, off-peak traffic will occur four to six months out of the 12 month calendar. A detailed traffic report is included in the application package. Lighting Plan In accordance with the Weld County Code, all sources of light will be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties where such would cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties. Neither the direct,nor reflected light from any light source will create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets. No colored lights will be used which may be confused with, or construed as traffic control devices. The facility will utilize two separate lighting systems: operational lighting and security lighting as described below. Security lighting will used after sundown. o Metal halide wall pack lighting will be used around all buildings and critical areas (entrances/exits, fuel storage etc.). o LED pole mounted lights, up to 25-feet tall will be used in equipment parking areas. o Security lighting will be controlled by a combination of motion sensors and photo cells in order to remain in compliance with IECC standards. E Operational lighting will be used when operating after sundown. o LED pole mounted fixtures, up to 35-feet tall will be used in the work areas. o Operational lighting will be controlled on its own control circuit so that it is turned on only when operating after sundown. Trash Enclosures Solid surface fencing material will be used to construct trash enclosures to screen all trash and recycling bins. A detail of the trash enclosure is included on the USR plat map. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 6 of 22 2. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 22 of the Comprehensive Plan. Gerrard's existing construction business was deemed consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code sections 22-2-60(A. Goal 4) and 22-2-170.C (C. Goal 3) upon approval of USR-1584. The Highway 34 Development will be consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code and Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: Section 22-2-10. Agriculture Sec. 22-2-10. B. The intent of the agricultural Goals is to support all forms of the agricultural industry and, at the same time, to protect the rights of the private property owners to convert their agricultural lands to other appropriate land uses. The proposed plant would allow the land owners to convert their agricultural lands to an appropriate land use (natural resource materials processing) that supports the economic goals of Weld County and the communities along the Highway 34 Corridor. The western portion of the site(the portion currently owned by Gerrard) is already being used for commercial and manufacturing uses, as approved in USR 1584. Due to the site's location along the Union Pacific Railroad,proximity to WCR 13 (a major north-south road through Weld County), and Highway 34 where CDOT is already proposing a signalized intersection, the site is conducive to development into business activities that require rail and highway access. The site especially makes sense for Martin Marietta's business of providing construction materials due to the amount of economic development and activity occurring in this portion of northern Colorado. Sec. 22-2-20. Agriculture goals and policies 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. 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. a. Recommended Strategy A.2.2.a. Establish land use regulations which minimize burdensome restrictions placed on the land use changes. b. Recommended Strategy A.2.2.b. Facilitate a timely determination in the approval process for agriculturally related enterprises. AND Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 7 of 22 G. A.Goal 7. County land use regulations should protect the individual property owner's right to request a land use change. 1. A.Policy 7.1. County land use regulations should support commercial and industrial uses that are directly related to, or dependent upon, agriculture, to locate within the agricultural areas, when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal, or can be mitigated, and where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable. Martin Marietta's business of supplying aggregate product, concrete, and asphalt directly benefits the agricultural industry as many agricultural businesses depend on these products to operate their businesses. Along WCR 13 where there is easy access to Highway 34 is a prime location for the facility to allow easy access to the materials that agricultural and many other businesses need for daily operations and business expansion. The easier it is to get access to these materials, the lower the costs, which in turn improves the financial bottom line for agricultural businesses. Therefore, Martin Marietta's proposed facility will support Weld County's and northern Colorado's agricultural industry and other businesses. In addition, the land being removed from agriculture has been kept in pasture grass and is not a significant generator of food product for people or animals. Therefore, the agricultural land being removed from production would not be considered prime agricultural production land. The property is in an area that is planned for future development and the property owner is pursuing the option of developing their property in order to achieve the highest and best use of their property considering its location in relation to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, WCR 13, and Highway 34. Potential impacts on the surrounding properties are being mitigated by Martin Marietta. Traffic is being routed onto WCR 13 and the vast majority of it will head north to Highway 34. Based on the sound analysis study prepared for the project, County and State noise regulations could be met by this project without any noise mitigation. However, in the interests of being a good neighbor and improving land use compatibility, noise mitigation techniques are being implemented at the site including the use of berms, white noise back-up alarms, a below-grade hopper, and acoustical enclosures. A dust mitigation plan will be in place for the site and APEN permits will be obtained to protect air quality. The asphalt plant will use vertical tanks and condensers to control odor; Martin Marietta has certified nasal rangers and has purchased equipment that they use to guarantee compliance with the County and State odor regulation. The berms proposed for mitigating noise will also serve to help screen views to the facility. 2. A.Policy 7.2. Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential, commercial and industrial uses should be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such development, and should attempt to be compatible with the region. AND 3. A.Policy 7.3. Conversion of agricultural land to urban residential, commercial and industrial uses should be considered when the subject site is located inside an Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 8 of 22 Intergovernmental Agreement area, Urban Growth Boundary area, Regional Urbanization Area or Urban Development Nodes, or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable. A municipality's adopted comprehensive plan should be considered, but should not determine the appropriateness of such conversion. The proposed project site was carefully selected by Martin Marietta for the proposed facility because it meets many of the site selection criteria identified by Martin Marietta that are necessary to support the facility. Specifically, the property is in an area where there is access to railroad. Union Pacific Railroad and Great Western Railroad both have rail lines in the area. The property proposed for development by Martin Marietta has frontage along the Union Pacific Railroad and the property meets the size and topographic (relatively flat) requirements necessary to allow for the construction of a rail spur. In addition, the site is conveniently located along WCR 13, a major north-south road, and is just %z mile from Highway 34, and the site is located in the region where a significant amount of economic development is taking place that is demanding construction materials (aggregate, concrete, and asphalt), all of which will be generated at this proposed facility. Martin Marietta took a look at a number of properties along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in Weld County to try and find properties that would meet their needs, and it was determined that this property best fit their criteria. A report outlining the criteria that Martin Marietta used to find a site for their facility is included in the USR application as a supplemental report titled Site Selection Report. In addition, the proposed site is compatible with the level of development anticipated for this area according to the Comprehensive Plans for Greeley, Johnstown, and Windsor. Below is an explanation of what each community's comprehensive plan proposes for this area. Greeley The project area is within the "Greeley Annexation Area,"per the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Greeley and the Town of Windsor. The IGA delineates a Strategic Employment Development Corridor(consistent with Greeley's Comprehensive Plan). According to this IGA, the project area is within the Secondary Corridor Area, which allows land uses that are: "...permitted within the annexing jurisdiction and may include residential, retail, restaurant, neighborhood commercial and other institutional uses as maybe defined by the annexing jurisdiction." The City of Greeley's 2060 Comprehensive Plan shows the project area just south of the US 34 Employment Corridor. The City of Greeley's Comprehensive Plan also states that heavy industrial and manufacturing uses should be located: "To take advantage of existing freight rail corridors, air transportation, and major arterial roads." Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 9 of 22 Johnstown The project area is over a mile from the current city limits of the Town of Johnstown, but it is shown to fall within the Town of Johnstown's Growth Management Area, according to the Town of Johnstown 2006 Comprehensive Plan. Johnstown's Comprehensive Plan designates the project area as Large Lot Residential, although it is directly adjacent to Employment and Commercial Mixed Use Districts that they have planned for the Highway 34 corridor. In addition, due west of Martin Marietta's proposed facility and immediately west of WCR 13/LCR 1, on land that is within Johnstown's Growth Management Area, is an existing rail unloading facility that is used to unload frac sand. Martin Marietta's proposed use of the rail will be compatible with this existing rail unloading operation in the area. Windsor While the project area does not fall within the planning area for Windsor, Windsor has annexed land northeast of the intersection of WCR 13 and Highway 34. According to Windsor's Land Use Map, the land north of Highway 34 from WCR 13 all the way to WCR 17 is proposed as an employment corridor. In addition, Windsor recognizes that according to Windsor's Comprehensive Plan(3-7): "Siting requirements for industry should include parcel size, topography, access to rail and transportation and other infrastructure requirements." Therefore, Martin Marietta's use of the property as proposed is in-line with the long range plans for the area. Very early on in the process, Martin Marietta recognized that there is a residential neighborhood located to the northeast of the facility and other single residences located in various locations around the property. Therefore, they have gone to great lengths to find ways to ensure they are proposing a plan that will allow them to be a good neighbor when operating in the area. Potential impacts on the surrounding properties are being mitigated by Martin Marietta. Traffic is being routed onto WCR 13 and the vast majority of it will head north to Highway 34. Based on the sound analysis study prepared for the project, County and State noise regulations could be met by this project without any noise mitigation. However, in the interests of being a good neighbor and improve compatibility, noise mitigation techniques are being implemented at the site including the use of berms, white noise back-up alarms, a below-grade hopper, and acoustical enclosures. A dust mitigation plan will be in place for the site and APEN permits will be obtained to protect air quality. The asphalt plant will use vertical tanks and condensers to control odor; Martin Marietta has certified nasal rangers and has purchased equipment that they use to guarantee compliance with the County and State odor regulation. The berms proposed for mitigating noise will also serve to help screen views to the facility. H. A.Goal 8. Ensure that adequate services and facilities are currently available or reasonably obtainable to accommodate the requested new land use change for more intensive development. 1. A.Policy 8.1. The land use applicants should demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewage and water systems are available for the intensity of the development Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 10 of 22 Sanitary sewage will be adequately handled by the use of an existing septic system (permit SP-0701064, SP-1000036) and by installing up to two additional septic systems on-site, per public health regulations. See the Site Plan for more details on the location of these septic systems. Little Thompson Water District will provide water service to the facility. 3. A.Policy 8.3. The land use applicants should demonstrate that the roadway facilities associated with the proposed development are adequate in width, classification and structural capacity to serve the proposed land use change. Access to the proposed facility will be off of WCR 13. WCR 13 is considered an arterial road according to Weld County's 2035 Transportation Plan. Highway 34 is just 1/2 mile north of the site access and CDOT already has plans to someday have a signal light installed at the intersection of WCR 13 and Highway 34 due to the amount of traffic that is expected at this intersection. A traffic study was prepared for this application which outlines the traffic projections and required road improvements that will be associated with Martin Marietta's facility. Martin Marietta is prepared to enter into an improvements agreement with Weld County to be responsible for their portion of the required improvements. 5. A.Policy 8.1 The land use applicants should demonstrate that public service providers, such as but not limited to schools, emergency services and fire protection, are informed of the proposed development and are given adequate opportunity to comment on the proposal The project area is within the Front Range Fire Rescue Authority's service area. Martin Marietta has met with Fire Marshal Jesse Molinar Jr. about the project and we will continue to coordinate with him to make sure the District's requirements are met related to access and fire protection. As a result of the meeting, we have proposed a secondary emergency only connection to WCR 13 as well as a secondary emergency only access into the center of the railroad loop. In addition, Martin Marietta will work with the Authority to develop an Emergency Action Plan for the facility. I. A.Goal9. Reduce potential conflicts between varying land uses in the conversion of traditional agricultural lands to other land uses. 2. A.Policy 9.2. Consider the individuality of the characteristics and the compatibility of the region of the County that each proposed land use change affects, while avoiding requirements that do not fit the land use for that specific region. The project area is within the Highway 34 Economic or Employment Corridor that is identified for concentrated development to support the economic growth of the region. This Economic Corridor is delineated in the comprehensive plans for the City of Greeley, the Town of Windsor, and the Town of Johnstown, in addition to being identified in the 2008 IGA between the City of Greeley and the Town of Windsor. The region this project serves includes, but is not limited to, Weld and Larimer Counties, City of Greeley, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins, Town of Windsor, and Town of Johnstown. The proposed project would support the economic growth of this region by providing the construction materials needed to support new road and building construction as well as existing Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page Il of 22 agricultural businesses. The site is centrally located within this rapidly developing area and has excellent access to both rail and road transportation corridors. 5. A.Policy 9.5. Applications for a change of land use in the agricultural areas should be reviewed in accordance with all potential impacts to surrounding properties and referral agencies. Encourage applicants to communicate with those affected by the proposed land use change through the referral process. As soon as Martin Marietta identified this site as a prime location for their facility, they also identified the fact that the site is located near residential uses. Therefore, as soon as Martin Marietta had a conceptual plan for the facility put together, they scheduled an open house style neighborhood meeting to hear from the neighbors about their concerns in order to find ways to address those concerns so that Martin Marietta would be operating on the site as a good neighbor. The neighborhood meeting was held on Tuesday, January 27th at the Best Western Plus at Highway 34 and 1-25. Martin Marietta mailed a notice of the meeting to all neighbors within 500' per Weld County's notification requirements and recognized that word would get out to people outside of that notification area. Over 100 people attended the meeting. Attendees lived within the immediate area as well as in Loveland, Johnstown, Fort Collins, Eaton, and Boulder. At the meeting, the project was explained to attendees, and representatives from Martin Marietta and Tetra Tech were available to answer questions, listen, and take note of the concerns. We also provided comment cards for attendees to fill out to provide their feedback. Martin Marietta kept records of all who attended the meeting and all of the comments received so that we would not overlook any significant concerns raised by neighbors. A copy of all of this documentation is provided in our application as a separate report titled"Neighborhood Meeting, January 2015." Based on the feedback that we received, below is a summary of the primary issues of concern we heard from the public: - Why did Martin Marietta select this site and not some other site far away from where people live - Impacts on views to the west Noise — Air pollution - Odor from the asphalt plant - Health risks associated with the asphalt plant - Impacts on wildlife in the area — The project will only be to the economic benefit of Martin Marietta - Property values will be negatively impacted - Traffic generation — The safety practices of Martin Marietta Therefore, Martin Marietta took it upon themselves to address each of these land use compatibility related issues in this application in order to do their best to make sure they would operate in a manner that would allow them to be good neighbors. Below is an explanation of how Martin Marietta has responded to the neighbors' concerns: - A Site Selection Report was prepared to explain why Martin Marietta decided to propose the project on this particular piece of property. This report is included in the application. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 12 of 22 • A consultant was hired to prepare a Sound Analysis Report to analyze the noise that is anticipated to be generated by the facility. The Report demonstrated that the facility would operate in compliance with both Weld County's and the State's noise regulations even with no noise mitigation. However, in an effort to be a good and compatible neighbor, Martin Marietta will be implementing noise mitigation techniques through the installation of landscaped earthen berms on the site so that they operate in a manner that is quieter than the allowed standards. In addition, Martin Marietta will be using white noise back-up alarms, a below-grade hopper, and acoustical enclosures. A copy of the Sound Analysis Report is included in the application. A consultant was hired to develop a computer generated Visual Analysis Model of the site. The interactive model is available for us to show any interested parties, but for purposes of this application, we have included snapshots from the model from points around the site looking toward the project to give people an idea of what will be seen. — As is required by the County, a Dust Mitigation Plan has been developed for the project and is included in the application. In addition, APEN permits must be obtained from the State for the facility. Information regarding the APEN permitting requirements is provided in the application. - An Air Emissions Assessment for the Asphalt Plant, Ready Mix Plant, and Asphalt Recycling facilities was completed by Stewart Environmental Consultants. This assessment concluded that the air emissions for the proposed Highway 34 facilities are well below the EPA standards and the more restrictive California air quality standards. The assessment concludes that this facility will not negatively impact the surrounding environment or affect human health as it will meet all environmental standards. Refer to the Air Emissions Assessment in the Supplemental Documents. - Martin Marietta contacted Dr. Scott Phillips, a physician who is board certified in medical toxicology and internal medicine to provide information related to the health impacts of living near an asphalt plant. The findings are that the facility will not pose a health risk. More details can be found in the Answers to Asphalt Plant Health Questions document included in the application. - A Wildlife Desktop Review report was prepared by a biologist who looked at the site for the potential occurrence of wildlife species of interest. The site was cleared of having any significant species currently inhabiting the site. There were some species of migratory birds that were noted as having the potential to occur at the project site and so, as with any site, it was recommended that Martin Marietta initiate construction outside of the active nesting periods or have a biologist take a look at the site prior to construction to clear the site of having any of the migratory birds present. L Martin Marietta put together a document titled Community Benefits of Industry. It is true that Martin Marietta is a for-profit company and so they operate to make a profit; however, Martin Marietta's business is a key component to ensuring the economic health and wellbeing of all residents of northern Colorado. The Community Benefits of Industry report is included in the application package. L Real estate values are impacted by a variety of factors and so it is hard to determine the correlated impact that this proposed facility may have on neighboring residential properties. However, Martin Marietta recognizes this concern and they have Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 13 of 22 proposed a plan that aims to mitigate impacts on the adjacent properties in order to minimize negative impacts on property values (including berms, open space buffers, acoustical enclosures, clustering the location of activities, etc.). In addition, as landowners, Gerrard and Weld LV are concerned about their property value. They have a desire to see that their land is put to its highest and best use and they see that this can best be done by taking advantage of the excellent rail and road access this property has to offer. • As is required by the County, a traffic study was prepared for the project that identifies the amount of traffic projected to be generated and the road improvements that will be required at the site access to WCR 13 as a result of the project and at the WCR13 and US Highway 34 intersection as a result of the background traffic and project traffic. • The safety of Martin Marietta's employees as well as the surrounding communities is a core value at Martin Marietta and their company culture reflects their strong commitment to both safety and sustainability. Included in the application is a report titled Martin Marietta's Culture of Safety and Commitment to Sustainability which provides more information on this topic. • Some neighbors expressed a concern that their organic gardens and farms would be destroyed by the facility. Martin Marietta investigated the USDA's National Organic Program Standards. Information that was found is included in the application package. However, to summarize the findings, according to the USDA website, "the organic standards describe the specific requirements that must be verified by a USDA-accredited certifying agent before products can be labeled USDA organic. Overall, organic operations must demonstrate that they are protecting natural resources, conserving biodiversity, and using only approved substances." When it comes to organic crops, "the USDA organic seal verifies that irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, prohibited pesticides, and genetically modified organisms were not used." Martin Marietta's operation will have no impact on these factors. Sec. 22-2-80. Industrial development Goals and Policies A. I.Goal I. Promote the location of industrial uses within municipalities, County Urban Growth Boundary areas, Intergovernmental Agreement urban growth areas, growth management areas as defined in municipalities'comprehensive plans, the Regional Urbanization Areas, Urban Development Nodes, along railroad infrastructure or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable. The proposed plant is within the Strategic Employment Development Corridor outlined in the IGA between the Town of Windsor and the City of Greeley. The property has access to railroad infrastructure, which is essential to deliver aggregate materials to the site from out of state. The major road and employment corridor of Highway 34 is also readily accessible and necessary for distribution of the materials to businesses, farms and others in the region. C. I.Goal 3. Consider how transportation infrastructure is affected by the impacts of new or expanding industrial developments. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 14 of 22 D. [Goal 4. All new industrial development should pay its own way. The proposed site was selected by Martin Marietta for this project because the property is located off of WCR 13 just 'A mile south of Highway 34. According to Weld County's 2035 Transportation Plan, WCR 13 is planned as an arterial road and CDOT has plans for a traffic signal at the intersection of WCR13 and Highway 34. Therefore, impacts to the County's transportation infrastructure will be minimal. In addition, a traffic study was prepared for the project which addresses traffic projected to be generated by the site in the short term as well as long term. Martin Marietta will enter into an Improvements Agreement with Weld County to ensure that Martin Marietta will pay their shared portion of the required road improvements. Please refer to the Traffic Impact Study for full details on the recommended and proposed transportation improvements. E. I.Goal 5. New industrial uses or expansion of existing industrial uses should meet existing federal, state and local policies and legislation. 1. [Policy 5.1. Industrial uses should be evaluated using criteria, including but not limited to the effect the industry would have on air and water quality, natural drainage ways, soil properties and natural patterns and suitability of the land. The proposed project will meet or exceed all State and local standards for air quality and water quality as required by the Weld County Health Department and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE). A drainage report has also been prepared for the project to ensure that the historic drainage patterns will be maintained in the developed condition. In addition, existing irrigation structures will be protected. For more details, please see the Final Drainage Report included with the application. 2. [Policy 5.2. Development improvements should minimize permanent visual scarring from grading, road cuts and other site disturbances. Require stabilization and landscaping of final land forms, and that runoff be controlled at historic levels. The proposed looped railroad spur will require that embankments be constructed for the rail so that the train will be relatively flat when parked on the rail spur on the property. To minimize the visual impact from the railroad as well as provide a noise buffer, a berm is proposed around the northeast, east, and southeast edges. The berm will be vegetated with a native mix of grasses to prevent erosion. For more details about plans for the grading and plans for erosion control, please see the Final Drainage Report. F. [Goal 6. Minimize the incompatibilities that occur between industrial uses and surrounding properties. 1. 1.Policy 6.1. Consider the compatibility with surrounding land uses and natural site features. The property on which the project is proposed is located in an area with two rail lines (Union Pacific and Great Western) and excellent access to Highway 34, making it very desirable as a transloading facility. The current surrounding land uses include commercial, agricultural, and residential uses. However, the surrounding municipalities (Greeley, Windsor, and Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 15 of 22 Johnstown) have planned that the area along Highway 34 will be a regional economic corridor. Martin Marietta's proposed facility will support the economic growth planned for this area. At the same time, Martin Marietta has taken steps in planning for this project to mitigate impacts on its future neighbors,particularly the residential properties. As explained previously, an open house about the proposed project was held back in January and as a result of the input heard at that meeting, they have taken extra steps to ensure that the property will be designed to operate in a manner that will be compatible with the residential uses in the area. The property is relatively flat, which is one of the reasons the site was selected (needed to accommodate the rail spur loop). The most significant natural site features on the property are some irrigation ditches and laterals that will all be maintained in their current locations when the site develops. 2. LPolicy 6.2. Support the use of visual and sound barrier landscaping to screen open storage areas from residential uses or public roads. A berm, which will be vegetated with native grasses, has been proposed along the northeast, east, and southeast edges of the property to serve as a visual and sound barrier from residential uses. Martin Marietta's product storage piles will all be located on the inside of the rail loop, much of which is elevated on an embankment to keep the rail spur loop on the property flat. Therefore, the storage areas will be screened. In addition, Martin Marietta is planning berms on the interior of the rail loop to further screen activity from the residential neighborhood to the northeast. 3. LPolicy 6.3. Encourage informational neighborhood meetings for proposed industrial uses that do not require a public hearing. Martin Marietta wants to be a good neighbor when they operate on the proposed property. From the very start of planning this project, they recognized the fact that they had residential neighbors and so they chose to host an open house on January 27, 2015 and invited their neighbors within 500 feet, as is required by Weld County regulations. The meeting was open to anyone from the public and people from all over northern Colorado attended. At the open house, representatives from Martin Marietta and Tetra Tech were on hand to explain conceptual plans for the project, answer questions, and listen to concerns. The input received at that meeting and after the meeting was all taken to heart and the proposed project was finalized with their input in mind. In addition, email addresses for people in attendance at the meeting were collected so that we could notify them of updates throughout the process. A packet of information related to the open house including records of who attended and input received is included in the USR application package. 4. I.Policy 6.4. Ensure that industrial properties are free of derelict vehicles, refuse, litter and other unsightly materials. The facility will be operated and maintained similar to other Martin Marietta facilities in Colorado, which operate in an organized and clean manner, free of derelict vehicles, refuse, litter, or other materials that are not a part of the processing activities. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 16 of 22 G. I.Goal 7. Recognize the importance of railroad infrastructure to some industrial uses. 1. LPolicy 7.1. Support the continued and expanded use of existing railroad infrastructure for industrial uses. The sand and gravel resource in Northern Colorado is depleting quickly. This resource is critical to supporting a strong economy. Therefore, Martin Marietta needs to be prepared to import material from another area. Granite Canyon, Wyoming is a good source for this material and the most cost-effective way to get this material to Weld County is via train utilizing the Union Pacific Railroad. Therefore, Martin Marietta needs to have a site along the Union Pacific tracks. The proposed site is immediately adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad along its southwest edge, making this a prime location for the facility. Martin Marietta has plans to construct a rail spur off of this existing rail line on the proposed property. There are standards that need to be met in the design of the rail spur related to curves and slope of the line and this property allows for a rail spur to be designed to meet the design criteria. 3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 23 (Zoning) and the zone district in which it is located. The property is located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. The A (Agricultural) Zone District is also intended to provide areas for the conduct of Uses by Special Review which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater impact than Uses Allowed by Right. The A (Agricultural) Zone District regulations are established to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the present and future residents of the County. According to the Weld County Code, Gerrard's construction business as well as Martin Marietta's proposed materials processing, asphalt and concrete batch plants, and transloading are all considered "Uses by Special Review"in the A (Agricultural) Zoning District. 4. What type of uses surround the site (explain how the proposed use is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses). The western portion of the facility is currently operating in accordance with an approved USR (USR-1584) by Gerrard as a construction business, shop, and office. Gerrard will continue to operate on this site for up to a year after approval of Martin Marietta's proposed facility which will expand on these already approved uses for the area. Surrounding land uses to the project area are agricultural to the north, west, south, and east. Tndianhead Subdivision is located to the northeast of the site and there are a few individual residences located sporadically around the site. However, surrounding municipalities (Greeley, Windsor, and Johnstown) have adopted plans that show the area along Highway 34 as a regional economic corridor with plans for more intense development in this area. As explained previously in this questionnaire, Martin Marietta has taken steps to minimize the impacts of their proposed project on the existing surrounding uses. 5. Describe,in detail, the following: E Number of people who will use this site. For the year that Gerrard is operating, they will continue to have the following people on the site: Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 17 of 22 Up to 15—full time employees (office personnel/mechanics) Up to 15—Truck drivers (come in to get their truck then back at the end of the day) Up to 6—Field Supervisors (in and out) Customers/Vendors, on occasion Once Martin Marietta begins to operate on the site, they will have up to 71 employees working at the site full time. There will also be up to 45 truck drivers and 25 field construction workers who will be based out of this facility,but they will be off site most of the time. They two will have occasional customers/vendors come to the property. L Number of employees proposed to be employed at this site. Up to 141 employees will be based out of the location but only up to 71 will work at the site full time. Hours of operation. Gerrard's normal hours of operation during the year that they are on-site will continue to be as follows: Yard: 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. M-F, 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. SAT Office: 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. M-F Note: These hours are approximate and change seasonally. Martin Marietta would like to permit the site to be able to operate 24 hours a day/seven days a week. However, most times the facility will only operate during daylight hours, 6 days a week (Monday— Saturday) as Martin Marietta does not like to work their employees extra hours. The only times that they anticipate needing to operate outside of those hours would be to provide product for construction projects that occur overnight. For the asphalt plant, this would generally be public road paving projects. While these paving projects tend to last 6-8 weeks, they don't tend to happen every year. During these construction projects, the asphalt plant would fill the asphalt storage silos during daylight hours so that at night they would only need to load out the asphalt haul trucks. it is anticipated that the ready mix concrete plant would only need to operate during the early morning hours before daylight up to two times per month when there are projects that require a continuous pour throughout the day so that the concrete can cure as a solid structure. When Martin Marietta becomes aware of projects that require operation outside of daylight hours, they would email the Weld County Planning Director to let him/her know about the plans to operate outside of daylight hours, who the project is for, how long it will be occurring, and where the materials are being delivered. This is the way that Martin Marietta has been operating their ready mix and asphalt plant facility off of 35th Avenue near Greeley and it has worked well for all involved. — Type and number of structures to be erected (built) on this site. All existing buildings on the Gerrard site will remain on the property including: - Modular office buildings (1,200 and 900 square feet) — Fuel storage tank I Fueling station I Covered truck parking structure - Shop/maintenance building (14,500 square feet) Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 18 of 22 On the Weld LV parcel the following structures will remain: E House - Outbuildings The new structures proposed to be erected on the site as part of this project are listed below. The square footages of buildings that would be occupied are provided and the heights of the plants are provided. - Office building (up to 14,400 square feet) — Modular dispatch trailer (up to 1,200 square feet) — One maintenance building (up to 14,500 square feet) - Fueling station - Wash plant — Recycled materials processing equipment - Asphalt plant and related equipment (up to 100' tall) - Ready mix concrete plant and related equipment(up to 110' tall) Truck wash — Scale house (up to 4,800 square feet) - Asphalt Cement(AC) storage tanks - Asphalt trailer (up to 1,800 square feet) Conex buildings - Maintenance sheds - Electrical substation - Type and number of animals, if any, to be on this site. There will be no animals kept on this site. - Kind of vehicles (type, size, weight) that will access this site and how often. For Gerrard's use, the following make one trip in/out in the morning and one in/out in the evening: Employee vehicles (approx. 30) Straight Trucks up to 54,000 GVW (10) Semi w/ Trailer up to 80,000 GVW (10) In addition, the following are in and out randomly throughout a business day: Heavy equipment transport(2) Supervisor pickups Deliveries—UPS, truck/equipment parts, fuel/oil, office supplies Customers Martin Marietta had a traffic study prepared for their proposed use. As reported in the Traffic Impact Study which is included in the application, peak hour site trips for the short term (2017) and long term (2035) are as described in the table which follows. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 19 of 22 Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour In I Out In [ Out Daily SHORT TERM Trucks 40 78 40 20 Cars 67 -- -- 67 TOTAL 107 78 40 87 1,120 LONG TERM Trucks 75 152 40 20 Cars 93 -- -- 93 TOTAL 168 152 40 113 2,260 Martin Marietta's policy does not allow drivers to leave the site if they exceed the DOT weight limits. - Who will provide fire protection to the site. The property falls within the fire protection district for the Front Range Fire Rescue Authority. Martin Marietta has met with Fire Marshal Jesse Molinar Jr. about the project and we will continue to coordinate with him to make sure the district's requirements are met related to access and fire protection. In addition, we will work with them to develop an Emergency Action Plan for the facility. - Water source on the property (both domestic and irrigation). Little Thompson Water District currently provides potable water service to Gerrard's operation on this site. In addition, the property has 1/6 share of Big Thompson Ditch and Manufacturing and '/ share of Farmer's Ditch. The ditch water is used and will continue to be used for irrigating the undeveloped portions of the site and as much of the landscaping as possible that can be watered by flood irrigating. Martin Marietta will also obtain water from Little Thompson Water District. Included in the application is a commitment to serve letter from the District. Sewage disposal system on the property (existing and proposed). There is an existing septic system on the west side of the property that serves the existing Gerrard facility (SP-0701064 and SP-10000036) and there is an existing septic system on the property at 6433 WCR 56 that serves the existing residence (SE-0000094). Martin Marietta will be applying for one to two more septic systems at their facility to serve the sanitary sewer needs within the rail spur loop. The locations of the existing and proposed septic fields associated with Martin Marietta's facility are all called out on the USR plat map. The asphalt plant operates on a seasonal basis; therefore, Martin Marietta will use portable toilets to serve the asphalt plant, similar to Martin Marietta's asphalt operation in Greeley. - If storage or warehousing is proposed, what type of items will be stored. Gerrard will continue to store pipe and appurtenances, construction equipment, trucks/trailers, truck and equipment parts, and construction tools. Martin Marietta's facility will have stockpiles of aggregate and recycled concrete and asphalt. There will also be an equipment/part storage area, as shown on the USR site plan map. The approximate locations of each of these stockpiles and the equipment/part storage area are shown on the USR plat map. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 20 of 22 6. Explain the proposed landscaping for the site. Gerrard installed some low water evergreen trees along Weld County Road 13 at the entrance to the facility. These trees will be maintained by Martin Marietta. However, some of the trees will need to be removed to make space for the secondary emergency access road required by the fire protection district. In addition, Martin Marietta plans to install screening berms are along the northeast, east, and southeast sides of the project along the outside edge of the railroad embankment. In most areas, this berm is planned to be 10' tall measured from the rail bed. When looking at this berm from outside of the property it will range from 11 to 24 feet above grade. It is about 11 feet tall on the north end of the site and transitions to be about 24 feet tall on the south end of the site. The reason for the range in berm height is related to the fact that the rail spur is designed to remain relatively flat around the property and since the natural grade is higher on the north than on the south, the rail bed is more elevated on the south than it is on the north. In addition, 12 feet tall berms are also proposed inside of the rail loop closer to the activity to provide additional screening. All berms will be vegetated with a native grass mix. Due to spacing restrictions, the berm on the outside edge of the railroad embankment will have 2:1 slopes and not be able to be mowed; therefore, a grass mix has been selected that does well under these conditions. This same grass seed mix will also be used on the other berms and other disturbed areas on the site which will be mowed. 7. Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Use by Special Review activity occurs. When termination of the use proposed with this USR occurs, the rail line will likely remain in place, along with the shop, office building, and other improvements on the site that could potentially be utilized by another business (it is noted that a new USR would likely need to be approved to allow for the use of these existing structures). However, the asphalt plant, concrete plant, wash plant, and recycled material processing equipment, which are specific to Martin Marietta's operations, would all be removed. Any areas left disturbed after the removal of Martin Marietta's equipment would be reclaimed with grass to prevent erosion. 8. Explain how the storm water drainage will be handled on the site. The onsite storm water drainage will be handled by drainage ditches and culverts sized to convey the 100-year, 1-hour storm. The detention pond on-site will be sized in order to provide capacity for the 100-year, 1-hour storm and release at a rate that does not exceed the 10-year, 1-hour storm. Offsite drainage will be routed around the site through drainage channels that are sized to convey the 100-year, 1-hour storm. For a detailed evaluation of the proposed storm water drainage improvements, please see the Final Drainage Report. 9. Explain how long it will take to construct this site and when construction and landscaping is scheduled to begin. Martin Marietta proposes to begin construction of the facility upon approval of the USR permit. The goal is to have the ready mix concrete plant operational by early 2016. The existing use permitted through USR 1584, Gerrard Excavating, Inc., is planned to continue on the site during the construction phase of the proposed plant. The existing use is expected Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 21 of 22 to operate out of this facility for up to 12 months from the date the USR application is approved by Weld County. This is necessary to give Gerrard time to find a new location to operate their construction business. The proposed grass berms internal to the site will be constructed when the ready mix plant is operational; however, the berms tied to the embankment for the proposed railroad loop will not be constructed until the embankment for the railroad loop is constructed, which is anticipated to be by 2017. 10. Explain where storage and/or stockpiles of wastes will occur on this site. The stockpiling of aggregate, recycled concrete, and recycled asphalt is proposed on this facility and the locations of those stockpiles are shown on the USR plat map. There is also an area designated on the plan for the storage of equipment and parts. No waste will be stockpiled on this site. All waste will be handled consistent with the Waste Handling Plan. 11. Please list all proposed on-site and off-site improvements associated with the use (example: landscaping, fencing, drainage, turn lanes, etc.) and a timeline of when you will have each one of the improvements completed. On-site improvements: Ready mix plant construction: end of 2015/early 2016 Asphalt plant construction: end of 2016/early 2017 Rail construction: end of 2016/early 2017 Office building: 2026 Shop inside rail loop: 2026 Grass berm on outside edge of rail spur: end of 2016/early 2017 Grass berms on inside of rail loop: early 2016 Fencing: early 2016 Off-site improvements: WCR13 road improvements at entrance to facility: end of 2015/early 2016 WCR 13 and Highway 34 improvements: when warranted by CDOT Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 22 of 22 DUST ABATEMENT PLAN Highway 34 Development Martin Marietta will employ industry best practices at the proposed Highway 34 Development site in order to minimize dust exposure due to the proposed operations at this facility. Martin Marietta will comply with all federal, state, and local dust regulations and incorporate dust control measures at our facility to remain in compliance. Several measures will be used to mitigate dust at the site due to the proposed operations at the facility. The following dust mitigation measures are planned to be used: • To control fugitive dust from exposed areas, inactive exposed areas will be vegetated or stabilized. • A partially enclosed hopper will be used to unload train cars that will bring product to the site. Water sprays will be used at the main hopper transfer point. A conveyor system will be used to transport material from where the material is unloaded to the material processing and storage areas. Water sprays and water trucks will be used to control dust associated with handling the material once it is unloaded from the train. • Water trucks and sprays will be used in areas where dust may be generated. Main roads in and out of the facility and around the ready mix and asphalt facility will be paved. • Plant designs are optimized to minimize dust exposure through engineering,baghouse enclosures, and water sprays. • Best Management Practices will be used to maintain good housekeeping practices. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page I of7 LANDSCAPE PLAN Highway 34 Development In response to requests made by the City of Greeley as well as the Town of Windsor in their referral comments regarding the Highway 34 Development project and based on concerns raised by neighbors, Martin Marietta will be putting together a landscape plan for the proposed project to provide additional buffering and screening. Martin Marietta is in agreement with this concept; however, we also recognize that landscaping will enhance the appearance of the site, but it will not be very effective at screening the site. Therefore, on June 24, 2015, Martin Marietta held a landscape design charrette meeting and invited neighbors around the site that have direct views of the facility to find out their thoughts on what they might like to see in the way of landscaping. Below are the steps that Martin Marietta will be taking in response to feedback received at that meeting. • Martin Marietta will prepare a landscape plan for the site. Additional trees and shrubs will be proposed on the perimeter of the facility, where there is adequate space, to help soften views of the facility and make the landscape look more aesthetically pleasing. In addition, Martin Marietta has agreed that they will incorporate some variation to the topography of the berms to make them look more natural and less engineered. We are in the process of developing the landscape plan and will have that information available as part of the USR plat in time for the July 21, 2015 Planning Commission hearing. • At the meeting on June 24`h, it was explained to the attendees that if screening views of the facility is what is desired, landscaping will be more effective on their lots rather than on the Highway 34 Development site itself. Therefore, Martin Marietta is open to having a Development Standard associated with the USR plat that indicates that through the Community Group, Martin Marietta will provide a budget of up to $100,000 that participants in the Community Group' can then decide how to distribute amongst interested individual landowners to pay for landscaping on their properties. If desired, Martin Marietta will make a landscape architect available to the landowners to help them decide where and what vegetation to plant on their properties to make sure it will most effectively screen views. Upon approval of the USR, Martin Marietta has agreed that they will set up a "Community Group" that would have representatives from Martin Marietta, the neighbors, and, hopefully, an independent member appointed by the County. The purpose of the group would be to help make sure Martin Marietta's facility operates consistent with all development standards and conditions of approval as well as provides a way for Martin Marietta and the neighbors to regularly communicate regarding any issues of concern. This is a technique that Martin Marietta has successfully used at other facilities that they operate. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page I of7 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 I 1 HWY 34 ._ - y LOCAL CONCERNS• Is � ' "" . : 1 . Concerned that landscaping will not help . F ctO , .� .Y �i. • �' `: 2 . Consider screening from traffic . S��N I y • i t s r 3 . Homes in this area impacted by views into site . P� �, 4 . These neighbors look down into site . 0... . ► � r AL ONQUIN DR:let: �: .- tsa• r* e �, • 5 . Gerrard ' s existing lights shine into homes at night ` `'�' i when they are on . 1 ' t - r�% ' rt. �• I 6 . Vary height and slope of berm to create more natural �, j appearance , and manage weeds between berm and 4 - - a ear - , 4: e 414 property . E CO 1 7 . Enhance view toward site . HOPI TRAIL 8 . Concerned about noise . GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD ' ----_________0 id 1 9 . Views into site are not blocked here - problem area . � ` © i O 10 . Railroad crossing - concerned it will be used . , _ �_ � r •z ' I „ NN. �% 6 1 _ r t , «\ 11 . Horses here . No room for on - site screening . f:\ ° oin 12 . Consider screening on north side of road/south side �• � • I ;� /:: T 14 c U • will cause snow drift on the road . _ CK t . � s �� 13 . Concerned screening will block breeze . Also DDik Vire dpiUr _ �...,. nW At Ir1i II Ill �\ / t2 <C>_. �� concerned about dust and odor . May consider on site as 7— W' lij � - = = � �� '2 vegetation closer to house . Concerned trains will \� - 02 °'� block road , CR15 is already a problem . c \ _, yge yi % ..--- Lee a I. . ter.",�/ r I , we�,� \ 8 �:_ e .mot _ . Ca Seib. • t ' �l ® 4� KOENIG 11; GENERAL NOTES a • _ t. � ,: T <� WCR 56 i° __ . _ _T f 1 �/ 0,900 ,�,A RESERVOIR 1 . Look at on - site railroad setback , room for modifying lie C�,S, 9° berm to make it more natural ? °2f N. '° 2 . Consider " Agricultural " context . z As° _ �% 3 . Enhance overall site appearance/neighbors and Ld 4/iP• ° traveling public . y c<\� 1411 , , , I \ 4 . Some neighbors ok with plantings in their yards to { Bo ml r . , - a ; screen views . I= Ili , ' $ 5 . Others do not want anything that " closes in " their w •. t yard , worried about additional shade in gardens and re, Iblocking their views . _ . t e ' w - - 1 6 . Control dust on - site for unpaved and unvegetated z • . , . w ; ' , I ► i i portions of site . J rift) � • _ ' r • SIS _ w I • A . SP u7 A - - • z - . . 0 • S. t. I ; Le - rimitbier Net b INtiit elite-i.r 10 `. I 1L b t f 1 . r `'t .�N tiM F.a, MARK DATE DESCRIPTION BY Project No.: 133-24097-15002 L A MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC Designed By: SH TETRA TECH L LOCAL CONCERNS MAP ti HWY 34 Drawn By: LW F Martin Checked By: PH03 a) M www.tetratech.com AM PROPOSED HWY 34 DEVELOPMENT w m o o 2il ' 1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1-E C I CttC Q a CO SCALE r• = I500 Longmont, Colorado 80501 j ` Phone: (303) 772-5282 Fax: (303) 772-7039 �� Bar Measures 1 inch EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN Highway 34 Development Martin Marietta is in the process of preparing an Emergency Action Plan for the facility. The plan will be prepared in coordination with the Front Range Fire Rescue Authority. Once completed, the plan will be provided to Weld County's Office of Emergency Management. Per Planning Staffs request, we have also filled out the Business Emergency Information Sheet, see attached. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 1 of! FOR COMMERCIAL SITES, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION BUSINESS EMERGENCY INFORMATION: Business �L 3�3 Name: art In UYI -TI(4 Phone: e0c1 - Z0 93 Address: 101"10 urc i Rnch (/) City, ST,Zip: IAkiz*rr„ns�err Co e002,1 Business �n r Owner: M r1-1 Y) /YiQVid±cX Phone: 0l)9- 761- 455 Home Address: L7 i 0 Vi' gota. City, ST, Zip: t -Et I errs G,) 2767 07 • List three persons in the order to be called in the event of an emergency: NAME TITLE ADDRESS PHONE k_evl P,ct I I 6e.iwet 11 ✓t r 1000 N T Ff H-ii 1?d, F1.Co// ,s 303 -''75-i4p68 Wrvr,? ,1eycrs Gehera,/ t'Vlaru r• Woo p1 75P 1 11 i2ol, F . Cb n S 970-227-qoilB DIM Area Prodtac,-(tr1 /1 r r 1017O CAurrd, RoncA IAL y)Wer4minsier 303-£50°1-20`13 Business Hours:(Ylox'. 2'-hrs *tn'. Ociyliyh,t !'lours Days: j/11,X /1c & —5urid�l ��n:/flt do - cJ J Se4-trdR y Type of Alarm: None Burglar Holdup Fire Silent Audible Name and address of Alarm Company: ►`Y1cy h nn si-12 se uri i / F/emit Se -LO-r vj Ser1jce_ Location of Safe: lion_ MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION: Number of entry/exit doors in this building: Location(s): See L 3 Q ,msy -r bwIdA.n. IOc-a mn s. The 1ocAd-tons o c tors w(11 be '611 a)/ uv11-i1 loa ldi,j Is alcohol stored in building? fJ o Location(s): ?arm-4S. Are drugs stored in building? /()p Location(s): f Are weapons stored in building? No Location(s): The following programs are offerer,a public service of the Weld Coun riffs Office. Please indicate the programs of interest. Physical Security Check Crime Prevention Presentation UTILITY SHUT OFF LOCATIONS: Main Electrical: T g 17 Gas Shut Off: 1 ' )1) Exterior Water Shutoff: TP)1I) Interior Water Shutoff: T E)D APEN PERMITTING Highway 34 Development Martin Marietta will obtain the following Construction Air Permits from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE)Air Pollution Control Division: • Construction Air Permit for the Ready Mix Plant • Construction Air Permit for the Asphalt Plant • Construction Air Permit for the material handling activities on the site If any additional permitting requirements are identified as being required by the CDPHE, Martin Marietta will obtain those as well. Each permit will be obtained prior to operating the associated plant or activity. Martin Marietta has already submitted an application for the Ready Mix Plant operation as that is planned to be the first activity to begin operating on site. A copy of the permit application is attached. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 1 of m rr1 2-14:-"et Martin r I `tt#b�1 ilt lair'iivkafs`1te at` •rinfo ,<z :- v i(J le L.L : ui Postage $ to Certified Fee ru Postmark i:13 Return Receipt Fee Here © (Endorsement Required) CERTIFIED MAIL: 7012 1010 0002 5591 5713 RestrsementRted equre) � (Endorsement Required} r9 Total Postage&Fees January 26, 2015 Sent To ru Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment o Street,Apt No.; or Air Pollution Control Divisionox No. Citj State, cry,stare,ZIP+4 APCD-SS-B1 F "4300 Cherry Creek Drive SouthligripAttiOttrAggfa Denver, CO 80246-1530 Re: New Portable APEN for Concrete Ready Mix Plant Mr. Ryder, Enclosed please find a completed Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN)for a new portable concrete ready mix plant. The expected construction date is July 2015 with the projected start-up date being January 2016.The plant is unique as it will have the ability to operate as a wet/central mix plant, but will also be able to operate as a dry/truck mix plant. The idea behind this design is to allow for better maintenance and management of projects by type.There still remains one active load out at a time and a dust collector will be used to control emissions. Martin Marietta wants to ensure the plant design is fully understood and the permit is written in a manner in which it allows the plant to operate as it is designed (both wet and dry). Should you have any questions, need to discuss the plant design or need additional information regarding this submittal please do not hesitate to contact me at 303-406-8593 or walter.wright@martinmarietta.com. SENDER COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY Sincerely, NI,Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sign ifilifi ` item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. �„/,� �,/f2� ra Print your name and address on the reverse X 70 CI Agent �WC� W so that we can return the card to you. ❑Addressee B. Recei■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, Prints .., ( C. Date of Delivery Walt Wright or on the front if space permits. 40 O 11 Environmental Engineer 1. Article Addressed to: i ery add s t from item 1? O Yes 0 PH drlivery address below: ❑No >4 PC D 4PCD- 55-81 ' n4300 amp(Gui el'Oft, S. .PiypWJC1 cotd2 M-i53O 3. S ceType b lrCertified Mail O Express Mail AO : p ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ' 0 !( f[ O Insured Mail O C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee), 0 y 2. 7012 1010 0002 5591 5713 • PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.02-M-1540 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Page 1 of 4 Air Pollution Control Division - CONCRETE BATCHING PLANTS - Air Pollutant Emission Notice(APEN)—and—Application for Construction Permit Check all that apply: ❑■ New Facility ❑ Transfer of Ownership' O Change in Concrete Production ❑APEN Update O Change in Equipment ❑Request a Modification to Existing Permit All sections of this APEN and application must be completed for both new and existing facilities,including APEN updates. An application with missing information may be determined incomplete and may be returned to you or result in longer engineer processing times. You will be charged an additional APEN fee if APEN is filled out incorrectly or missing information and requires re-submittal. For transfer of ownership or company name change,you must submit proof of ownership transfer(e.g.,Transfer of Ownership Form signed by the previous owner or a copy of a Bill of Sale with this form). Permit Number New Permit AIRS Number New Permit Company Name: Martin Marietta Plant Location: Varies-Portable County: Billing Address: 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201 Zip Code: 80021 Westminster,CO Person to Contact: Walt Wright Phone Number: 303-406-8593 E-mail Address: waiter.wright@martinmarietta.com Fax Number: Will this plant be used as a Stationary or Portable Source?: ❑ Stationary E] Portable (A stationary plant is one that remains at a single location for at least two years. A portable plant may be moved to various locations.) Note: You must file a Relocation Notice with the Air Pollution Control Division each time you move a portable plant to a new location. There is no fee associated with filing a Relocation Notice. Please provide present location: (Also,please provide a site map) NA-Plant is currently being purchased from the manufacturer. If facility is portable,please provide home-base location: 2002 Weld County Road 20.5 Longmont, CO 80504 If facility is NOT yet constructed: What is the projected installation date? July 2015 What is the projected start-up date? January 2016 Normal Operation of this Source: 12 Hours per day 6 Days per week 52 Weeks per year Seasonal Throughput(%of Annual): Revised February 10.2014 www,colorado.covicdljhe/APENfornis Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Page 2 of 4 Air Pollution Control Division - CONCRETE BATCHING PLANTS - Dec-Feb Varies Mar-May Varies June- Aug Varies Sept-Nov Varies Section 2 Equipment Information Plant Type: Q Central Mix Plant{Wet) 0 Truck Mix Plant(Dry) Plant Design Rate(Maximum Capacity per Hour) 300 Cubic Yards per Hour(finished product) Mix Plant: Make Erie Strayer Model MPB-11 C Serial NA Requested Production Rate: 400,000 Cubic Yards Per Year (This Will Be A Permit Limitation) Actual Production Rate: NA-New Permit Cubic Yards Per Year Year For Which The Actual Data Applies: NA-New Permit (e.g.2001) Silo Information(Attach a separate sheet if necessary) Silo Number Make Model Capacity 1 -6(6 Total Silos) Erie Strayer MPB-1 IC 120 Tons Each Transfer Method Information (Method used to transfer cement and/or fly-ash to silos) Cement: 0 Pneumatic Conveyor D Bucket Elevator Fly-ash: Q Pneumatic Conveyor ❑ Bucket Elevator Section 3 Stack Information Stack Height: NA Feet(Above Grade) Stack Diameter: NA Feet Stack Temperature: NA °F Stack Moisture Content: NA % Stack Flow Rate: NA ACFM Stack Velocity: NA Feet Per Minute Section 4 Air Pollution Control Equipment Information POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT Year For Which the Actual Data Applies: Estimated Emissions Actual Overall (tons/yr)at throughputs Emissions Type of Control Equip. Collection requested above From the Estimation Pollutant Primary Secondary Efficiency Controlled Uncontrolled Data Year Method Particulate Dust Collector Baghouse 99% 36.8 114.4 NA-New Permit I AP-42 PM-10 Dust Collector Baghouse 99% 1.1 31.2 NA-New Permit I AP-42 Control Equipment Information(please be sure to indicate any bin vent filters) Type Manufacturer Model Serial Location(i.e.silo) Dust Collector C &W CP-5250C NA Loadout Baghouse(6) TBD TBD TBD Top of All 6 Silos Revised February 10,2014 www.colorado.eov/cdphe/APENforms Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Page 3 of 4 Air Pollution Control Division - CONCRETE BATCHING PLANTS - Section 5 Emissions From Concrete Plant And Ancillary Storage Silo Baghouses Check all the processes that are performed at the site. Process SCC Code List Controls ❑0 Sand and Aggregate Transfer to Storage Pile 3-05-011-06 Moist Material ❑ Sand and Aggregate Transfer-Conveyor 3-05-011-06 ❑0 Sand and Aggregate Transfer to Elevated Bin 3-05-011-06 Covered Conveyor ❑0 Cement Unloading To Elevated Storage Bin 0 Pneumatic Dust Collector&Baghouse ❑ Bucket Elevator 3-05-011-07 0 Weigh Hopper Loading 3-05-011-08 Fully Enclosed in Plant 0❑ Mixer Loading(Central Mix) 3-05-011-09 Dust Collector ❑0 Truck Loading(Truck Mix) 3-05-011-10 Dust Collector ❑0 Vehicle Traffic(Unpaved Roads) 3-05-025-04 Watering as Needed; Paving 0 Wind Erosion From Sand and Aggregate Storage Piles 3-05-025-07 Pre-Washed Aggregate Section 6 Emissions From Aggregate Storage Piles Maximum Stored At One Time: 200,000 tons Proposed Controls For Aggregate Stockpile: Watering As Needed Times/Day 0 Pre-washed Aggregate ❑ Enclosures Type: (Complete or Partial) E Other(specify) Section 7 Emissions From On-Site Haul Vehicles and Roads Front Loader Concrete Truck Cement Truck Haul Vehicle Capacity: 8 30 43 Tons Haul Vehicle Empty Weight: 28 14 15 Tons Number of Trips Per Day: Varies Varies Varies Haul Road Length(avg.one way) —200 Feet -500 Feet —400 Feet Feet List Air Pollution Controls Used for the On-Site Haul Roads: ❑! Watering As Needed Times/Day ❑Chemical Stabilizer 0 Gravel Roads O Paving O Speed Limit Control Speeds limited to 25 Miles Per Hour Speed limit signs must be posted. ❑ Other(specify) Revised February 10,2014 www.colorado.aov/cdphe/APENforms Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Page 4 of 4 Air Pollution Control Division - CONCRETE BATCHING PLANTS - Additional Sources of Emissions List any other sources of emissions and related controls(includes fugitive emissions) Sig Legally Authorized Person(not a vendor or consultant) Date bolt Lawrence VP iilLtF?‹. Name(please print) Title 4 • Check the appropriate box if you want: (Checking any of these boxes may result in an increased fee and/or processing time) O Copy of the Preliminary Analysis conducted by the Division ❑ To review a draft of the permit prior to issuance This notice is valid for five(5)years unless a significant change is made,such as an increased production,new equipment,change in fuel type,etc. A revised APEN shall be filed no less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of this APEN form. Send this form along with$152.90 to: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Telephone:(303)692-3150 Air Pollution Control Division APCD-SS-B1 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver,CO 80246-1530 Small Business Assistance Program (303)692-3148 Small Business Ombudsman (303)692-2135 Revised February 10. 2014 www.eolorado.eov'cdphe-APENforms WASTE HANDLING PLAN Highway 34 Development 1. Gerrard has a dumpster for common waste that is serviced weekly by Waste Management. This will continue for up to one year following approval of USR15-0027 while Gerrard is operating on the site. Waste Management's landfill is: North Weld Landfill 4000 WCR 25 Ault Co, 80610 866-482-6319 2. Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Development facility will provide dumpsters for the typical waste generated by employees such as bottles, paper wrappers, etc. Dumpsters will be strategically located in several locations at the facility, as shown on the USR plat map. Standard office waste will be collected from the dumpsters by: Gallegos Sanitation 1941 Heath Pkwy, Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 484-5556 Gallegos Sanitation takes waste to: Larimer County Landfill 5887 South Taft Hill Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 Used oil, antifreeze and filters will be collected by: Mesa Waste Services 6395 E 80th Ave, Commerce City, CO 80022 (303) 426-4777 Mesa takes and disposes of the oil, antifreeze and filters at facilities which are EPA registered used oil processing facilities, complete with SPCC plans, stoma water plans, and emergency contingency plans. Mesa does not sub-contract these services. Used batteries will be picked-up and recycled or property disposed of by: Interstate Batteries 300 Willow St Fort Collins, CO 80524 Interstate Batteries has proprietary recycling and battery handling practices designed to meet and exceed federal and state transportation and environmental regulations. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page I of 3 All tires are picked-up by: TDS - Tire Distribution Systems Inc. 33 N College Avenue, Ft. Collins, CO 80524 (970) 484-4245 TDS then takes the tires to: lntrawest Commercial Tire Center PO box 6057 Colorado Springs, CO 80934 (719) 632-8015 The wash plant discharge from the portable wash plant will enter a 12-foot diameter/60-foot tall thickener tank. The clean water from the thickener tank will be diverted into a 30-foot diameter/20-foot tall water tank, which will recycle back to the wash plant. The sand from the thickener tank will be discharged into a multi-bin wash out bay. These sands will be properly disposed off-site by either selling the product externally, transporting the material to another Martin Marietta site for use, or disposed of in a landfill. This will be determined based on demand. 3. Fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other nuisance conditions will be minimized during construction. 4. All liquid and solid wastes will be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. 5. All chemicals on-site will be properly stored in labeled containers, Martin Marietta will have an SPCC plan in place, and SDS sheets will be available for each chemical stored. The types of chemicals and amounts anticipated to be stored at the facility are listed below. This information will be updated, if needed, prior to recording the plat. See Table 1 for more information. 6. Operations will be in accordance with the approved Waste Handling Plan. The operator of the facility will notify Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment in writing, in the event the plan is amended. The amended plan will be reviewed and approved by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. 7. All bag house fines are circulated back into the asphalt mix and production so that no waste is generated. Bag house fines do not escape from the collection system and are not generated in quantities that cannot be managed by placing back into the asphalt mix and production. 8. This facility will not create C&D waste as defined by the EPA. 9. Martin Marietta will fully comply with all regulations and requirements governed by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety. Tanks will be registered when they are physically installed on the site. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 2 of 3 List of Chemicals Anticipated to be Stored On-site Chemical Estimate of Amount On-Site Diesel 37,000 Gallons' Motor Oil (all weights) 220 Gallons Hydraulic Oil (all weights) 220 Gallons Propane 10,000 Gallons AC 18,500 Tons Emulsified AC 24,000 Gallons Lime 70 Tons Portland Cement 285 Tons Calcium Chloride 10,000 Gallons Coal Fly Ash 180 Tons Used Oil 600 Gallons Antifreeze 165 Gallons Heating Oil Mobiltherm 165 Gallons Optima 256 1,500 Gallons SIKA Air 1,500 Gallons SIKA Sikaset NCA 1,500 Gallons SIKA Sikament 686 1,500 Gallons SIKA Sikatard 440 1,500 Gallons Huntsman Color#A10I0 12,000 pounds Huntsman Color#A1070 8,000 pounds Huntsman Color#A550 12,000 pounds Huntsman Color#A875 8,000 pounds Chem Station 9818V 1,500 Gallons Form Oil 55 Gallons The diesel fuel will be stored in multiple tanks. There will likely be three tanks: a 2,000 gallon double-walled tank,a 10,000 gallon double walled tank,and a 25,000 tank that will be contained within a concrete walled containment area. The two double-walled tanks will sit on a concrete pad. An SPCC plan will be developed,certified, and on-site within 6 months of the facility being constructed. A copy of Martin Marietta's SPCC plan template is attached. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 3 of 3 aMartin M6r let la SPCC Plan SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE (SPCC) PLAN Name of Facility Address of Facility Original Date of Facility's Plan: Date of Last Plan Amendment/P.E. Certification: Date of Last Plan Review: Designated person responsible for spill prevention: EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS: (Immediate emergency, use Martin Marietta Spill Response and dial 91 1) Notification Contacts: 1 . Facility Manager Phone Number 2. Area Manager Phone Number 3. Environmental Engineer Phone Number Government Agencies: • Fire Department Phone Number • State of Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment 1-877-518-5608 • National Response Center 1-800-424-8802 • LEPC Phone Number SPCC Plan Date Table of Contents PLAN CERTIFICATION—40 CFR 112.3 (D) 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 2 SPILL EXPERIENCE-40 CFR 112.7 (A) 4 APPLICABILITY 40 CFR 112.1 4 RECORD OF AMENDMENTS &PLAN REVIEW-40 CFR 112.5 (A), (B) & (C) 5 PLAN CONFORMANCE-40 CFR 112.7 (A) (1) & 2 6 SECURITY -40 CFR 112.7 (g) Error! Bookmark not defined. BULK STORAGE CONTAINERS —40 CFR §112.8 Error! Bookmark not defined. MANAGEMENT APPROVAL—40 CFR 112.7 7 FACILITY LAYOUT-40 CFR 112.7 (A) (3) 7 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 9 DESCRIPTION OF STORED PRODUCTS: 9 DISCHARGE REPORTING PROCEDURES-40 CFR 112.7 (A) (3) AND (4) 9 DISCHARGE COUNTERMEASURE PROCEDURES-40 CFR 112.7 (A) (5) 11 POTENTIAL EQUIPMENT FAILURES-40 CFR 112.7 (B) 12 CONTAINMENT AND DIVERSIONARY STRUCTURES -40 CFR 112.7 (C) (1) 13 DEMONSTRATION OF IMPRACTIBILITY-40 CFR I I2.7(D) 14 INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND RECORDS-40 CFR 112.7(E) 14 PERSONNEL, TRAINING, AND DISCHARGE PREVENTION PROCEDURES-40 CFR 112.7(F)14 SECURITY-40 CFR 112.7(G) Error! Bookmark not defined. TANK TRUCK UNLOADING-40 CFR 112.7(H) 15 FIELD CONSTRUCTED CONTAINERS-40 CFR 112.7(1) Error! Bookmark not defined. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE PROGRAM-40 CFR 112.7 (J) 15 FACILITY DRAINAGE-40 CFR 112.8 (B) 15 BULK STORAGE TANKS -40 CFR 112.8 (C) 16 TRANSFER OPERATIONS, PUMPING, AND IN-FACILITY PROCESSES-40 CFR 112.8 (D) 17 OIL-WATER SEPARATORS-40 CFR 112.8 (D) Error! Bookmark not defined. LOCAL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS 17 CERTIFICATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUBSTANTIAL HARM CRITERIA 19 PLAN UNDERSTANDING AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 21 SPCC Plan Date Figures FIGURE 1 Facility Location Map 3 FIGURE 2 Facility Site Map 8 Appendices APPENDIX A AST Monthly Visual Inspection Checklist 1 APPENDIX B Secondary Containment Drainage Log 1 APPENDIX C Detailed Discharge Report Form 1 APPENDIX D Record of Discharge Prevention Briefings 2 APPENDIX E Aboveground Storage Tank Inspection Testing Schedules 3 SPCC Plan Date PLAN CERTIFICATION - 40 CFR 112.3 (D) 1 hereby certify that I or my designated agent is familiar with the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Part 112, has visited and examined the above-cited facility, and attests that this Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure(SPCC)Plan has been prepared in accordance with good engineering practices (including consideration of applicable industry standards and requirements of 40 CFR §112); and that procedures for required inspections and testing have been established, and the Plan is adequate for the facility. Respectfully submitted, Printed Name of Registered Professional Engineer Signature of Registered Professional Engineer Registration Number: State: Date: 1i SPCC Plan Date GENERAL INFORMATION 1. NAME OF FACILITY: 2. TYPE OF FACILITY: 3. LOCATION OF FACILITY: 4. OWNER AND/OR OPERATOR: 5. OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE: 6. COMPANY CONTACTS: Environmental Engineer contact Environmental Engineer contact Martin Marietta Materials, Rocky Mountain Martin Marietta Materials, Rocky Mountain Telephone: Telephone: (Office) Address: (Fax) 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201, (Mobile) Westminster, CO 80021 Address: 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201, Westminster, CO 80021 Rocky Mountain Division contact Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Telephone: Address: 10170 Church Ranch Way, Ste 201, Westminster, CO 80021 7. LOCATION OF SPCC PLAN: S. DATE FACILITY BEGAN OPERATIONS: 9. DATE OF INITIAL SPCC PLAN: 21 SPCC Plan Date FIGURE 1 Facility Location Map 31 SPCC Plan Date SPILL EXPERIENCE — 40 CFR 112.7 (A) APPLICABILITY 40 CFR 112.1 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans for facilities are prepared and implemented as required by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations specified in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 112 (40 CFR 112). The purpose of an SPCC plan is to develop a comparable federal/state spill prevention program that minimizes potential for discharges. A non-transportation related facility is subject to the SPCC regulations if (1) the aboveground storage capacity of the facility exceeds 1,320 gallons or the underground storage capacity exceeds 42,000 gallons; and (2) the facility's location leads to a reasonable expectation of discharge from the facility of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States. Only containers with a storage capacity of 55 gallons or greater are included in the calculation of aboveground storage capacity. Filing the SPCC plan with USEPA is not required, but a copy must be available for on-site review by the Regional Administrator during normal working hours. The SPCC plan must be submitted to the USEPA Regional Administrator and the applicable state agency, along with other information specified in §112.4, if either of the following occurs: 1. The facility discharges more than 1,000 gallons of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines in a single spill event; or 2. The facility discharges oil in quantities greater than 42 gallons in each of two spill events within any twelve-month period. The following spill information must be submitted to the RA within 60 days if either of the above thresholds is reached. This report is to contain the following information (112.4 (a)): • Name of the facility. • Name of individual submitting the information. • Location of the facility. • Maximum storage or handling capacity of the facility and normal daily throughput. • The corrective actions and/or countermeasures taken, including adequate description of equipment repairs and/or replacements. • Descriptions of the facility including maps, flow diagrams, and topographical maps. • The cause(s) of such spill(s), including a failure analysis of system or subsystem in which failure occurred. • Additional preventive measures taken or contemplated to minimize the possibility of o Recurrence. • Other information as the USP,PA Regional Administrator may reasonably require that is pertinent to the plan or discharge(s). The SPCC plan must be amended within six (6) months following a change in facility design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects potential for a discharge. The SPCC plan must be reviewed at least once every five(5)years and amended to include more effective 41 SPCC Plan Date prevention and control technology, if such technology has been field-proven at the time of the review and will significantly reduce the likelihood of a discharge. A registered professional engineer (PE) must certify all technical changes. If the owner and/or operator of a facility is required to prepare a SPCC Plan but is not required to submit a Facility Response Plan, the SPCC Plan will include a signed certification form, Certification of the Applicability of the Substantial Harm Criteria, as presented in Appendix C to 40 CFR 112. RECORD OF AMENDMENTS & PLAN REVIEW — 40 CFR 112.5 (A), (B) & (C) 40 CFR 112.5(a), (b) and (c) require amendment to the SPCC Plan whenever a change occurs in facility design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects potential for discharge to navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines. In addition, the owner or operator is required by the Federal code to complete a review and evaluation of the SPCC Plan at least once every five (5)years; however, in accordance with Colorado law, the SPCC Plan must be reviewed every three(3)years. Amendments to the SPCC Plan must be made within six (6) months of the change or review, with technical amendments certified by a PE. Administrative updates such as name or phone number changes do not require PE certification. SPCC PLAN AMENDMENT/REVIEW TABLE P.E. P. E. Reoistration Amendment/Revie Certification No. Date w Description Required Name of Reviewer Signature State Number Dyes DINo Dyes DINo Dyes DINo Dyes DINo Dyes DINo Dyes❑No Dyes DINo Dyes❑No Dyes❑No 5I SPCC Plan Date Note: The owner or operator must complete a review and evaluation of the SPCC Plan at least once every five (5) years. The Plan must be amended within six (6) months of the review to include more effective control and prevention technology, if such technology has been field-proven at the time of the review and will significantly reduce the likelihood of a discharge. The Federal requirement was such that prior to August 16, 2002, SPCC Plans were required to be reviewed every three years. Beginning in August 17, 2002, Federal requirement was amended such that SPCC Plans must be reviewed every five years. The SPCC Plan has met the Federal review requirement. Colorado's AST requirements specify SPCC Plan review frequency. Prior to August 16, 2002, SPCC Plans were required to be reviewed every three years. Beginning in August 17, 2002, the requirement was amended such that SPCC Plans must be reviewed every five years. PLAN CONFORMANCE - 40 CFR 112.7 (A) (1) & 2 This SPCC plan was prepared in general conformance with the minimum standards under 40 CFR 112. To address any deviation from any applicable part of this regulation except the secondary containment requirements under 40 CFR §112.71 and (h) (1), equivalent environmental protection by other means of prevention, control, or countermeasure is provided. All discharge notifications will comply with local, state, and federal requirements. Because this facility is located in the State of Colorado, the aboveground storage tank(AST)is subject to petroleum storage tank regulations specified in 7 Colorado Code of Regulations (CCR) 1101-14. Colorado's AST regulations generally conform to federal requirements in 40 CFR Part 112, with addition of the following more stringent requirements: 1. Leak Detection. Operation of interstitial liquid detectors must be verified and recorded monthly. 2. Plan Amendment. The SPCC Plan must be reviewed at least once every 3 years. 3. Monthly Tank Inspections. Monthly visual inspection records of the AST system must be retained for 1 year. 4. Ullage (Headspace) Recordkeeping Requirements. Tank filling will not begin until the delivery operator has determined tank ullage. Below is a summary of the deviations and the corresponding page(s)where discussion appears in this Plan: 61 SPCC Plan Date MANAGEMENT APPROVAL - 40 CFR 112.7 This SPCC plan is fully supported by the management of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. This SPCC plan will be amended in the event of a change in facility design, construction, operation, or maintenance that could affect potential for discharging oil into the waters of the United States. Signature and Title Date FACILITY LAYOUT — 40 CFR 112.7 (A) (3) A Facility Site Map (Figure 2)is provided indicating the location and layout of this facility. Bulk oil and oil product storage capacity for each area of this facility is listed below in the General Description. 71 SPCC Plan Date FIGURE 2 Facility Site Map 8I SPCC Plan Date GENERAL DESCRIPTION Address facility general description. Address facility operations hours, Bulk Oil/Fuel Storage Capacity for Aboveground Storage Tank and Drums Tank# Above/Below Volume Contents Tank Secondary Containment/ Ground (Gals) Construction Containment Diversionary Feature Bulk Oil/Fuel Storage Capacit for Transformers Tank# Above/Below Volume Contents Tank Secondary Containment/ Ground (Gals) Construction Containment Diversionary Feature Approximate Total: 1. Petroleum products are used to service mobile and plant equipment. The types of petroleum products typically used are: 2. Typical products stored at the shop include, but are not limited to: 3. Electrical equipment located on the property that may contain dielectric fluid includes: DISCHARGE REPORTING PROCEDURES - 40 CFR 112.7 (A) (3) AND (4) The following reporting procedures should be immediately implemented after an oil or oil product discharge of any size has occurred. 4. Immediately contact the Facility Manager to report the discharge: Facility Manager: Mobile Phone Number: 91 SPCC Plan Date If the Facility Manager is unavailable, contact the Martin Marietta Environmental Contact: MMM Environmental Contact: Environmental Engineer Office Phone Number: Phone Number Fax Number: Phone Number Mobile Phone Number: Phone Number 5. Based on the size, nature, and circumstances of the discharge, the Facility Manager will contact the Environmental Contact, who will notify the appropriate regulatory authorities. In addition, federal SPCC regulations require immediate reporting to the National Response Center (NRC) of any discharge that could reach a navigable waterway in harmful quantities, as defined in 40 CFR §110.3. Any discharge greater than 42 U.S. gallons in volume must be immediately reported to the NRC. National Response Center: (800) 424-8802 U.S. EPA, Region 8: (800)227-8917 6. CCR requires immediate reporting of a spill or accidental discharge equal to or greater than the Reportable Quantities listed in 7 CCR 1101-14 Article 4, to the Division of Oil and Public Safety in the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment(within 24 hours after the discovery of the spill or discharge). Under this program, the reportable quantity is 25 gallons or more from regulated aboveground or underground storage tank systems, or any amount that causes a sheen on nearby surface water. If the spill occurs outside of normal business hours, the spill must be reported to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE) Environmental Release and Incident Reporting Line. Division of Oil and Public Safety (303) 318-8547 (8 a.m.—5 p.m.) CDPHE Environmental Release and (877) 518-5608 (24-hour) Incident Reporting Line When contacting the above agencies, have the following information readily available: • Date, time, location, and source of discharge • Street address • Phone number • Type and quantity of material discharged • Cause and circumstances of discharge • Hazards associated with the discharge • Personal injuries, if any • Corrective action taken or planned • Name and number of individual reporting discharge • Descriptions of all affected media • Whether evacuation is recommended or required 10 I SPCC Plan Date • Names of individuals and/or organizations previously contacted • Any additional pertinent information **REMEMBER TO COMPLETE DETAILED DISCHARGE REPORT FORM IN APPENDIX C** 7. If a discharge is too large for facility personnel to handle or the release occurred within a secondary containment structure, the following entity has been contracted to remove oil and oily waste from the facility: Custom Environmental Services, Inc. (303) 423-9949 8. Pursuant to Colorado regulations, the facility must also conduct a limited site assessment by filling out the Site Summary Form (SSF) (Appendix F) to establish acceptable site classification and determine potential impacts to receptors. The SSF must receive the Director's approval. The assessment activities, described in 7 CCR 1101-14 Article 5-3, must be conducted within 60 days of the release discovery, and the results must be included with the SSF. One unbound hard copy of the SSF with all required supporting documentation (i.e., current laboratory data, waste manifest, etc.) must be submitted to the address below. Additionally, an electronic version of the SSF must be submitted as an attachment via e-mail to ssf@state.co.us. Division of Oil and Public Safety 633 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202-3660 9. In the event of a spill related to the failure or explosion of a transformer, the spill response procedures as described in the oil spill contingency plan will be followed. For the transformers owned by MMM, MMM will remove spilled material and notify the appropriate regulatory agencies. For the transformers owned by other electric utilities they will be contacted regarding the transformers so that they can remove spilled material and notify the appropriate regulatory agencies. If a spill reaches waters of the state, Martin Marietta will notify the state emergency response center and the appropriate electric utility as required by 40 CFR §210. DISCHARGE COUNTERMEASURE PROCEDURES - 40 CFR 112.7 (A) (5) 1. In the event of a discharge, the Discharge Reporting Procedures should be immediately implemented after a discharge of any size has occurred. In addition, appropriate actions will be taken to contain the discharge using all available means including absorbent and/or adsorbent materials and readily available mobile equipment. Absorbent and/or adsorbent materials are kept at a readily available location. In the event of an uncontained discharge, available facility equipment will immediately construct a containment berm down gradient of the discharge and absorb and/or adsorb the discharged material with sand, screenings, and/or other available fines that are on hand. 11 SPCC Plan Date This material will be properly disposed of in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations. 2. After the discharge is contained, all media (soil, water, etc.) that came into contact with oil will be collected and stored in such a way that will not continue to affect additional media. Examples of proper materials to use for cleanup include adsorbents and/or absorbents such as aggregates fines, sand, absorbent pads,booms, socks, etc. Proper cleanup will be deemed complete when all the applicable response requirements are met on all local, state, and/or federal levels. Martin Marietta Materials Environmental personnel will handle the determination of proper cleanup levels. 3. Materials that have come into contact with the discharged fluids will be placed in a temporary staging area until proper methods of disposal can be determined. Sampling of impacted media may be required prior to determining a proper method of disposal. Determining a proper method of disposal will take into consideration all local, state, and federal environmental regulatory requirements. Martin Marietta Materials Environmental personnel will handle that portion of the cleanup process. 4. In the event of a leak from the tank or piping, as much of the discharge as possible will be collected manually and stored in an appropriate container until proper disposal or reuse. Immediate action will be taken to stop or minimize the leak rate. The remaining product in the containment area will be cleaned up and properly disposed of 5. In the event of a tank, hose, or piping failure, arrangements will be made to empty the tank to a safe level by immediately filling all mobile equipment on the job. The products remaining in the containment will be handled as described in Item 4. 6. In the event of a fire, the local fire authority will be contacted immediately. 7. All liquids used in the shop will be properly stored and handled. All product containers will be sealed when not in use, with any damaged containers returned to the appropriate vendor. 8. In the event of a discharge from the transformer, response procedures will follow those outlined in the oil spill contingency plan. POTENTIAL EQUIPMENT FAILURES - 40 CFR 112.7 (B) Source Type of Failure Spill Rate Direction Containment Containment Volume of Flow Volume Type Aboveground Storage Tanks Facility Loading/Unloading Operations Other Storage 12 SPCC Plan Date A release due to a failure of an AST will be detected by visual inspection. Most leaks, ruptures, or discharges will be contained within secondary containment. Drums are stored on spill pallets. A spill kit is located within a reasonable distance of the oil storage locations onsite. The entire amount of any release would be contained within the site boundaries, even during a severe storm. Releases occurring outside secondary containment (e.g., from overfilling vehicles, hose ruptures) will be contained on-site using absorbent/adsorbent materials (e.g., pads, booms, drip pans, dirt, sand) and readily available mobile equipment. A spill kit is located by ASTs. Kitty litter is used to as an absorbent within the maintenance shop. Releases occurring outside of secondary containment typically will occur in the presence of personnel, and appropriate measures will immediately be taken, following the Discharge Countermeasure Procedures. CONTAINMENT AND DIVERSIONARY STRLCTLRES - 40 CFR 112.7 (C) (1) Tanks used for temporary or permanent storage of petroleum products, with the exception of qualified oil filled operational equipment, will be constructed within controlled drainage areas that are sized to capture 110% of the storage capacity of the AST system. The controlled drainage area will be constructed of and located within a material impervious to the substance(s) being stored, and will direct spills to a convenient point for collections and recovery. Secondary containment shall also include double walled tanks. All bulk storage containers should be equipped as described in the Bulk Storage Tanks section of this Plan. The following paragraphs describe the potential discharge routes and volumes associated with releases from these areas. 1. On-site containment areas located throughout this facility are shown on the Facility Site Map (Figure 2). Sands, absorbent materials, and a spill kit are located within a reasonable distance of the oil storage shed and shop locations onsite. The entire amount of any release would be contained within the facility, even during a severe storm. 2. Qualified oil-filled operational equipment is not subject to the same requirements as bulk storage containers. A secondary containment structure is not required if the facility has an established oil spill contingency plan that outlines an inspection or monitoring program and provides for the resources (manpower, equipment and materials) necessary to control and remove any quantity of oil that may be harmful. 3. Break-away hose disconnects will be installed for each refueling nozzle, ensuring the cessation of flow through the hose, and thus preventing any leaks should a vehicle depart before complete disconnection. 13 I SPCC Plan Date 4. Refueling areas are located in areas of relatively flat topography, such that surface discharges occurring outside of containment will be retained onsite until berms can be constructed by operating personnel. Discharges occurring outside of containment typically result from ruptured hoses or overfilling during refueling operations, and will occur in the presence of personnel; thus, immediate response will be initiated following the Discharge Countermeasure Procedures in this Plan. 5. Any pumps outside the containment structure and/or piping leading into or out of the containment structure will be adequately protected from unauthorized use or from vandalism and should be fitted with quick shutoff valves. 6. Sorbent materials including pads, booms, etc. are maintained in nearby shops or storage area in case of a discharge. 7. As amended by the December 2006 revised rules, secondary containment is not required for mobile oil-filled equipment. Mobile oil-filled equipment is parked in areas such that a discharge could be readily contained because of the flat topography and absorbent ground cover. 8. All bulk storage containers will be equipped as described in the Bulk Storage Tanks section of this Plan. DEMONSTRATION OF IMPRACTIBILITY - 40 CFR 112.7(D) Martin Marietta management has determined that the use of the containment and diversionary structures and the use of readily available spill equipment to prevent discharged oil from reaching navigable water, is practical and effective at this facility. INSPECTIONS, TESTS, AND RECORDS — 40 CFR 112.7(E) 1. Daily 2. Monthly inspections occur for applicable ASTs using the checklist provided in Appendix A. 3. Where applicable, physical electronic/electrical testing of liquid level sensing devices are done and documented monthly on the checklist provided in Appendix A. PERSONNEL, TRAINING, AND DISCHARGE PREVENTION PROCEDURES — 40 CFR 112.7(F) I. Oil-handling personnel will be trained in operation and maintenance of equipment to prevent discharges, discharge procedure protocols, applicable pollution control laws and regulations, general facility operations, and the contents of the facility SPCC plan. 2. The Facility Manager, or his/her secondary appointee, has primary responsibility for oil spill prevention. 3. Management will provide initial training and subsequent briefings for all oil-handling personnel to ensure adequate understanding of the components of this SPCC plan and its 14 SPCC Plan Date requirements, as well as the oil spill contingency plan. Such components consisting of discharge prevention and cleanup, inspection of equipment, and AST integrity will be provided at a minimum of once per year, typically during HAZCOM training. The Record of Discharge Briefings (Appendix D) will be completed to track attendance of operational personnel. TANK TRUCK UNLOADING — 40 CFR 112.7(H) 1. For vendor tank truck offloading because, the facility tanks being loaded by the tank truck are within a secondary containment area, and the area topography is such that any discharge from the tank truck occurring outside of containment would be contained onsite and immediately cleaned according to the Discharge Countermeasure Procedures in this Plan. 2. A vendor's tank truck unloading procedures will meet the minimum requirements and regulations established by the Department of Transportation's Regulations specified under 49 CFR 171, 173, 174, 177, and 179. 3. Signs regarding filling procedures will be posted outside of containment areas. 4. A warning sign and/or wheel chocks will be provided in loading/unloading areas to deter vehicles from departing before complete disconnection of oil transfer lines. 5. If fueling/lubricating of company equipment can occur only outside of secondary containment, a spill containment kit will be available. 6. Delivery tankers will be inspected before and after unloading to verify quantity received. The driver will remain with the tanker during the entire unloading period. 7. Equipment operators will remain with their equipment at all times during refueling. The owners/operators of the ASTs will ensure that releases due to spilling or overfilling do not occur. The owner/operator will ensure that the volume available in the tank exceeds the volume of product to be transferred to the tank before the transfer is made; and that the transfer operation is monitored constantly to prevent overfilling and spilling. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE PROGRAM - 40 CFR 112.7 (J) The discharge prevention and containment standards conform with the minimum standards under 40 CFR 112 and all applicable state rules, regulations, and guidelines. FACILITY DRAINAGE — 40 CFR 112.8 (8) This SPCC plan was developed to complement the facility's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and/or any other National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit-related plan, as applicable. I. In the event of a discharge and/or overflow from a tank, the discharge will be contained within the containment structure, or responded to as prescribed in the oil spill contingency plan. 2. Facility drainage systems will be adequate to prevent oil from reaching navigable water in the event of a discharge. 15 I SPCC Plan Date BULK STORAGE TANKS - 40 CFR 112.8 (C) I. Each aboveground tank is constructed of a material compatible with the material stored within and the conditions of storage (i.e., pressure, temperature, etc.). 2. All aboveground tanks are provided with sufficient secondary containment to contain 110% of the total volume capacity for each AST system. Double walled tanks meet this requirement. 3. Drainage of rainwater from diked areas, bypassing treatment, is acceptable if. a. The bypass valve is normally sealed closed. b. Accumulated precipitation is inspected to ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards and will not cause a harmful discharge. c. The bypass valve is opened and resealed under responsible supervision. d. Records are kept of drainage events on the form shown in Appendix B. 4. ASTs will be visually inspected on a daily basis. Documented visual inspections will occur monthly in accordance with the Tank Inspection Log(Appendix A), and will include inspection of the tank(s), tank supports and foundations, and containment structure(s). Monthly visual inspections of AST integrity alone is deemed sufficient for the ASTs. Risk from failure due to internal corrosion is minimal. These ASTs include all shop-fabricated (< 50,000-gallon) ASTs with all sides visible (i.e., no ground contact). Equivalent environmental protection will be accomplished by use of secondary containment, good housekeeping practices, and a thorough inspection program designed to evaluate applicable ASTs for signs of corrosion, leakage, or cracking. ASTs will be painted to prevent corrosion and aid in inspections. 5. No steam-operated, internal heating coils are present at this facility. 6. Each AST has been engineered or updated in accordance with good engineering practices to provide overfill protection by presence of a direct-reading level gauge. Other acceptable means of level gauging include high-liquid-level alarms, high-level pump cutoffs, and overflow lines. 7. No "effluent treatment facilities" are present at this facility. 8. Visible discharges that result in loss of oil from the container(from seams, gaskets, piping, pumps, valves, rivets,bolts, etc.) will be promptly collected, and any accumulations of oil will be properly removed and disposed of through a used oil recycler. 9. Any mobile or portable oil storage container equal to or exceeding 55 gallons will be located to prevent a discharge of oil to navigable waterways, and will be provided with secondary containment or equivalent environmental protection. Equivalent environmental protection may be accomplished by natural topography, diversion berms, or catch basins. Mobile or portable containers equal to or exceeding 55 gallons will be located within areas not subject to periodic flooding. 16 I SPCC Plan Date TRANSFER OPERATIONS, PUMPING, AND IN-FACILITY PROCESSES - 40 CFR 112.8 (D) I. Address buried piping at facility. 2. Piping not in service or on standby for an extended period will be capped and marked at the terminal connection. 3. All pipe supports will be properly designed to minimize abrasion and corrosion, and to allow for expansion and contraction. 4. Operating personnel will visually inspect aboveground valves, piping, and appurtenances on a daily basis. General conditions of items including joints, pipeline supports, catch pans, locking valves, and metal surfaces will be assessed. Documented visual inspections will occur monthly in accordance with the Tank Inspection Log(Appendix A). 5. Address location of above ground oil-containing lines in the vicinity of vehicular traffic to determine if warning signs are needed. LOCAL. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS Strategic Petroleum Reserve Program (SPRP)-required items are addressed or cited in the Plan as indicated below: 1. A Facility Map indicating the general layout of this facility is available as Figure 2 of this Plan, 2. As seen on the Facility Map, this facility has areas where regulated substances are stored in quantities that would be subject to the SPCC rule and secondary containment,with additional individual containment structures for ASTs and 55-gallon drums. Additional information on the facility layout can be found in the Facility Layout section and the Containment and Diversionary Structures section of this SPCC plan. 3. The type and approximate amounts of regulated substances stored at the facility can be found in the Facility Layout section of this SPCC plan. 4. Discharge prevention measures include procedures outlined in the Inspections, Tests, and Records section; the Personnel, Training, and Discharge Prevention Procedures section; Security section; Tank Truck Unloading section; and the Transfer Operations,Pumping, and In-Plant Processes section of this SPCC plan. 5. Discharge drainage controls are outlined in the Containment and Diversionary Structures section, the Facility Drainage section, and the Bulk Storage Tanks section of this SPCC plan. 6. Procedures for discharge discovery and cleanup are outlined in the Potential Equipment Failures section, the Discharge Reporting Procedures section, and the Discharge Countermeasure Procedures section of this SPCC Plan; and,where applicable, the oil spill contingency plan. 7. Heavy equipment will likely assist in constructing containment or diversionary berms and/or placing absorbent/adsorbent materials in order to prevent firefighting liquids from entering known recharge features. Manually constructed containment or diversionary berms will be used in areas inaccessible to heavy equipment. In addition, facility personnel may place booms, pads, or other appropriate best management practices (BMP) in strategic locations to prevent firefighting liquids from entering recharge features. 17 SPCC Plan Date 8. Methods of disposal for recovered material will include those outlined in the Discharge Reporting Procedures section and the Discharge Countermeasure Procedures section of this SPCC Plan; and where applicable, the oil spill contingency plan. In addition,recovered media may require environmental testing to determine the appropriate method of disposal or reuse. An appropriate course of action will be determined and overseen by the facility's Environmental Contact. 9. Contact information for the appropriate Environmental Contact(facility response coordinator), NRC, cleanup contractors, and governing agencies appears in the Discharge Reporting Procedures section of this SPCC plan. 10. The Discharge Reporting Procedures section of this SPCC plan provides contact information and procedures for reporting a discharge to the appropriate regulatory agencies, along with pertinent details of the incident. 11. Emergency discharge procedures will proceed as outlined in the Discharge Countermeasure Procedures section of this SPCC plan, and the oil spill contingency plan in the case of on-site qualified oil-filled operational equipment. 12. As stated in the cover letter,this SPCC plan has been prepared to conform with discharge prevention and containment procedures required under 40 CFR 112. 13. SPCC plan initial and annual training and review will be conducted. Records of these briefings will be maintained in Appendix D. 14. Where experience indicates a potential for equipment failure, the estimated amount discharged and rate of flow have been included in the Potential Equipment Failures section of this SPCC plan. In addition, predicted direction of travel for potential release incidents is discussed in the Containment and Diversionary Structures section of this SPCC plan. 18 I SPCC Plan Date CERTIFICATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUBSTANTIAL HARM CRITERIA Facility Name: Facility Address: 1. Does the facility transfer oil over water to or from vessels, and does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons'? Yes No ✓ 2. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons, and does the facility lack secondary containment sufficiently large to contain the capacity of the largest aboveground oil storage tank plus sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation within any aboveground oil storage tank area? Yes No ✓ 3. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to I million gallons, and is the facility located at a distance(as calculated using the appropriate formula in Attachment C-III of Section 112 of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation or a comparable formula') such that a discharge from the facility could cause injury to fish and wildlife and sensitive environments'? For further description of fish and wildlife and sensitive environments, see Appendices I, II, and III to the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) "Guidance for Facility and Vessel Response Plans: Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments" (see Appendix E of Section 112 of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation,for availability) and the applicable Area Contingency Plan. Yes No ✓ 4. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons, and is the facility located at a distance(as calculated using the appropriate formula in Attachment C-Ill of Section 112 of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation or a comparable formula such that a discharge from the facility would shut down a public drinking water intake? Yes No ✓ 5. Does the facility have a total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons, and has the facility undergone a reportable oil spill in an amount greater than or equal to 10,000 gallons within the last 5 years? Yes No ✓ 19 SPCC Plan Date Certification: I certify that under penalty of law, I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals responsible for obtaining this information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. Printed Title Signature Date 20 I SPCC Plan Date PLAN UNDERSTANDING AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I have read this Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, and agree to adhere to and perform the activities required by the Plan to the best of my ability. I have contacted the Environmental Department for guidance regarding any part of the Plan that I do not understand. Facility Manager Date Office Manager Date Foreman Date Foreman Date Other: Date: Other: Date: Other: Date: Other: Date: Other: Date: Other: Date: 21 SPCC Plan Date APPENDIX A AST MONTHLY VISUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST Colorado Department of labor and Employment Phone:303.31B-8500 Division o/Oll and Public Safety-Compliance Section Fax:303.318.8488 633 17'Street,Suite 500 Email:cdleod Inspecdoneslate.co.ua ...s' Denver.CO 80202-3610 Web:www.colorado-gov/cdkJpetroleum AST MONTHLY VISUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST OPS Fac lot IFacility Name: Ilnspection Date: Street Address: 'OTT' I21p •of Tanks Inspected: (Tank IDs: Any item marke'N0 requires addeional information to describe the condition and date the condition is corrected. ITEM I STATUS I COMMENTS/DATE CORRECTED Primary Tank and Pigint 1a tank eater lac soul,shed,ends,comedians.rkt mgr.valves etLi nee of visible 1 leaks? Dyes❑No NOM.h'No',iden(i*tank and de.crbe leaA. Is aboveground piping(vakees,fittings connections pumps.eta)free of visible 2 leads' DYes❑No Meet If'No'.idenbfr toeaion and describe teat. 3 Are ladderQpiatfurm Ywalkways secure with no sign of severe cur rusxrn w Dyes❑Nu❑el/A damage? Are all tank upenrnga oruperly sealed(tapped,plugged,covered,blind flanged. Dyes❑Nat etc'? 5 h the tank liquid level gauge readable and In good wcvtrg condition" Dyes❑No❑N/A Is overfill prevention equipment in good working condition(oveRfl valve,audible 6 abrrn,etc.)` Dyes END❑N/A Mott Ver)Jy ape!Won of audible Sterns is the spill writ-rare,'spill bucket l empty,free of vsible leaks arid in good T working condition? Dye,END❑N/A B lathe primary tank free of water? Dyes END B la the area around the tank(concrete surfaces,ground,containment,etc)free of Dyes❑No visible arena of leakage' la the cathodic protection system in operating cwrdlbrin and functxvraC ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Meet Inspection recoiled every 60 days only. yes No N/A Rect ter reading Volta. _ Mrvs. 11 _ Dyes END❑N/A Arethese readings within manufacturer specificatxxis? Note inspection requArrd every 60 days only Double-Wall Tank 12 For double-wall tanks,la Interstice free uf Iquid` Oyes❑No❑N/A 13 Fax double-wall tanks,Is Interstitial monitoring equipment in gucd working ❑y6 wmdrtsn' ❑No❑N/A Containment(DikinjAmpoundiniD 14 is the containment free of liquid,debris,conbustibe naterals.and empty or full ❑yam Na❑ ❑N/A drunts/barrels? 15 Are dike drain valves dosed ark]in good working a«td Wun' Dyes END❑N/A 16 lee containment egress pathways clear arid any gate/dawn operable' Dyes END❑N/A Other Conditions 1 T la the water'b free of arty other conditions needing to be addressed for Oyes END continued safe operator,or that may arfecl dre site SPCC Plant'. Inspedar Information Printed Name: I Signature: I Date: SPCC Plan Date APPENDIX B SECONDARY CONTAINMENT DRAINAGE LOG 40 CFR 112 REQUIRES A CONTINUOUS WATCH WHEN DRAINING RAIN WATER FROM ANY PETROLEUM SECONDARY CONTAINMENT FACILITY. ANY OIL PRESENT ON THE WATER SURFACE MUST BE REMOVED PRIOR TO OPENING THE DISCHARGE VALVE. IT 1S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE STRUCTURE CLEAN AND WELL MAINTAINED TO AVOID OIL CONTAMINATION. MY SIGNATURE BELOW CERTIFIES THAT 1 HAVE EXAMINED THE CONTAINMENT FACILITY, REMOVED ANY VISIBLE OIL FROM THE WATER SURFACE, REPAIRED OR REPORTED ALL LEAKS, AND CLOSED AND LOCKED THE CONTAINMENT DRAIN VALVE PRIOR TO DEPARTURE. Oil Drain Drain Present Opened Closed Volume Date Location (Yes/No) (Time) (Time) (gallons) Signature SPCC Plan Date APPENDIX C DETAILED DISCHARGE REPORT FORM Project Type and Location: Spill Reported by: Date/Time of Spill: Describe spill location and events leading to spill: Material Spilled: Source of spill: Amount spilled: Amount spilled to waterway: Containment or clean up action: Approximate depth of soil excavation: List injuries or Personal Contamination: Action to be taken to prevent more spills: Modifications to the SWPPP necessary due to this spill: Agencies notified of the spill: I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel property gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information on, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and compete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Contractor Superintendent Date SPCC Plan E-1 Date SPCC Plan Date APPENDIX D RECORD OF DISCHARGE PREVENTION BRIEFINGS Instruction: Briefings will be scheduled and conducted by the owner or operators for operating personnel at intervals frequent enough to assure adequate understanding of the SPCC Plan for this facility. These briefings should also highlight and describe known discharge events or failures, malfunctioning components, and recently developed precautionary measures. Personnel will be instructed in operation and maintenance of equipment to prevent discharges of oil, as well as applicable pollution control laws, rules, and regulations. During these briefings, facility operators and other personnel will have opportunity to share recommendations concerning health, safety, and environmental issues encountered during operation of the facility. Date: Attendees: Subject and Issues: Recommendations and Suggestions: SPCC Plan E-2 Date SPCC Plan Date APPENDIX E ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK INSPECTION TESTING SCHEDULE DETERMINATION OF AST CATEGORY TANK HAS AST TANK CONFIGURATION CRDM*? CATEGORY** AST in contact with ground No 2 or 3 Elevated tank with spill control and with no part of AST in contact Yes with ground Vertical tank RPB and spill control Yes Vertical tank with double bottom and spill control Yes Vertical tank with RPB under tank and spill control Yes Double-walled AST Yes AST with a secondary containment dike/berm Yes Notes: AST Aboveground storage tank CRDM Continuous release detection method RPB Release prevention barrier * CRDM is a means of detecting a release of liquid through inherent design.The method is passive because it does not require sensors or power to operate. Liquid releases are visually detected by facility operators. The system will be designed in accordance with good engineering practice. Several acceptable and commonly used CRDM systems are as follows: • Release prevention barrier(RPB)described in definition of release prevention barrier. • Secondary containment AST including double-wall AST or double-bottom AST • Elevated AST with RPB as described in definitions of elevated AST and RPB. **AST categories are as follows: • Category I —ASTs w/spill control and w/CRDM • Category 2—AS'I's w/spill control but w/o CRDM • Category 3 ASTs w/o spill control and w/o CRDM INSPECTION SCHEDULES AST Type and Size(U.S.gallons) Category I Category 2 Category 3 0- 1,100 P P P,E&L(10) [P,E&L(5), 1(10)] 1,101 -5,000 P P,E&L(10) or Shop-Fabricated ASTs [P,L(2),E(5)] [P,E(10), 1(20)] or [P,E&L(5), 1(10)] 5,001 -30,000 P, E(20) [P, E(5), L(10)] or [P, L(1), E(5)] 30,001 -50,000 P, E(20) P, E& L(5), 1(15) P, E& L(5), 1(10) Portable Containers P P P* SPCC Plan E-3 Date SPCC Plan Date Notes: P—Periodic AST inspection by Owner's Inspector(this is not a Certified Inspector) E Formal external inspection by Steel Tank Institute(STI)Certified Inspector I—Formal internal inspection by STI Certified Inspector L—Leak test by owner or owner's designee ()indicates maximum inspection interval in years e.g.,F(5)indicates formal external inspection every 5 years * Owner will either discontinue use of portable container for storage or have the portable container tested by the U.S. Department of Transportation(DOT)and recertified per the following schedule: • Plastic every 7 years • Steel every 12 years • Stainless steel every 17 years. SPCC Plan E-4 Date 'b TETRA TECH June 24, 2015 Ms. Diana Aungst, AICP Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Modifications to proposed USR for the Highway 34 Development (USR15-0027) Dear Ms. Aungst: In response to comments and concerns that we have heard related to the Highway 34 Development project, Martin Marietta has decided to make some modifications to the application . The modifications are as follows: 1 . We have revised the railroad track layout to pull it further away from the Indianhead Estates Subdivision . Attached is a revised version of the USR plat map. We are working on making modifications to the Final Drainage Plan and Report and will submit that information to the County as soon as it is complete. 2. Incorporate additional landscaping to enhance the buffering provided . On June 24th we are hosting a meeting with property owners adjacent to the site to talk about the use of landscaping as a way to provide additional screening . Martin Marietta wants to hear from the neighbors about what they might like to see before they propose a landscape plan . We will provide updated information about landscaping to the County prior to the Planning Commission hearing . 3. Upon approval of the USR, Martin Marietta will set up a "Community Group" that would have representatives from Martin Marietta, the neighbors, and , hopefully, an independent member appointed by the County. The purpose of the group would be to help make sure Martin Marietta's facility operates consistent with all development standards and conditions of approval as well as provides a way for Martin Marietta and the neighbors to regularly communicate regarding any issues of concern . This is a technique that Martin Marietta has successfully used at other facilities that they operate. 4. New technology at asphalt plants has made it possible to minimize odors. One of the best new technologies is the use of carbon filters. Martin Marietta will install carbon filters on the asphalt plant. These filters cost an additional $200,000. 5. The on-site roads are paved . However, at times some trucks will leave the paved roads and travel in unpaved areas which result in some tracking of gravel onto the internal paved roads. Therefore, Martin Marietta will maintain a street sweeper on-site to regularly remove gravel that is tracked onto the internal paved roads. We have added this to the dust abatement plan . Attached is an updated copy of the plan . 6. Martin Marietta's best guess on traffic generation is that 95% of the traffic will turn north and 5% of the traffic will turn south because the only trucks that will turn south will be trucks that are making local deliveries. In order to do what they can to help make sure this happens, Martin Marietta will install a sign at the exit from the facility that indicates that all vehicles must turn right except for local deliveries. This is a technique that they have used at other sites and it has been effective. We added a note to the USR plat map that calls out this sign . Tetra Tech 1900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I -E, Longmont, CO 80501 Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com TETRA TECH Ms. Diana Aungst [Th) June 24, 2015 Page 2 7. The original application indicated that LED pole mounted operational lighting would be up to 35-feet tall . Martin Marietta has agreed to reduce the height of these light poles to be a maximum of 25' , just like the security lighting LED pole mounted lights. The USR plat map note (sheet 4) has been revised to reflect this change. 8. Martin Marietta will institute a noise monitor program to help ensure that the noise standards are met. Currently the Weld County Code and State law allows for 75 db during the night and 80 db during the day, measured at the property line for an industrial use. Martin Marietta is working with AECOM to develop the program . We will provide updated information prior to the Planning Commission hearing . In addition , you had had asked for some clarification related to what is meant by "materials processing" as a function at the facility. Materials processing includes the following pieces of equipment and operations as described in the USR application : A portable wash plant which will be used to wash , screen , sort, stockpile, unload , and load sand, gravel , rock, crushed stone, recycled materials, overburden, clay, and topsoil type products. A recycled materials processing plant which will crush and sort various recyclable materials including , but not limited to, concrete and asphalt. You had also asked who would potentially purchase materials from this facility. Martin Marietta will sell materials primarily to contractors and governmental entities and the material will leave the site in aggregate trucks; however, retail sales of materials is also an option . So, if there are individual customers that need to stop by for a pick-up load of aggregate material , Martin Marietta can work with them to make that happen as they currently do at all of their other aggregate facilities. The trips associated with these sales are all accounted for in the traffic study. If you have any questions about this information , please let me know. Sincerely, TETRA TECH dkkte---A.C4479— Pamela Franch Nora, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures: USR Plat — revised June 24, 2015 Dust Abatement Plan — revised June 24, 2015 cc: David Hagerman , Martin Marietta P:\24097\133-24097-15002\ProjMgmt\Correspondence\Weld County\modifications to USR.docx DUST ABATEMENT PLAN Highway 34 Development Revised June 24, 2015 Martin Marietta will employ industry best practices at the proposed Highway 34 Development site in order to minimize dust exposure due to the proposed operations at this facility. Martin Marietta will comply with all federal, state, and local dust regulations and incorporate dust control measures at our facility to remain in compliance. Several measures will be used to mitigate dust at the site due to the proposed operations at the facility. The following dust mitigation measures are planned to be used: ❑ To control fugitive dust from exposed areas, inactive exposed areas will be vegetated or stabilized. • A partially enclosed hopper will be used to unload train cars that will bring product to the site. Water sprays will be used at the main hopper transfer point. A conveyor system will be used to transport material from where the material is unloaded to the material processing and storage areas. Water sprays and water trucks will be used to control dust associated with handling the material once it is unloaded from the train. ❑ Water trucks and sprays will be used in areas where dust may be generated. Main roads in and out of the facility and around the ready mix and asphalt facility will be paved. Plant designs are optimized to minimize dust exposure through engineering, baghouse enclosures, and water sprays. Best Management Practices will be used to maintain good housekeeping practices. • A street sweeper will be used to regularly remove gravel that is tracked onto the internal paved roads. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 1 of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 er 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS : USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USRI5 0027 LEGAL DESCRIPTION : V 8 o N HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT LOT B OF RECORDED EXEMPTION NO. 0957-18-1 -RE-2803, RECORDED W I . m 2 m OCTOBER 24, 2000 AT RECEPTION NO. 2802122, BEING PART OF THE 3 °�� U CF-1 FOR : MARTIN MARIETTA SOUTHEAST '/< AND THE SOUTHWEST '/< OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, 3 C co F RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO. LL A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 18 , TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH , RANGE co m � 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P . M . , COUNTY OF WELD , STATE OF COLORADO 0 J CM CM AND W to (6433 CR 56 & 27486 CR 13 ) g M THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 5 rn 0o 0 NORTH, RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M . , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING ai MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: g 13 a CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER AS ASSUMED TO BEAR SOUTH 00°00'00" WEST AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED VICINITY MAP HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO: R68W R67W BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF II SAID SECTION 18, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; j ut THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER SOUTH 2 1 6 .1 5 00°00'00" WEST 230.24 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY .aa<n it OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT E OF WAY SOUTH 43°55'36" EAST 2424.08 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID — \ otcdi,h.ovn.0 - _ - — $ '9oi NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY NORTH 00°32'22" WEST 1993. 15 FEET TO A POINT 4 ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID �` NORTH LINE SOUTH 89°25'00" WEST 1663.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST __ TRUE POINT OF CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE I �... - -- - -` - - — -- -�-� +� a9 — - ' � r = BEGINNING, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO. \ / II Ukiahoma 11 lemy r School soli i ° _ --. . . -- -___ ,ass 49 0 - - - - - _ . .- . _ --.I as „ - �� IiI / PROPERTY OWNER' S APPROVAL : 11 : 2 7 /' 8 - I l� THE UNDERSIGNED MAJOR PROPERTY OWNER DOES HEREBY AGREE , - _- - a4eo. ✓ VIEW DEVELOP STANDARDS TO THE USE BY SPECIAL RE DEVELOPMENT STAN AS DESCRIBED HEREON THIS DAY OF , 20 l D Lo D. N REED ' vo 9 O . _ 4947 , ".� `x9a .,--: 'ss jiWY 34 ii aGERRD INVESTMENTS, LLC, A COLO RADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FARM 'R8 i '! " . .. ... .... .. . ... _ - BY: NATHAN M. GERRARD, MANAGER . , ', _ - I -5000-� -N ° PROJECT LOCATI � - 1 -_ ' j °9a 4. ° �s PLANNING COMMISSION I• I . CERTIFICATION : " ,. OREAT ' - IVES icon _ 4444e F \ 5..;le i 1 I� \ 1 , s \ r1 ' r J ' 03)- N� _ THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION• %�� 'i C • Ai , . .� A ,' y9 .j/ \ A HAS CERTIFIED AND DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF 1 !` ` // " COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, FOR THEIR V� � � ( , (� v -- vv �I �/ 9°° ' Offeer CONFIRMATION, APPROVAL AND ADOPTION THIS USE BY SPECIAL . vv a 'as0 ' Jul „ REVIEW AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED EON THIS DAY ��, �A , ) J i , OFV0HER + A7 C - BM _ RGeea'eni , , 2 �p '� ( �X.�, 4877 • 0 , ' I' ,, ; \ r CHAIR, WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ,I ° v\Koenig - O • ---- - 45'16 r aa4a - U \ S 24 - Hir� X1.9 20 a " y U U •; l \ , • �'? - V ~C acis., \ .k DATED: Q Z %/_,‘,0'� ��; � -� : ° a X4800—� e . s o BOARD OF COUNTYHill Monntl,n � �e.v ;; / I N. • COMMISSIONERS CERTIFICATION : 0 — Iw ; School 489_ It - V 4858 , ,S,. ' 4809 =- - . . ` _ .. ' _\ • - - 4942 d - \ 1 \ 809 � 11 t� \ Ni THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, k L__, I 2 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DOES HEREBY CONFIRM AND ADOPT THIS C7 6 25 ° � �_ \ USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS SHOWN `„ ie ' ( ,t AND DESCRIBED HEREON THIS DAY OF , w ?r- , - - C= f 1 /\J, 20 .F L.LiW> B f a t , > �11 g9as .�_ . !v f. 7 5\ '1 1 '\ W oo v 7 !! / i ' 1 . ..•O v�l F.:_<_,P_____:iti, �/ ��J �"� •,) l J� •\ a , I / �� y V`'-,__..�/ �_ - CHAIR, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CO J �� vv '�� t L a 1'� it Q N- w oo N a 1, \ ATTEST: Z N LL.I W C C 1. vl -- � I !1 0 i CO \\t` � �` \ \yam y \�o`\\....r �n -% � Hardman WELD COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD } 2O In � f� • o ' . 4A26 MW 11-- \ ° \i \ °° \` I ' r DEPUTY CLERK TO THE BOARD z _ w i/ w s Ce W W > DO 8 O LO 0 41)V N M M SHEET INDEX : v 0 1000' 2000' 4000' Project No.: 133-24097-15002 N A SHEET 1 COVER SHEET Designed By: FJM o; SCALE: 1 ' = 2000' SHEET 2 SITE PLAN Drawn By: RWP F SHEET 3 PARKING PLAN Checked By: PFH as M 0 N SHEET 4 DETAILS s �, m a N N co ` -IU Sheet �� Bar Measures 1 inch 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 /I USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USR15 - 0027 I oN HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT W m � � � 141 :431 FOR : MARTIN MARIETTA I EI F A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 18 , TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH , RANGE w _ N 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P . M . , COUNTY OF WELD , STATE OF COLORADO o J ( 6433 CR 56 & 27486 CR 13 ) IW a N. m M 0 M STOP SIGN AND SIGN DIRECTING EXISTING FUEL STORAGE TANK o W 1/4 COR., TRUCKS TO TURN RIGHT EXCEPT a SECTION 18, T5N, FOR LOCAL DELIVERIES OWNER: ACCESS N R67, 6TH P.M. CHARLES ROAD I 13 FUTURE AUXILIARY LANE PATRICK MORRIS READY MIX TRUCK I • I I IMPROVEMENTS TO WCR 13 ARE PROJECT ID SIGN COVERED PARKING N NOT REFLECTED ON THIS PLAT; EXISTING MODULAR (EXISTING STRUCTURE) FND #4 REBAR OWNER: C 1 /4 COR. , SECTION 18, T5N, THEY ARE UNDER DESIGN OFFICE BUILDING SECONDARY W/CAP LS 80462 WELD 34, LLC R67W, 6TH P.M. REORGANIZED FARMERS ' EXISTING EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL FND #6 REBAR W/2.5 ALUM. CAP DITCH COMPANY LEGEND : SWING GATE ACCESS ONLY SUBSTATION REC. NO. 2814989 - _ _I 1_ _ _ 1` y �� • X - �-j( X .. X X X X X��x ' 1 , ' _�_ -. . \\\ E ` GATE - •�?' - l - - \ \ \ \ \ \ ~� EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC -• _ �. � .,GATE -♦fps®�..��♦+•♦"! �nun��.■■■•■u■��q■■■aa�� \'r CONCRE / - - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, ,.. 4? FUTURE ROW _ 3 CI ;��;-use \ x ��, IRRIGATION \ -%°• , \ \ \ \ \ \ \\� 'JT EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE • ° °e° e e° e ea en° a e�a epe"an_° e ° e ° e°en°°e°en°°eee°n Fn n°n n°n°neg° ° °° '++ -. „,\ \ ` °t(i�� \1TT A A \ \ • \ IV A 15 FUTURE -- ' .6 >?�� TRACE � / / v A N \ \ \ V A A \ V A - EXISTING CONTOURS (1 ' INT.) ( I GATE ti III IIIIOIIIIIIIIIlI11I111 �i + i+ � e _ ++i + v V AV A \ V A A \ V A\� OWNER: UTILITY EASEMENT I • BRIDGE OVER ♦; ,♦ ��GRASS BERM e , ♦ / I N A • • swing! � � TRACKS /+�' ,s+ S°° +�, . A A V A A V AV DIANE S REID G EXISTING GAS PIPELINE zrvrrrvn :aoa9 �. �i�♦ - r♦G♦ ./°.emote°e ee-°ee.. � / \ \ \,, SECONDARY I \„ / °' '♦ •i. SCALE + `i , UE EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EMERGENCY �� / •-..\ !fa+� ,��! \/ \ ! HOUSE _ ..--- \� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - ACCESS ONLY v`,( \\ , = • + , ♦ TRUCK STAGING l +♦ \� NN \ \ \\ EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 1 L, _ ( •1 0( ia!/t \" ! \ ARE , READY mix III • � . / N N. \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ W EXISTING WATER LINE TEMPORARY +♦ OO ♦ .+ • < EQUIPMENT TARP + . \ �' •' %++ \ PARKING AREA / + �++ ' /� GN \ \ \ \ \ \\ EXISTING PARCEL DISPATCH • • +, +� °;,��+� . !o♦, ��\ FUEL STATIONS � f �!+ _: • • 4 / / / +° .� + S ,.� \\ \ \ v x x x x EXISTING FENCE L �I_ Z1 I• OFFICE BUILDING !.� =`' '` ~ +' ) 7_1: /�� Via,;e U SCALES EXISTING •1 i r� • • 5cji SLUMP I \ XEXTISH owNER: o CONCRETE 'CL 4t / // �+ .,�® + \ \ � ,. USR BOUNDARY FUTURE EXPANSION ♦ I CONVEYOR / I "+' D ro `NVESTMENTS, ■ ,� . MAINT 110' TALL) T / ++ PROPOSED DRAINAGE SWALE FOR QC LABce TRUCK WASH + + \ • ■ _ _ \ / I \ � + \ EXISTING • ♦ ++ ♦♦ SEPTIC � �•ie BUILDING + ^ / — \\ ° ♦+i♦♦i♦ � �„ , �i ♦ . m i■i� CONEX \ / A ♦. • \ • it 8 • SECTION LINE w iiile, ASPHALT °i �� + w♦+« ♦s FIELD e TRAILER SLUMP / SEPTI� \ ♦•. ,• � , . EXISTING ASPHALT ♦i �■ .� LER V ♦ + + a " '' • • • RECLAIMER STATION - � FIELD TRACK +• \ EXISTING 60' ROW I ♦♦ 1si,o ql� E \ +♦�+ . # • _ �w ♦♦ , 1 TARE WASHOUT 11 AGGREGATE PER BOOK 86, PAGE 273 ♦ ; ■'+ , • \ ,} \ ♦+♦ a • `• • + ( SCALE PORTABLEI AGG. I EQUIPMENT \ \ \ �`'.� \`'��, It iii EXISTING RAILROAD TRACK ♦ o \�,). • • � /STORAGE-AREA \ _ : ,% -_ — \L PILEI \ \ OWNER: ♦+i♦♦ ! e � I f CONVEYOR I \ \ \ \ e% r ,G — '' PROPOSED RAILROAD TRACK } A� e CHRISTOPHER C & �♦ Pi\ ■` ° ! i — ,o \ 4 00 MARSANNE HOWARD \ 4 • ♦♦i �`o\'i II r- INCLAIR GAS LIVES- - , /, . ++A ♦♦ . � �� ° i � � � I TO BE LOWERED �r��/ � PROPOSED PAVEMENT I ASPHALT CEMENT ` ♦i + '♦i`' LOAD J111111❑ PILE AGG. CONVEYOR„, + .+ , o,. STORAGE + \ ��+ "`o\ • T . L '_. AHOPPER i— A PILE I R � _ su, /� I — H _ ( I _ ♦�� . �o CON�C o � r�ioilwlwuro 1 J W 1 _ v , — — _ _ _ — / iii — OWNER: r/////// GRASS i z s♦. BAILERS �i�•- +��• I ¢ w y \ I v 1i CHERYL FRIEDE \++'� � �° Q a -- -\� ~ ~ � " ° 00000000000000000 \ a / W. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � PROPOSED GRAVEL ROAD WAGGREGATE BINS !♦♦ , o�� Q O AGG. - m L �o„o„o„o 0 0„0 0„0„0 0 0„0„0 0„0 0„0, • •_la o , 50' GAS R.O.W .I `` ♦\ \ \` ` � TARPINGAREA • PILE \ I` (REC. O 3457112) To ^! 11I' - PROPOSED AREA GRAVEL*)(C s♦.v ' ��♦�` FINISH FINISFiv� iE OPERATIONAL LIGHT FIXTURE RECYCLED I if/ L•; I XX SECURITY LIGHT FIXTURE p RECYCLED , RAP 1 / a ASPHALT PLANT °+ \CONCRETE ) I RAP RUBBLE. / I .. I / /o7- '�� // d (UP TO 100' TALL) +, _� * \ �I� - I x / U / °+�' b TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ARROW ♦`C. ° RAlt U O ♦♦ .�� \ UNLOAAR / �. / U TRASH ENCLOSURE W / . fir i O4/ p .. - �� ( CONCR TE I UNLOADING /; / °+Of p U I A RUBBLE ) • w 9 +♦O;�� a / Hal U ` d CONVEYORS TO +{ • LT I OLU i p ++♦o °: ° % . • rti I � AGGREGATE PILES l +!�'�� DRAINAGE FLOW z OWNER: • tO 9�Q ♦+♦♦i♦Q �iiil I� T I v +!� + WELD LV, LLC 09° ♦♦i ''ck �� ` e +/ / • Y PORTABLE RECYCLE ♦�♦♦� � . ��i+�� IN 2 PLANT EQUIPMENT a +��i+++♦��♦� NO BUILD AREA ° " i♦� 1 /// I CONEX ♦i♦ L, ' , DETENTION POND -/ ; .t+�.!% // // z TRAILERS p♦� >�!i, .� 3.36 ACRES \ . I CONEX ° // / • TRAILERS •. °�� I I ( H INTERNAL PROPERTY LINE STRUCTURE OFFSETS \ +�♦+.+ \'■■m_..■'0. v '. ;;..•.°... ��■■'="■��S •�. M / 1 11/ I STRUCTURE OFFSET TO INTERNAL + •.. �- _ . - G' ' S / / Q IY STRUCTURE •HEIGHT PROPERTY LINE +�i \� �� _ N / / . /I P H (V Z w I I READY MIX '♦gip ' V \ --EXISTING ..,,,,4- -- X —�— jy EXISTI G BWLDING D KOENIG RESERVOIR W uzj O < -I I CONCRETE PLANT UP TO 110 56 \ S - TO BE R MOVE lY �'� O J ♦♦ e T-BlADINGS Q m I 0. H I LOAD HOPPER UP TO 20' 8' �� >- O LO =lil I ASPHALT PLANT UP TO 100' 106' \ \. \ \ \ ,� PORTABLE \ < "\ \ N \ OWNER: UU)) U I RECYCLE PLANT UP TO 15 25 \ � \ M o CONEX TRAILERS \, \ � - 1 I WILBUR J OEGLI • Q o r / r 1 a ! — — — — WCR 56 — — — — I `=� — — — — — — — cc) -- a co EXISTING EXISTING 60' ROW HOUSE PER BOOK 86, PAGE 273 NA Project No.: 133-24097-15002 a N Designed By: FJM L Drawn By: RWP F a co Checked By: PFH I'? la iii tea 0 100' 200' 400' N rc MEM CD LO N SCALE: 1 " = 200' o N a co Sir Sheet , �� Bar Measures 1 inch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 tv v. USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USR15 - 0027 I g is HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT W CO i FOR : MARTIN MARIETTA SOW F A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 18 , TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH , RANGE _ (NI 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P . M . , COUNTY OF WELD , STATE OF COLORADO C O N (6433CR56 & 27486CR13 ) W g O M O M PARKING PLAN ^ la a . " e G LIE- - -�,' X �`�' O `•r` I x x x ` ' .X _ \ X'�+� ` ` k \ - \ r ` -•�A' PARKING BASED ON BUILDING SIZE • READY MIX TRUCK COVERED PARKING f _- ` \ r♦o' BUILDING BUILDING NUMBER OF PARKING PARKING _ \ J lfT� / ■ / \ ♦♦r•�p•♦•r/rrr♦�r�r•``�o•■oro 0 0 00000'00■0 o; mo'o o'o . _ \ "••...,...3/4.%.. SIZE (SF) EMPLOYEES REQUIRED BASED PROVIDED ► ` � fi y / \ \ ♦♦; ♦r♦r♦p o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00'0 \ � ON CODE � \ _� �I �C x ~ \1 i 1 e! y -' l ♦�" ♦ • \♦♦•r♦♦• O \ \ 00 0°o o MODULAR 1 ,200 5 5 5 EI ♦ ♦♦ \ �+T , \ \,� �• "OOOO"O"O00OOOo0000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0000OOOOOOOOOOOOOO � "00 ♦ ♦ �•♦ • • • - - • ° °p' . OFFICE II ® \ °-O°°°O O°O°O°O O°O°c. “. 0 0 “ 0 “ .,° ° ° °O< e o O O o 0 o o°o°O°O o o O O°O O O°O O°O O°o°O o O° O O O O O `♦♦♦♦♦ �♦ ♦♦♦ •`•'• \ \ ` 1 \ ` _ OO°°O O \(EXISTING) MODULAR 900 5 4 4 i r __.e. ® a x ; ♦ p \ \ \ — o It IIII I IIIIIIIll l l llIIIIII I I �� O , '5 ♦♦ ♦♦♦ �' \ ` \ \- �i _1 ♦� ♦ • o ° ° 00 00000000000. . .14,400 10 34 34 �o0 6_ ♦ / \ 0000000 . . . _ ° ° \ o o (PROPOSED) } _ o. / / ♦♦ ♦O A °Sea00 = o oo . SHOP 14,500 7 15 15 j / 13 STANDARD / i O♦♦ O♦ N • l \ 0' '0 (PROPOSE)D • / \ \\ C- I SPACES z - I STANDARD j ♦♦• ♦♦♦ � \ xx n � \ \ _ o•'�°o' SHOP 14,500 7 15 15 ) y (PROPOSED) \ ' \ \ 21 STANDARD / I SPACES, 2 L / ♦♦•O •♦♦O \ \ N \ N \ \ `� (' o;•, -- QC LAB 4,000 6 4 4 \ \� SPACES ,(o / • e / \ READY MIX EQUIPMENT (PROPOSED) �`� r / \\\ \ \ ACCESSIBLE 1 yf'� ♦♦•• \ \ \ PARKING AREA SCALEHOUSE 4,800 5 12 12 • �� \ \N \ ( SPACE � % ♦♦♦ \ x � \ OFFICE ♦p AV AA V A I ( • \ N r READY MIX 100 1 .5 .5 I ♦%� `\\ \\\\ \ \ \ ? \ - - _ _ �. / r : \ / \PLANT \ \ 4 STANDARD 36 STANDARD CONTROL I ♦♦♦♦i�I \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ I � O Q•• 0• x / \ SPACES, 1 ADA SPACES / ROOM I ♦+r�\ \ i \ \\ \ \ \\ I \ - / •• ••• x ACCESSIBLE SPACE I - ' ASPHALT PLANT 100 1 .5 .5 I °>i \ \\ \\ \\ - / •� •� CONTROL I ♦♦i \ ) \ \ \\, <,\ \ \\ \ f / / / • •• ` \ ROOM I \ ♦♦s♦,\\ \ \\ \ \\� \ — . ' � / _ / / / I` •••• •••• o••'.'o . \ \ I I I I I I I I f D ASPHALT 1 ,800 5 6 6 ♦i�\\ \ \ \ \ \,, •• •• • - ` TRAILER i�\\ \ \\ \ / •• •• o \ / SUBTOTAL 57 101 101 •'\\ \ \\\ \\ � '_ - - - ' • • °. • • • . ~ IIIIIII / PARKING FOR TRUCK DRIVERS AND FIELD WORKERS I \ ov♦`\ t \\ \\ \\\ \\ �• ••• °0 _• o ••:• • \ , EMPLOYEE NUMBER OF PARKING \\ I \\ \\ \\`.. \ \\+ / L u• ,• 'o; '• .. \\ TYPE EMPLOYEES PROVIDED '•, • TRUCK DRIVERS 45 45 • , ;, \ \ \\ \ � - x x \ \ Y � \ \\ \ ) I n �• • 11�� 11 STANDARD SPACES, OFF-SITE FIELD 25 25 c��y♦ \ \\ �\ \ X _x x _ — r _ : o x �` 'S v / \,• 1 ADA ACCESSIBLE \ — • � • o \ ♦♦s♦ \ • e o \ / . SPACE / WORKERS ♦�k`•\/ \ \ \�. /i G ON-SITE FIELD 14 14 ♦i��t•, \ \\ \ � ,o n \ N. ...- / - ■ Irn \ WORKERS I ♦• o•J \ \ OWNER: oI 1 \ _ / SUBTOTAL 84 I 84 ,° ♦♦i \ \\ P > TOTAL PARKING 141 185' `p ♦y \ \\ INVESTMENTS, 0o 7 r �� U � • m SPACES •♦�♦ \♦♦♦ \ \ \ INVESTMENTS, LLC :. ; T \ \ OUT OF THE 185 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED, WE HAVE PROVIDED SIX (6) ADA I •ice\ ♦♦♦♦ / \ \ \ \\ TikIi T \' I pBLDING � I■ y / . • .`4\ \ \ \k:\ [-- '-- / re:* -// / ■ °. // ACCESSIBLE SPACE o I N. N / Z jI I '♦♦��`\ ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ \ \ \ \\\\k J �` �/ ; L / %/ \ i\ 1 lil � \ ` ` NI \ \ \ aA� \ \ i.-< \ � � O U ♦ \ ♦ t • - _ ♦♦'�\ \� ♦♦i♦ \ \ \ / R :' / . ice ��/ %// \ - '� 4 \ N \ \ .. \ * U cc- LU •N. - 7 A, / . , „ I ,ZLli \\\ ♦♦♦ .f ♦ r •• f ♦♦ ♦ • •••• - ` 5 9 8 9 8 p ♦ ♦ ♦ \ ! a / / ♦i�\�\ °c♦♦ =�♦r �i♦ \ \ 3 STANDARD AGG. zI I ♦♦��\\ ♦i♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ • N _ J / SPACES • zPILE o' B 19' TYP I \ ♦i\\ °` • ` 1. I� 40 STANDARD ¢ \ M ADA ACCESS ( ) I \ ♦♦�\ > ♦♦ ..�' r - _ - AISLE \\\ / f� SPACES ¢ w ¢ Q Z / ♦ \ ♦ • ♦ / co 05 Lti w ACCESSIBLE VAN STANDARD I \ C a 2 } O In F ♦♦�,\ \ \ >♦`♦♦♦ / = PARKING ACCESSIBLE PARKING I ♦♦�\\ ♦♦�+ / - PILE .. = > Z o SPACE PARKING SPACE SPACE J ♦ ��\\\ •• % \ i , 1 t Q Q o C 8 PARKING SPACE DETAIL I II \ •.\LO � � \ NOT TO SCALE I ♦♦♦ ♦� \♦ ♦ \ F T \ \ \ •:+ A\NN ♦♦♦i \ \. N \ \ FINISH FINISHv A \ rn \ ♦♦♦\V .�' �V It. v - RECYCLED y v UBBL A RECYCLED RAC \ A N A I ♦♦�,\ �•'.•; CONCRETE I RAP \ \ Project No.: 133-24097-15002 a Designed By: _c Drawn By: F a Checked By: E w o © F N 0 50' 100' 200' s LO 3 SCALE: 1 " = 100' C N N Sheet` -IU m �� Bar Measures 1 inch 1 I 2 I 3 1 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 1 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USRI5-0027 = g W . o HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT " : 3 � 6 W e N � � I" o0 ( 8 FOR: MARTIN MARIETTA F g iis z cl 2 ? a A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE N o 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO (6433 CR 56 & 27486 CR 13) LW �QQ § M WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM: GRASS SEED MIX FOR BERMS AND DISTURBED GROUND LIGHTING PLAN NOTES: SOILS MAP: ai WELD COUNTY IS ONE OF THE MOST PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES,TYPICALLY LOW GROW SEED MIX (ARKANSAS VALLEY SEED MIX INC.') LIGHTING PLAN I 0 a r ( \ \:- RANKING IN THE TOP TEN COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY IN TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELD COUNTY CODE,ALL SOURCES OF LIGHT SHALL BE Ell c SOLD. THE RURAL AREAS OF WELD COUNTY MAY BE OPEN AND SPACIOUS, BUT THEY ARE INTENSIVELY USED 30%EPHRAIM CRESTED WHEATGRASS SHIELDED SO THAT LIGHT RAYS WILL NOT SHINE DIRECTLY ONTO ADJACENT FOR AGRICULTURE. PERSONS MOVING INTO A RURAL AREA MUST RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT THERE ARE 25%SHEEP FESCUE PROPERTIES WHERE SUCH WOULD CAUSE A NUISANCE OR INTERFERE WITH THE USE DRAWBACKS, INCLUDING CONFLICTS WITH LONG-STANDING AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND A LOWER LEVEL OF 20%PERENNIAL RYE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. NEITHER THE DIRECT, NOR REFLECTED,LIGHT FROM 1 16 SERVICES THAN IN TOWN. ALONG WITH THE DRAWBACKS COME THE INCENTIVES WHICH ATTRACT URBAN 82 15%CHEWINGS FESCUE ANY LIGHT SOURCE WILL CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD TO OPERATORS OF MOTOR DWELLERS TO RELOCATE TO RURAL AREAS: OPEN VIEWS,SPACIOUSNESS,WILDLIFE, LACK OF CITY NOISE AND 10%CANADA BLUEGRASS VEHICLES ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREETS. NO COLORED LIGHTS WILL BE USEDI PROJECT 80 CONGESTION,AND THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE AND WAY OF LIFE. WITHOUT NEIGHBORING FARMS,THOSE WHICH MAY BE CONFUSED WITH,OR CONSTRUED AS,TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. SITE FEATURES WHICH ATTRACT URBAN DWELLERS TO RURAL WELD COUNTY WOULD QUICKLY BE GONE FOREVER. SEEDING NOTES : THE FACILITY WILL UTILIZE TWO SEPARATE LIGHTING SYSTEMS:OPERATIONAL E AGRICULTURAL USERS OF THE LAND SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO CHANGE THEIR LONG-ESTABLISHED THIS SEED MIX GROWS 8-12 INCHES TALL WITH AVERAGE RAINFALL. REQUIRES LIGHTING AND SECURITY LIGHTING AS DESCRIBED BELOW. AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES TO ACCOMMODATE THE INTRUSIONS OF URBAN USERS INTO A RURAL AREA. WELL-RUN LITTLE TO NO MAINTENANCE AND IS GOOD FOR SOIL STABILIZATION. THIS MIX IS 1. SECURITY LIGHTING WILL USED AFTER SUNDOWN. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WILL GENERATE OFF-SITE IMPACTS, INCLUDING NOISE FROM TRACTORS AND EQUIPMENT; SUITABLE FOR AREAS WHERE MOWING IS DIFFICULT OR NOT DESIRABLE. 78 A.METAL HALIDE WALL PACK LIGHTING WILL BE USED AROUND ALL BUILDINGS AND . SLOW-MOVING FARM VEHICLES ON RURAL ROADS; DUST FROM ANIMAL PENS, FIELD WORK, HARVEST AND GRAVEL CRITICAL AREAS(ENTRANCES/EXITS, FUEL STORAGE ETC.). 4 ROADS; ODOR FROM ANIMAL CONFINEMENT, SILAGE AND MANURE; SMOKE FROM DITCH BURNING;FLIES AND NEW SEEDING: MOSQUITOES; HUNTING AND TRAPPING ACTIVITIES; SHOOTING SPORTS, LEGAL HAZING OF NUISANCE WILDLIFE;AND DRYLAND: 10-15 LBS/ACRE B.LED POLE MOUNTED LIGHTS, UP TO 25-FEET TALL WILL BE USED IN EQUIPMENT THE USE OF PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS IN THE FIELDS, INCLUDING THE USE OF AERIAL SPRAYING. IT IS COMMON PARKING AREAS. - 4 - _ 85 PRACTICE FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS TO UTILIZE AN ACCUMULATION OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY AND OVERSEEDING: C.SECURITY LIGHTING WILL BE CONTROLLED BY A COMBINATION OF MOTION I SUPPLIES TO ASSIST IN THEIR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. A CONCENTRATION OF MISCELLANEOUS AGRICULTURAL DRYLAND: 10-15 LBS/ACRE SENSORS AND PHOTO CELLS IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH IECC MATERIALS OFTEN PRODUCES A VISUAL DISPARITY BETWEEN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS OF THE COUNTY. SECTION STANDARDS. 35-3.5-102, C.R.S., PROVIDES THAT AN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION SHALL NOT BE FOUND TO BE A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OBTAIN A SOIL TEST FOR AN AVERAGE OF SOIL SAMPLES TAKEN FROM SEVERAL 2. OPERATIONAL LIGHTING WILL BE USED WHEN OPERATING AFTER SUNDOWN. SOILS LEGEND: NUISANCE IF THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ALLEGED TO BE A NUISANCE EMPLOYS METHODS OR PRACTICES THAT LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE SITE. ARE COMMONLY OR REASONABLY ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. A.LED POLE MOUNTED FIXTURES, UP TO 25-FEET TALL WILL BE USED IN THE WORK BROADCAST BIOSOL NATURAL ORGANIC FERTILIZER AT A RATE OF 1500-1800 POUNDS AREAS.WATER HAS BEEN, AND CONTINUES TO BE, THE LIFELINE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY. IT IS UNREALISTIC TO PER ACRE, UNLESS THE SOIL SAMPLE INDICATES A MORE SUITABLE RATE. APPLY AT 4 AQUOLLS&AQUEPTS, FLOODED ASSUME THAT DITCHES AND RESERVOIRS MAY SIMPLY BE MOVED"OUT OF THE WAY"OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. B.OPERATIONAL LIGHTING WILL BE CONTROLLED ON ITS OWN CONTROL CIRCUIT 16 COLBY LOAM, 3 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES THE TIME THE SEED IS DRILLED. SO THAT IT IS TURNED ON ONLY WHEN OPERATING AFTER SUNDOWN. a SIX? inn Innl 42 NUNN CLAY LOAM, 1 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES WHEN MOVING TO THE COUNTY,PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS MUST REALIZE THEY CANNOT TAKE WATER DRILL SEED AT THE RATE OF 15.20 LBS. (PLS=PURE LIVE SEED)PER ACRE. APPLY SCAII '*"0i° 78 WELD LOAM,0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES FROM IRRIGATION DITCHES, LAKES,OR OTHER STRUCTURES, UNLESS THEY HAVE AN ADJUDICATED RIGHT TO THE TWO TONS OF CERTIFIED WEED FREE STRAW PER ACRE,CRIMPED AND TACKIFIED. D WATER. BROADCAST SEED ON AREAS THAT ARE TOO STEEP OR TOO SMALL TO BE DRILLED 80 WELD LOAM, 3 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES AT THE RATE PER MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS. IF SEED IS BROADCAST 82 WILEY-COLBY COMPLEX, WELD COUNTY COVERS A LAND AREA OF APPROXIMATELY FOUR THOUSAND(4,000)SQUARE MILES IN SIZE(TWICE THE HYDROMULCH WITH A SLURRY OF WOOD FIBER AND TACKIFIER AT A RATE PER 1 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES SIZE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE)WITH MORE THAN THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED(3,700)MILES OF STATE AND MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION. 85 WATER COUNTY ROADS OUTSIDE OF MUNICIPALITIES. THE SHEER MAGNITUDE OF THE AREA TO BE SERVED STRETCHES AVAILABLE RESOURCES. LAW ENFORCEMENT IS BASED ON RESPONSES TO COMPLAINTS MORE THAN ON PATROLS OF SEED MAY BE SPRING OR FALL DRILLED BETWEEN THE APPROXIMATE DATES OF THE COUNTY. AND THE DISTANCES WHICH MUST BE TRAVELED MAY DELAY ALL EMERGENCY RESPONSES. INCLUDING MARCH 15TH TO MAY 15TH, OR AUGUST 15TH AND NOVEMBER 15TH. LAW ENFORCEMENT,AMBULANCE,AND FIRE. FIRE PROTECTION IS USUALLY PROVIDED BY VOLUNTEERS WHO MUST 9 LEAVE THEIR JOBS AND FAMILIES TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES. COUNTY GRAVEL ROADS, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN MANAGE WEED GROWTH BY MOWING OR APPLICATION OF A BROADLEAF WEED THEY ARE BLADED, WGRASS IS ESTABLISHED(APPROXIMATELY ILL NOT PROVIDE THE SAME KIND OF SURFACE EXPECTED FROM A PAVED ROAD. SNOW REMOVAL HERBICIDE UNTIL A SUITABLE STAND OF 2 PRIORITIES MEAN THAT ROADS FROM SUBDIVISIONS TO ARTERIALS MAY NOT BE CLEARED FOR SEVERAL DAYS AFTER A YEARS). I I m MAJOR SNOWSTORM. SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS, IN MANY CASES,WILL NOT BE EQUIVALENT TO MUNICIPAL SERVICES. I J L L I 4 RURAL DWELLERS MUST, BY NECESSITY, BE MORE SELF-SUFFICIENT THAN URBAN DWELLERS. 'FORMULATIONS AND VARIETIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. I I / -' / -, PEOPLE ARE EXPOSED TO DIFFERENT HAZARDS IN THE COUNTY THAN IN AN URBAN OR SUBURBAN SETTING. FARM I RE- RE- I EQUIPMENT AND OIL FIELD EQUIPMENT, PONDS AND IRRIGATION DITCHES, ELECTRICAL POWER FOR PUMPS AND i CYCLE CYCLE I CENTER PIVOT OPERATIONS, HIGH SPEED TRAFFIC, SAND BURS, PUNCTURE VINES,TERRITORIAL FARM DOGS AND LIVESTOCK, AND OPEN BURNING PRESENT REAL THREATS. CONTROLLING CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES IS IMPORTANT. NOT I BIN BIN ONLY FOR THEIR SAFETY, BUT ALSO FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE FARMER'S LIVELIHOOD. I \ / \ / C ! .. C I I , I I z 20'-0"(MAX) I I Eo z I I O N I I L I _ I F I / / / / / / / / w N I I a O ID cc DUMPSTER cc /1 / / / / / / I I ro m a I I 04 I I . METAL SIGN WITH 4' v I I STAINLESS STEEL REDHEAD I I o ANCHOR SIGN TO PRE-CAST 1 / / / / / / / J BOLTS TO ATTACH I a B CONCRETE BASE I I to I I 0 GROUND I I Q rz CI) Martin I - - I E~- 1— N W Lu PRECAST - p • / A . Q M a J LL CONCRETE /\� • G O LO Ili-1/4 w BASE HIGHWAY 34 v' • I Z I DEVELOPMENT \/ in- _ > U W o - G 4"0 WOODEN POSTS / 4' 4' p a METAL POSTS 3' • A M o INTO GROUND • S - N o ° NOTES: r .cr) �j��\��`��\'�\ ��V�%�a---L��\�%�`��\�� BACKFILL AND o /�� /� • �� (�� COMPACT HOLE /, 1. ALL ENCLOSURES SHALL BE LEVEL WITH THE PARKING AREA. ch • 2. ENCLOSURES SHALL CONSTRUCTED OF A SOLID MATERIAL TO PROVIDE I • • SCREENING AND WILL BE BE FROM 5'TO 6' IN HEIGHT FROM PAD TO TOP. § I I I I I I A • D• -1-\ Project No.: 133-24967-15002 3. ENCLOSURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON A 4" THICK(MIN)CONCRETE PAD.• A I I I I I I I Designee BY: NM 10"0 I I I I I I 4. PAD SHALL BE SLIGHTLY SLOPED TO ENSURE DRAINAGE. Drawn er RWP av 5. THE BOTTOM OF THE GATE SHALL BE 1'6"ABOVE THE PAD. CheckedKM co 1 PROJECT ID SIGN DETAIL PERIMETER BARBED WIRE FENCE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE 4 1§ - SCALE: NTS NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE U, c l i Bar Measures 1 inch ACCESS PERMIT APPLICATION Highway 34 Development Martin Marietta will require two points of access into the Highway 34 Development site. An existing access onto the property will serve as the primary access point. A secondary, emergency access only will also be required approximately 150' south of the primary access in order to meet fire district requirements. This secondary access will be gated so that it can only be used in the event of an emergency and the primary access cannot be used. Please direct all correspondence regarding this access permit application to: Pam Hora Tetra Tech pam.hora@tetratech.com 720-864-4507 o CO(/� 44>. i�► Weld County Public Works Dept. 1111 H Street � P.O. Box 758 ACCESS PERMIT -o �► r 024%-a .t- -ekk Greeley, CO 80632 APPLICATION FORM c/C wj d Phone: (970)304-6496 Fax: (970)304-6497 Applicant Property Owner (If different than Applicant) Name David Hagerman Name Gerrard Investments LLC Company Martin Marietta Address 27486 CR 13 Address 10170 Church Ranch Way, Ste 201 City Loveland State CO Zip 80534 City Westminster State CO Zip 80021 Phone 970-669-1463 office Business Phone 720-245-6400 Fax 970-669-1964 fax Fax 303-657-4422 E-mail tdonkle@gerrardinc.com E-mail david . hagerman@martinmarietta. com ♦ = Existing Access A= Proposed Access Parcel Location & Sketch The access is on WCR 13 Nearest Intersection: WCR 13 & WCR Highway 34 Fhvy 3+ wen Distance from Intersection approximately 1 /2 mile Parcel Number 095718300044 Section/Township/Range 18-5N-67W is there an existing access to the property . O YES NO N 3 Number of Existing Accesses 1 Road Surface Type & Construction Information Asphalt R Gravel fl Treated n Other WCR 54, Culvert Size & Type existing Materials used to construct Access existing Construction Start Date Finish Date Proposed Use "Temporary (Tracking Pad Required)/ $75 QSingle Residential/$75 fl Industrial/$150 ©Small Commercial or Oil & Gas/$75 [] Large Commercial/$ 150 [iSubdivision/$150 QFieid (Agriculture Only)/Exempt Is this access associated with a Planning Process? Ill No ✓�USR RE SPUD Rather Required Attached Documents - Traffic Control Plan -Certificate of Insurance - Access Pictures (From the Left, Right, & into the access) By accepting this permit, the undersigned Applicant, under penalty of perjury, verifies that they have received all pages of the permit application; they have read and understand all of the permit requirements and provisions set forth on all pages; that they have the authority to sign for and bind the Applicant, if the Applicant is a corporation or other entity; and that by virtue of their signature the Applicant is bound by and agrees to comply with all said permit requirements and provisions, all Weld County ordinances, and state laws regarding facilities construction. Signature ` 1,,,,,,,� Printed Name bc, ,,', N„ Date 3 - 7ets! Approval or Denial will issued in minimum of 5 days. Approved by Revised Date 6/29/10 �o CO ti Weld County Public Works Dept. s�� . � 1111HStreet I,, v� P.O. Box 758 ACCESS PERMIT GB .�- -QE Greeley, CO 80632 APPLICATION FORM N/C w� Phone: (970)304-6496 Fax: (970)304-6497 Applicant Property Owner (If different than Applicant) Name David Hagerman Name Gerrard Investments LLC Company Martin Marietta Address 27486 CR 13 Address 10170 Church Ranch Way, Ste 201 City Loveland State CO Zip 80534 City Westminster State CO Zip 80021 Phone 970-669-1463 office Business Phone 720-245-6400 Fax 970-669- 1964 fax Fax 303-657-4422 E-mail tdonkle@gerrardinc.com E-mail david. hagerman@martinmarietta. com ♦ = Existing Access A= Proposed Access Parcel Location & Sketch The access is on WCR 13 Nearest Intersection: WCR 13 & WCR Highway 34 Hwy 314- Attar Distance from Intersection approximately 1 /2 mile Parcel Number 095718300044 a Section/Township/Range 18-5N-67W ,I, u u 1 3 Is there an existing access to the property . OYES NO 0 N 4 Number of Existing Accesses Road Surface Type & Construction Information Asphalt n Gravel Wr Treated n Other WCR 5i0 Culvert Size & Type 15" CMP Materials used to construct Access gravel Construction Start Date early 2016 Finish Date late 2016 Pro osed Use Acct55 W tl \ se ohd g � emir access o n 'y access 100 /4 1- p �J ❑Temporary (Tracking Pad Required)/ $75 ❑Single Residential/$75 12 Industrial/$150 ❑Small Commercial or Oil & Gas/$75 ❑Large Commercial/$150 ❑ Subdivision/$150 ❑ Field (Agriculture Only)/Exempt Is this access associated with a Planning Process? Ill No dUSR NI RE EPUD Other Required Attached Documents - Traffic Control Plan -Certificate of Insurance - Access Pictures (From the Left, Right, & into the access) By accepting this permit, the undersigned Applicant, under penalty of perjury, verifies that they have received all pages of the permit application; they have read and understand all of the permit requirements and provisions set forth on all pages; that they have the authority to sign for and bind the Applicant, if the Applicant is a corporation or other entity; and that by virtue of their signature the Applicant is bound by and agrees to comply with all said permit requirements and provisions, all Weld County ordinances, and state laws regarding facilities construction. Signature "li),,(.,,,,1( 1-4",,,, , Printed Name of,,, „ s HAS, r ,(Y1t-,.1 Date 3 - •U/ - -2x Approval or Denial will be is ed in minimum of 5 days. Approved by Revised Date 6/29/10 Highway 34 Development Access Permit: Primary Access Point View from Primary Access Looking North i , . ; . • Y : t. ' • 2400302@11 1 U J View from Primary Access Looking South • .. • "1 11'.tle Irk saline 240@1020110 1200011 View from Primary Access Looking West 26110@gatfig 11 : 0 View from Primary Access Looking East (Into Existing Access) u I1 , Olive at y 'I • 1 • .— — 1,._ , - - a 1.. M0D102401g 12 : 02 Highway 34 Development Access Permit: Emergency/Secondary Access Point View from Secondary Access Looking North at err • . ._. i , 1 1. , , _ - 11 .i'�_ i .i. w7, '! . ♦ i1' 4 . ♦. r I tr i'II 40e. I 41 2alC33D20ag. 1jJa0 b [y eke' 4 t View from Secondary Access Looking South ,w S., :k'{: . ;% T NitAtLaniammin: T�•��W-...�-� 'AID i y' i - J_ 40 • v. 1l •_ - ;` .r. - *r., ,e. .t♦ " ifter .µ l ' Ell03ll2011g 112 : 03 x _ t t .i' >C'•q .ii i01.44 4 r View from Secondary Access Looking West _ -.ow- s.�- .rr. - isswillir .. air •lir>11:7 - - -� f- w. 14.- .; tip+ ..• . -. _ ..b -. IA.. . • • a ... • _ - Y - _ -Y •. 1 . 1,- 1 . -' _ _ `�'.. . •1 , ' / ` ` 4.. \^': If. - - a- ,- •, -I i- ♦ i . • r .. , • I'( ' i :' : i , , View from Secondary Access Looking East (Into Existing Access) w ; �. : + •t b Z 114Pre PIO • i•Ire y f5•• •.y• - T . Yf. . •i r1 . • TI an. • 2(3110611 2 0 lig ij2 : 02 inia- - - Traffic Control Plan Diagram •2rti�� 1 n Soo FT L!t(•.�� 1 I :t ! il:a:�F�^ikrk9 ten • --. cC �uT7:`ie:•Ye 1 � -11/ = 1 I n O 1 O 500 FT ''. 4:•s 41/4 6. CF: t.� -. ar karioti Notes: l . The above diagram is typical for normal shoulder work applications. Additional signing may be required. 2. Vehicles or construction equipment shall not be parked in the travel way and should be moved to the shoulder. If vehicles or construction equipment are not able to be moved out of the way of traffic, channelizing devices are required for day use only. No night time obstructions are allowed. WELD COUNTY ACCESS PERMIT s�oCC� Weld County Public Works Dept. �, yx Phone: (970) 304-6496 1111 H Street After Hours: (970) 356-4000 P.O. Box 758 -o It SF co Emergency Services: (970) 304-6500 x 2700 Greeley, CO 80632 GB 3 Inspection: (970) 304-6480 WWW� Permit Number: AP15-00223 Issuance of this permit binds applicant and its contractors to all requirements,provisions,and ordinances of Weld County,Colorado. Project Name: USR15-0027 Expiration date: 12/01/2015 Applicant Information: Property Owner Information: Name: Pam Flora Name: Tom Donkle Company: Martin Marietta c/o Tetra Tech Company: Gerrard Investments LLC Phone: 720-245-6400 Phone: 970-669-1463 Email: pam.hora@tetratech.com Email: tdonkle@gerrardinc.com Location: Proposed Use: Access is on WCR: 13 Temporary: Nearest Intersection WCR: 13 &WCR: Hwy 34 Single Residential: Distance From Intersection: 2655 Industrial: 0 Number of Existing Accesses: 1 Small Commercial: p Oil &Gas: Planning Process: USR USR15-0027 Large Commercial: Road Surface Type&Construction Information: Subdivision: Road Surface: Asphalt Field (Agricultural Culvert Size&Type: 15" CMP/RCP min. Only)/Exempt: Start Date:09/01/2015 Finish Date: 06/01/2016 Materials to Construct Access: class 6 road base Required Attached Documents Submitted: Traffic Control Plan: Yes Certificate of Insurance: No Access Pictures: Yes A copy of this permit must be on site at all times during construction hours Daily work hours are Monday through Friday DAYLIGHT to Yz HOUR BEFORE DARK(applies to weekends if approved) Approved MUTCD traffic control/warning devices are required before work begins and must remain until completion of work Special Requirements or Comments Parcel 095718300044. Utilize NEW access point on CR 13(1-Small Commercial) located approx. 2770 ft.South of Hwy 34. Utilize existing access point on CR 13(1-Industrial) located approx. 2655 ft. South of Hwy 34. The new access point SHALL be gated at the edge of ROW and for Emergency use ONLY. Approved by: DigiialYsgnelbYMorgan Weld County Public Works Date: 6/3/2015 36ben URm=Morgai(Abben,o,oµ email=mgabbert&eliqovcom. c=US Date¢oisnaoaiesaagusw Print Date-Time: 6/3/2015 3:53:46PM Access Permit PW008 Page 1 of 1 C 1 Traffic Impact Study MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS HIGHWAY 34 SITE Weld County, Colorado Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. P.O. Box 630027 Littleton,CO 80163 303-792-2450 Traffic Impact Study MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS HIGHWAY 34 SITE Weld County, Colorado Prepared For: Tetra Tech 1900 S. Sunset#1-F Longmont, CO 80501 Prepared By: Eugene G. Coppola P. O. Box 630027 vA4n4tmiurrliry Littleton, CO 80163 ��.i�'� GEORGE 303-792-2450 �cv`�;Q4• �'i.rE• • • March 27, 2015 315945 ,`'�i OF c o�ow Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. CURRENT CONDITIONS 3 A). Current Road Network 3 B). Current Traffic Conditions 5 C). Current Operations 5 D). Surrounding Land Uses 7 III. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS 7 IV. DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 8 A). Development Overview 8 B). Site Traffic 8 C). Distribution of Site Traffic 10 V. FUTURE CONDITIONS 10 A). Background Traffic 10 B). Total Traffic 16 C). Roadway System 16 VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS 16 A). Short Term 19 B). Long Term Operating Conditions 22 VII. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 24 VII I.CONCLUSIONS 26 List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 Current Roadway Geometry 4 Figure 3 Current Peak Hour and Daily Traffic 6 Figure 4 Concept Plan 9 Figure 5 Site Traffic Distribution 11 Figure 6 Short Term Site Traffic 12 Figure 7 Long Term Site Traffic 13 Figure 8 Short Term Background Traffic 14 Figure 9 Long Term Background Traffic 15 Figure 10 Short Term Total Traffic 17 Figure 11 Long Term Total Traffic 18 Figure 12 Short Term Roadway Geometry 20 Figure 13 Long Term Roadway Geometry 23 I. INTRODUCTION This study addresses the traffic engineering impacts of Martin Marietta Materials Inc. U.S. 34 development. It assesses ail major site activities with particular attention to critical time frames. The anticipated activities include the following: • A concrete batch plant. • An asphalt batch plant. • A rail unloading facility and an aggregate wash plant facility. • Sand and gravel sales. This study considers the collective impacts of these activities at both the opening of site operations and the long term planning horizon some 20 years in the future. All current and planned facilities are located east of WCR 13 (aka County Line Road) about one-half mile south of U.S. 34. A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1. Key work tasks undertaken as part of this effort are described below. • Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site. • Evaluate current traffic operations to establish baseline conditions. • Determine site generated traffic volumes and distribute this traffic to the nearby street system. • Estimate roadway traffic volumes for future roadway conditions. • R68W R67W I • Z. ,r41, . !; St l,<xll f F 5 • �r: *,99,5 i Y ` I • .. • I �X, , 0 .. ......... .. .. --I �- .: .. a c I•� ?:. ., • • �4F HWY 34 ;i • . :I L7�j• ri;. �. -.c : • I .. . . • .. a��h,�. PROJECT LOCATION • hl • 1VE9T Frr �I i.,, • �...0•J s .379 ______________________ J :.. ........ .. .. t a'. • (.Jficce'"c o x ' Ir w f • • t`• • , o , V) ,o • ., . \ .. . • w , ;`• . LL, r • • w \• a • V' ','.''.e:" . a 0 • n £A: oc..„� ......:' T • .;;w'..;"'. : 0 1000' 2000' SCALE:1'=2000' • a rr MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS,INC. Project No.; 133.24097-15002 g N Ezi TETRA TECH HWY 34 DEVELOPMENT Date: FEBRUARY 20i5 r o Designed 8y; LAW r ,f, _ www.tetratech.com FIGURE 1 Page ., NFe O. 1900 S.Sunset St,Ste.1-E VICINITY MAP m 2 Longmont,Co 80501 N Phone:(303)772-5282 Fax:(303)772.7039 N mimml Bar Measures 1 inch • Evaluate traffic operations with the Martin Marietta Materials Inc. (Martin Marietta) development fully operational. • Identify areas of potential deficiencies. • Recommend measures to mitigate the impact of site generated traffic as appropriate. II. CURRENT CONDITIONS A). Current Road Network U.S. 34 is a major east-west roadway extending from Loveland to Greeley and be- yond. It is about one-half mile north of the site and provides major regional access to many area locations and I-25. It is under Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) control and carries an EX (expressway) roadway designation. It has two lanes in each direction with left- and right- turn acceleration and deceleration lanes at CR 13. The posted speed limit is 65 MPH. A frontage road also exists along the south side of U.S. 34; however, it receives only minor use and covers a short distance. Negligible traffic, if any, traffic was observed using the frontage road during traffic count times. Accordingly, the frontage road is not considered relevant. CR 13 is a paved roadway with one lane in each direction. It is classified as an arterial roadway extending both north and south of U.S. 34 and is a strategic roadway. The posted speed limit is 55 MPH within the study area. The current roadway con- figuration and traffic controls are shown on Figure 2. 3 2 A- *4i) 1- 11- -0-- STOP U.S.34 V --ID, 1 1 0 J C 7 O U * Acceleration Lane Figure 2 4 CURRENT ROADWAY GEOMETRY \ B). Current Traffic Conditions Peak hour traffic counts were undertaken in conjunction with this study with daily traffic counts obtained from agency sources. This information is shown on Figure 3 for critical peak hour time frames and on a daily basis. Count sheets are available in Appendix A. C). Current Operations In order to establish baseline conditions, current traffic was loaded onto the available roadway geometry and operating levels of service (LOS) were determined. This was undertaken for the periods representing the morning and afternoon peak site traffic times. For definition purposes, acceptable operations are considered as overall intersection level of service 'D' or better. Critical minor street left turn movements are allowed to operate at level of service 'E/F' during peak periods. This is considered normal at stop sign controlled intersections during urban peak hour conditions. Improved operations are expected at non-peak hour times. Resultant current operat- ing conditions are shown below. CURRENT OPERATIONS Movement/ Level of Service Intersection Control Direction AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr U.S. 34 - CR 13 Stop EB L B C WBL E D NB LTR F F SB LT F F SB R C C As indicated, acceptable conditions currently exist. Capacity worksheets are in Appendix B. 5 rnoa 34/43 1— 1613/1824 (46. ,(-- 20/12 40,000 U.S.34 9/28 --11 1850/1739 —÷ Lo co O 7/7 - r O � r C) CQ d C C O U LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour ! Figure 3 Daily CURRENT PEAK HOUR AND DAILY TRAFFIC f D). Surrounding Land Uses The Martin Marietta development will be located on a site currently used for similar or compatible uses. For the most part, the area along U.S. 34 is currently vacant with residential development to the east. Several development plans currently exist for the area north of U.S. 34 and the parcel between the site and U.S. 34. These plans, however, are only in the discussion stage and there are no formal approvals. III. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS At the onset and during the course of this study, several conversations were held with Gloria Hice-Idler representing CDOT. Additionally, Weld County requested a full traffic impact study. During these discussions, the following key issues were either identified or recommended for use/inclusion in this study. • CD0T published traffic growth rates for this section of U.S. 34 should be used in this study. • COOT heard of other potential development at the U.S. 34 — CR 13 inter- section and asked that traffic estimates contained in the approved traffic studies for those developments are used in this study. • The existing turn lanes on U.S. 34 should be addressed for conformance with current design standards. Weld County provided roadway information for CR 13. Additionally, a neighborhood meeting was held on January 27, 2015. Traffic comments from local residents fo- cused on current operations at the U.S. 34 — CR 13 intersection and future operations with additional traffic at this intersection. 7 IV. DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS All site activity will be located along the east side of CR 13 about one-half mile south of U.S. 34. The site address is 27486 County Road 13. A concept plan is presented on Figure 4. A).Development Overview Martin Marietta expects to open this facility in 2016 with all site functions expected to be operational in 2017. At that time, an asphalt batch plant, a concrete batch plant, aggregate operations including sales, and support facilities will be fully functional. The site will also have administrative offices, a scale house, modular buildings, stor- age areas, aggregate equipment, storage tanks, fuel storage, a railroad loop for delivering aggregate to the site and other support and operational facilities. Site access will be provided by the existing driveway to CR 13 with emergency access provided as required. B). Site Traffic Site traffic with all site activities fully functional was determined based on operator estimates. Site trips for the short term (2017) and the widely accepted long term planning horizon (2035) are provided below. Morning and afternoon site peak hours are expected within a one hour period between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour In Out In Out Daily SHORT TERM Trucks 40 78 40 20 Cars 67 -- -- 67 TOTAL 107 78 40 87 1,120 LONG TERM Trucks 75 152 55 30 Cars 93 -- -- 93 TOTAL 168 152 55 123 2,260 8 j e a.:.�;^ .. .. . .. lu1OAV-id 3NO') .,-- i • �ry• r_-_...........vim .,, ................................ I • a • j!3 / , • .=E 111 `�� • yy .i. ; Y t9 • ; f� - x :. .< ,/I r;. ...................: � r' liNI�,J/ 3 (" !€5 sj • 1r S, II: '1 i. .b is l ,a� n �, gi.,5 S '(.. _ r •<KF a s r� ,i�. _ a 4, ,. I s I g R; L. ��r 4 x s, al c n S `�S I ii' - e g..!!; aK se' s. U Sz.cu I. U 'I F ��6.E �j�' R< 4 K O K N I s vd.y :r':l `'._°e° f l w d a •3 iq i ¢ Y_ a �'. r I ;S 2, ? I t< 4sn A}6 €, r a:r4 gs - r ;, i c. qi„ . ° • • -. 9 As indicated, daily site trips will start at about 1,120 per day and grow over time to an estimated 2,260 per day. It should be noted that these estimates are indicative of the high season and have not been adjusted to reflect off-peak season conditions. During the off-peak season significantly fewer trips are expected. The indicated estimates will likely occur 6 — 8 months out of the 12 month calendar year. C). Distribution of Site Traffic Site traffic is comprised of employees arriving and departing the site and operating traffic throughout the normal workday. Directional traffic demands as estimated by Martin Marietta resulted in the site trips distributions shown on Figure 5. Subtle variations to the indicated distributions are likely; however, they are not expected to significantly change the outcome of the analyses conducted as part of this study. Site traffic on CR 13, albeit minor, is expected to be locally generated. Site traffic was distributed to area streets resulting in the short term and long term site traffic shown on Figures 6 and 7, respectively. V. FUTURE CONDITIONS A).Background Traffic Background traffic was developed using straight-line growth based upon published CDOT traffic growth estimates for U.S. 34. This equates to about 21A% per year. The same growth rate was also used for CR 13. Estimates were developed for each critical hour during both the short term and the long-term planning horizon. It should be noted that Windsor and Johnstown were contacted regarding development in the other corners of the U.S. 34 — CR 13 intersection. Both agencies stated that these developments were not approved and were not in process at this time. None of the projects were at the level that required a traffic study. Consequently, those develop- ments will need to include Martin Marietta traffic in their traffic studies. Short and long term background traffic is shown on Figures 8 and 9, respectively. 10 2 1 To 76 E E O O zz 55% 45% .111 VP 75% * 25% U.S. 34 t 0o O O O O rn rn V SITE 0 O 0 C C U LEGEND: Employees Trucks Figure 5 1 1 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION z U z z_ z + U z z ,ily �-41 (31C+ 10T)110 (0C+ 10T) 780 U.S.34 312 66(36C+30T)/30(0C + 30T) —4 1 i- P i- un z u) + + + U U co Z .2-z O -- M d- to P�. + pZ 1O7 U O) + In V + NI- p z o I C) i r + N O °' r-- a co r- o - 78 (0C+78T) /87 (67C +20T) c 0-- N (0C+2T)/N (2C + 1T) Site Drive i— T + U O z I- co + (NI U cy z C c O 0 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N= Nominal=less than 5 vehicles C=Cars T=Trucks Figure 6 Daily 1 2 SHORT TERM SITE TRAFFIC 2 U U 1 61 (42C+ 19T)/14 (0C+ 14T) 1;600 U.S.34 604 107(51C +56T)/41 (DC +41T) --� I P P- I= N Z CO N + U UN..J� \/Z r + U p z O + T U + Z U) U Z co + 0 N- 0 M N CO 152 (0C + 152T) /123 (93C+ 30T) N (0C+4T)/ N (2C+ 1T) Site Drive + U 0 z I- N N- + `" U N Z J O 0 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N =Nominal =less than 5 vehicles C=Cars T=Trucks Figure 7 Daily 1 3 LONG TERM SITE TRAFFIC 2 in o ozo k.- 35145 cN 4-- 1695/1915 A c 20/15 42,000 U.S. 34 10/30 1) 1 i 1945/1825 —► LO 5/5 ---4 a z Z o '- '-- u7 N N- a) c J - C 0 0 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour Daily N=Nominal Figure 8 NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 14 `SHORT TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC o z k 55/70 C) `�' f +- 2695/3045 0-- 35/20 66,800 U.S. 34 15/45 -� 3090/2905 —IP, 10/10 � oQ o � n N O LU c-- d C J C O U LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour Daily N=Nominal Figure 9 NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 1 5 LONG TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC B). Total Traffic Total traffic was developed for each future evaluation year. Total traffic is the combi- nation of site and background traffic. This information is shown on Figures 10 and 11 for the short and long term, respectively. C).Roadway System The short term and long term roadway system was envisioned. Anticipated agency sponsored roadway improvements and corresponding time frames are indicated below. They relate to major roadway widening as opposed to spot improvements. Time Frame Improvement Short Term No improvements. Long Term Widening U.S. 34 to a six lane highway followed by an interchange at the U.S. 34 — CR 13 intersection as needed to serve long term traffic demands. Widening CR 13 to serve future traffic as needed. No other improvements are imminent; however various documents have identified street system expansion such as connecting O Street in Greeley to Crossroads Boulevard, connecting Two Rivers Parkway to Harmony Road, constructing parallel collector roadways, and other regional improvements to reduce traffic on U.S. 34. VI.TRAFFIC IMPACTS In order to assess operating conditions with the projects fully operational, highway capacity analyses were utilized at each key intersection. These are the U.S. 34 - CR 13 intersection and the site access point. Conditions representative of the short and long term were evaluated. 16 2 un o z o 35/45 z r- +- 1695/1915 1 60/25 42,760 U.S. 34 42,310 10/30-4 1 rr 1 1945/1825—► U) U) C 70/35 o z o cel T co vr N Lo a k— 80/85 N/N Site Drive z Qz U!) u) P- O C J C O U LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N =Nominal=less than 5 vehicles Daily Figure 10 NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 1 7 SHORT TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC C, 1 LO Z 55/70 co I 1— 2695/3045 A 71. ( 95/35 68,400 U.S. 34 67,405 15/45 1 3090/2905—P. 0 0 115/50—4 co r � zLO LO LC) LC) co O Lc) M Q O `n 150/125 N/N Site Drive 11 Z M L() O N C J C 7 O U LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N=Nominal=less than 5 vehicles Daily Figure 11 NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 18 LONG TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC ` (rev) J At the onset of these undertakings, turning traffic was reviewed at each intersection to identify the need for auxiliary lanes or an upgrade in traffic controls. Findings for each intersection during each time frame are documented in the following sections. A). Short Term A review of peak traffic was conducted to determine the need for auxiliary lanes at the site access to CR 13. This review used the following Weld County turn lane criteria: >10 vph during peak hour turning left into the facility-left deceleration lane >25 vph during peak hour turning right into the facility-right deceleration lane >50 vph during peak hour turning right out of the facility-right acceleration lane Based on the above warrants, a southbound left turn deceleration lane and a north- bound right turn acceleration lane are numerically warranted on CR 13 at the site access. The feasibility of installing the acceleration lane is questionable given the distance between U.S. 34 and the site access. The distance is not practical to allow loaded trucks to speed up to 55 MPH and then decelerate to a stop condition at U.S. 34. Accordingly, the County should consider waiving this lane and/or lowering the speed limit on CR 13. Based on CDOT criteria for NR-B roadways with a 40 MPH speed limit the acceleration lane will not be warranted. All auxiliary lanes are required with the EX roadway classification and currently exist at the U.S. 34 — CR 13 intersection. Future operations were assessed using the short term traffic loadings and the road- way geometry shown on Figure 12. Resultant operating conditions are indicated below. It should be noted that operational levels of service do not consider the north- bound right turn acceleration lane at the site driveway and therefore, if this tane is waived, no changes in levels of service are expected. Based on operational levels of service at the U.S. 34 — CR 13 intersection and the potential for this intersection to satisfy the Four Hour Vehicular Volume traffic signal warrant, this intersection was also evaluated as a signalized intersection. 19 2 4- *4) v '*. 4- STOP U.S._AL. * I ilr* —► STOP Site Drive T74P. 0 U * Acceleration Lane Figure 12 20 SHORT TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY SHORT TERM OPERATIONS WITH PROJECT Movement/ Level of Service Intersection Control Direction AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr U.S. 34— CR 13 Stop EB L C C (NB & SB) WBL F F NB LT F F NBR D C SB LT F F SBR C C U.S. 34 - CR 13 Signal EB L B C EB T C B EB R A A WBL C B WBT B C WB R C C NB LT D D NBR D D SB LT D D SBR D D Overall C C CR 13 - Site Drive Stop SB L A A WB LR A A As shown, acceptable operations are expected with this project fully operational; however, traffic entering U.S. 34 from CR 13 will experience significant delays with stop sign control at this intersection. Capacity worksheets are presented in Appendix C. 21 B).Long Term Operating Conditions Conditions representing 2035 were assessed using long term total traffic and the long term roadway geometry and controls shown on Figure 13. Capacity analyses resulted in the operating levels of service shown below. As shown, significant delays are expected at the U.S. 34 — CR 13 intersection. Long term congestion has been acknowledged along the U.S. 34 corridor for a number of years and will be discussed later in this report. LONG TERM OPERATIONS WITH PROJECT Movement/ Level of Service Intersection Control Direction AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr U.S. 34 — CR 13 Signal EB L B B EB T F F EB R A A WBL F B WB T A F NB L E D NB T E E , NB R E E SB L D D SB T E E SB R E E Overall C D CR 13 — Site Drive Stop SB L A A WB LR B A Capacity worksheets are available in Appendix D. 22 O 4- 1- or interchange * U.S. 34 CTJ Site Drive ,11" m O U * With free right turn lanes. \ Figure 13 23 LONG TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY VI I.DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Auxiliary lane storage lengths and designs were developed for peak operating hours during the various time frames. Truck traffic was considered in this effort using short term and long term total traffic. Vehicle storage needs for left and right turn decelera- tion lanes are indicated below. The number of vehicles was adjusted to reflect trucks with one large truck assumed equal to three passenger cars as required by the Ac- cess Code. It should be noted that only site impacted turn lanes are presented. Also, the northbound CR 13 to eastbound right turn traffic movement is anticipated to be free-flowing. PRELIMINARY VEHICLE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS INTERSECTION LANE SHORT TERM LONG TERM STORAGE (FT.) STORAGE (FT.) U.S. 34-CR 13 WB LT 90 150 NB LT 200 370 (3) EB R 135 (1) 235 (3) NB R 200(2) 0 CR 13-Site Drive SB L 185 300 (1)With signalization. Without signalization no storage is needed. (2) Length needed to clear left turn traffic queue based on capacity worksheets with stop sign control. (3)With signalization. Left turn storage can be provided in two lanes each having 185 feet of storage. Preliminary auxiliary lane designs are based on the EX roadway category, current speed limits, and future traffic demands are provided below. 24 DESIGN LENGTH (1) INTERSECTION LANE CURRENT SHORT LONG LENGTH (1) TERM TERM U.S. 34—CR 13 NB to EB Right Turn Acceleration 570' 1,680' 1,680' EB to SB Right Turn Deceleration 2,600' 1,335' 1,335' WB Left Turn Deceleration 670' 1,190' 1,250' NB Left Turn Deceleration (3) N/A 1,100' 1,270' NB Right Turn Deceleration (3) N/A 420' (2) 600' CR 13- Drive SB Left Turn Deceleration (3) N/A 1,005' 1,120' (1) Includes taper and storage where applicable (2) Needed to avoid movement being blocked in the short term with stop sign control (3) Can be shortened with a reduced speed limit on CR 13 The preliminary designs indicated above are subject to design changes and modifica- tions during preliminary design. They are also subject to changes at the U.S. 34 — CR 13 intersection with traffic signal installation and a speed limit reduction on CR 13. A brief discussion of improvements at each critical intersection follows. U.S. 34 — CR 13 Major improvements are needed at this intersection in the long term. This fact has been recognized by CDOT for the last 10-15 years given future traffic demands on U.S. 34. Corridor studies dating back to 2003 and perhaps earlier, and the U.S. 34 Access Control Plan indicate traffic signals, widening U.S. 34 to six lanes and a future interchange are planned at CR 13. COOT has stated that U.S. 34 will serve more traffic than 1-25 in this area, sometime in the future. The increase in through traffic on U.S. 34 is the basic issue but the addition of site traffic at this intersection magnifies the issue. The fact remains, however, that traffic on U.S. 34 will reach levels exceed- ing the capacity of both the current four lane facility and in the future, the six lane facility whether Martin Marietta develops or not. Traffic signals provide usable gaps in traffic that allow side street traffic to safely enter U.S. 34. In order for traffic signals to work efficiently, approach improvements will be necessary and therefore, future traffic demands dictate a need for upgrading this intersection. The overall design of this 25 intersection should not be finalized until future traffic demands associated with devel- opment along the north side of U.S. 34 are known. The frontage road intersection with CR 13 just south of U.S. 34 can remain in the short term although it may be blocked a large percentage of the time. It will be relo- cated farther south in the long term according to the U.S. 34 Access Control Plan. CR 13 — Site Access A southbound left turn deceleration lane is needed on CR 13 at the site driveway. Additionally, a westbound to northbound right turn acceleration lane is also numerical- ly warranted. The prudence of installing the acceleration lane is questionable given the one-half mile spacing between the driveway and U.S. 34. Based on CDOT's Access Code design criteria and the 55 MPH speed limit on CR13 a truck would need about 2,000 feet to accelerate to 55 MPH and then decelerate to a stop at U.S. 34. Such a maneuver is not reasonable in the available distance. Instead, the County should lower the speed limit on CR 13 to 40 MPH. A 40 MPH truck speed should be attainable in about 525 feet with a total acceleration and deceleration distance of about 1,040 feet. VIII. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the above documented investigations and analyses, the following can be concluded. • Operating conditions in the area of Martin Marietta's proposed Highway 34 development are acceptable; however, significant delay is being experi- enced by CR 13 traffic entering U.S. 34 during peak hours. This is a direct result of the amount of traffic using U.S. 34 and the number of usable gaps in traffic for CR 13 traffic to safely enter U.S. 34. 26 • The Martin Marietta project will add 185 morning peak hour trips, 127 af- ternoon peak hour trips and 1,120 trips per day during the peak 6 - 8 month season in the short term. During the remaining 4 - 6 months significantly less site traffic is expected. • Site peak hour trips can be easily accommodated by the short term road- way system shown on Figure 12. • Short term operating conditions will remain acceptable with the addition of site traffic; however, CR 13 traffic will continue to experience significant de- lay when turning onto U.S. 34. Traffic signals may be warranted at the U.S. 34 — CR 13 intersection in the time frame surrounding the short term. Accordingly, CDOT should monitor this intersection in conjunction with the opening of the Martin Marietta development. • Weld County should reduce the CR 13 speed limit to 40 MPH from a loca- tion just south of the Martin Marietta site to U.S. 34. This reduction should be made when Martin Marietta develops. • Site traffic will grow over time and is expected to level off at 320 morning peak hour trips, 178 afternoon peak hour trips and 2,260 trips per day dur- ing the peak 6 - 8 month season in the long term with significantly less site traffic during the remaining months of the year. • Numerous studies and planning documents have indicated that due to fu- ture traffic demands on U.S. 34, traffic signals, widening U.S. 34 to six though lanes, and a future interchange will be needed at CR 13. • Regional improvements such as connecting O Street in Greeley to Cross- roads Boulevard, connecting Two Rivers Parkway to Harmony Road, con- structing parallel collector roadways, and other regional improvements to reduce traffic on U.S. 34 have also been identified. Pursuit of these im- provements should be a regional priority. • Acceptable operating conditions are anticipated through the long term time frame with the improvements shown on Figure 13. The planned inter- 27 change at the U.S. 34 — CR 13 intersection will result in acceptable opera- tions through the long term. • It appears that a cooperative effort between CDOT, Weld County, John- stown, Windsor and the greater development community to improve local conditions is in the best interest of all parties. This would eliminate the like- lihood of a patchwork approach to roadway improvements, provide econo- mies of scale, and minimize the disruption to area traffic. • The Martin Marietta Highway 34 development is viable from a traffic engi- neering perspective. In summary, the improvements identified in this study will ease or mitigate the impacts of site traffic as well as a very significant background traffic growth. If implemented, they will improve roadway operations in this area for the foreseeable future. 28 APPENDIX A co 15Q tieND000r` NOO) Q` ca Q- °a° in(0F- G co in CD OD Q) f- Q) Q) 00 cD Y7 M' ti OD. um a0 6) CD OD 00 cal C H _ CD (0 O _ 'Z Q) 'd' co I` co 00 r CO CO N 07 CO 00 ti - H a y CO cI7 47 I, C) CD CO CO H7 fr iA CO C17 C) CC7 Q) CK N co a ti co 00 ID 117 M Q.- CQ �' 00 OD Or OD N M al) cvs N N 61 O C 0 .47. IR PO O0 a-, e:d' y1i+�1�7 to CO t- GO fl.;OQ 1w: H I� 'N' CD F S J ea)t 16') !?t sit Sr c�R s co AD Lo ,r o O O eo a (+y3 en v ar O 06 r f 7 ?` .03 LO .. CC OO 00 00 C7 N ,f O] M; CDpn CO CO O CO CD �sI'" O I...-cr --,Z Cn 10 0 N 0) N CD r CO O n OD 00 O d7 LC) O M a2 uo 00 O N N- N M CD "r.: COC.D M V O M O M co,M <Y `7 M N M <t cr V er u7 �.. 0 ` pp. } J M CC) O Lt7 N V ; V N..- N CA ct t.C) N Ct) N U W F- J U CD [� RD LO N C`7 PI CO ei} CO up 4 a ,f o c0 `t Cn C.) V7 V7 vi- OD 01 Mill. V' v in e• CO N co o c?� Mr FV *g 3[� CF CO O •C Q) y ii = c vus as n `t W i Ie 10 N M ,- y- 00 N .- ti: cr r CD CD N CO N , ti C _ O O u) ti O N CO M C) 53 D7 1� M ti `7 Cr) M: N u7 M N CO N M ( co ti CD CD N- u) as LLJ to A/ J N co N N N N C) cD 0).,.. oO CO Iti- c'7 I- N- CO N Q ..W ......m, ffi ya.. N CL) N 00 a OD N M co CO et U) a N a 00 a p 4.7 r r r r N r r c) r r r r r N ttn F- it II 0 in Cn C LL. liCC CO J C CO st eD 'i._l Gi a s r Cq• Q r fL, Rt r r N M Q . oe '- co ,f CO CO 0) OD N- y- N- CD CD Cf) - '--- Cf7 N t-: r1 J2 Co a a C) N CD O O CV N T- N O CD O O C) O CD E N CS N J d' -,-- N d C`') -- -- co N co IC) r co O C- - :CO 11 C4 T- OCD CD '- W ce co N N N `r Q CV c- ' ,_ ,"- M C.) N O ,- N CO, Cl: 13 M )O F -.ri.ii - H Q:. N o , �� Q p O N J2 CD r C.) co C7 OD C) C' :r N N ,- CD CD CV cY CD C0.. a, CI CO cm a co Q o 0 )( G J M N d' M N M r CD CD O CD r r N ,- Cry . 0 0 C9 c O y N a 47 Z CI: M G d co CD U) a K) CD u7 o C() U- r.- nt o IC) CD CA a f7 CD"itC[) 1 LIU J L E -- M d' O T- M sr O w-� = CO s- M O T- M CC7 C7 al" H d000000aa a- o4 0C 000a v a Om CO 4i W APPENDIX B Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection 34-CR13 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction ',-1� Date Performed 64/2015 Analysis Year X Analysis Time Period _ PM Project Description East/West Street: US 34 North/South Street: CR 13 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume(veh/h) 9 1850 7 20 1613 34 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 1850 7 20 1613 34 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 75 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 11 1 10 10 2 19 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 1 10 10 2 19 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 _ 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LT R v(veh/h) - 9 20 22 12 19 C (m) (veh/h) 389 132 35 14 328 vlc 0.02 0.15 0.63 0.86 0.06 95%queue length w 0.07 0.52 2.17 2.00 0.18 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.5 37.1 214.2 546.6 16.6 LOS B E F F C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 214.2 221.8 Approach LOS -- -- F F Copyright©2010 University of Florida,AM Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 2/24/2015 2:00 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kE76D.tmp 2/24/2015 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection �34-CR 13 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 2/2 15 Analysis Year EX Analysis Time Period 41 f 1 Project Description East/West Street: US 34 North/South Street: CR 13 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 28 1739 7 12 1824 43 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 28 1739 7 12 1824 43 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 75 -- — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes / 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration W L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 6 6 8 1 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 6 6 8 1 15 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT _ R Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LT R (veh/h) 28 12 17 9 15 C (m) (veh/h) 319 152 8 17 282 lc 0.09 0.08 2.13 0.53 0.05 .W 95%queue length 0.29 0.25 3.15 1.40 0.17 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.4 30.7 1411 359.2 18.5 LOS C D F F C pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 1411 146.3 pproach LOS -- -- F F Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 2/24/2015 1:58 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kE76D.tmp 2/24/2015 APPENDIX C Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 13-DRIVEWAY Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 24/2015 Analysis Year (S)L TO Analysis Time Period d.., PM Project Description ��JJ East/West Street: SITE DRIVE _North/South Street: CR 13 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 20 1 105 25 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 20 1 105 25 0 (veh/h) , Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 35 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L _ T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume(veh/h) 1 80 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 80 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 100 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(veh/h) 105 81 C (m) (veh/h) 1405 831 vie 0.07 0.10 95% queue length _ 0.24 0.32 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 9.8 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.8 Approach LOS -- -- A Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 2/24/2015 4:09 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k82E4.tmp 2/24/2015 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of I. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 13-DRIVEWAY Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 2/24/2015 Analysis Year OLT co, Analysis Time Period AMIV� Project Description ��JJ East/West Street: SITE DRIVE North/South Street: CR 13 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume(veh/h) 20 1 40 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 20 1 40 20 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 100 -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 _ 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 85 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 85 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 50 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR , v(veh/h) 40 86 C (m) (veh/h) 1137 933 vie 0.04 0.09 _ 95% queue length 0.11 0.30 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.3 9.2 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.2 Approach LOS -- -- A Copyright©2010 University of Florida,At Rights Reserved F/CS-ITM Version 5.6 Generated: 2/24/2015 4:14 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k82E4.tmp 2/24/2015 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC 'Intersection 34-CR13 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 2/ 4/2015 Analysis Year EX( AL Analysis Time Period M � Project Description East/West Street: US 34 `North/South Street: CR 13 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments _ Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 I 2 I 3 4 5 I 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 10 1945 70 60 1695 35 - Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 1945 70 60 1695 35 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 75 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 _ 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 70 1 30 10 1 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 70 1 30 10 1 20 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles _ 75 0 75 10 10 10 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 - 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 _ 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R W LT R v(veh/h) 10 60 71 30 11 20 C (m) (veh/h) 361 109 15 183 8 341 v/c 0.03 0.55 4.73 0.16 1.38 0.06 95%queue length 0.09 2.58 9.73 0.57 2.23 0.19 Control Delay (s/veh) 15.3 72.6 2188 28.5 1074 16.2 LOS C F F D F C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 1547 391.5 Approach LOS -- -- F F Copyright©2010 university of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 2/24/2015 1:42 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kE76D.tmp 2/24/2015 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection 34-CR13 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction � ' Date Performed 2/24 15 Analysis Year EX kCTA) Analysis Time Period AM PM f Project Description East/West Street: US 34 North/South Street: CR 13 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 30 1825 35 25 1915 45 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 1825 35 25 1915 45 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- l 75 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal _ 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 55 5 40 10 1 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 5 40 10 1 15 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 50 0 50 10 10 - 10 Percent Grade (%) - 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v(veh/h) 30 25 60 40 11 15 C (m) (veh/h) 293 132 13 238 14 293 lc 0.10 0.19 4.62 0.17 0.79 0.05 95% queue length 0.34 0.67 8.52 0.59 1.85 . 0.16 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.7 38.5 2208 23.2 519.3 - 17.9 LOS C E F C F C ..pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 1334 230.1 pproach LOS -- -- F F Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 2/24/2015 1:49 PM file:///C_iUsers/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kE76D.tmp 2/24/2015 HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary • paper,—" ..w x:x:...::.,. ...M -- -•---•'---- .. ,x s•r ie...,eYtMe.... .., w-....,.,.. ...w. - ---- ::iFAFa ^a"..' �..x.::x.x,,.:;:;:z.u":z:z:::::s,:;:::;:;:;:v:: [:�: ;�.,.. -.y a 7 3a3.•r�,, rv".ya ar,fit. i ..».W.ri if F g aa5 •ea 1 -'`EEE.as'''Egr :EgPf it,. :ig t°:E'igitii3:;::< :g Yt,-y;,.,.,.r};r ,Ea,ij'£ wi4emr.E:n�.'s:re.;:;:•;:;:::;:'i:I.,<x.x 3�• F t ��.Iy�3� Y]:....] �. '8ar�,.. Y•E£�,,E ,P,,,,,—"'t ri'r•r6 - :FyY�^ S as a• ,. .« a..c[,^_T.rrat.Et�EStE�y..<....,'F< r7ia;;..'�aa..•:,:;:c....E.t;a.�:�Y:,:c.<::::ar"n:c: iz:E£a»:v'r::: F(.�3�....ly' �.t::. P .. ...1_" �......iA. :.Y^ .3. .. 'j"T^.�'...�,y .1........ :<,s«. SS 'F(E�FFi,{'O.'AY':E. Y'E'3L9C'"Fttl«.:::ti.x�iY:f�fiFlF.i.,[.£:.£[r'r'•:.E...yY�Y.................<...«....,r,..v...r,.«,...<»x......Y...,<. ri 4y�_�"�_�'t',�:t< .,.^,},, M. ....3,<.<.< <.i........,.b.",r: .t .fE ..<., Cze tf#144kf Y•,Y:.,�li Y•".<5M5 t.Y". -<iR Fr...E gg t E.E ."<.«"<"<.Y.<1 A.f ",E.,.:.£:"E":Efli F. .-,-.-.<.<:r::�::z:.-�:<gt..:s'F:::�:::iii :tFecJw'aYXi... 4..I". ..3�i1S�1�3�'S<"Lti Fete "F�Fe:: .-x .... ..<.r F gab a t �t �t":; �<.<y....[a[s3:w^.IeEa:n,,,,..,,Y:,,,:.;::i,e:]c.,.7...F....a..tuCit<s.-...r^....,:. ..'"t:.'>.. ...x..nLrzawe..r 3 [«3W......<..F....�"•••••••3•• �._. err l.b,x,....xw.»» tii 'Wt2,�xnL�:,n " '15t�S '� ,..`4�1[4zk�r.,t'"w.:a1:'„ 3EE:FC."""..f:YSY:..LY•]F. `General Information Intersection Information Agency l ( Duration, h =0.25 w t Analyst GC' Analysis Date ;2124/2.015 I Area Type ;Other =•; , 0 .....»_..,..:..:. �i�::�,:>..:>.:.>rex^a,.,.........»,rn:.:,»rn»»„..,_<...W...:...........:........w..wx,..,.>�..,xM.x, -...-.,. ,....<._.,....... ....__.. ��. =~Jurisdiction j Time Period 'M PHF ;0.92 - ...~., . ra..'c: o'r'b.. '�a;': t a a'e;` fir o c. F: : 0• L <£, s Intersection tUS 34-CR 13 g Analysis Year 2 r 7 Analysis Period i1>7:00 '` ' ' -_, File Name il :,,.._.w:..., .....<.....,w,;M.x._..xs:¢:¢w..:.r.:._,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;M...... ......__«...__: .4."':: r.:,,,x , wr..,» — .,......,,.....,., ,,,x.x,.........""....._... ^ , .-_<.....__.........,..,..............<................... l Project Description ., ,.,:z�aw:;;xrz.riiii:;.s....r::..vs«:vs:au;r:::: -F. ...]"3: . :Y:::.._F.,F.xy .<:.•,:..<,:;::<..:z::.'.....av J,a...zsxa:a:a::s. .. ... ..' r,, z.....ze.cx:��"::rxi'i"h.....aiF.....�..<`:.""'"Yi:ESiFE"EY...y.......... SF:iiR.',3i�:Fa:i.......... T ftT'SBF3?.... .E L.�F:( .f...t r •,••.•••••.• r r F,F:�'��'4,:�FY:.'t.'«k,l:J�9F.R.z.[C.'�.f�ls):.X....... .. .... .EY.fSXY.3.....<rw,wwYr.F{].:':�[S.�vx:iFSGF1.':A':F,TF['..:.w�::"�:FI :ii�� iY.,..�.�;"..e... �.<Y... ..>;i^""F' :..71.'.•f...td_ ,.ra isi;".•.B,ie,R'.t,R'.^KA9.�F2.�i :iL�a':»`Ea:;Y.£Ff»:::.rytw- i�iE3Ei:i:i:iEEiEieie•e•�EE•{�]:--::• , _[Y ."F..:.f.frEE#,.....iS»«»<...;..i.�...;<......,YF..:R.EE•f .( ....<. f.......Y..... ..- <.F<.si"^"'.i.J'.i.'S .,, ,{yE, I �¢� .,L<.....,<......�L.. :"•F••,F•••••••••••.••t.E t t El.... .. r G}til�Y...r.r..<.E....,.,....<...,."i..F.•�,<..,.<......<..,<...E YE.��:E..Y.«.a.a..n xsa•x•,d..[..xF[333iI:YFt,e,t.FF:`.'.::e::.':: � : 3'Wa:>r.Y R.:4. .lit l•£.., <A:t5CEE:•'El'YF..kge TFFr."tlii.w<.t;:i₹Y..ii ,..".],..,.»<.E..C =.F[r,,,.,.<.,,.i.......t E t.»<.<.<.< ,.„+. ,««..<"...","E", 4t.t....,«»<................<,<.<.<.<...r,..<. ".E"ES""".,.<.<,.,-....,-.-- -,-„",.,T,I.....,<.,.,",.,",",...,. t...,«. ....... r.w{F;[�Fp�..,L.r"E'�... ..•...•f•..Fs�y�YLf..3._...-<......M.3....,.,£t�� .,. <... f_r]...,.....y_...E.y......E.t E....«•II��. .... ..........i.<,.........,.,.,... h^<.<,........<....at ..,.,<..•...•,.....tai.............-..<,.,..........<.<L..,.............. iE ..A9 3.....Ett ..w. F. r.r"•. �.•.P[YSY"YY �.....Y....aL.....i'....[-__..e..,...y7,F•.eet��1:9:@3S4^ErFr7�)iI§.E.,.y1�.,xwF3i«^ata33.:Y.i:[[[ist:.^eiC.,..E...»......F.<.k.'FiF.tA,za�nzlzazx.a,a..,¢w.xE...n3d,..ErE...Y.....ri»::::F[:i1xF.i:.ete...,t:�........t,nrr.,ri<..,;„aF.r.........R.................................x3...1 ()emend In.formatron EB q: • Ef L T R ' L ' T.n R L.. Approach Movement , --M_ a,.,..,„•w.....,..........,...,x.x..,..x.x..,.w.x..N..;.z.:.x:,r.r.;.;a..:.::.......,.,..,..,......,..,......,........,,,..•.........hs.<.:...:.,y;.::r�._..:.,:r:,.,.x....�....x............x.»»�......,.......x.,x.x.x.:. R L T R ;•Demand•.(v) :veh/h'.:: . 10 ':: 1945 70: I� '.60-.-1.1695..i.:. .. ..:.....35....:. 70 • 1 • 3 .,,..₹':.<._• 0.....y....»..,1 20 i ""x:.:.::.:a•.}.. _ :.' i8I • ..m•......e S i. "I:atXi. E "" " Y ai k:.FziR S' ..... 'i t«�.i¢«<Ht.L77 F 3.<L:QF<i^."•".•th ^d:9:':'"' rjifw,.3 [ReKY4tflic .j:::a:::a:t:F_'.,:Nr,₹3 E - :::r.l"':.:£'F: <3EF.'^«.......°� Fr .:«�»�. '�''5 'R FRr�&F..^ ...1�+;;.�f��,• ."i.L"'f[E, t�Y�t {ea.,F.iiF.^".. ..3 3:LE.E.::9::«:.:.'<�:,• i.Ti:r:..E:i�•E"."X��:::]:F�::::':'�.':��..s:,"<)::£:«i:i .£:F;F': t� ;Fiti�: LL6,� ^i8..... .YG 3 E .e '°Y""'i"tl3;3%ffiYF�F,,�••�� .J' L'"3a' aF ':'•'•� L^�.E:i••••d°Bl�¢:�»,'t.:::Y..?•Fi xi'�PF..•:' t3:�3�3sr....«•w>aaT i�i3;I.E.3Yf'T:t<:9:Fr;......»...�....l..-......<,..<<......<...... 0 F" g,«.«.. t. . ... <'G:d.... ,F a e ':l>yGtY,F.F`i[k .. .. -.43 i.11 Fii"�iI'i;001,.5.""t„eyi141::tr'—�xF-<y ip100i. hitai'»•:::::Fs'.-44:.•::.;::ril r,s<" <;s,<y..,�,rc;�;iF::;,l;f r.,44itr:MF?:.i ...x�,,,, F............. 1GTXi ,..'%.A�.Rf37FIAz..... ..... w. E,.,�..�afisaete?wF. -. e'�.S.9.£'»'XY<l'�.�t..—,8. .... ..«Fir-F�..Fi�.i.i.:<.<..a6.E.E EB.BP........... .... ..........»<.. ;..Signal.Information. . : • £ i <. i� I R f rence Phase 12 ..=- _ Cycle,s 100,0 t e e :iv.n.w•,.r..u:....,::<:,ua.:r::^s:s:s::::<rx,r,,,rrr.w....[....,-•w.....s.x.<...z,..:.warzs:,:rx¢:,:sons-r:2n„[.............«,.ate ii e <. ... 3: Offset,s.. .�.. ;1 0. Reference Point , Begin ,, r Green 5.0 :60.0 ;5.0 1.0 i 5.0 0.0 Uncoordinated i Yes li Simult.Gap E/W On Yellow 14.O 4.0 :4.0 14,0 :0,0 i 4.0 0.0 Force•Mode .. Fixed Simult:Gap N/S• . On 11 Red 2.0 12.0 12.0.......... `.0.0 3.2,0..............i0.0................'! : :::;,::, 3;.::,......:; ::.:.::;,;::' ;.: :'. gi. .Y ^F °Zw,...,,,dffi",w•F" Fi. '0.41�0a .'J'ii.mizz- ...`5.t?]Is s<z:„.i....[[F' 3F3.......,."•ti .wite• ..'iicaY. ,ymSW S.;f.. 33.3pl aY"..a.£E•.F.---e3, ^.E.E.E t:9:,:.<Y::.•..,.Fi,<..F.:i[.•-.,...<",.t"t3§Y£.5dtt]f F—x•].<...�.«:•"R£"SF:'<::':a'F wr'i•i.'�,...:i:.^.i:^":,:i:Ct",. ,•,a"ac Nk•-••» ,:-. :......E.i -•• �..• ''''a . ,3 t....3,.El 3;q.4.11 %...1.1.5,.<5 ifI ..i' i:.'.e.2..,E�' e.[•[.i:.'i:'.Y'._ .E .tx..r» LW9iIY'., Eet, »F.<.F.]Y.Fh:FFF<a..."'..Xi"%�:isµ`.,LYt¢ :•,i' .F,..L:.:i:i:.[t�t"!,.'.'::::::: higa.]FL F.3:«.,.... .[0.`::,aardH fly'. ....d •,i^a...i•{iw'lii a "{R �.n niPESEEdE•FE,Yr1 ,aEi 3Y{ ':rrw«.r.r rS...<:.§3�-11P-A r:f�i,Pgr...",e4:• Tamar• 't'P F.::;ti:•::::i:'sati t. tyk i'v::3 pp "°" .. Kee s ,: , . ,.. 7?"_:,. .Y:f�E Le e a ,,,. a3l z i««.iet!tdfi n .,¢,,<...,,,,::a.1:,r.I:a:.c.aJtvctr.,,,,,!,Rcc.e.t�E:9.,.......::::::F:c:e:s,_:;T,n4,,,,t,,,.:.,<.--.. ........ tE.. F3«....fi.:.... .e%e x a. .�,»..ts•₹i3+r.�•=•,.-.�%¢..»q[.....-....., ,E 3 Timer•Results' ... EBL • EBT WB'L • WBT E NBL NBT SBL SBT :m.......,,,,w..,...<:...,.w.iJxi,�axArr::.;:ua,a,wru;;rea........,.m.rnvrwnr«r.:.rw.:n.u...•v_m:s:m.:,i,--...•v,.v.............y,.....wuu,:.a,.....aroarn.... ..,x,:.. .. ,.... ___,. —..... .m.. x.,.,, .a....... .. ...u._•..........v."IE:'..-..... .<-........<........... ...... .µr Assigned Phase 5 s 2 t ' 7 ,.,..,.,_.<,•.»wµMM�M��M.:.:::-:-:,>,,,.r.�...........�.»...---------.._.,_,.MAR.,. , _.... Case•Numbe.r:• .. • 11,,. 3:0 .'1:1 3:0 11,0. 13.2 7,0 13.3 Vie.." ...,..a.a<..a¢,,,,n.r.,xw..•.w.n..r.e...tautxesxt--...,.,'n,:'.,«....:,.rw!.. ,,.w....,..,.,sxsu.s,s,s.............r.....n„t..... wL,, E r.inx,s.s;:s.....".N�ira'wzs'vn....x..:,.;,s,z,va:4m;....<.:.:.: : , I »;.. • :.•::.:x:z... ,.;...... 11 Phase Duration,s . 11.0 66.0 i 11.0 66.Of1YL'""�mr11 0 12.0 11.0 12,0 t,7...»:. a, .t w....r..,.....,xr.,.,,.,<x,.,a �¢.,a,a,a.,,,,....,~._..................:.::»x.,:,::.".._,.,w,;.,_..•.....,...........a,—„,,—....,„,.,,,,...t...,."F"..;.:..�:.::;,ix;,„..:,.„ ,. i-,x:....,.".""","".r","..... Change Period (Y+Rc} s 6.0. 6.0 11 6:0 .6O 60 60 ii Max Allow Headway(MAf-1), s if 2.9 g 2.8 `F5 2.9 i 2.8 1• 0.0 3.0 0.0 • 3.1 t..>W....:<_:::::,�----,.,.»,._a.w.......w.,.,,».M�.:a,a:,�,�:.,r,r,r.................<__:.:_::.:�.:.:.::.:,.-•--•-•-•--•:[^^.<...�....,.,M,a,a,::r:,... .. .... ....,,.... ............... ........... ....<,<,...,<.....,.... ?.:Queue'Clearance Time(gs)',.s 2:3 60.1 : ' .4.4 35.8. 6.2 3.1 .Green Extension Time (ge), s L 0.0 0.0 r 0,0 ; 146 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 r.,vx".....,.r.r..,.:.....•.••.u.•..rv:..u.:.-e..:,_.....—._............................... ........r..,x".,..",.........,.Yr.......—......-.....<.......,.e.R i .... .: "... Phase Call Probability • 1 00 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 [E 1 00 1.OO ..w.....,..<ix.s:n,.;;.::,s:ri:rrir.n%x,.n...i•rx.:,..r....xs,,:.-s:.....____,,,:...........<.,......::.:::,.,:i,s,s,x•>..,;,;.,r»»..�E....—.._r..,,..wz,ztsssuxsx¢:..s:,:-:...:...........•..J.,......:..:.,:.s,s:�s,.,;,„3aw.....•... .<.......,........ .... _ . •,.µ....«<.<...•. ..... Max Out Probability g 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 0.45 5 1.00 1.00 .. ::.. :, . :,••••„ _.......,1:.;x:w:;a; _`=....................::. :;:;:;,u:xi:iFia:eYFFFF: i E..s,;:r - -- i s 9,'.'I.s . L'L"`:mi"«0..i c-1. ,.r e,.... grt,. ..'XyaW.f.. as..gp ilig(.,•:i.:iY �3tiir. . gfdIE.. ^ ..r.,5.r<isi:•F,f;t&..[.•L••:.::.:<:[F:i.^.:"'.:.::.'"'..':33;3S:::::Ff.:]F:_5trt'..rt°".a .t e[a�,rtd -W Wes, 13sfli....... �3i3a^ »:3,...i.,l3•<�L,..3 eraE�:a ,.��t.........w.i-asirs£:..» ..<...ta,��..E;i..eR.�E...t....5iC.�... "....,�?�'F;;;......exx.�i:WA's:;•..,•.<.<..e<.......<...<,.....sarr.:�.;.e.�......."......ww..,....y...,<,;:r •'�'Yf]f.F.. ......r.,,��yy�- E 9. ... F�I�..,Y ..yY..c:Fi'� .....«. ijr.,£F..:•Y,�^�»....m.,...:.:.»»3 ..:.«.:d 3a0..T.C..t,.......t .........."f�i......•,•.FF .FiTie.:£.`�:»;C .:F:'<<........f.....•,.. t.....[,.....:..,:,,YF::_:]F�..............<,..,. t< dF Wgf.er irg i9 bin, A.M r .. rattil'— ..E.E t"ktL� .3<iF•<i:iF..::E:'i.».tSta. k....t"t:t:F:i:,. a'3a:r"""Fit¢ift.•Ef:: "...,<..,.e.".".,.<.•...[F iFterei:.t;t"t:,3:. -.-,-.,i...i".""",".,.»<.<,».,....F[r[.t.J.,.,"t«,"...1:gip(. RAE 7"ia�[_,Pfro;yYl:,�..t.G ^t,^'..•.•`efif..+1.S 4t, ...:..a •. •.'•_,.. 337;?2 .[:3:i;.£.:{da.:au"'6`e:h£?3t3 k:c.c Wiri:iW:7:r.y!„F:[::c:r.�r.r.r`y -3.^.. ..,;.t txt,Yd�...i.,.»¢.,€¢se,Ys>:.F...,..i.�7F:en;=e,.,.,..,,,nsrs[s....<:-^........t.......... -:,F,,.,.,¢,,.,.. r..<..............t..,.............. ..r • Movement Group:'Results ;r..,...,;::»;::.::ra n,,,,,,.r•;....:i....' ....:,.r....a.r_:.r:.n..x...2 ,,,.«;.,.,..,...:.:...... :....:i. « ........... .,.. fB WB NB Approach Movement - I_ T R R."•, :: 3 = L � T = R �..._L T.._ R: L . T.. R ., _. .axa,a- _M. .y ,.,..:.a.x aw _,,.x„..,.-....<:R a.¢_... �.._<.. re.,. ,: ==,x,.,x.•»........ ^3;......x..,,.,¢,x.. ,.,_....<._•:.: �...... ....... ,.,..... ..r... rP .Assigned Movement •. 5 2 <,<.<,<,•. ».,. • �' 12 I: 1 � 6 16 3 $ 18 7 .....n...t.:s;.,__=^.^:,»x.w-«.::..¢......w.x.x..u><.x:�:a:a:ear-.a.:.,...,..: :-:w..ie:,..._:::•::,,..:»,".,....,...•....,..F:,..<.......<z-,,,.:.,.,..^ ,.......... _ ... .. . Adjusted Flow Rate(v),vehlh a 11 i 2114 I 54 1165 ] 1842 27 `• 77 27 _ 12 16 rrc.r.»»..<.<»,.,.:.........s...,.r"."....., ,,.nn...,q..,.,as"_,.x....,..."........ ...-,-+,,,--. ..:....:.:,:z.:::::::::......... s ;, 'Adjusted Saturation•Fl.ow:Rat:e:(s);.veh/hlln:. . 1448 1.'1773. Ie 1288 h. 4034.�: .'1'773 1288.1 1750 1288 = .1408 128€ Queue Service Time(gs),s -1.! 0,3 t 58.1 1 1,8 n 1.1 £w,......�..a...�M. 2 4 33 8 0 9 4.2 1 9 G O :Cycle Queue Clearance Time : a;:s ..::•V': 0.3. ':58.1 1...$' 11. •24•1. .w-. -33.8• 39...'E.ri.. 4.2 1,9 - 1.0 1.1• .. Y ._.._...^.L;<........:...::i,x,:,».r,.,,x.;..._....:..�.x:.......:.......::,�g�.:�:....;___.,�.isi::,,,:,,.,.»�.....::,�:..-..x.....r.:.;:�-...w �___....µ.:....1,,..n <.:..:,.,. Green Ratio(g/C) 0.65 x 0.60 0.60 III 0.65 O.6O � 0.60 0,06 0.11 0:06 0.11 s.n». »•w w ¢a f, :»176 T "142 153 • 142 Capacity:(c),vehlh �E 1:94 � 21.28' 773 124. : 2128 . 773 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) r 0.05610.993#0.070 0,527;10.866 0.035 0.437 0.192 0,078 0.1 _......,.,,us.a.mw..ww.....«r........:...........i:.....:.-x--•¢.,.<.... uu...v_...a„,..,............,»...............ie �..::.._<......i,u..}i........,.,,•--w^�w.x............,..[.. ...^...<.<....»...;;.....xu .........;;. Available Capacity(Ca),veh/h ••...." x...194 {:{ 2128 773 124•1 2128E 773 176 142 153 142 I Back of Queue(Q), veh/ln (85th percentile) y 0,1 13.6 0.7 1 1,6 7.6 z 0,3 _! 3.3 1-1 ! 0,5 0.6 - .x, , ,�T __ .,. .,..� ,:,:,:, r,a, .x.>, ._x...�,x.,¢�,�x,¢,.„x. ...<....W,;,<,�x.: x....... w x. ..,µ,x:x,»,.a..................< �,,x., w.....,:.....:,,,:,,.,:::F:....,..........,_;...,.- I.Queue Storage•:Ra'tio.(RQ).(85th percentile). 0:00' i 0.00..: 0,00 g ..O.OO •0:00 O.OO• E � 0:00 0.00 =1 0.00 O.00 Uniform Delay(di),s/veh 12.9 1 9.8 8.4 g 24.5 7.4 30.3 46.1 40.5 44.6 40.1 . :'l W 1:7.9... .-.0;0:.., •,.' '.......,..3.9. . .010-.•F... Mri Incremental Dela d2 s/veh 0.0 2.1. initial Queue Delay(d3), s/veh 0 0.0 00. 6 0.0 0.0 ` 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;0 1 Control Delay:.. ;:s/veh .. 13.O: .27:7 .8:4' '1 26'.6 l.11.;2•g 30.3 _: ,r:-_..:r... Y :,:.... v:: _. 33.,w,»•_..-_-•:..:..... £r.•.:.........:.. ..46:.8::,:.,.. <_.,. ,.. .. ......... .<.....^x.,,,.,�:n� ....Mw„-.................s.,_�:,.�:n,.r...;....,......»....,,.,...,a....._,,,,,m„33 ��....�,....,...-�n-rrn-«...:..�......,na;.,,,,r,»r...B......".a:.., ,,:::,:<::� 4 40.7 44.7 40 2 Level of Service(LOS) B x C A �C D D-.x D....M D Approach Delay •s/veh:'/LOS • . 27 ........., ti. .2 ' �C � 12.O- �w,r.r..,.:...:...:.....,.w:.w:¢:¢,-.,r,.. ..,_>.,..F.._.... ............B 45.2 D 42.1 D i Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 20.8 C _..�„. • g gP.-.x.r.... .:i,i:a.. <. 'LW' ':.t—:cF'F[rki:r.[.::i.F i!... •.3.... .E'F:"".ti••iF`J[i[F:,.i:':.a,s:{......,rw......,..F:.'L•.,]tp.•]::ti..Y.tY.i.............�.E'E.iY..t,;:isF:i:::t:f.Fr]nia.'�".t.l,..y.<.,.,...... -..,...,.:... ,<....::. ......a: R.. �-.it ` x .......3F3. ..• L F..:...tLlt'.:L.."•,-.<i..n<w"..{ iiiifit--...:.<.i..""rit.t...•......",-,.r......<...«..]a:i:s�.--v�[�•.. .., ..�..�, E. ..y. i�ra.. ,tw..,•�,Er- wx stn,,:Er.:::;�...^"•. c•E�..I t......... t a��' '.�... ...t F.iEi....E L..i 3.:r...fv��.yx,c;�......'xFa:i:ir.:a:?;,:.a6-�:t:?ir:....,..................."....•..,i:�ti:i:...,,.,......................... ......".. F. t rt E ww...•f.F�F•.9 E 3 m»»R ,, F•Eie:d.4 -illi r'3:...s..;3,rl ,.t.its.i.4,4- h�.eE'r'.t k,.rea,4aL'....Fa?:;;:x.EE^t;•f s9::isiG'r:(E:ci^7? ....i:i:r.:::?: • 3. F.F. Ei��:.:•.�i� .... FA.............r... �j..E�! � YYC3F'G: .... "E"��,s7�ir�i_ .,� ..I �ETti �•n�a�e. F.��.v .;:;:;i�S�� •. _ �S'.rSt.c.t;.,.j5,f:�:x::ita"" -�`-.FFc:;:itttSt?ter:»rr,.e�...�"£F:t.„..:.:.:,.�arr.:r'rmr...�..o.:.;-:.,ES]tx,a.........:.:._.._.........._ .. =`=-----�...« ?--=`' tcsve3x,.,.,....... usi,sc----...............sl.,r,',•...... ......E...r. .f a 1 Multimodal_`Results . • B. .WB .NB SB ,4m,.s,s,x».r:',www,v,wera..,wa:.s,.za,s,eunve.,x,•a,•«,..we•e•...•..au: ,c!e!rr:w,x.r...............i......,—...i................—i... .n.,a,...... ,••5,••r ' Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS li r '' ..w..,n..,,issa:a,rrnwww•.•.•,.•awxwz.a...:wu:xan...,x«.......a....:..,«...fir.•...:.:,;xrss,ss.,.xwwr. .,:,Y.............r.:..........,.«:ixvrso:n,www.,.w«.......-i....z.x,n,x::o:,�.... ...............,............... .......•,......—...... ......<, . F. if.,.:Bicycle LOS Score'7:LOS. .: : . • .h: :` -- I... _ .._.._..."..,......... —a 1.., t: car.. :. ..<. ..r.;:i. ! .. .f5;. - tYAi ,:n, •i$,:"j: .Fri:.i₹ £ zzF I:::<-,i'Ciiz �• i, Reserved.. '-'�7."i.. �f}' ........... ...`.hl{I�i;brt.JeY HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary • ................................ :.a. e. .:...E.. z.•'., .:^:•a::a.a... :q;..,•x " .x .,.. ..............., ;......ilwi:v... ya:Ess: a 3. 'rRR'F3:ri9"^...._.. 'ir:r>.—.-:3:i≥:['ri,'sui:�a�;ust;c;:• :•:zrq;:�Fi: "y:¢y;,:y.a tiit�ara' .[E y'a r. u.,»£.. ems:..-_ 4a"�.E E" —�_ .e3 �c:'�t.E ..., ga,Sa.y � ...I.t^.".gi a:y`Er ":ei.-,,.''="af.::.�f„.,S,iFl.3, x �::a:.x`xtr3 r"i:'.t^�t"^M':..'•.r�•.Sslo iei:i igt"[a" ''�f":Y."' :�^..:: ... "; '>m.T:[. F "4(R ,.8'.Fa .....T�E�E: "'"'C'...<'Y';:'a:.?:'a:.�a: J»t£:.i.f'�E:itE.:LyW'L:a�•'�:::::£:£t.;•"c:5: :'.££; . i iP,3r. efEE> rata .:. _m9 4 : .: :. '.::7ESF i. S� ��..s' s¢•EZE a ?aa. .�" e# �...... .,.b:. t$I Ec�ErE: :3y:y a.a...:.,,a:x,a,a....,.>,.=.w.E,..,.,x.F:cr.,.,,:;s:«,w..,,,:<...«x....�:.,.,.... General Information Intersection Information Agency _ .� ..x........,__...., ....xr,x,x_. x « ...,..w, w... ...........W.W_.. J Duration,h 0 25 . � w ,. . < >A Analyst IGC Analysis Date 12/24/2015 Area Type Other •;, . - x.:..;x..:.:.::;x,i ..» ...^�..^^ .,_._...:,x... n^,...._._.,.._<.....�......<..._..___<._ ..<._.,<,<,<,...... :.", Jurisdiction Time Period A J PI-IF 0.92 �> a iG OTA .....:T......................,,......<w.................,.......,........_........x........�.....M_.........x........_....,...x..,_.x.x.,..,...x.x.x.x...................... .. .,-----'-' '. R 1 I Analysis Year 2017 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 �•' � :a Intersection £US 34-C 3 fy a .1 File Name ;;.. _.._..._.4x..,,,, x�::. a:u �::,:_.......___.........rww_:.,.,.,_<.<.._....r W.. ,<.W.... ......... .. ........., ::M,,: :..:w:::-:r:.::.. .. ,., ,. .._.... �.......__...",.._. l •!Project Description it 1<::;¢.a:;¢.- a• a sera •ri.,,, a..t g<..,..;....w;l ;»»x:.:..1.„„...r :„,..„. :r wv :...<"<...r. ili.E[:[ v[::;a- [a: .at,1.' .x> >,.<"<rr„.4.sssan'nxi.ri S:v::iii. 2:v,»:::[v-:<.¢x:refire .. ^<[."......".i.."a.�;...3.'....tts.ha..n.� ,, ....is[".[..i[i 3.S..v., t'30:9.i3ramii:iar x5sg:: {:,:3�i:eaE.Se3t:g�iIS33 ..;`•a,'^:t, {• a� p<�.y ......7.'f�C YdS [ [ .F.. ........ .... .r.,.....CL.�Ya.¢.it8&YH93FE.E..Lf.. t.f. ,,x ai;?t.^.,^....::'.GS^,.^.^Y�«.:�E.«»»kt3E::::1:::E:•:5t::'.Y.::'`5`•...xix.i[:i�-si:'iF AAa.aFFF¢:........... ....,,........,..Ji¢:"..�"...... t.,,.,...»..iL5H.t..u... ,. gsaa< ..acaa,a�se rm t.,/:> 6F:7 F tti rf.4::.r" ^is i t •E. ,aa: ::`.,., E.....r."�;t r tF a 7 F<l<.a<^.aT.a...s...anc^» r.».»:sir.....".... y..... .:.[:Fa:;:as?�.•�.'ua:3:a:za¢ eaaa:i:E:;:a:Wa:Er:r....."..;a:: uE::::::::s::: f•"...."<.. •a"�„a¢.."a a .e aE- 3,iF.{,e.L.,.i3y;•;^^.aF:..r,3..a:":3¢, 3d3t¢. . •a," ^t.`rY:E�mr�.[[3:3[>i [ .........:x.." sir••"iiYSic:vl:i::a :�—:;:- ::uF:aa? ,t.t,r;.�.x a•a•t.µ....r......... r. <.."fsi ��.�.x^",::nn;n. ,�,?�,�+.�, E EW«m e...�3.....,. ",�':`r::an;.i5xS?i3�. x. diiSr:S.3r.E:,»..,..<!.............�..."[tr!P...[![..i ,.,..e.,,;t,.,..,,s, ,,,,r.4:crc.....,....<, .� .,E....rr.wx�.,...f....v.�;:�3Se.cxd'^rz:a:..^....r»...�.....:r zE.. a3a''. a.eaµ.."r,.--...•�sr• Demand In.formatian EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L ; T ; R L I T R IR L T,...,.. ....R. L. T R {.) 1.5. ©errand v;veh/h' . . : , � 4i 30 l 1825 ' '35 `l 25 i 1915 45 I 55 8..,. ...40.. 1a.... 1... 1.$. .......a^.:RE.tY ,.,>L.. r .,,-..«i r,.,....,L.M...r„r.3...r....,.....1...:C.[G'.. < 'IRi:[R'1 ,i3ilL",�.a..',-ixi�i.i'�,,�....,.........<-<.,<.[<,.,...,l,..f.i.....»....<.....t..<.[`..!.'..Y:FF.:i:t.....':::.:':1:......... yy� 'i ,Y .a}lit:ff.[_[.-t3...S.[..i<......... .i.. ...3........,.[.{..Crr[v!�'F. .t............... Yf .........[.[._<.[...F[........,. .,..<,...,......,..[. r.<<.........,..........A.......,..,.........:r....,................................................^.. ,t,Y....,:t�^A::,tS:.£...'k .4Y"E'i.�liSYFf[ f t.,[........."F...i.i'E r............... [.. n.[ ........a,..."..< ..35.tL rK.UtE�,,.3..::•:f[<.a.[§..........d....t......,...,<............F,L[........,."....5..;.t',...Y.LL :ft•--v,.<,«..,..........,.,.........,......,..,...... [3r n••_^".". d E��,y .,., �i". �t��[,"6"^..^..:X^0,442... ."y E:::tl3::ii<f[[f [" a.....".,.".. „YfL{t3rJUU,r!..,Y:i p .FF�F:Ftgio,m,•^.'.L,,,,n YtE.,mm thF liEY�:.[ .,F."."......,.".P.1•••..t...,,Toz.,,:tl........,,[s .rai`£.^<.£;a;:,.,.:;:;:F:i�;.':,:;:;:,t,,:::.:t,...,",3; .. F.T.i..�.—...^ .E.ma�yr,,.,,.,... Ef CtEi. .......^...."«: t «E.Y.Yl."....E......3 .. •it ....,.,.,3%3.�•.. ........[.ttf,t..[:F.........:...."<.,....t L...<.........". ......... ."ag.'... .'6r 1...[ £' r ....[J-F.a .i....."".. . :,"aiE:,^at•'^�i'.ti:.>itie:jA:a�.9:, i:1) �:fti[.'::Fii.:Fatlti:[ :.[E3........ !zip'x.�3?y9.T...tt.,2...[,.....ro>n, ..."i.:r:.a............CEG..LS..ti�-.[EE[_=^.::^:r=•s,....,}�,n.ar..x,x..u.,x....n.«Y,r"f..fL..,x[i[ P.�i:I,.F,i:.:^¢�`^iwL"�,"!1„3�W�."..It.-[....-i....i[«...-«. -3..s.x.x......ex x,.r..... .. „ .. .. Signal Information ! Cycles I 100.0E Reference Phase 2 rte :: I.Offset,s . ' '0 ::'Reference Point. f. Begin 3 0.0 ..:............::..: <^».<:,».....:" ;<.::,>_�>:::>=:W_x::::_==••====�''''=.' ...w�..:.xw_.:.......:............. Green 5.0 160.0 /5.0 0 0 <:::..:: .......... . I Uncoordinated! Yes ii Simult. Gap E/W On V Yeilow 14.0...-1476--14-6-0 1 . 3 .0 4,0 0.0 ` .... ........ w...r._,.:, r.w�,.»,...,.»_.t_W....xi,ixi,.=n,::-�ww .. ...._.�..w..�w.:»,-.--:._.wwn� .. ........ . ..... ... .. i'F.orce..M ��de..•:_:f•:F:ixed:='S'imuit.:Ga �N/S...:;£: ::On.. E Red 2.0 12.0 E 2.0 10.0 2.0 0.0 I..:.:.....:::. :. : !::::.ii ! : ; :.; :.. :., q £. p l t3"....., '.:.'" ....•fE E .... uz.,gtuta, .. -t:[�^.[:t"[',"^..F'od,ra..mi:E:E:L•fE i 'F[:,£F is 3iY:. .«v,,,."..,.,.,",...<,<."".":.:, .:.6¢i,:",.... ',.a:wAi:^uGi'Ei�t:E4�wSE E:E:�� a�aZ=caa£.a 3:.. • .:'�ffi3 y�'{:F,.^^.'»FS,E T "E[Sr"'.�S St SSa;aS'3SF3S-,Ei"" R ....^... E 1�.3i-:E:•:.".,<.—.C..r.£,......,.<......... ,..E.......L............[.F...t...<.<...«.....»t..,i..CPaY£�.ri1: 1:..".,.,........ �•`fiI'a:^'i"^'''y`E.".t� .G:'�::tE:Ft ».:L`B" t L₹t �,,.�y� •a3.ai�8,E:3Si�itRF��EFE�k�t:�. '�' 'f1<.....<....C. ..fi[.11Y'^t,,'-.a..,.R...^.....Z£»tEE.,EEEL..:::::L.C:ctrF[[^[ .:"Ft,,:ala......,:j:':':r1r�..��..._.,...... ..tt E RE EEE 'Ate .a L'r" —"SA E,"il •int—viSE •E:'E 'tN iiii riE larr.: la=.M^A^."iii5EIQC.•<3:,•".B:E:.:S::E::L::"5:•ha[...ifrir"'ie:;¢,¢.¢:ar... r<'::ru:::r ni1:;2'"'...... '�SGita?Sa2. BEE:'"' R '" "" ¢[• rr.�n�� a V. , e EE .:t..^,E.x...x.,.t.3Ct[tr.EFk'£ xOS......»,.3tE:t3::i:..£...............".,<......... �nrzn,Ee;r, •s1s.E. _aEtEn�sE .1.. �" a�!'3rr aEuutiait;a,.in•xi.....�Y :uE."�. „L'r'�.Enxxr.«'Fw.x.i{„u..i3tF...5..."c: a .Timer:Res.ults. '• .: ' EBL'. i .EBT • 4 •WBL .WBT € NBL •NBT SBL SBT •Assigned Phase 5 2 ` 1 6 3 8 7 4 r Case Number 1:1 • • 3.0 . ti 1.1 I 3.0 i. 11.0 13.2 7.0 13.3 , 11 66.0 11.066.0 11.0 £ Phase Duration, s .0 12 0 11.0 12.0 . Change.:Period,.(Y+Rc), s g .6:0 • 6.0 .6'.0: ' ' 6.0 6:0< 6.0 6.0 • 6-0...... .....,..x:x:rv:x<xrwx.,....w..w....�............................�:,_:.:_::::.:---•---------•.<.<..._<» �,,..<..-.M,x.�m:x,:..m,x:x,x:x:x.:,�:,,x,........................_<.�.,-•--------,.•.•.•.,..: _.. •• Max Allow Headway(MAN),s 2.9 . 2.8 E 2.9 2.8 . .rxni_..nr,:ww:...... Queue C:learance:Time'(gs), s . Li .. •2:8' .46.0 .:. .. 2:9 .. 56:0 „ :: x:x 5.5 3.0 • ..... ,, ..... .. »<."......."... Green Extension Time(ge),s G 0.0 10.3 3a 0.0 3.6 r 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M u < ...,_..._.... • _...^�..,.., � Phase.Call.Probability • . 100. 1:00 1:00 ii 100 1.00 1.00 C"..a.xewrn.,.:..xatr:..."..:.wws.vrx.xw,..r.n.....................r,...«..»<.tixwuu:¢,a:�: xm.,rnn,,,n..<."^...:.j..:....,:.<,:n:......,....:..t..:.n::v.,...:.r....sr.r.,«,r.:...."........«........r....":. ...<............... .m....<»..... ... Max Out Probability -ii 1.00 0.68 ,4 1.00 0.96 ti 1.00 1.00 [ i:a:.....,.,.,„[•I."a...».rAi ::Y'u.;,i... .ii—..-iod'::t.^..¢mistC!r5.Y::::E:::::::41:»,x:.'j:t::i:ix:u......,..,,"...",.,"W"I ...a.F'.....� Y ..Y..�f$�E:`:^E:,,"� '.i.,�c.,c".. AE,E4EE.iE� :t ........i.:.i.»....... F,.�aa,.,a,..^^.f..r•�i:•.'i.E:::rS�:[:`�.S,E,G.{G:.......................................":rR.t ::.::"�:::'<:: «<,.............s,.....,.'�"¢ lair (( "'•Y.�Fe�..[F;r[i3.ara.a."."as, h•.,t,5f1. ii;a.^..:. as �t3:s:sE:Err.°"..t.a a..a ..., r'c£1..... .,,3;x...".....tr.:: ia f.: :;ia:,::�a...r...r,r,..,... ....t,.,.,.,^^^.,.,..a...r..a.. d48'.i,. ei'i.....'y r... ... E ..........3tr.r1E.,"....«...i,„..E•: ':` ....�i f iS,."..» E,E. ..".""»<... .,'i,,,.,,,",",","Y.L..-k,..."...".,. E:S.:,r::::l'i Y'i'is::.:.".",.".,.^....,`� .E� �•.«d,E,B�"E8F^ ..•".]t .[.,i`.�.�ii EEE, � .......... t S.S.�l �ESA..........Eq"t[.i ".�a .,.".....-,.•..3^.. .,,E.E..........f...h.t...<..,.r:,:';:�.�«.�.i.'iSB:¢:E^.::::£:: x£a�ia EEEG,:3Y'. I a,�r�:� m .t ..'�,r•�...�.»',�+'.a - �.�.., �' E".i�rr,,nrt:..�;��cl�z.E..ii 7r.:�r�..t�r.:r}.,,.a�.3�t°::;....A�Y.�:t:EELS,:::i:=:::.inF; :::r,_.................�..rxx._........< E.........._...... _....�c,,F...:.Y.'.t.i i ..^':. ,...,...u,x a,axn^az•.�. »««..r...�r4L�e[_•_»:.. .. • i' Movement•Group.:Results y EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T ' R L T R.. L.... T._ R.. L. T R 1 Assigned Movement = 5 22.... :;.;;,;1::x,<::::,•. w.. 16 3,, • 8._.. 18... 7 4 14 , Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h i€ 33 11984 1 16 4 27 2082 i 38 65 • 38 1 12 • 11 4.:..:.. .................'. : .' £'.. , Adjusted Saturation Flow.Rate(s),veh/h/ln : Ii 1448 1 1773 1.288..k.:.1.034.•. 1773 11288 '' 1759 ' 1288 g 1407 1.28E .........."..........«.....__s. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,a-•-•----...:...,........".....wi:xu:,z,x....xa..x.-m.-r..rnwrwwnwww.x �........w...�..i..,.,-,.---.-....,.........w..s.«..•.. .wrx.x....x-r,rw.:.......f .:,3t,,.—....._.:....." ... x.x.rv... ......._. _ _......._.. Queue Service Time(gs),s 1 0.8 i 44.0....I x...0.5 0,9 54.0 l 1.2 l 3.5 2.7 0:0 0.8 .' l r nce Time. c s:•' ......,.0'8 44:0,."£ L 0:9. E 54.0-i....1.,2. 3.5,.._ 2.7..... .1-0^ 0..8. C'ycle:'Queue.C ea.a (g),. . .. :. x a:. .,..".:x;,.:---.:.._..,"....».�...,.»...........,i.i=a.:..rrx,,.�:w-:,w..,.,...,..,...........w.,.,F.,:._....x.x.,..;:.�. s�....,.,»�».�.:..:�:�„�,:,,: x:Q:.5w......:F,. .:..>s:. .rte ::Fr,:.......:... i Green Ratio(g/C) f1 0.65 0.60 1 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.11 ,...... ..,,«.,«x,x3... «,,.,,,,,:''----,,,^..,.,w..»...,.._.,".,..'""..-"::w;,�„xi:»rr r• ........P'""•"'•'''''''4''''''••••••••••' •_„•r!.,....a,xw=~,,i..............:,:.„:,,,,,,,,.... .{.<,.._:..:..:.......... E Capacity:(a),ve:li/Fi 1.51. 2128: 773 ' :141 I`'-2128 •773 175 142 € 153 142 Q, �-..,:..«.:......S;..:"•...xuc:x:x.xL::..;,:m:.:;.:,y,;.s.,,�..............:...F,x.:-;x:.:x:.:.._:.3................"«..r..iA.u:x,x:x:x,::::.;x:�.r.::.:r..,:.:;... _ Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 1.,0.216 0.932 0.021 .0.192` 0.978 0.049 0.374 0.268 il 0.078 0.07' Available Capacity.(CO.,veh/h • II •151: 2128 773 ;_ 141 2128 i 773 l 175 142 Il 153 142 Back of Queue Q),veh/In(85thpercentile) 0.7 ....9.7 `' 0.2 0-5 12.3 0.5 Ii 2.8 1.5 0.5 0.4 {,x[.::.....xx..».-=',. x:_::::x::,„xmw, .n.,,.,..rw..»,,...»<,..x:.:: ::::-•.,.....•r•.: ........»:...._..x.:.:.:,.»...... Queue'Storag:e Ratio.:(RQ):(85th percentile) b. 0-.00 0:00, is 0^00 ; 0 00 = 0.00 0-00 l . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ''—""-------'-------"'";''''''''''''''".".'*""'.''''"5'.""''''-.-_ ..,_i ,.,."'."x. ......:.:..:>+...._r..,.r.r...f... W..::^^........:.: n 2..._,.,... Uniform Delay(dh)! s/veh [.i 23.9 8.4 8.1 li 19.7 9.4 30.5 r 45.8 • 440.8 44.6 39.9 .xcax:x:nn^r.-xns^xorrvw^'ww�•...«......uv.:.:.:a.c.:,_x:,nn-,-:x:x:x:•,•,-.-."n...mm.......a.....e.eu.x..:..:.x:x:n.x:'.-:m^Snror:rc>.-rww,•.,..;."......u...uux .:un-:r,.,>e,:n.-.. Incremental•Dela. ..dz.,:.slveh: I[ D.3 8.1 .x .0.0 s 0:.2 14.6 0.0c i; 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 ;:. � � o.o o.o M . _.,__a.o_.......... Initial Queue Delay(d3),s/veh 0 0.0 i 0.0 � 0-D �rv0.0 0.0 i 0.0 � _ �f .. . s I.Control:Dela...:.. .:.s/veh::... ::. :"Ii..-.24:t i.16,5•1: 8:1 , 20;0e 24.0...!:�30.6 .,...46.3 4:1'.2 44.7.... 40.0 :..::,;._...nn............. x.:.rrw...wM•zuuwz,xu�,xnz.,zozoza!,«..,.vrr.».........u......_,.::.an,u p•p3 x;z::.zn.;..r .... .:.S< vv: .•. e S i Level of Service(LOS) ECIBIA 1 B I C C. wati. FI :.•."«:...:wax:,,:-rrest+.x..."..:.,...„w.y.......,c.:.:�vr::u:isiettixm:xarr................w,..........«x.::x,isr--sz..e...."�,.:!,.,,.,.,»»»........:..y:::ua.x-i ....E�•.c:u::.::::. �,.,...SL......»:...:x:�:;.:;..�.;.. D .. .. E A roach Delay s/veh:/LOS . . .: : 16.:5 l3,,....w .24.1 C. 44.4 D D ...II 42:5...... •.. DD ;y.....,ww,:a.":"..............v... 5 Intersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 21.1 [ .t�•-5.s....-.t^.:`,8,."R"i3^.t[......LLa[£...i.,«,."8 .a.8£:Y:::LTitr3a RSOa£.,..lglq ,.".........a[[[v E[-i[........"..E:S:S:�t_, ....,....J. I <<.<.<L.....,..«<.<.,."...".1...3. ......._....... �...x,.:R 1..ti:YM1Yt•F(Sle'E.3S:S[S i&4�i�^dJ " i•[..t'F...,. ,EE:E"Y.::::�--�<3<,.,F•"✓LY.a.y.....aY.i 0`£:,:,t.: i4.L"tIE:E:::y:•...[...R...,",t,E,t........ F.,........i......�t ...........,<.,...."..«.." ....<.................................".i .....,."...,.."."."."....,..,.-........<,............ ,:E. .......f...< F _........Att'........[r.T<.".."..<.., ,......5....,<,F.<.,»w.........,........r.r................i..,...Si..x:...[...t::»......................<.<........... i :a�.^iE"'at _.:fs.31[a .[ 1 ski. ,[o.;:adz�¢ ^.....[rnS:E?[s•"::,^;B ..."....v.[[ Ea:,t ,.... ..—, .F<a.....a....." ,n ^^....»..r r......t e.................."..»a. �•a�^ ii,, ... ...tiiHaii r.eiidi ,.".t.,,.,.,,_"."."..?Y.:: ^... .y,.,.,. ..".."�..,,rt,r,.",".r..."."x¢::.r::c..............[ ...."................,.<,.,._.,.. raj; ::,.:: E, .[[f .. EEiE ... 'T.LEE{..a.. EE;:"E::'13`.FF a".i£.'F:,"...."iB ErtE r,.".,<. i;...8 .g t i[i.:.....E E:L ..A..... )'s£RS£...."«.,,E ..::.:L.,^<..^.,t•..L....¢..................1.....".....:.::tl:....:.i;...:.�w.....":".,,.;..r.y..<.,.,<....._::. f�....«,S`�. SFtit�3fkt� _l .EE:�„. ....Li<:.�.Sak,".'S�S.ERt�af"�i„•�".�S<'^<:,:,'¢ 93i%.�E'fMMi�,[.:,„:�„-„v,,.._;x�'B�E•:ES'dytif [�[,[.[.:-.,_ME_t_t C:.�^�:.1E�^.t3F.. ....F.4�m'M,..EY.[__......_.....FE,:{r.........![.....»............................:.... ................... rv:�m.,,"......ib#C................<.........�..,tern...u'.li_..._.. _.:....:�r......r.. „ ` _ "a. .... ... � ........... ............:......... • ,...,........ Multimo'dal Results. EB WB.... .... NB SB �_.. x., _...x r.ix .: nx . :::,:.,,x:.—....—.._ .xx _µ. ..� ,x ._.: ..:...:.; [=-==n==.n,x.., ., . :.:, ..„,-,,».,.",..,.,:,.",:,:. •. ......•-•.....1.,••=..... -.. . Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS • ,,. .::,..,.:.".._.,»...........:..n�:n¢r_,,:,:.,�w.-- ...»,.<,...".:ww.,:.xx:xx-.:,-7.. .,.».,:`..,:.:,a,:.,:,,,x,+ .. »....4,>r,.:::zr nw..^ _ . . ww. .......... I Bic�.cle LOS'Score./::LOs: ' .... • iw x SF R ...t,.'.,.ayr:31 'a.: ':.. of.,"':.",.: n S v.,:i -F E.3 i. _ e.tuV:,,:.:3]-". t.r >i': ..._....f3 £ S: [<-...«.....S.<.i. r`; ...i.S.of 3�W;:9.₹['{.::'i.S.:�'"�S:n�,. ₹5< 1•t'wz...„.....fin��iX <.;f w..:"s ................:.....n.a , —. rfljt APPENDIX D Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC 'Intersection CR 13-DRIVEWAY Agency/Co. Jurisdiction 7 LI(T0T}�� Date Performed 4/2015 Analysis Year S Analysis Time Period PM �� Project Description East/West Street: SITE DRIVE North/South Street: CR 13 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 35 1 170 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 35 1 170 50 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 35 — -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized - 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 1 150 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 150 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 100 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 1 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 170 151 C (m) (veh/h) 1386 811 lc 0.12 0.19 95% queue length 0.42 0.68 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.0 10.5 LOS A B - pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.5 pproach LOS -- -- B Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5 6 Generated: 2/24/2015 4:11 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k82E4.tmp 2/24/2015 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 13-DRIVEWAY Agency/Co, Jurisdiction Date Performed 2/24/2015 Analysis Year S7 L CT Analysis Time Period A P1l ��// Project Description East/West Street: SITE DRIVE North/South Street: CR 13 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 8 L T R L T R olume(veh/h) 30 3 55 30 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Houriy Flow Rate, HFR 0 30 3 55 30 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 100 — -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 3 125 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 3 0 125 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 50 Percent Grade (%) 0 _ 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(veh/h) 55 128 C (m) (veh/h) 1124 915 lc 0.05 0.14 , 95%queue length 0.15 0.49 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 9.6 LOS A A pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.6 pproach LOS -- -- A Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 3/28/2015 5:22 PM ftle:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Ternp/u2kF90F.tny 3/28/2015 HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary ity. .r' a:F a -.fF• .a:L tl Llat W...< 'i.., " ti [ 'C:"Y•..... K,...,i3f ' '".[.:':v ..._ q'F.isS:,�i::t"`a:.:M iii.F•9 iiii"".•.i t':R¢�¢."¢',¢:::..^.3F:,. §....^ Fla'.._.... .. 2 �.A. -i« :F• .�.��V."^4'.^" •F:FCFC C{{�� •Y" .—:.:.'^':.( :[!W...,Y Y. .«..:R,��....... ...4..Y.ES6.`I„:y'y3•t3.3'3.. fC".F'E.Y.�..:.:F'<':''<:: T} � g Ill 1� Y.�r.P•L. (f G Yi.^ ritY:Y19F�9. e:4y.��,n.4�tSF.^..`.3:.:R[':.ata:. j�:if��RCl�i::.'t�• E.Yt�. '9::Yt ... . Y � ui t .x. , .L't. 0,x,m,,,,,L 1t::0:: t[t•,t" ..»::x:,C;,,, •YFT,,•'".'a.•':,—'a79 ¢E,s....:'sx?r."c<:eEic:£•:• '::�s::•';a£::o:::F:;;im ax...."...»..:•:. ,,,,:.,,";".".E...",<.,.. • e ICY` •i 1 :;.��E�t4 SI37�k� :_....._—__.._�:.�t�.i31,t�•34>3 rrae..... ..i..t�f..,c:.......af�`�Yt r.. fiaak?a^«^^..a..o....,.:S»Et�S�... •rr? �n.c.FF ,,..;....h...�:[aA:a^'3-aE t�•s:,.,..:;If..._..t,Z..............r.... x.. t .....,. ,...:............. ii General Information Intersection Information a ,,.., .:Agency ,; Duration, �,��.�,t?:,, N ��h :0 5 i Analyst tGC `Analysis Date 2/24/2015 'Area Type Other ., . . y., Y Yp • • , p4 „: . Jurisdiction Time Period PM PHF 0.92 ;s T4410•7444,,M i • ...:•' ,_-....^..,_..,_.<..�.._... ...:.:g:.,:,:,:µµµ,:,:.,,.:,,-O .............. • A ��..;�> :,. Intersection IIUS 34-CR 13 Analysis Year 2035' ;Analysis Period 1>7:00 ., .. � . File Name _......_..... F.<.»_<,.».,.:...—,.:.:..x:... Y::.:M:.:.,M-..:.n...- ...r......rnw:...:.<w...,.,.,_...................._<,._—._ ..^....»^x..,.".,,.,.,..".".,.,",,.......,>,....,.. .,.,<,<.<.<,<.__.,.,....._.... . Project Description ..,,,,,_»..y,,,,,,..»our <.....:.: ..ar,,,.,»."».a.�x.:...'.t.a..:.[:P: ::- �T-:::::::::FMP..t.t.,a".,".".".".M 'vvuxv.�..vr.......Yy'a�'I'YiI" SrlrxTN¢N...,..� ...:..P.....w.....:"f9f"S-...»..<.<.<..<.......Y. ... ^R a..s.:9'<::c.::[°9 Et4:'i �:iv�:..,ix..F:':YL". . .7,.dti.{rAG::F.R^...........".,. .,.E .^fC<f F<. ,.........".".".................................................. ........... Y..3'.:.rk.......^�Ai. t.E P . ,�C.... ..,....!......r .t Y.. (( < U.................»...E"E.j :Y...... ..a2;:,»<fF..9..:....., : .. .....F<.<.^::<'..,...::....'::::'"::.:::::::9...`�...:,'.:,'.:.:...:.::F•:≥<:::.': y »d,C •i i........«..."..««..<... . ....Y. -r 'xr[Jr.FF•tJYY:L:£F[:: .•,.....Y..9.P..,� W »YbJ�E .YP:tCY[.[[[•[ ,.fF.. 3 <...E r7........<•<....w.,Fr.:�kFEFFF�[CF�Ft.CF:F:FtE^F.'F.`.:I":¢"<'.CJI.:39F':FF::.::a:ot:E:9E:f::1t:'< : L��"... .. .i ?Y IT.^.:3.'i'"•..^.Fix. . M e" .2 »........ . .w^, ....<ER,AR. C..FF.... .YC I;{,'EG'SF'S[ R ifiAii,:1E:Y':3..Y t.E..((..C,.Y.....t.....^x...F.Ei....<.<....".............."FE."..:..9,..»...<......F.»»»<................<..,.»•.-,-,. ........t .. .iF:F Y.:..�Y:.«..ti.....« 9." E. c....... i :x'3.......iL�f.<.,..L....[C,^....-.<..........i......»t.t..tE...t...<.<..»..<.<.».<....r-.r....><,<.annr.r-r...........<,....... t, .. ii...Y.... E W.;�'}""t~i:3E;.:'&'a[[I+ [I��IY;:ntE.c°•::^^::• .eF�' I]H—»3�Ya, ... ..f.,. �I••tl:.t•Ft.:zF.t..S::•:3fatP+I5.:.F. ��;C;:E•f:¢:ism:l..[...r...,.�<i:::x:r:x: ::.,,.,.r..Srr.rf�,,.r..........:...<...... ;�,�..�..�......_9.a..,x.m9,nrtYo a,.,... ,.ka.........,r...........5. .....�F.[..i..ES.^a..a.,..<....^...ra. S�".�d..._a...aa:....��:'e�....,....�.3:�.,r........_.a ._. .... .................i....... ........<......... Demand:Information • • EB • WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L I T R li L T f R L T R ..............:_.._....x.=><>:,....:M�:::::::.::,<.:.,nn,..n..<..Y........�...-•---• ',__<....»..:..:,�.:.:.._..�:::.r[r�...........,,,.,...,;......_»_».........._........._:::;;:x:::.,,,„r.....w........_.........;...... . ..i.Demand (:v),:veh/li 15 ':;'.3090 € 115 E,• 95' RI 2695 55 135 1 55 i 15 is 5 30 -........ >>avv. .> a,i,..x... ..:R.t i...[[.»'i.......,. t..Y, »SesF..,... � '....................`:.: .....................i.i.x.x................., i F... g., F..^ itri.I a ....ita..f _Et it ."M^ E •1..."F.........4.......:4- ..k.. N ta:;e::..<;.,. ..:1:01.149,..4,-..... <...'��r�.II"fid::E:::::: isi,itia:;:'r..;.".";". : : :::;::•c.:;.:: :r:::::;:: Y .r...... t 3 R......F..E.t."f...,�.3....... L...[ a.t .......... ,r.,F...t F»..»<.t cRi'....................................'..t9 a"a"Jx;tIF::tt:::-c:...E:::.,<,.,........<.< [�,.;x.."'.•{.[.......,^.'.. jFl:..—.9CEC !^iAIMG:["[EYY..11"... . 9»»Y""»�<CL •F "�9:9:^C^.t F�IP.i�a 9 •5E:EL'1:21t:'t• ^iFt'n".."..¢xt"C..�t` .....�Y:fi CJ�:.::>:>:{.« F:F.:.L�EF.[CFG•tSFGt:tF•<,.�6 ..».L..f........................i i.a ,., »..:w;:iY»»<FF:Ft:F.9.9".' r Fs^:"i, f .:.... r .. ^ :.•ina•. .r ..I egt [ s:.s :aL x. .......7... ... c.E.E.'aSxr;s;.. liti F!Swf..". •., ='r'..< ..a...... ..".".::r:t;^L.Tsda ititig....,x,.,..S......... �.•a...rf...:::r<;�:;::::n.......-[....,._<,..,...."."...I;x•E�-FFt::>^,:P�xt,^..P.d Z,tom ... t .li�y..i.......3....<<F F[ ..•.:^.^A.f.#SES. 83. ........'_'[. .C.P.. .iRG¢Y Y a.•.i,�...�3....F: (�.^.x.:.,...»^9SE.�a�».»FfF:»Lf .F...".1:.....>G..E.t.#.'Y�Y.:...< .:I:::Y.::.:>.E:isisl;:y w'3.:3:9:�.L:F[,C:::ix;:::�!I.......<.x R::i,.«¢.p.....•,:s. F[Br�.t....w9:d6 .<«�Y.YSE3Ir :�,rC5.,E,tly�.y..y.y,.,r,rnF��.....l...t..9.Y.Y't.te.a.�Y'.'.M�.::iC�!L1:�r��^"^^i::F.�x.6tt:e�e�tE�?.,!a'.M'.a'�..Y71.�.C....XRS"A:BS�„«,.»..,.<.:..r�.i:t[[{R ,...r3,,,...»..... »�.11.f........ Signal Information ,, Cycles 150-0 Reference Phase 2 , E s;. Offset.;::s : : 0 Reference.P.oint.:;.: :Begi.n'.₹.._................. z :<...^..»... ; --~---- .,-,-“,„.......•.•—.,,.. .tea-:»- -5 Green 5.0 190.0 20.0 Ii1.0,...» 4w0.."...w_.i.0,Q ' ii Uncoordinatedi Yes Simult. Gap E/1/11 i On ii Yellow 4.0 4 0 ≥4.0 :4.0 4.0 0.0 lj Force:.Mode _ Fixed :Simult. Gap•N/S E .O:n .j Red.......12.0...............`2.0 s 2.0 Y 2.0..........:...2.0 `0.0 . . .................. ..a::�x';.xYs;�cc::c-- t:I•[:ft:•"[:..w..uu":v:ssys::x::vr'r r r...%.............i`YE.:£t!`9'9'S:9::;:;'WF:F�iiT.:::Y...............,..,.. ._.,y—.. :...:::...:.:::. .';":¢:c:v:vnr' YY [¢.�...9.»<:�µm:. `EE .....�... ..1....I....«. —i.v�t.to .... Y..... F.F..^.......i...' .A......:^.%1... F y. .....I [ .R»t"x..... ...C.)f:YCCitaf: :y.t.t.F..»»».11i F..............i.}..iii•E'.•.9t•F9:3:•y'•l.Ri5:1,n'.ti'�{:.:;w.:. :��}.:R �[RR^RtaT.....e Lt•� ,Y..:vYffi�f . ...,.......YS 'EFitFL"YL. .[."I i. ..., .,.EEC .l9'(CFFC.. .Y.....E.E.E 6......I...y t9�9rF{F�(.R[......... .3.I :.'�[-[:^^.P:.'..•.Y9....,,.,...,P..<. 'xT.,......F'F...........4........i.a:a:':,...3.3F'F ::::�I[ �[�,P[.[..."'...°i',b H ." ..:..:.iY3'ff P^&FE.R:...�SFEa{C%3.,,EL �,. .^.F-df.<.L,....,,.��.tt�E,. .E.. •�F�^:i:S.}EC�� :IYt,I�SCS.Y.R.........E... ..."—">:£"..:..r..f.[..1�.,9.9M'�:¢Y...»».».£<YF:;�f.�.f:.S.....-<<................................»..»<.<.<.<....r..i:::::. ....F[ .S.. ,-,, ......... 4.t.»tR..E t..,,».C..3Yd.. ii.,., w.1.,Y,>.47,-,:1.. ¢p.�F.E•...EFL d ..i..".t".L"..E#"." xSC»�»..tfC C C,t„F.F....»l,,, " .»..»....C.C.E....-_.....«,<,,.".,."..".,,,ttia<...»<.<.Y._<..x••[,.,."."..."".",".,","."."."."."..,,,"....................... r£F[.[[E0[ ......C H} .....:..t.E.t...Y. . Y:.Ar..^"F[:E�.:,:t•�..gaEa:t"E:F:F:FCf}LY�y 7 �Y.Y.................E.E:.... r..['::"..T..^.w»M.I E,"„WLt:::;:;t.<.<f.[wxa.....r.>.,..........,..4».,<.........<.. ,..<.<,»...x......3;«:.:,.;:':'::3FF:'::::C:.II::::a•:.... :.... yyt..>E[[0��.«� �.:....... «..F.....i1.,t 'Yf [£CE E- EYp.: f .ra E...E E [t, .k[__. ::9:5... YY"� ,".—.....f]��tlt ......... bE.... I,,,:................ t E'EriE"'�Itt^..........,....... .,.....__.n.s£..t.d'.....................r......,..r r -'- -------n.:4trr�;.r..;,,�°,.».F�5.t.t�aF'ig:,�.Fp::.r.:a'«�.ae...,.,..,µ..•r�m,a. :.,....,,..,.,..�..,Ez. .w. .� . :mtx.a'm:a:,,,;.,.r,S.CS-gys9.:,¢c3:c9.9.:.r::::E._».,.....,. £ Timer Results � � • EB•.L • • EBT WBL • ••WBTY> NBL NBT SBL SBT I Assigned Phase r 5 2 il 1 6 9w 3 8 • 7 4 Case Number ;,.. 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 E Phase Duration,s i 11.0 • 96.0 i 11.0 96.0 gi 33.0 17.0 26.0 10.0 Change•P.eriod.;`(Y+R�)x s. . n E.Q' 0 »...... 0 6 ..< 6A .,..Y... .,.6.0 s.0,... .6.010.::. ....,.........»......"«.xx.;:.;::•:.s„_,,.....:::..::...................................:.:..:::::.:..:.....r:.y,..;•.-`-..+.a..,.....^..<......:....»:w...,,.:,:a.a,a:z;:c.:.:s.ava,.;;..;,-t .,,,..w.:.:...e.......-4",.-_.:..<.__.,.. l .,.,,. _ - ...... • Max Allow Headway(MAH), s t 2.9 2.8 tr 2.9 2 2.8 It 3.0 3.2 11 3.0 3.2 ..............w.".,.,:.,._.r...:.,,.r:�iwv..r3yrwf .. .. <�.• ,.._<.<..........�.........__:Y:::._.... ...:,:..••Queue•:Clearance:Time(gs), s . . f 2.6 4:5 k.. 7.0 i. 3.4 21.3 7.7 3.1 •..... 4.4 • Green Extension Time(ge), s 0.0 67.7 • 0.0 68.4 r 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 1.:00 . I. 100 .1...0Q.. 1.00.... 1:00 1'00::... .'Phase.Call•Probahiltty i 1'.00 1.,Q0 Max Out Probability 1.00 i 0.70 _ 1.00 t 0.70 ;E 0.04 1.00 i 0.00 1.00 Y..r.x.............. .»..... •a....a.v..va...xix,:.:..__:......'[-................ ...-..«..Y r.Y Y, 1.....i iCf »......., .a....m .[.[..[...—u[ .9...<�!Lk1.. ..»Ll«•1 f1.1.15aYe ,,.a<.»<..f.Ftt F-£..<.....t.......,......"„j:i.t:L:::::.'.:,.,..r...........E.Cf....a....................�.i t.}.�•[1^^P.....,. .9C»...r.1H F Fi..:�.....Y .,.....[.�[:[t:G0.^...^.9.:i.991......»<....F.....^.i.�.fi. •�J ::9[:1.«I3.Y.3ft'..x...k...»..F.�[...".,... �.�l:rr......t[:1:FS.<Itf18 e.»,»..... �.[[«.....»E,........, .11:.:«.:..A:::i".::..A.;.t...............<•.•..........................»..< ...,,Y�:x— �..... . :utY,xay....n IFE:E .:tr.E«t7....< ...I.Y... Pe&Ee,fEiS9f:•f1[��^<:1t•..M».u.,.,.,..r.r.......«......r:I:r:•r.:£...<?S1:l::+r.:9:c.ec.;•a.a,...F.,<,»<......,^ .. �•:...:........ ..F<F... .rf.'•thr....RI: "r ..E"^"....e[ t E�»..f i..• .... ..•F ...RR:i. ...ffi.'92.1" ....". .6[Y......i [..,».':'Y<SE"e,.»<.»..:t7. "<.<..t t' .ja».....—......[............" .....C<.....•F.<.<ii 9. •....... '1•'Y �1... ,"E'•'.<.......:F'.C^...:". ..tC».^.Fi. [:..F...^.G:•" .�;�.£EF t.I9 Y... ...[..... .iEEEa:ft'S9:3:tiYI:Y...Yt.». .<......t.....FOr......!..•t...`t:YF^�^..�.£<.r.Y............1t............[[<........S:. ,.t: •. tt •��t[�'r.'•9ryi9�Y :.r••:xS��c�"��yt.F��:i;3ts�...<.<.. [ t C� '1[0:3� •a�.n....,.,.ezl,i.t.Et,ws...<...<�S,[::"...at.e,ehf•.w.,...,.,..�...,^:.s...c. ...... .....�:..............'f.x,..........._[...........r.nn......hi,.-:;.;.;:::;:.::::::::;:3 ....t�.:[.::ra.,•.��I.,.......�<axur�:.........[¢.it.....•ix ...... ,.,..it,.......�a.[:a:[:::c::.�r<iS,f r,-r,•.. fix... ..__. -y E'y Movement Group•Results ie EB � . . i. W.B. _ � i Approach Movement � L T I R L T . R I,_eL ......`»:. T . ...R L ,'T,..^»..,.. RY» • ..Assigned Movement: "5.•`• � �,._.. 2 � .12 1 .,.:0.: ,,.10 8::.. 18... _.:.7..:. 4-, ...14 :.r..^...................................::.:......wr.........Y...Y.:::�..:;.._=:::.,:.,..,rw»»-...urHr..^.,......,...........n�....n.,.r.^....:..wi..:v........._..__...t.........«.. ..y:...,,..:M;...:w:y:s-s:_.......,.m.........r�..:�.. Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 4 16 3359 ' 92 R 103 2929 ; 43 cii 147 1 43 I 16 5 22 :djusted•Saturation Flow•Rate..st A 1 (.),•yeri/tilln. ' ! x:'1448:≥•1691 1288:1:1034>�:169.1 : .1288 � 1034 � 1900' 1073. 18.10 I 1520 :...128F .r,.�,.........:.....�....,,>:..:.,:,,.,. ,,,,....rF......,:...^...:..M...... ...[,w..,.,.,»......».........,W...<�.x::.:sx:r..a,r..-:-,...a..,...:.^^^:..::...,..::.F:..M.,�•....,ww...:....q,....��.,.s,. — —^�...^.....�,.m:,::,,.,��,~a,.,.,........ Queue Service Time(gs),s ii 0.6 0.0 2.5 1 5.0 x 0.0 1.4 il 19.3 0.1 5.7 I. 1.1 0.5 2.4 . . .1•Cycle•.QUe:ue:Clearance•Time(gc).,;s O;fi 0:0: 2'5 a::: 5.D. 0.0 x 1..4 1:9.3: D:1 5.7 1.1 •0.5 2.4 [� [ Green Ratio(g/C) .... 0.63 0.60 0.78 ' 0.63 0.60 i 0.73 0.22 0.07 0.11 0.16 .0_.03_ 0.06 u.xm.sssa:u:.:::s.xsx.xs!w»..•..wa,'xrw.........w..,a.:.a..,m„eY,,,,,:.....................»........__,..::v^:ms.•..»: ...t,..........:..,»...:«>;:;.s.;.«;......:..................f .Capacity(c).,veh/h• 137 3044 1005 `. 101 3044 i 945 253. 139 114 328 41 ; 77 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio it 0.119 1.103 0.092 1.020 0.962 1 0.046 0.580 0:008 0.380 `0.050 0.134 0.28' •Available Capacity(ca); veh/h 41 137 . 3044. .1:005 101' 3044 945 253 139 114 is 328 41 .......77 Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (85th percentile) if 0.3 i 20.1 0.8 i 7.3 4.2 `! 0.5 G 7.4 0.1 2.8 ii. 0,9 0.4 t 1.4 :.Queue.Storage:Ratio(RQ)(85th.percentile) 0.00: I 0.00. € 0.00 m 0.00 .i 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 f0.00. 0.00 0.00 .,».:.».�.�..,�..,:.��:;:....>,.t.>x,::s,.,,.,....«...».....,..rr....�.Wx.,x,Y¢Y........»,,.n..,.,w,..,.,.�...,.,.._»_..;�„x�:Fw.:.,:.....�...»:..»:....._.�,.......;,.i:Y:Y::�.rw»......,.,...�...,.,.__..,.,.«.::..:.........:....��.^ , ,........ Uniform Delay(di), s/veh g 10.2 = 0.0 ii 3.9 it 35.4 0.0 i 5.5 I: 53.2 64.4 62.4 iii 53.4 71.3 t. 67.4 I Incremental Delay.(d.2); s/Veh . . 0 1 62.1 0.0 95y 1 9..1: i•^0.0 ti <.2.2,w......0:0 - 0.8:i 0.0 ..._ 0.6 0.7 rn Initial Queue Delay (da), s/veh YE 0.0 =• 0.0 S 0.0 5£ 0.0 10.0 ` 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(d),.sNeh:: •its 10:4.:t 52.1:: ; .39 =µ1.30:4•= 9:1. I. 5.5. 55.4 64.4<¢Mm,63.2 P 53.4 71.9 68.1 Level of Service(LOS) ' B F i A lI F A 's A E E Eµ D E ....I E Approach Delay s/veh.7:LOS' • if. :5.0:6 D. . 'll 13:1 B• ' :`i 57:2......_..... E 63.1 E Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS ill'. 33.9 C 6,01,0042,!,....__.......... <�� ......... < ..k. i.i'........P.....q...e...v<il:.vi..<....r..a:.,, :a'..FF............M` �C:1...R...¢...8.8.8 ......._::,x:9::•"::F:E<....,<E 9,,„„:x�44, C...."t . 1[. '.Y;'^fGffg ".......�.. 3. »<' ............ ....."...a 3...F...I»..—.Ef .......Y£.3[<[at....."t,..—<......:,... :;:t1t1¢.t•BM'P;t;Y[:i::ta1:::.:.c.z n',.::[l:r.:_^a-.s:.¢:::¢:".::::::rt;::"---: .s.;'?dS.. I{a^....;. .:ff.. t i'ait ..sfi1t:�91:;�tt9�-• :ECir'x: ""aEt[[FEG:::.;eS aa.eaa:mFfs[Y3:::aaSx t..........[<t<[::Fr:..?.xr9c9:::9:�r�:::::.:.tc:e.,..........k:[ ^c;:;:a::::r:r,i€F:?F^ :5:::..... SS:tr•likt-Ri"3, [�. .........[...F..t¢.. 3...,. f t£1< 2^v1t:-,,,,, ,:y 4< ,,.... ... .:!mq:::::P••.^,:" ,i,5 i:::, <.<....^:::.:•.a7awt,•......... �. [1w . .•..9� 1P kgya...... 9...ra.f �, ;14f'^:a :aa<.F. ...,a r'a....�xiFE.:�.:aa: L......�....S E.tab e�a....ya......;E EEC., I...�;p .•, ..I ..n:r; •.::z: •¢�•-. ;.^» g(�,'..,<�..:1r�u[c�..:a SzS 3..�.•'1.[ 3. ..... a.i a::..�.[.r'..... E,.•� �.... F 3a. F.<...<....... .. <.S...�iCWt,.�..te,...nn,. '..:. �. 'Y5u�.�L« t,..fY.�..<,.t[C'x.......................:1.ir3� !f...s ..,..• :::... :.PF....tA6�...a.......'....-::..•Y.'.�;.:4:;!':;i�:t".x_l,.^ ......._.......... : .. ............ ...<.............. .......... .. s•Mu:Itimodal:Results � _.". .... EB UVB <.r.N6.� .SB . �. .z.__..,: �:..,.x. • Y: ,.nr..:W.... . • �R.....R..:.a,, _...... ,<.r....... . .................a........r... _ .....,...... ..ix.¢.. i Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS I it f' `w:c.,ws::u:sr.,:s:s..nn...,..»nw.}.vv....,..vi._::xs...e.rnnrrf.Mnr.........n...,.,.s<,.::.a:«.........rn................»»...�......uuuuui::,::;.,..,:...,..�r....<.<.......�w.......: ......stvtnvn Bic: cle LOS:Score/LOS ' . e [. y • E :: . ......... r, C.x.:Tt...3..>. ,),:Y::i-:£t'...Y'f. "lr..< ..-{...i:',. Ai ...r-<.4`F,,.1,:•5'°<:':"'c.. ::." .. .. .,1:''-;•a'':.'y::(:! :i l}.:':".af.Y 1 .... ..x....3........ .. . ::."...3.':,:::.:::., HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary u:w.:......a.... ae„--®..3 d.,,-, „ry..... .'_.°I ...... , ...._... ... .. t: ^^^F:YE• • tt3 3.....::F: E`y" ',:E'"' :F:F�;:;l;L•:;::::FFF:i:.F.[ �:F:F'.a t E -' • ,,,¢.�,, - '"�.z5ty&5 Y1,....,.. . y�3 ,FI C.F t'x'u .,�S�... .3i�£:.Z.""•^Agt. "3 5:"E'r^ 2'[, '0E:[:i". E E�..v, .11•f' '•rj.•31f SF�!cR..^),,;[.F^.^�.fir�E � Rt t„ye �'[{-- `F1'f{'f "{'.�„�� y"T' 'W` a<'.�• R' a N"^R• ;" <Ed«^ F" .,[•"£• . ^.>i•{Y..G,'(�r`[R,E ::,tS" rli E Y`! E"Y fY�>KtC'aiff g sl€D.___.rt m.s o's;ca'� n x.:� ',",' a ,:A.,x s ,�,!=?a^-.�.s eF.eg t'3M•F:"n,a'.,.. .-.3.i..", ,,, 1�:4'�'k.Eara 3,. P—h. >I��.37' :y xmtharrtanWi�W6iIIIIi" s^airaieli?^"_-cFq:'.tig ...iix,'5N:,,,"�:a:a„ .,.e..., ii General Information t Intersection Information ii Agency i : Duration, h 10.25 - ,z`F ;„ ,a\` : , Ifx::ww:wwrlysraaz,z,nrczrz^z,zmmawrwrw^'.... m___,tm,,,,v,.,+,.•-n:• ......»,rw.rx....rRwu.xwuuuswYua ,......«.. �.`^4`��,_ �>rt'iV": h`tixs �.0 Ii Analyst =GC •Analysis Date 12/24/2015 Area Type Other a,. 4 w... •,...,�.> m...-w»» :_ _ x ':� x._„ Jurisdiction k N I Time Period PM i PHF f0.92 ;s .^ atV ��i. OTA ETA .... ......... — m... y: \i � ` ....r�..wrww • Intersection „US 34-CR 13 Analysis Year 5 Analysis t _.,;E..........-.n,.v,.>.,.>n». ., �»......,..., �.,.� s,.,.:..,..._...�._.,._.......^�....,.»aw».r..�.................xrc..,,.� � Period 1� 7:00 File Name 1 1 t..— rc.,rc .waw w» »» ---„„--.>r»r,»�x.,,:.:r., w„—.w�.... _.. .......xr . ..,. ..x............. Project Description !a ' ........x.a a:ia. k'r2.•R"FEFE3EG'a.,.,kn'w.o.'�:r:xaxa:.i� ..�..,......"..bA3H,F:":F9F$3F3F;"t.'.W�:':.:fS.:i`tF:a:":3:^•,:•,SMtiF^[.3^�::'zl:ut'n::;::........... ^i ,n4."1" .y t,^"G.a"''e7..TF,I7 �::.Esc ..,ra'az..<,!4 ..< ^a�E"a i u?E?;Seg£:cip<,=i 3:3^:.i:•;:c:s:°:z"";"<�,,a;.<"<;;;,,,.;F i s:::s:::rr:•":•::•tt:'s::x'Ei,:a;:;z:. iCF"<:.G:....F ... n .,... ¢,�°:^<:"f`t"_Sr' .. ...•" EE EiF'eY - .3E�� FE�F�..:".Y iEL":.....,.,...F3Fiiy^�i.E E...a9E:�i"y i EY�y"y�;jf [:::�� .. .:`��<'.^.≥i FEE.Y..'„„�w , R } W :. 4141. I{�,Yf:a Wi di3 sY"]I,j"i� } Fi ig.aiei i itini"'.E.E."'.l�3tgrgr..:;<_ YW ....1 :.-. --... 9;G .., : iE.. ... EYi'kti4' t` ..ESE3.,. ..... ,i^i�i E FirEY3�"`X 93 s?�^ s._^E E.Ef3t3iiY'j' f?i3...5,.<...... ..Rtt:.^.:tti.ft'l:;S:t[t•^:L:�;m Demand Information E.B. WB ..Na SB :� �� ...-» ., Approach Movement L T I R h L T R £&E L ' T i R L ; T R 5,.,........,..<.R..�......:.:..��,rrx.+��•.�.>,n.,:.x.x::».».,Na.an,�s•,�s...�................„«..»M,..,xe.,,ana�,>Raaw,.,aa:: �,rn•,.:,_..�... :.,.,.,..,..,W..:,y....:...?M.�.«xa.. ,i:.:3045.. .!..70:::::.• i.:.»,....,«..... q£:.:�:.r�»,,...,.�,.., x i 45..x:a,.70 85..' 10 60 1$ 1w.,.,<.,...25. Dema¢n{��d(v) veh/l:' 45 2905:1 50:...� 35 .30. yy;;��,, Jy� _ __i r4... kip!: . ":.,R^. �it _y E;EI ' S ,a... YY<. T Fi` 3',f E igi .... a,{,F.• l'''' E 3.'3'Ff H F j" a r �;3� ,y,��",,�,�,��,F. 3<j,$a`]' B.r. ... _ i3 .m �. EEF�. .WSY3i9Y.:<₹E1hhif s_F �m¢ ... F340k FE• r.1 .a... ..m.-HN.Ffia"x".,x"•,:...:...:... :•: .--...: ::::: _ .. '. a Fm .3 I 8 Si nal'Info.rmation... : ....... :..t 1 " ,.,.......:,..:::.::.,.,,. ',:.: ::•::'. 9 _ 3L�+w�•. -M+�».rva+v« zu,n 1 Cycle, s 150 0 I Reference Phase 2 '' E. 1 E. E zr� F . 0 ::.. . . ::.. .:... .Reference::P.oint':.: : .Be. in t......_.......,„ „......4 _< ::.:....:..,.:................._........x.-:::.:: .: :::; a::.,;.�v:�.��_�._........:. '�>w�, m Green 5.0 i 90A g 20.0 1.0 4.0 '0.0 E/W On [ t i ' : .,.::'.:: : ;; • ,.; ;:': r,': : Uncoordinated Yes x Simult. Gap �yellow-14,o ;4.0 3 4.0 a i 4.0 4.0 3 0._Q „�' � �, i , .. 'l 2, ;00 Fa u t::Ga N/S ..;On Red i 2.0 2.0 .2.0 2.0 0 ; ...:...."....... i'Force.Mode:..: xetl ..Sim 1 �;,;:-:::::•::.....:::::.: :::::::::.: ::-:: :;::..:> .:: . .,::;:: . ^. „�.. '.•m ."'"i..R:..._.�". ^s91P.';3<^„impt •i•"`ir i'71witi.:.:�ssti•�:liti,` "t�^tei5ti'iiiFE's.`:`:Ffazi:.:x::iu irri—E„.4'r:aa:'€e::" 3t 33'"i'.��E. e.��:6... ,E ,:-- P^ C.C•C.t::�, pF r.Fit .., ... .E:. � 3.3:«�..• .....W....3 T"EtEttgg4 y�'STi�. ^E E..E.....E.E.33 aa.a: , E �`.d,e ( ,8, : di,e.e., "" F• <. x —t i 4,-,fa 3• at ^iR ij F,nra—.,... .at r"EttE.E FF�•'F;,4F-trI 3•:FEt:tt9n.R,a,rEt3:: ._ '� �a�, as o a:��d: " 3"s,, � 9" ��'9 ii= p'iti;��,� �;��..-e`:..:v„�a[�.�E^• au •_ �ita§8 - �' �g4e^r^z �•. c -- '�� ..... lrI�� ,� aEaa.3 � "z.t�sd e•a8#FI•r'.'�wrtEi3%"r".iuci a Timer Results EBL EBT a WBL WBT NBL 3 NBT SBL SBT- a i_.,r:,�._w,_".. .�. ,�. w__....,._,., r.. M,. _rc. .... aaz _ n ( aS P i Assigned Phase 5 2 1 s 6 i! M,rcM . Case Number. .. :1..:1::E.:: ; ,..3a.,.,..�-::: 1,1nt.M� MM30. 1:.1. . ' 3,0. �..w.uazrA::.,,saca—vn.. .. '.•uexw,s,.rtinr:ww..rrw.:a:.W3u-izizxtx�zczszrt�m;i�salcxxc�xs,srrwuM :.. E• .ue.. i¢t¢t&ses...:n,xw,r:.n;...e:::...E:. Phase Duration, s 11,0 96.0 11.0 • 96.0 a� 33,0 " 17,0 26.0 1 10,0 5 ... ..,. y, rRik.x.R......:.:r.w-aµr..:.n....,,..t,.....,... .< '�,:a,r^:,.,, e,e,.,..euvua¢:xenxsrsxrerrwrryr,raar.wrmssuzrtrxszrz¢znxte^.^..,n.,yv...suentx � x....irrr••,•;....,w .....,,a.a» 1 ,'�``��6:o aaa.rRi:�"so s^x, s.� ;xa:aaa�><6':0 s.o' 6.0 6:a 6.0 Change Penod�('�. ?��): s - ... �.->`><.,.Fh-----•� N� ... .... _-•----.,., • -._.r. .,.. � , .,. ^..• Max Allow Headway(MA! ), s e . .. .......... .. . .. . . ... t. »"8.�.,. "3� 3.8.. 2.9 � 28 2.9 2:8 3.0 •ueue •Clearance'Time. s. s . v.9 i o ��49 •3:9 13.5 0 0 3 71.2 - 70. 0,1 I 0.0 € 0,0 0.0 Green Extension Time(go),s i ; F. .. .. .. 0.0 1 , .Phase:Cali>Prababilit :.. 10E3 s • .::1'.00. �:1:00:.. •1001:00 ...1.flfl.,.. �W 1.00..: 1.00 Y ».. ,. ;, Max Out Probability 1.00 0.73 1.00 o.74» s 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2 A ..........s.s.s.•...— ^. :';3C t.'i^auto 33'3S;i;s F"F^"...N�..twr:i:l !,^:'1GF¢::�.v_...;tic:,F. .. ,.... ». ,y,....,;,:.. E.-.. .3"r;.! q, ,.C„ .x,..: ;ri ,..FT i, a ::.Vg i'r i �`:<•e'•. ric ,•j£.�s�t�F[k...� .: . r s....•E �..,<.>., ....<.F.a —• •c, iE •rq. a.'il� •FFF•". i>.E.Y ,tE FE F EF:33P"``x;an IE:Fi"E�`,x::a•:a3asrt•E. .ES, E' ... ; E E ..�y�7 FIEF:[: .' " i� M�m• FEE W n'`- i?ib . - .,.., "_ ..att?...... .., .,.,s$. ", ""r7.'m.'?RE......... r r`.=FE;ii<..h.oFe� 3.$it,racus .",,r4 4 Fa.:.:a+ud ..,r E'Movement:Groa Res:uats.::•. . :: P. EB ' .VIlB `NB S.e Aproach Movement L l T I R I L ••E T I Rr L a: Tti :,,,_ .,:R -E L T R.- ;. ,.. . . •..... ;.:.. .ry.r....^:6 F �.� 13:_... ,...8..x...x,c �8.... ...� ' 4... ,.,14.. Assigned Movement 5 1 2 � 12 . 1 � ....-,...:.»«rat�a�•,r,.,..,...�_H.,,....,.,.::.,• ...;; �:..................... ., .. ..,.,. Y 16 I 11 49 16 1:"" 3310 " 60 92 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 49 f 3158 22 r, 38 , 3» .,-,-::w....m.:.<.<_.�M,a ^ ��.., a-- . . .r. ........ <.. .. ....t., -. . : ; Ad usted:Saturati:on Flow.Rate::(s);:.veh/hlln .: ' ::::: ,.1448 1::1691,! 1288 ti034 1691.4.1288., 1034 :.1900 : 1073. E 1:810. : 1520 128E x.:...,,,�,,,,,,,,,,,,,,»..,,,, ,,,��a�,„,,r, ,:.,.....,�...,�._.....,...,^,.,....auMrv.,.x. m�rc.wn Ex.•wY:......e.,.�. .z-w�,.rm.,. ....»... E - a>� - -Ii— ....... Queue Service Time(gs), s 1.9 k 0 1 a 1 y4y 1 1 0.1 1.8 0 6 2 10.0 1 9 5 0^8< 6 --- . le: ueue':Cle.arance.Time. .c .s::',: :1.�9.::i s•0:0 : .'0:6' ':, :.2:1 :0:0': . .y1;.9I.I.11:5 0.8 .6.4 1.:1 0.1<.: 1:8 ..,...:.:.M...;.�,�»«-«..a...��.:;..�.,.;�;..,.,..W..�:»wr..�. y Green Ratio(g/C) < 0.63 # 0,60 10.78 1 0,63 0,60 1 0.73 0,22 i 0,07 0.11 0;16 0,03 0,.06 ,.,.�a,r�>r�.s ... ....�........,..,�:...� ,. ... . ., ., °» w....w ., .a: .......,. .. ,rF..w................w».»..:... Capacity(e),vehlh. .:124:::1::$044,.1.09 .1:::1:05:1...:3044.1...945.:1!.25 .55139 914 11 327 i 41 77 .. �.� �.,..,....».�.w.. .:,. -.,,.,,....� „a,...r»...,_ r;...��..:...,.,.s...,.....�.,...,......µ...,..: 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(?) 0,395 1,037 0,022. 0,361 1 1,087€063 0.362 0.078'0,427 0.050 J 0,027 10,21' .,..,,.v„�g..,:.....�...�M�,�x,..,,,r..�.,._._..�.me,..,..,.........»". ..�,�,......w.:.., i Available Capacity.(ca),veh/h ....:12#. 3044::1:::1005 1105 3044945µ≥g-255.-.3....1.39. 1.114..:4 327 41 s 77 Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(85th percentile) 1,0 y 10,7 i 0.2 i�m0,8 ; 17.6 0.7 4.7� a 0.7 E 3.1 0.9 : 0,1 E 1,1 ...... ..':. �:: .. ...' ...:`.. '.. '.�. .: ry....m :'tt is„^.zraeaez.:r•�,... c^•Ss,s,.,,x a..,'�,t'.». .,.:..x.. . tom...: .< �= ,«.:.ss." ,:z��,��. ,..:,,....e� ( ....; ..,. :r..;:.:: vt2an... 0::00:1 .0:00;::. ::.0,a0.' :.0:06 0:0Q'' ::.0:00::. :o oa : 0:06,'x..0,00- o:oo. s D:.00 . 0:0C 1 Qti:eiue:Storage::Katio.(RG?)($.5th:'p.erpen.tile}:.. .::..::.: t.», �:...� <.. .,,,..-...�.,.:_.�_�.�..»�..,.. .�.t.M�,•a;;.:� -- ` Uniform Delay( ), 112 6 0 0 3 7 10,9 0,0 ' 5.6 50,1 i 64,8 62.7 53,4 71,1 67,1 . I (di),s/veh � ,_" ---- � <._.. C""" . .. . .. . . .:.. � ,ra„ww ). --- > ncreme.ntalDeia .dz sve. .. � : �: e 1, 0:9 jl X0.0 0:1<,< 0 �:o o.o � �a�a� .x. 45 6 D.0.0;0 .3 0 Initial Queue Delay(d3) s/veh , } 1 ..+...w+..........a..,.-nane�wwm.,,.+..,.,..,. .. .__..:.,.ssss,.,.n....,,...:�..x.:as,aos^r:w'n.....:wQ..,,._.r,.s.r.-...w:wws ....�,..w. �. 3 , _ .0 3 RoWa >r: Control:.Deia� =s/veh.: : - 13.4 3,7. .x..1.1,7 .145:6.l': :5.6':4 O:4. .: 64:9 63.6 53 L . .. .. ..........Y(.off.,...' ........ -.: :: :.::: ;..�.,� 27.0 .. a-nx:.. ... ... ,: s,,�:;:•xi.x.r,:.' j 67.6 B s F A � j.......F : aea<A...;'�.� DE' �.- D E:: E ;Level of Service(LOS) i • �« ......�......��,r,.,.�««.;.. �....:.�s..>M�:.r.�„....„„. Approach Delay,s/Veh/LOS :..:•:.:20.::0.:..„1...,,..,..- C 44,5 : O 55.7 E . ,.E II� .60.9:• ',.. ,..E.'_ a":.xx�xw:n.wxv...>•wru.:ica;.,.,.,..r,.......F ...,..:cntimr>:rwrw.warMnx.r,xw::xx.xra+.,,... '... .-uram:,.nv�.,wn. ........-..,.,uuu3a^•••,•,...�...�....«w w..l"..a..r.... x Intersection Delay s/veh/LOS 36.4 D . ...... ., ......_. 'ee-- µ.......... I • .... ..,, —- ........... 0.4 . ,. -"-�_ E(.II lE8[:ai' *'Ftit,.:..`Sl3HPs'•E::' ;'F°`"-"-"^""++E-' ..... Uw,--- <, .4.7 <� "FFFi^".,.0 Y. EF�t r—,. F E F.i 1'ty:< P .t1 ..S�3• • ...,a ,,,� �......,.[,':.E".'�:L�iEE;i»:9:tw F F•ii •€'�]:. Mu[t�modaL Results........ .::.. ... ...... .: ... .. . .. .:..:? :.,E„--;Er.:................. .:x�. ,.,,._<-..W....VB. .. ... . ...... _e. .x.ww......rr.. a�,�,......rcw..... ....�._�w,,.a.. ....a.,».��...... ,.. ....,.,.,,a�...��.a¢�I a.,... : :.:..::.;R;�.�r. � «.. rim:x•• .... ....„�.:,,,. <.�.,;.'...E' Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS.... .. •;.Bic cle LOS S:eore.l:LOS" — .._.__.. . : F'. EN . e `,.,...1'!'":.4r,; • ,"'..t ';,:1�,.::.:?# s t i x[ ';; 3.. 3?:.€ ..� situ:�, HCS sl'�.'av' ;;�k`tiy�sa' "'[5:;�.�^... ':i'?>�:'st fiF;=:a�::.'tf..:f .... ...z.i.�`s"s.,;:'ta:. ,.J1�'Grs�,!€�:�'�.� 9�l .sa��,t�Ail, ;i.t:�t ��.,: t . . _�a:�,. .. . AECOMAECOM 858-812-9292 tel 4225 Executive Square 858-812-9293 fax Suite 1600 Memorandum La Jolla. CA 92037 www.aecom.com To James Sharn, Martin Marietta Materials Page 1 cc Thomas Damiana and Anthony Galligan, AECOM Subject Proposed Highway 34 Site - near Kelim Colorado — Noise Analysis From Paul Burge, INCE Bd. Cert. , AECOM Date March 26, 2015 1 .0 Introduction and Background 1. 1 Project Overview Martin Marietta Materials is evaluating potential aggregates sales yard and asphalt/ready-mix concrete production sites along railroads in Weld County that meet specific transportation and production criteria. One of the locations under consideration is the "Highway 34" site, located at 27486 Weld County Road 13, one-half mile south of Highway 34 in Weld County. The proposed site is made up of two parcels, totaling 133 acres. The western parcel is currently developed and permitted in Weld County to allow for the operation of a construction business. The eastern parcel is currently agricultural farmland . The general layout of the proposed site is shown in Figure 1 . 1.2 Operations Overview The Highway 34 site is proposed to have four main components: a rail unloading facility to bring in raw material, an aggregate sales yard , an asphalt plant and a ready mix concrete plant. The rail loop will branch off the existing Union Pacific Railroad line to allow for the loading and unloading of aggregates. Trains will deliver aggregate from Wyoming approximately two to three times per week. Customers within northern Colorado will receive their materials from this site by truck. Generally, operations are planned to take place during daylight hours, six days a week. However, hours of operation are dictated by customers' project requirements, so at times, activities may need to occur early in the morning or at night. 2.0 Applicable Noise Ordnances Applicable noise ordinances exist for both the State of Colorado and Weld County, as summarized below. 2. 1 State of Colorado The State of Colorado provides maximum permissible noise levels under section 25-12-103 of the State Code, as reproduced below. AECOM Table 1 . Colorado State, Maximum Allowable Noise Levels Zone Maximum Sound Level (dBA) 7amto7pm 7pmto7am Residential 55 50 Commercial 60 55 Light Industrial 70 65 Industrial 80 75 In reference to this table, subsection 25- 12-103 (1 ) of the Code states: Sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of 25 feet or more therefrom in excess of the dBA established for the following time periods and Zones shall contribute prima facie evidence that such noise is a public nuisance. It is also stated in subsection 25- 12- 103 (2) that, in the hours between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm , the noise levels permitted in subsection ( 1 ) of this section may be increased by 10 dBA for a period of not to exceed 15 minutes in any one hour period. 2.2 Weld County The maximum allowable noise levels for various land uses for Weld County noise regulations, as specified under Chapter 14, Article IX, Section 14-9-40, are presented as follows: Table 2. Weld County, Maximum Allowable Noise Levels Land Use Maximum Noise Level (dB(A)) Maximum Noise Level (dB(A)) 7:00 am — 9:00 pm 9:00 pm — 7:00 am Residential Property or 55 50 Commercial Area Industrial Area or Construction 80 75 Activities Non-Specified Areas 55 50 For residential and industrial land uses the allowable levels are the same for State and County regulations. Weld County has verified that the presented maximum allowable noise levels apply at the property line of the noise producing property. For the Highway 34 project, the property would be considered "industrial," so the applicable maximum noise levels would be 80 dBA during the day and 75 dBA at night as predicted or measured at any point of the property line adjacent to another developed land use. 3.0 Assumed Nearby Noise-Sensitive Receptors, Noise Sources, and Plant Operations 3. 1 Nearby Noise Receptors The closest nearby noise-sensitive receptors in each general direction from the proposed plant are presented in Table 3, below and are shown on Figure 1 . 2IPage AECOM Table 3. Closest Noise-Sensitive Receptors Receptor Approx. Address Land Use Direction, distance from nearest ID sound source R1A 27627 Hopi Trail Residential Development 353 ft. NE from rail loop R1 B 27687 Hopi Trail Residential Development 472 ft. N from rail loop R2 6577 County Rd 56 Isolated Residence 316 ft. SE from rail loop R3 6190 County Rd 56 Isolated Residence 778 ft. S from rail loop R4A -27236 N . Co. Line Rd. Isolated Residence 558 ft. SW from internal truck route R4B -27192 N . Co. Line Rd . Isolated Residence 621 ft. SE from rail loop R5 -27846 N . Co. Line Rd. Isolated Residence 161 ft. N from internal truck route R6 -27864 N . Co. Line Rd Isolated Residence 120 ft. E from haul route R7 —6577 County Rd 56 To be acquired by project Other noise sensitive receptors exist in the area, but those listed in Table 3 represent the closest in each direction, so it is reasonably assumed that project-related sound levels at other, more distant locations would be lower than those presented in this report. Corresponding property line analysis locations have been established for each of the identified receptor locations, as indicated in Table 4, and as shown in Figure 1 . Table 4. Closest Noise-Sensitive Receptors Property Corresponding Direction and distance from nearest Line ID Receiver ID sound source PL1A R1A 165 ft. NE from rail loop PL1 B R1 B 57 ft. N from rail loop PL2 R2 249 ft. SE from rail loop PL3 R3 60 ft. S from rail loop PL4A R4A 388 ft. SW from rail loop PL4B R4B 82 ft. SE from rail loop PL5 R5 59 ft. N from internal truck route 3.2 Project-related Noise Sources The assumed project related noise sources are presented in Table 5 along with reference sound level/distance and reference source: Table 5. Assumed Project Noise Sources without noise controls Project Noise Source Map ID Reference Reference Source Level/Distance Asphalt Plant A & C 82 dBA @ 175 ft. Greely Measurements 2/20/15 Ready-mix Plant B 75 dBA @ 100 ft. Livingston EIR Truck Movements E 73 dBA @ 60 ft. Greely Measurements 3/5/15 Truck Washing D 78 dBA @ 60 ft. Greely Measurements 3/5/15 Rail Car movements G 48 dBA @ 50 ft. FTA Spreadsheet Rail Loco Idling G 73 dBA @ 50 ft. FTA Table 6-7 Rail Hopper/unload H 65 dBA @ 50 ft. Estimate from TX plant Conveyer transfer tower I 63 dBA @ 100 ft. Greely Measurements 2/20/15 3IPage AECOM The source levels for the above sound sources were derived from a number of reference or measurement sources. Sound levels for the asphalt plant, truck movements, truck washing operations, and material conveyor system were all conducted at the Martin Marietta asphalt plant in Greely, CO for equipment and processes similar to those expected to be installed at the new plant. Source levels for the Ready-mix plant were referenced from the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Livingston Concrete Batch Plant, in Placer County, CO (2008). Source levels for idling locomotives and internal train movement were references from the Federal Transit Administration's manual for Noise and Vibration Assessment, 2006. Estimates for the Hopper unload station were estimated from interviews with plant personnel at other MMI plants with similar equipment. 3.3. Plant Operations The following assumptions were used in estimating noise generated by the proposed project: Although all the sources listed in section 3.2 are not expected to normally be operating at the same time, there is no way reasonably to estimate with any level of certainty exactly which sources will be operating when . Therefore, for the purpose of calculating noise levels, it was conservatively assumed that all identified noise sources would be operating continuously and simultaneously during daytime periods. The ready-mix and asphalt plants would not routinely operate during nighttime hours, but may be available on-demand for ready-mix deliveries. Therefore, it was conservatively assumed that during nighttime hours the asphalt plant, ready-mix plant, truck wash station , and internal truck movement may all be operational. 4.0 Proposed Noise Mitigation Elements The proposed noise control elements recommended to be constructed as part of the project include the following (and as conceptually indicated in Figure 1 ): ❑ Berms to break line-of-sight between sound sources and receptors R1A, R1 B and R2. ❑ Noise walls to break line-of-sight between sound sources and receptors R3, R4A, R4B, and R5. ❑ Acoustical enclosures/silencers to provide at least 20 dBA of noise reduction at asphalt plant. ❑ Acoustical enclosures/silencers to provide at least 10 dBA of noise reduction at ready-mix plant. ❑ Noise wall to provide at least 15 dB noise reduction for truck noise at R5. Detailed locations and heights for noise walls and berms and details and specifications for noise control elements for the asphalt and ready-mix plants would be defined during final design, but may include such features as stack and intake silencers, burner enclosures, conveyor and chute enclosures and lagging , acoustically absorptive enclosure pens and administrative/operational controls. 5.0 Predicted Operational Noise Levels Noise levels were conservatively calculated assuming spherical geometric spreading from the source without excess ground attenuation or atmospheric absorption (an approximate reduction of 6 dBA per distance doubling from the source), based upon distances from the center of each point source (asphalt plant, ready-mix plant, truck wash), or closest point of a line source (rail loop, internal truck route) to the property line or residential receiver location as shown in inset tables in Figure 1 . Predicted sound levels for property line and residential receptor locations are presented in Tables 6A and 6B, respectively. 4IPage AECOM Table 6A. Predicted Project Noise Levels at Property Line Locations Property With No Mitigation (dBA) With Mitigation (dBA) Notes: Max allowable Line Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime 80 dBA day, Location level level level level 75 dBA night PL1A 65 61 58 48 All meet maximum PL1 B 72 63 72 51 _ allowable "Industrial" _ PL2 64 62 55 47 property line limit, with or PL3 73 68 67 52 without mitigation , day or _ PL4A 67 66 55 53 night PL4B 73 71 64 55 PL5 74 74 68 68 Table 6B. Predicted Project Noise Levels at Receiver Locations Property With No Mitigation (dBA) With Mitigation (dBA) Notes: Max Allowable Line Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime 55 dBA day Location level level level level 50 dBA night R1A 62 61 53 47 All meet maximum R1 B 62 61 55 48 allowable "Residential" limit R2 63 62 54 47 for daytime operations. R3 64 64 53 50 Occasional nighttime R4A 65 65 55 55 operations may exceed limit R4B 66 66 53 52 at R4A, R4B and R5 R5 67 67 52 51 As shown in Table 6A the maximum allowable "Industrial" noise level of 80 dBA during the day and 75 dBA at night is met at all analyzed property line points with or without proposed noise mitigation elements, day or night. Further, the secondary, "residential" limit, as shown in Table 6B, is also met for the 55 dBA daytime limit at all neighboring residential locations with proposed mitigation . Occasional nighttime operations would meet the nighttime allowable limit at all locations except R4A, R4B and R5 which may be exceeded occasionally due to internal truck movements. 6.0 Haul Route Noise Noise levels could increase at residential land uses along North County Line Road between the proposed plant and US 34 as a result of increased traffic from plant operations. To determine traffic noise levels for homes along this haul route the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) was used to predict noise levels for existing traffic conditions and traffic conditions for the full build out of the plant (2036). Receiver location R6 (as shown on Figure 1 ) was used to represent the limited number of residences along the haul route. The predictions where based upon traffic data provided in the Traffic Impact Study, Martin Marietta Materials, Highway 34 Site. The TMN analysis calculated peak hour noise levels at Receiver R6 as 57 dBA for the current conditions and 64 dBA for future (2026 conditions). This does represent a potentially noticeable increase but it is less than the 66 dBA level or 10 dBA increase that is typically considered a traffic noise impact by FHWA and Colorado Department of Transportation. 5IPage AECOM 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon this analysis it is concluded that the proposed Highway 34 proposed operations operations would not exceed the maximum allowable "Industrial" noise limits during the day or at night. In addition, with recommended noise control elements as listed in Section 4.0, it is predicted that the plant operations would not exceed the "residential" noise limits at nearby residences for daytime operations, but may exceed those limits for periods during on-demand nighttime operations at some receiver locations. 6IPage • I ' - i • • 4. LEGEND ;I 2 Noise Sensitive Receptor %, 'a I j� rlJ Property Liner I I Noise Source (A-D, H, I) , 9 Nearest Track Location p I ��,t (Noise Source G) .. I • .•;) R0 in - 4p Improvements r • i l Conveyor 5 ' Truck Route I �, CCCC I E A M Is (Noise Source E) * , a r - Wall - Noise Abatement - • • �,:.i Railway �---..., ^• -. Berm - Noise Abatement ., '---�.�' -• a -- a ,r L I County Boundary r IN R1B ; " t 2 - „ • . ► I. a Commanche Ct'' (-40' i ' - a ' \ • %� i . 2 - L5 poi] 2 - r J - - .4 GIB PL1A J rp ../...�,.// G1A.......___ ,.. _AIL ! "Abatt, s ,- ,altar.4 0 a • • ♦. i / • ► Al • 4 r R4A 'ems : ♦ �� 2 PL4A �/ : ■ Q:I. ,1011+1 N , p�4 41 Li , ill 4 f1 • 0 CD • ___ I ( 1.- 4 - • I v_( ` :' I I iv A . n ��oc � i /Fe, : = .ss•N ‘' * t II % I •Nskt. tit , % i % I • N4 G3 i z",/ #. IIII ( ta •,��Pitlit 0 I , i_ s I • 1 - L2 I 2 R71\1J2 pa ,% J/ R3 56 - - - -'11 : .4 pip , \ i : I. zit I I _ , o c i . I \ \ \ - ‘ : . . c,um I 3.3ti \ O •4 it ,s, _... = �. l \ ti - = -. ...1Source - Receptor Distances (feet) Asphault Ready Mix Asphault Truck Truck Truck Rail Loop Hopper Conveyor Receptor Plant (Al,. Plant (B) Load (C ) Wash (D) Route (E ) (G) Unload (H) Transfer (I R1A 2250 1817 2317 1705 1264 353 2343 1167 r; R1B 2121 1564 2205 1537 1003 472 2555 1270 -- ,o R2 1859 2225 1804 1974 1305 316 510 1592 em R3 1421 2072 1319 1944 1248 778 1242 2178 OVERVIEW MAP R4A 1415 1353 1463 1573 558 650 2759 2334 1 `I I ;I R4B 1156 1375 1165 1523 925 621 2405 2260 I I R5 1795 1473 1870 1732 161 832 3137 2437 Cheyenne__fr � ; , Albany Laramie . I lir sphault Ready Mi Asphault Truck Truck Truck Rail Loop Hopper Conveyor y E: County I County I Property Lin .4 I ____ I,, I. . i _ ' • i Load C ash (D) ; • - E _ - _ Unload m '- PL1A 2078 1670 2142 1543 1128 165 2158 980 i PL1B 1776 1282 1854 1204 719 57 2140 855 'I 1, I PL2 1801 2161 1749 1908 1242 249 459 1525 Larimer I ' PL3 894 1486 803 1310 640 60 705 1461 - County I Weld PL4B 665 851 702 984 399 82 1995 1723 County _ ^ _ __ ~ PL4A 1175 1093 1230 1311 483 388 2526 2072 � Project Site I ` , S I I ; I PL5 1678 1357 1754 1615 59 715 3018 2324 ic ti____________ Morgan. County ,, SOURCES: 1,2 Grand t, a ,. MMMI ASPHAULT PLANT --Count r Boulder i Aerial Imagery (Microsoft 2011), y I Roads, Railways. Boundaries r; County L- _-- i--_--- . I (Esri 2009), Receptors (URS 2015): NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS � T r' Project Features (Tetra Tech 2015). �1 ar ' WELD COUNTY, COLORADO i r Adams t, e'��`z I Denver - County Yom.;!Driveway 250 0 250 500 Feet 1 `` ' .r, -,I ti 'Aurorae_-_ I �CD CREATED BY: DA DATE: 3/26/2015 FIG. NO: �L I ASK. Arapahoe SCALE: 1" = 500' (1 :6,000) 1 <-----__I Ina - County --_ SCALE CORRECT WHEN PRINTED AT 11X17 PM : PB PROJ. NO: 27655157.01000 NOISE MONITORING PLAN Highway 34 Development Martin Marietta will institute a noise monitoring program designed to validate modeling assumptions by demonstrating compliance with applicable standards and to provide a basis to address future neighborhood concerns. Currently, the Weld County Code and State law allows for 75 db during the night and 80 db during the day, measured at the property line for an industrial use. However, Martin Marietta is committed to developing a monitoring plan that will establish fenceline action levels designed to alert Martin Marietta and Weld County if noise levels are significantly higher than residential standards. This will be done with the objective of proactively mitigating noise from the facility that may result in noise incompatible with what is acceptable for residential uses. For the noise monitoring program, Martin Marietta will commit to the following: 1. Once the facility is constructed, conduct spot measurements offsite to validate assumptions related to critical noise reduction strategies used in the modeling. 2. Conduct daytime and night time monitoring according to an approved monitoring protocol. The protocol will include a statistically valid sampling plan. Martin Marietta will submit the monitoring protocol to the County for approval prior to recording the final plat. The results of the monitoring under the approved protocol will be reported to the County's Department of Public Health and Environment by the consulting company at intervals specified under the approved protocol but no less frequently than once per year from the effective date when monitoring begins. The County's Department of Public Health and Environment will review the results of the monitoring at least annually. The protocol will remain in place for the full term of this USR. Under the protocol, monitoring will be conducted at a background location and a worst-case location or locations as necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards and proactively respond to elevated noise levels. To respond to elevated noise levels, action levels will be set at a level lower than applicable standards. Should the monitoring find that the facility exceeds the action levels, Martin Marietta will identify the source of the noise and take corrective actions to reduce the noise. Preliminary monitoring locations and action limits will take into consideration the locations of the existing neighbors and the monitoring information. However, the final locations will be established as part of the protocol development. 3. Martin Marietta will contract with a qualified consulting firm to provide noise monitoring for the site. Martin Marietta will fund the development of the protocol, monitoring and reporting of the results. To ensure objectivity, Weld County shall approve the consultant. The contract will provide that the County is a third-party beneficiary and as such is entitled to receive all information provided to Martin Marietta pursuant to the contract. Should the County's Department of Public Health and Environment find that the facility exceeds the maximum noise levels, Martin Marietta will identify the source of the noise and take corrective actions to bring the facility into compliance as soon as possible. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page I of7 SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW V J07\ Y GOU IT t Planner: Diana Aungst Hearing Date: July 21 , 2015 Case Number: USR15-0027Applicant: Weld LV LLC & Gerrard Investments LLC, do Martin Marietta Request: An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit No. USR-1584 for any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions to include a Mineral Resource Development Facility including asphalt & concrete batch plants (materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural) Zone Legal Lot B of Recorded Exemption RE-2803 being part of the SW4 and SE4; and a Description : tract being part of the SW4, all in Section 18, T5N, R67W of the 6th P. M . , Weld County, CO Location: East of and adjacent to County Road 13; approximately one-half mile south of U .S. Highway 34. Size of Parcel: +/- 131 .42 acres Parcel Nos. 0957-18-0-00- 009 0957-18-3-00- 044 Case Summary: The applicant, Martin Marietta, is requesting an approval of a Special Use Permit for an asphalt batch plant, a Ready Mix Concrete batch plant, a 7-;2006,413 foot rail loop spur that will accommodate up to 1-24117 train cars for transloading , and materials processing including recycling and wholesale & retail sales of aggregate. This USR request is also for the continued operation of Gerrard Construction as approved under USR-1584 for a period of one year following approval of USR15-0027. USR-1584 was approved for 40 employees and hours of operation were 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday — Saturday. The application materials for this USR indicate that the number of full-time employees for Gerrard Construction will be 36 during the year that they are operating . and for At full build-out, Martin Marietta anticipates that they will be-have 71 for a total of 107 full-time employees. There Martin Marietta will-also be-projects that they will have up to 45 truck drivers and 25 field construction workers who will be based out of this facility and will be off-site most of the time. The hours of operation for Gerrard Construction will be 6:00 a.m . to 6:30 p.m . Monday — Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday. The number of employees and the hours of operation are consistent with the original USR-1584. Martin Marietta operations: Martin Marietta's hours of operation are 24 hours a day / 7 days a week; however, they have offered to operate under the following restrictions:7 Hours of Operation for Asphalt: o The plant will typically only operate Monday through Saturday o The standard hours of plant operation will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. o Load out from storage silos will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 1 of 20 one hour after sunset. o When the plant is operating at night, it will only occur when material is requested by cities, counties or CDOT for night paving projects. Operations will be considered "night operations" when they take place between the hours of one hour after sundown to one hour before sunrise. Depending on the request of the jurisdiction purchasing the asphalt, night operations could occur seven days per week. o When Martin Marietta becomes aware of projects that require night operations, they will email the Weld County Planning Director to let him/her know about the plans to operate outside of daylight hours, who the project is for, how long it will be occurring , and where the materials are being delivered. Hours of Operation for Ready Mix Concrete: o The Ready Mix Concrete Plant will only operate Monday through Saturday. o Actual operating hours of the Ready Mix Concrete Plant will vary depending on weather and business levels. The plant will generally not begin operating until daylight. Occasionally, it may need to operate earlier to accommodate daily business demands; however, in no instance will the plant ever operate before 3:00 a.m. o The plant will not operate more than 16 hours per day. o Ready Mix trucks will generally operate during plant operations, but may return to the plant after plant shutdown to be cleaned and parked . Hours of Operation for Aggregate and Recycling : o Aggregate sales and recycling operations will only occur Monday through Saturday. o Aggregate washing and recycling operations will only occur during daylight hours (dawn to dusk or 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the winter), actual operating hours will vary dependent on weather, and business levels. o Train unloading operations during the summer will only take place between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m . , actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site. o Train unloading operations during the winter will only take place during daylight hours, actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site. Asphalt plant: The asphalt plant will utilize sand , gravel, and rock in conjunction with recycled asphalt and various additives to produce bituminous asphalt for utilization on various road and construction projects. The asphalt plant will be powered by natural gas. As part of the asphalt plant portion of the facility, asphalt cement will be transported to the site and stored in tanks to be utilized in the process of making asphalt. The asphalt produced will be trucked offsite for use by the local market. The asphalt plant and related equipment will be 100 feet in height. Ready Mix Concrete plant: A Ready Mix Concrete plant will use sand , gravel , rock, cement, and various additives to produce concrete that will be trucked off-site for use on various construction projects. The Ready Mix Concrete plant and related equipment will be 110 feet in height. Transloading Martin Marietta will construct a rail loop spur which will accommodate up to 121 117 train cars off the existing Union Pacific Railroad line for the unloading (transloading) of aggregates,-and Aasphalt cement may also be brought to the site on a train . Aggregates will arrive by train up to three times per week and will be unloaded and prepared for sale or used by the Ready Mix Concrete plant and asphalt plant. Crushing/screening of recycled materials: A recycled materials processing plant will crush and sort recyclable materials including , but not limited to, concrete and asphalt. The recyclable materials are byproducts of existing processes and/or material that will be brought onsite from local construction projects. The recycling plant is portable so it may be moved around the property from time to time. USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 2 of 20 A portable wash plant for washing , screening, sorting , stockpiling , unloading, and loading of sand , gravel, rock, crushed stone, recycled materials, overburden, clay, and topsoil type products. Sales of aggregate and recycled materials: Up to 680,000 cubic yards of aggregate and recycled asphalt and concrete will be stored on the site in separate piles. Parking and Lighting: The application materials show adequate parking for both the existing and the proposed uses. There is an existing fence and gate along County Road 13 that was installed for Gerrard Construction that will continue to be used. New buildings: • Asphalt plant - 100 feet in height • Ready Mix Concrete plant - 110 feet in height • 14,400 square foot - office building • 1 ,200 square feet - modular dispatch trailer • 14,500 square feet - maintenance building • 4,800 square feet -scale house • 1 ,800 square feet - asphalt trailer • Fueling station • Wash plant • Truck wash • Recycled materials processing equipment • Conex buildings • Maintenance sheds • Electrical substation - Power will be delivered to the site at 14.4 kV and Martin Marietta will transform it down at a 7.5 MVA substation proposed at the facility for internal distribution . • 3 vertical asphalt cement tanks - 10-15 feet in diameter and 40-45 feet in height (30,000 gallons each) • 1 vertical emulsified asphalt tank - 10-15 feet in diameter and 40-45 feet in height (24,000 gallons) • 2 large capacity Asphalt Cement (AC) storage tanks — 100 feet in diameter and 45 feet tall (2.2 million gallons each) Screening: As approved under USR-1584 Gerrard Construction has installed some evergreen trees along County Road 13 at the entrance to the facility. Some of the trees will need to be removed to make space for the secondary emergency access road required by the fire protection district. Martin Marietta will install a landscape buffer/berm along the eastern edge of the property between the rail loop spur and the adjacent residential subdivision (Indianhead Subdivision). The berm will be 11 feet in height on the north end and 24 feet in height on the south end. The variation in height is required because of the topography of the site. Additional landscaping will also be provided around the perimeter of the protect consistent with the landscape plan . Traffic: Beginning in 2017 it is estimated that the facility will generate approximately 1 , 120 daily site trips and that by 2035 Tthere will be up to approximately 2,260 daily site trips. The traffic impact study states that 95% of the daily site trips will travel north towards U.S. Highway 34. USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 3 of 20 Trucks will haul in specific aggregate products to the site to complete the concrete and asphalt mix. These same trucks may be re-loaded with on-site aggregate and deliver to customers. Access: The primary access is an existing access point on County Road 13 and is currently being used by Gerrard Construction . All traffic entering and exiting the site will use the new bridge that will be installed over the train. Since a train will be on the rail loop spur a-great deal of the timeintermittently, this bridge is required to allow access into the interior portion of the rail loop spur at all times. A 20 foot wide secondary emergency access off of County Road 13 will be constructed just north of where the Union Pacific Railroad tracks cross County Road 13. Another In addition , a 20 foot wide, at-grade, secondary emergency access will be constructed at the north end of property this will be a 20 foot wide at-grade crossing- of theover the rail loop spur, as required by the Front Range Fire District Authority. This at-grade crossing will allow access for emergency vehicles when if the bridge is not accessible during an emergency. The applicant has had two neighborhood meetings one in January 2015 and one in June 2015; in addition, they met with adjacent neighbors in June 2015 to discuss landscaping. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1 . The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2- 260 of the Weld County Code. We are in agreement with this statement. 2. Section 23-2-220.A. 1 -- The proposed use is not consistent with Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect. A. Section 22-2-20. G. 1. - A.Policy 7. 1. states, "County land use regulations should support commercial and industrial uses that are directly related to, or dependent upon, agriculture, to locate within the agricultural areas, when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal, or can be mitigated, and where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable." Martin Marietta is proposing to locate on two parcels; the parcel to the east is currently productive agricultural land. The soil designation on both these properties is "Prime (Irrigated)" per the 1979 Soil Conservation Service Important Farmlands of Weld County Map. The proposed USR does not directly relate to nor is it dependent upon agriculture and it will be removing about 90 acres of Prime (Irrigated) Farmland from production. Greeley, Windsor and Johnstown have all indicated that their comprehensive plans call for different land uses on this piece of property. Therefore, it is an accepted fact that this property will develop and will not remain in agricultural use. The western portion of the property was already approved for development by Weld County and is being used by Gerrard . Additionally as with all land uses, there may be impacts to surrounding properties from the proposed use. The noise generated by the train is exempt from regulations and may interfere with the neighbor's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of their property. The odors from the facility are expected to meet federal, state and local odor regulations. However, odor is subjective and has the potential to be an annoyance to the nearby residential properties. The sound study that Martin Marietta had AECOM prepare took railroad noise into consideration. According to the study, even if rail noise is exempt, Martin Marietta will still meet the noise regulations. The asphalt plant will be a state of the art plant with an emission capture system, carbon filters and vertical AC tanks. All of these investments in the plant are designed to control odor. USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 4 of 20 Section 22-2-20. G. 2. - A.Policy 7. 2. states, "Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential, commercial and industrial uses should be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such development, and should attempt to be compatible with the region." Water as well as access to the railroads and arterial streets and highways are available in this area to support the proposed development. As indicated in the application, Martin Marietta has taken many steps to be compatible with the region . The proposed land use is necessary to support the economic future of the region and after an extensive search of potential sites, Martin Marietta determined that this is the most appropriate site to accommodate the use. The site is located within the three (3) mile referral area of the Towns of Windsor and Johnstown and the Cities of Greeley and Loveland . The site is also located within the three (3) mile referral area of Larimer County. Since the site is adjacent to Weld County Road 13/Larimer County Road 1 both counties provided comments on the traffic and road impact. All of the affected jurisdictions submitted referral agency comments and most of the comments indicate that the proposed Martin Marietta project is incompatible with the area, the region , and the vision for the future for this gateway to Weld County. The Town of Johnstown submitted referral agency comments dated June 15, 2015, in the form of Resolution #2015-07 opposing Martin Marietta's application. The Resolution states, in part: ". . .that if this use is permitted it would create undesirable, offensive and harmful consequences, inconsistent with the Town of Johnstown's long-range planning and inconsistent with the best growth and development along the U .S. Highway 34 corridor." The landowners were not consulted when Johnstown worked on its long-range planning . Johnstown has allowed and has plans for future industrial development in the area, west of WCR13. In addition, Johnstown's Town Board made claims and decisions about the application without knowing all of the facts about the project. Martin Marietta reached out to the Town Council to talk to them about the application and the Council made it clear that they did not want to hear from Martin Marietta. The property is located in Weld County, not Johnstown and Johnstown made the decision to not enter into an IGA with Weld County. Weld County can consider input from Johnstown ; however, ultimately, Weld County needs to make decisions that are in the best interests of the County as a region . The Town of Windsor and the City of Greeley submitted referral agency comments both dated May 27, 2015, which state that this development is inconsistent with the existing 2008 Windsor/Greeley Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Both municipalities in their referral comments state, in part: ". . .the property is located within a sensitive location with various competing interests. It is important to consider — and, ideally, master plan this area in a collaborative manner due to the proximity of this site to three municipalities, an established unincorporated neighborhood, large swaths of productive agricultural land , and major regional transportation systems. In 2008, the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley entered into an amended Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), that identified a defined Cooperative Planning, Land Use and Utility Area (CLUA) as a means to attempt to identify and support a land use pattern for the U .S. Highway 34 corridor that would be consistent with the jurisdictions' visions and infrastructure planned and existing in the area. The CLUA outlines permitted uses and site design characteristics within the Principal Employment Corridor and Secondary Corridor Area. The proposed facility for Martin Marietta is located within this Secondary Corridor Area. The proposed use is incompatible with this particular vision that the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley have developed for this area. The proposed batch plant is an intensive industrial use unsuited for the nature of this corridor, and its USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 5 of 20 impacts likely cannot be fully mitigated. Furthermore, approval of this Use by Special Review, as proposed, would likely establish a sprawling and overly- intense land use pattern for future development of the corridor. The Town of Windsor and the City of Greeley urge careful consideration for the proposed uses and its regional impact, particularly concerning future land use patterns for the area and along Highway 34. You are aware of the decades of discussion about preserving the unique identities of the Northern Colorado communities, with community buffers that allow cities and towns to maintain their character and thereby contributing to a larger regional economy. With the proposed scale and location, this proposal may frustrate that vision, or at least contribute to the beginnings of a land use pattern with significant impacts to the gateway into the City of Greeley and Town of Windsor." Once again , it makes sense to consider the input of Greeley and Windsor; however, neither community has an IGA with Weld County and, ultimately, it is up to Weld County to make decisions that are in the best interests of Weld County as a region . Both Greeley and Windsor indicated that if the application were to be approved , impacts from lights should be considered and additional landscaping should be added . Martin Marietta has fulfilled both requests. In addition, the City of Greeley City Council wrote a letter dated June 26, 2015 which states: "Since staff's comments, City Council has been briefed on the project as well as the related Greeley Comprehensive Plan and IGAs. The City Council acknowledges the County's jurisdiction in this matter, recognizing that you will be reviewing and evaluating issues related to design, impacts, and mitigation. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the importance of aggregate providers and their ability to provide asphalt and concrete for the future. The City Council recognizes that locating facilities somewhere in Northern Colorado will be important in supporting future economic growth in the area as local gravel resources become less available, even as new development needs additional concrete and asphalt supplies. Rail and major road corridors will be important in supporting such efforts, " The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners submitted referral agency comments dated June 16, 2015 that state: "Based upon the attached letters [please see the PC Exhibits and the referral from Larimer County] and discussions with our staff, the proposed use represents a significant change to the area with regards to traffic, noise, dust and odors, to mention a few. While this area of our County is comprised of a variety of agricultural, rural residential and non-residential uses, compatibility of land uses should still be at the heart of consideration when making a determination of the appropriateness of the proposed use and the mitigation of potential impacts. We understand that decisions on land use such as this are difficult, especially in areas experiencing significant growth , and would therefore respectfully ask that you consider the concerns raised by property owners in the attached letters." Larimer County has allowed multiple industrial uses to be developed west of WCR 13 within their jurisdiction . They do indicate in their letter that compatibility needs to be considered in making a determination. Martin Marietta has taken many steps to address compatibility issues. The application was sent to five jurisdictions to review. All five jurisdictions provided a response with the majority stating that the proposed use is incompatible with the surrounding land use and the area. The placement of a heavy industrial use, such as Martin Marietta is proposing, is a disturbance to the existing residential area and is not compatible with the existing land uses or the vision of this region. This area is a gateway into Weld County and the land uses in this area should reflect this significance to the residents of- and visitors to Weld County. Heavy industrial uses have the potential of being incompatible if not handled properly; however, Martin Marietta has taken steps to address compatibility issues. Martin Marietta's facilities as well as other heavy industrial uses co-exist next to residential uses in multiple USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 6 of 20 locations in Weld and Larimer County as well as throughout the State. Weld County needs to ensure that Martin Marietta is taking steps to be a good neighbor, but ultimately in order to make a good decision regarding this application , Weld County needs to take more than just compatibility factors into consideration . Section 22-2-80. C. 2. - ', Policy 3. 2. states, "The land use applicant should demonstrate that the roadway facilities associated with the proposed industrial development are adequate in width , classification and structural capacity to serve the development proposal." The application material state that the traffic generated by Martin Marietta will be up to 2,260 daily site visits. The roadway facilities associated with this industrial development require a number of upgrades before they will be adequate in width and structural capacity to serve this facility and this has been noted by CDOT, and Larimer and Weld County traffic engineers. The traffic from this project poses safety concerns for the surrounding community and commuters of U.S. Highway 34. With the addition of 2,260 vehicles accessing the site on a daily basis the potential for accidents between trucks & cars and trucks & trains increases significantly. Martin Marietta is committed to installing all warranted lane improvements on WCR 13 as well as Highway 34 and paying to install the traffic signal. This will bring the roadway facilities up to a standard to handle the anticipated traffic and address safety concerns. The Town of Johnstown Resolution states, in part: " the applicant forecasts a significant increase in the generation of traffic along Highway 34 and County Road 13 arising from its operation , with the potential to negatively impact residents of the area and drivers along the roadways." And "The proposed uses also include an increase in the use of the railroad line across County Road 17, which presently has only a rural crossing that may not be adequate to address safety and delay concerns arising from the increased traffic." Weld County already made the decision that WCR13 is an arterial road and is expected to be expanded to be a 4 lane road . Martin Marietta made a conceded effort to work within the planning efforts of Weld County and found a site that was adjacent to an arterial so that they could direct all of their traffic to the arterial. In addition, the majority of the residents in the area live within Indianhead Estates Subdivision with access onto WCR 15. In addition , Martin Marietta and Tetra Tech attended the Johnstown Planning Commission hearing when the Highway 34 Development project was presented to the Planning Commission by Johnstown Town Planner John Franklin . Mr. Franklin also acknowledged that the project that Johnstown approved on the northwest corner of the intersection of WCR13 and Highway 34 would benefit from Martin Marietta installing the signal light at the intersection . He also indicated that their proposed use of the northwest corner of the intersection would generate more traffic than Martin Marietta's proposed use. The Weld County engineer in the Department of Planning Services states: "There was no information in the traffic study concerning the train related traffic and safety issues." Martin Marietta's traffic engineering consultant, Gene Coppola has indicated that train related traffic and safety issues are not typically covered in traffic studies. In addition , it takes a specialized consultant and study to investigate these types of issues. Martin Marietta supports safe practices in all situations and recognizes that this should be done; however, this is an issue that that railroad companies need to work through with the PUC to determine if improvements are warranted for safety reasons. Martin Marietta will cooperate with the railroads and County regarding these concerns and how best to address them . USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 7 of 20 The traffic impact study stated that 95% of the traffic will travel north on County Road 13 and 5% will travel south. The comments received from CDOT, the Larimer County and Weld County traffic engineers indicate that this is extremely unusual. If this site is a regional distribution center then it would seem that there would be a higher trip distribution to the south. The Weld County Traffic Engineer has stated that a more realistic trip distribution would be 75% of traffic traveling north on County Road 13 and 25% of traffic traveling south on County Road 13. The distribution may sound unusual; however, it was based on knowledge of Martin Marietta's business and its market. Weld County, CDOT, Larimer County and Weld County traffic engineers did not discuss this information with Martin Marietta before they came to the conclusion that the numbers sounded unusual. This facility will serve the region and Martin Marietta knows that their primary service area is Greeley and along the 1-25 corridor between Loveland and Fort Collins. Yes, some local deliveries to the south are expected , but Martin Marietta anticipates that there is not a big demand for materials in that direction. Should things change and more trucks need to head south to serve that market, Martin Marietta is fully aware that it is responsible for making warranted improvements to the roads based on the traffic that its facility generates. This is an issue that can be covered in the Improvements Agreement. It does not make sense to revise the traffic study to propose traffic numbers for something other than what Martin Marietta believes will actually happen . The intensity of the traffic proposed for the intersection of County Road 13 and U .S. Highway 34 warrants signalization as pointed out in by at least four referral agencies. Additionally, the auxiliary lanes on County Road 13 and U .S. Highway 34 will need to be extended in length and acceleration and deceleration lanes will need to be installed on both County Road 13 and U .S. Highway 34. Both the signalization of the intersection and the improvements to the auxiliary and acceleration and deceleration lanes requires coordination with the affected railroad companies. At this time there has been no comments submitted from Great Western Railroad Company concerning the expansion of the lanes along U .S. Highway 34. As indicated in correspondence submitted to the County, Martin Marietta has already committed to pay for the signal at the intersection and recognizes that they will not be reimbursed for any of those costs. All warranted lane improvements along WCR 13 as well as Highway 34 will be made by Martin Marietta and Tetra Tech engineering staff will be working closely with Weld County, CDOT and the railroad companies regarding the improvements. The addition of 2,260 site visits daily from this project poses safety concerns for the surrounding community and commuters of U .S. Highway 34. The increased traffic increases the potential for accidents between trucks & cars and trucks & trains. The impact of the traffic will adversely affect the roadway facilities in the area. The traffic projection of 2,260 vehicles is the projection for the year 2035. The property will eventually develop. No matter what the use, there will be additional traffic and other uses will likely generate even more traffic than Martin Marietta's proposed use. The warranted road and intersection improvements that Martin Marietta has committed to making will address the potential for accidents and prevent adverse impacts on the roadway facilities. The staff report does not recognize of the following Goal and Policy also found in Section 22-2- 80 which is the Industrial development Goals and Policies section of the Code: G. 1. Goal 7. Recognize the importance of railroad infrastructure to some industrial uses. 1. 1. Policy 7. 1. Support the continued and expanded use of existing railroad infrastructure for industrial uses. Approval of the Highway 34 Development project would implement this Goal and Policy. B. Section 23-2-220.A.3 -- The uses which will be permitted will not be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. There are 14 single-family homes/lots within 500 feet of this site. Indianhead Subdivision (approximately 100 lots) is located adjacent and northwest of the site Currently there is USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 8 of 20 a single-family residence on the site adjacent to County Road 56. The application materials state that some of the outbuildings associated with this home will need to be demolished in order to build the 24 foot high berm for the rail loop spur. The Department of Planning Services has received 763 letters and many phone calls concerning this USR. 534 letters — 70% are in support of this USR and 229 letters — 30% are in opposition to this USR. The supporting letters primarily originate from outside of Weld County: 42% supporting this USR are from folks living outside of Weld County, 27% are from folks living in Weld County in Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etc. and 1 % are from Weld County Citizens living in the Johnstown area including Indianhead Subdivision. The comment about the outbuildings that may need to be removed to accommodate the berm is written in a manner that implies that the landowners don't approve of the demo. The outbuildings are on Highway 34 Development site and the landowners do not object to the removal of the buildings in order to accommodate the screening berm. The current tenant, whose lease will soon be expiring, objects to the removal of the buildings. The opposing letters primarily originate from Indianhead Subdivision : 23% are from Weld County Citizens living in the Johnstown area including Indianhead Subdivision, 5% opposing this USR are from folks living outside of Weld County, and 2% are from folks living in Weld County in Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etc. The table below shows the breakdown for the letters. Table 1 — Surrounding property owner letters* Support - total number of letters . . 534 70% Live in Johnstown area including Indianhead Subdivision 5 1 % Live in Weld County (Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etc) . 208 27% Live outside of Weld County (Fort Collins, Westminster, etc. ) 321 42% Oppose - total number of letters . . 229 30% Live in Johnstown area including Indianhead Subdivision . . . 175 23% Live in Weld County (Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etc) . . 18 2% Live outside of Weld County (Fort Collins, Westminster, etc.) 36 5% *Letter count as of July 13, 2015 Total 763 The breakdown of the number of letters received is helpful. It is important to note that there have been more letters received in support of the project than opposed . The fact that many letters of support came from members of the community outside of the Johnstown area including Indianhead Subdivision should not be discounted because this project is a project that has County and region wide consequences if it is not approved. The issues cited in the letters that oppose this project include, but are not limited to: traffic, noise, dust, visual impact, lighting, odors, health concerns, air and water pollution, and safety concerns due to increase in rail and truck traffic. The following is an incomplete list of the concerns from letters of opposition: • Health concerns from the processing of asphalt including , but not limited to, nitric oxide, styrene (ethenylbenzene), benzene, methyl ethyl ketone, hydrogen sulfide, heavy metals, formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter, and toluene. • Health issues due to long term exposure to low level carcinogens • Health concerns related to toxic odors • Escalation of respiratory ailments (i.e. asthma) due to odors, smoke, dust and pollution • Health issues for those who have allergies or who are sensitive to the emissions from the plant • Visual impacts for the residents to the west including those who live in the Indianhead Subdivision • Visual ugliness/degradation USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 9 of 20 • Obstructed view to the west • Excessive dust from the processing of Ready Mix Concrete and recycling materials in the crusher/screener • Dust, noise, and odors from the transloading conveyor belt • Dust from traffic • Hazardous dust • Caustic dust that is detrimental to plant life, livestock, and humans • Odors from the processing of asphalt and concrete • Odors from train cars unloading asphalt cement • Odors from diesel trucks • Inability to sleep with the windows open due to odors • Light pollution • Noise from train and machinery • Noise from the recycling crusher/screener • Noise from the rail • Backup beeping noise • Noise from the site interfering with those who work at home • Traffic concerns • Increase in commute times due to increased traffic • Traffic congestion at the intersection of U .S. Highway 34 and County Road 13 • Damage to the roads due to increase in truck traffic • Traffic delays on U .S. Highway 34 the gateway to area that will kill future growth • Increase in rail traffic • Potential for train derailment • Vibration from trains • Increase in train traffic may mean more trains at night that will disrupt sleep • Noise from rail including horns, whistles, car switching (uncoupling), and screeching wheel noise • Trains blocking County Roads (County Road 15, County Road 17, 54, etc. ) • Decrease in property values • Decrease in quality of life for the residential properties surrounding the site • Air pollution • Water pollution • Seeping of chemicals into the ground water • Inability to sell or re-sell homes • Pollution draining into the Big Thompson River, the Koenig Reservoir, and the adjacent ditches • Setting precedent for more heavy industrial operations to locate in this area • Disruption of the peace and quiet • Diminish the desire of people from outside the area to visit or relocate to this area • Negative impact to the ducks, geese, loons, pelicans, and herons in the area • Negative impact to the wildlife • Improper use of viable cropland • Safety for the workers at the asphalt plant • The high winds in Northern Colorado will sandblast the homes to the west • Safety concerns due to the potential for lightning strikes • Wildfires caused that may be caused by railroad sparks and human activity • Safety concerns due to the potential for dust explosions • Endangering the residents, travelers, and business people due to a potential for an accident or explosion at the Martin Marietta site • Explosion or accident due to deliberate human actions at the site • Families not being able to enjoy the outdoors due to odors, dust, and noise • Safety concerns for children due to increased truck traffic and rail • Deception from Martin Marietta in presenting the information about the project • Letters of support are from people who do not live in the area and the negative impacts will not affect them • Flawed traffic impact study USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 10 of 20 • Flawed environmental study • Safety of pedestrians, equestrians, and bikers on the County Roads • The revised rail (making a smaller loop and moving it further west) will require more trains will be required for the same amount of product to be delivered • The definition of the batch plant is not part of the Weld County Code and this asphalt manufacturing facility should be a continuous plant because batch plants 'make asphalt as needed' and continuous plants operate 24/7; Martin Marietta's asphalt plant is proposing to operate 24/7 therefore it is probably a continuous plant. • An aviation safety light may be required • Air quality for those who exercise outside • The placement of Martin Marietta at this location is not good planningScreening the asphalt and Ready Mix plats will be nearly impossible because of the uphill slope of Indianhead Subdivision as compared to the Martin Marietta site • Negative impact on the future development in the area Martin Marietta is aware of these concerns and has made modifications to the plan to address the concerns. The following is list of the reasons people stated they are in support of the project: • This site is crucial to the well-being and economic stability of northern Colorado • It is needed to maintain our transportation infrastructure • The project supports our construction industry • The project provides raw materials necessary for a thriving , clean , and functional community • The facility will directly employ over 100 people • It will indirectly employ thousands of residents in supporting jobs throughout the region • Martin Marietta will be a good steward of this property • Martin Marietta will keep a healthy relationship with its neighbors • It will generate significant sales and property tax • This operation will have a smaller carbon footprint due to its proximity to rail • The project will keep building costs more affordable • The [roject will help repave local streets, build new retail centers, and increase economic growth through housing and business development • The project's location between two active railroads and close to major highways make it well suited • Economic growth can be completed at a reasonable cost as compared to importing materials • It would be a key stepping stone to long term improvement and growth for Weld County • It provides increased access to local resources • It will help with employment for Colorado residents with a good wage • It will help stimulate business for suppliers and sub-contractors within the construction industry. • Martin Marietta has proven to be a dedicated company in meeting the needs of rapidly growing northern Colorado • Martin Marietta is working had to make the project environmentally safe and community friendly • Martin Marietta works with its employees to provide a good working environment • If this project is denied, the growth and need for raw materials will be a concern for this area in a few years, and we then may have to settle for a lesser-known company • Transporting resources by train will reduce the amount of trucks bringing this material from ever increasing distances • Martin Marietta has a strong history of working with local, city, and state governments USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 11 of 20 • Martin Marietta is very aware of the regulations of its pit operations and meet/exceed them • This site's location will reduce delivery time/impact for aggregate products • This site's location will pass savings on to customers • Martin Marietta will invest in the highest quality plants and equipment in order to minimize any environmental impacts • This project will help control the escalating housing costs that are outpacing the growth income of the area • This site's location utilizes land near existing rail lines that might otherwise go underutilized • The project will draw other tax-paying business to our region The noise, odors, and traffic from the proposed uses will cause disruption to the adjacent residential properties and safety concerns due to truck traffic on County Road 13 and U .S. Highway 34 especially where the truck traffic acceleration and deceleration lanes cross over Great Western rail on U .S. Highway 34. The Department of Planning Services believes that the negative impacts are such that there are no conditions that could be placed on this USR that would ensure the compatibility with the surrounding existing land uses. We are disappointed in the staff's recommendation . It does not appear that staff considered the extensive list of modifications to the project that Martin Marietta has made and offered as ways to address the concerns of neighbors. In addition, it does not appear that staff considered the important role this project plays related to the future of Weld County and northern Colorado. This was the only site of 13 evaluated that met all the locational criteria Martin Marietta required for the facility. We believe that we have demonstrated that Martin Marietta is ready to construct a facility that will allow them to operate compatibly with the surrounding area. As one of the leading suppliers of building products in northern Colorado, Martin Marietta knows that this facility is critical to the future of economic growth in the area. This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities. Should the Planning Commission approve the proposal, the Department of Planning Services recommends the following conditions: 1 . Prior to recording the map: A. An Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement is required for offsite improvements at this location. Road maintenance including dust control , damage repair, specified haul routes and future traffic triggers for improvements will be included. (Department of Public Works) We agree with this condition. B. A Final Drainage Report and Certification of Compliance stamped and signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado is required. (Department of Planning Services - Engineering) We agree with this condition. C. The traffic study should be updated to address the comments from CDOT, Larimer County, and Public Works. The study should include information pertaining to the additional train traffic and discuss local traffic impacts that may be created by additional train traffic. (Department of Planning Services - Engineering) Gene Coppola, the traffic engineer for this project, has advised that it is not common to include train traffic in a traffic study and that he is not qualified to complete such a study. The work that needs to be done is work that Great Western Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad companies need to do. Martin Marietta will commit to providing information to the railroad companies that they need to evaluate their crossings and whether or not safety improvements are needed. In addition , Weld County can submit a request to involve the PUC if they don't believe that the railroads are adequately responding to concerns. USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 12 of 20 D. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of CDOT, as stated in the referral response dated July 6, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted , in writing , to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services and Department of Public Works) We agree with this condition. E. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County Department of Public Works, as stated in the referral response dated July 6, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted , in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services and Department of Public Works) We agree with this condition. F. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County Department of Building Inspection , as stated in the referral response dated June 4, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services and Department of Building Inspection) VVe agree with this condition. G. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of Larimer County, as stated in the referral response dated June 16, 2015 and July 1 , 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted , in writing , to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this condition. H. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Town of Windsor, as stated in the referral response dated May 27, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted , in writing , to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) This has already been completed . A letter dated June 9, 2015 was submitted to Windsor and Weld County. Please remove this condition . I . The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the City of Greeley, as stated in the referral response dated May 27, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted , in writing , to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) This has already been completed . A letter dated June 9, 2015 was submitted to Greeley and Weld County. Please remove this condition . J . The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Hill and Brush Ditch Company, as stated in the referral response dated May 20, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted , in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) This has already been completed . A letter dated June 26, 2015 was submitted to Weld County and the Hill and Brush Ditch Company. Please remove this condition. K. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company, as stated in the referral response dated May 18, 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) This has already been completed . A letter dated June 26, 2015 was submitted to Weld County and the Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company. Please remove this condition . L. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, as stated in the referral response dated May 1 , 2015. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this condition. M . The map shall be amended to delineate the following: 1 ) All sheets of the map shall be labeled USR15-0027. (Department of Planning Services) USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 13 of 20 2) The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services) 3) The map shall be prepared per Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 4) The applicant shall delineate the trash collection areas. Section 23-3-350.H of the Weld County Code addresses the issue of trash collection areas. (Department of Planning Services) 5) The map shall delineate the approved landscaping/screening . (Department of Planning Services) 6) The map shall delineate the lighting for the site. (Department of Planning Services) 7) The parking areas shall adhere to Appendices 23-A & 23-B of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 8) Show and label the approved access(es), turning radii , and access permit number(s) on the map. (Department of Public Works) 9) Show and label the entrance gate set back a minimum of 100ft from edge of shoulder. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 10) Show and label all off-site auxiliary lane improvements. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) We have no concerns with complying with items 1 -9. We would ask that item 10 be modified to indicate that a note should be added to address the off-site auxiliary lane improvements to be made. The reason for this is that many of the improvements are outside the boundary of the map and so showing them on the USR map is not practical. 2. Upon completion of Condition of Approval #1 above, the applicant shall submit one ( 1 ) paper copy or one ( 1 ) electronic copy (.pdf) of the map for preliminary approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. Upon approval of the map the applicant shall submit a Mylar map along with all other documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar map shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by the Department of Planning Services. The map shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260. D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar map and additional requirements shall be submitted within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this condition . 3. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance #2012-3, approved April 30, 2012, should the map not be recorded within the required one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution, a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional three (3) month period. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this condition . 4. The Department of Planning Services respectfully requests a digital copy of this Use by Special Review, as appropriate. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles or ArcGIS Personal GeoDataBase (MDB). The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be sent to maps(a�co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this condition . 5. Prior to Construction: a. If more than one (1 ) acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County Grading Permit will be required. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) We agree with this condition . USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 14 of 20 6. Prior to Operation: a. Accepted construction drawings and construction of the offsite roadway improvements are required prior to operation. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) We agree with this condition . 7. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur, nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property, until the Use by Special Review map is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder or the applicant has been approved for an early release agreement. (Department of Planning Services) VVe agree with this condition USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 15 of 20 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Weld LV LLC & Gerrard Investments LLC, c/o Martin Marietta USR15-0027 1 . An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit No. USR-1584, USR15-0027, for any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions to include a Mineral Resource Development Facility including asphalt & concrete batch plants (materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural) Zone, subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 3. The number of on-site employees for Gerrard Construction shall be 36, as stated by the applicant. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 4. The number of on-site employees for Martin Marietta shall be 71 full-time employees, 45 truck drivers, and 25 field construction workers, as stated by the applicant. (Department of Planning Services) Martin Marietta does not want to be held to a set number of people they can employ to run their business. If the County wants to hold Martin Marietta to a number, they would rather be held to the projected number of trips generated by the site (2,260 daily trips by the year 2035). 5. The hours of operation for Gerrard Construction shall be 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday — Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Saturday, as stated by the applicant. (Department of Planning Services) This standard should probably be modified to reflect the fact that Gerrard will only operate on the site for a period of one-year following approval of the USR. 6. The hours of operation for Martin Marietta shall be 24 hours a day / 7 days a week: however, Martin Marietta will operate under the following restrictions: Hours of Operation for Asphalt: o The plant will typically only operate Monday through Saturday o The standard hours of plant operation will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. o Load out from storage silos will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. o When the plant is operating at night, it will only occur when material is requested by cities, counties or CDOT for night paving projects. Operations will be considered "night operations" when they take place between the hours of one hour after sundown to one hour before sunrise. Depending on the request of the jurisdiction purchasing the asphalt, night operations could occur seven days per week. o When Martin Marietta becomes aware of projects that require night operations, they will email the Weld County Planning Director to let him/her know about the plans to operate outside of daylight hours, who the project is for, how long it will be occurring, and where the materials are being delivered. Hours of Operation for Ready Mix Concrete: o The Ready Mix Concrete Plant will only operate Monday through Saturday. o Actual operating hours of the Ready Mix Concrete Plant will vary depending on weather and business levels. The plant will generally not begin operating until daylight. Occasionally, it may need to operate earlier to accommodate daily business demands; however, in no instance will the plant ever operate before 3:00 a.m. o The plant will not operate more than 16 hours per day. USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 16 of 20 o Ready Mix trucks will generally operate during plant operations, but may return to the plant after plant shutdown to be cleaned and parked . Hours of Operation for Aggregate and Recycling: o Aggregate sales and recycling operations will only occur Monday through Saturday. o Aggregate washing and recycling operations will only occur during daylight hours (dawn to dusk or 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the winter), actual operating hours will vary dependent on weather, and business levels. o Train unloading operations during the summer will only take place between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. , actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site. o Train unloading operations during the winter will only take place during daylight hours, actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 7. The parking area on the site shall be maintained. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 8. All signs shall adhere to Chapter 23, Article IV, Division 2 and Appendices 23-C, 23-D and 23-E of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 9. The landscaping/screening on the site shall be maintained. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 10. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II , of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) We agree with this standard. 11 . There shall be no tracking of dirt or debris from the site onto publically maintained roads. The applicant is responsible for mitigation of any offsite tracking and maintaining onsite tracking control devices. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) We agree with this standard. 12. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On-site parking shall be utilized. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) We agree with this standard. 13. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained on the site. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) We agree with this standard. 14. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) We agree with this standard. 15. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C. R.S. , as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination . (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard. 16. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C. R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard. USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 17 of 20 17. Waste materials shall be handled, stored , and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the accepted Waste Handling Plan, at all times. The facility shall operate in accordance with Chapter 14, Article 1 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard. 18. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions should be controlled on this site. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the accepted dust abatement plan , at all times. Uses on the property should comply with the Colorado Air Quality Commission's air quality regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment) VVe agree with this standard. 19. Adequate drinking, handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility, at all times. For employees or contractors on site for less than 2 consecutive hours a day portable toilets and bottled water are acceptable. Records of maintenance and proper disposal for portable toilets shall be retained on a quarterly basis and available for review by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. Portable toilets shall be serviced by a cleaner licensed in Weld County and shall contain hand sanitizers. (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard. 20. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a Stormwater Discharge Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard. 21 . Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes, as needed. The facility shall utilize the public water supply. (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard . 22. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be handled in a safe manner in accordance with product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). All chemicals must be stored securely, on an impervious surface, and in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. (Department of Public Health and Environment) VVe agree with this standard. 23. A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan , prepared in accordance with the applicable provisions of 40 CFR, Part 112, shall be available on site. (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard. 24. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as delineated in Section 14-9-30 of the Weld County Code. We agree with this standard. 25. The facility shall comply with all provisions of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety Underground and Above Ground Tank Regulations, as applicable. (Department of Public Health and Environment) VVe agree with this standard. 26. Any washing areas shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission , and the Environmental Protection Agency. (Department of Public Health and Environment) VVe agree with this standard. 27. Process wastewater (such as floor drain and laboratory wastes) shall be captured in a watertight vault/container and hauled off for proper disposal Records of installation, maintenance, and USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 18 of 20 proper disposal shall be retained. (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard. 28. The facility shall comply with the Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N . ) permit requirements as stipulated by the Air Pollution Control Division , of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard. 29. Material being recycled shall be separated by material type or use. Incoming loads shall have all non-concrete, non-asphalt and non-rebar material removed from concrete and asphalt materials within thirty (30) calendar days. Non-concrete, non-asphalt and non-rebar material shall not exceed 10% of the total material onsite by weight or volume. (Department of Public Health and Environment) VVe agree with this standard. 30. Odors detected off site shall not exceed the level of seven-to-one dilution threshold , as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard. 31 . The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment) We agree with this standard. 32. Sources of light shall be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties where such would cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties in accordance with the plan . Neither the direct, nor reflected , light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets. No colored lights may be used which may be confused with , or construed as, traffic control devices. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 33. A building permit may be required, per Section 29-3-10 of the Weld County Code. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2012 International Codes; 2006 International Energy Code; 2014 National Electrical Code; A building permit application must be completed and two complete sets of engineered plans bearing the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer must be submitted for review. A geotechnical engineering report performed by a registered State of Colorado engineer shall be required or an open hole inspection . (Department of Building Inspection) We agree with this standard. 34. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design and Operation Standards of Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 35. Necessary personnel from the Weld County Departments of Planning Services, Public Works, and Public Health and Environment shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 36. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or Development Standards, as shown or stated, shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted . Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 19 of 20 37. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. 38. WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM : Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural counties in the United States, typically ranking in the top ten counties in the country in total market value of agricultural products sold. The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious, but they are intensively used for agriculture. Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and accept there are drawbacks, including conflicts with long-standing agricultural practices and a lower level of services than in town. Along with the drawbacks come the incentives which attract urban dwellers to relocate to rural areas: open views, spaciousness, wildlife, lack of city noise and congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life. Without neighboring farms, those features which attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County would quickly be gone forever. Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well-run agricultural activities will generate off-site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment; slow-moving farm vehicles on rural roads; dust from animal pens, field work, harvest and gravel roads; odor from animal confinement, silage and manure; smoke from ditch burning ; flies and mosquitoes; hunting and trapping activities; shooting sports, legal hazing of nuisance wildlife; and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying. It is common practice for agricultural producers to utilize an accumulation of agricultural machinery and supplies to assist in their agricultural operations. A concentration of miscellaneous agricultural materials often produces a visual disparity between rural and urban areas of the County. Section 35-3.5- 102, C. R.S. , provides that an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production . Water has been, and continues to be, the lifeline for the agricultural community. It is unrealistic to assume that ditches and reservoirs may simply be moved "out of the way" of residential development. When moving to the County, property owners and residents must realize they cannot take water from irrigation ditches, lakes, or other structures, unless they have an adjudicated right to the water. Weld County covers a land area of approximately four thousand (4,000) square miles in size (twice the size of the State of Delaware) with more than three thousand seven hundred (3,700) miles of state and County roads outside of municipalities. The sheer magnitude of the area to be served stretches available resources. Law enforcement is based on responses to complaints more than on patrols of the County, and the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency responses, including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually provided by volunteers who must leave their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. County gravel roads, no matter how often they are bladed , will not provide the same kind of surface expected from a paved road. Snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be cleared for several days after a major snowstorm. Services in rural areas, in many cases, will not be equivalent to municipal services. Rural dwellers must, by necessity, be more self-sufficient than urban dwellers. People are exposed to different hazards in the County than in an urban or suburban setting. Farm equipment and oil field equipment, ponds and irrigation ditches, electrical power for pumps and center pivot operations, high speed traffic, sand burs, puncture vines, territorial farm dogs and livestock, and open burning present real threats. Controlling children's activities is important, not only for their safety, but also for the protection of the farmer's livelihood. (Department of Planning Services) We agree with this standard. USR15-0027 - Martin Marietta Page 20 of 20 February 19, 2015 Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Designation of Authorized Agent Dear Planning Department: Martin Marietta is currently under contract with Gerrard Investments, LLC, to lease property located at 27486 CR13 (parcel 095718300044). I, Nathan M. Gerrard, Manager of Gerrard Investments, LLC, authorize David I-Iagerman, Vice President/General Manager of Martin Marietta Rocky Mountain Division to be the Authorized Agent for the USR application related to the Highway 34 Development project that Martin Marietta is proposing to permit on Gerrard's property. In addition, Pam Hora with Tetra Tech may be the designated point of contact for communications about the application. Sincerely, GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC. Nathan M. Gerrard Manager P\21097O11-24097-1500PDeliverables\USR applicationUwhorization letter Gerrard docx Colorado Secretary of State -Filed Date and Time: 11/26/2008 01 :06 PM Document must be filed electronically. ID Number: 20081617371 Paper documents will not be accepted. Document processing fee $50.00 Document number: 20081617371 Fees&forms/cover sheets Amount Paid: $50.00 are subject to change. To access other information or print copies of filed documents, visit wwwsos.state,co.us and select Business Center. ABOVE SPACE FOR OFFICE LSE ONLY Articles of Organization filed pursuant to § 7-80-203 and § 7-80-204 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) I. The domestic entity name of the limited liability company is Gerrard Investments, LLC (The name qt.a limited liability company mast contain the term or abbreviation "limited liability company". "ltd.liability company", "limited liability co.", "ltd liability co." `limited" "7.1e." "He-,or"ltd.".See )7-90-601, C.R.S.) (Caution: The use of certain terms or abbreviations are restricted kv law. Read instructions,for more infwrnation.) 2. The principal office address of the limited liability company's initial principal office is Street address 1739 S. County Road 13C (Street number and Warne) Loveland CO 80537 (Cite) ($tal (ZIP/Postal Code) United States (Province—if applicable) (C'ountrv) Mailine address (leave blank if same as street address) (Snret number and name or Post Office Bat information) (City) (State) (ZIP/Postal Code) (Province—iif applicable) (CountrO 3. The registered agent name and registered agent address of the limited liability company's initial registered agent are Name (if an individual) Gerrard Nathan M. (Last) (Finer) (Middle) (§9//(v) OR (if an entity) (Caution: Do not provide both an individual and an entity name.) Street address 1739 S. County Road 13C ('Street number and name) Loveland Co 80537 (City) (State) (ZIP Code) ARTORG_LLC Page I of 3 Rev.02/28/2008 Mailing address (leave blank if same as street address) (Street number and name or Post Office Box information) CO (city) (State) (ZIP Code) ("The./,Mowing statement is adopted hr marking the box) a The person appointed as registered agent has consented to being so appointed. 4. The true name and mailing address of the person forming the limited liability company are Name (if an individual) Gerrard Nathan M. (Last) (First) (Middle) (Suffix) OR (if an entity) (Caution: Do not provide both an individual and an entity name.) Mailing address 1739 S. County Road 13C (Street number and name or Post Office Box information) Loveland CO 80537 (city) Unlfee)States (7./p/postal Code) (Province—if applicable) (Country) (1f the fallowing statement applies,adopt the statement by marking the box and include an attachment.) 0 The limited liability company has one or more additional persons forming the limited liability company and the name and mailing address of each such person are stated in an attachment. 5. The management of the limited liability company is vested in (Mark the applicable box) 0 one or more managers. OR 0 the members. 6. (The following statement is adopted he marking the box) There is at least one member of the limited liability company. 7. (If the/blip wing statement applies,adopt the statement he marking the box and include an attachment.) 0 This document contains additional information as provided by law. 8. (Caution: Leave blank if the document does not have a delayed effective date. Stating a delayed effective date has significant legal consequences. Read instructions before entering a date.) (If the following statement applies,adopt the statement by entering a date and,if applicable,time using the required format) The delayed effective date and, if applicable, time of this document is/are (mm/dd/vvyy hone minute am/pm) ARTORG_LLC Page 2 of 3 Rev.02/28/2008 Notice: Causing this document to be delivered to the Secretary of State for filing shall constitute the affirmation or acknowledgment of each individual causing such delivery,under penalties of perjury, that the document is the individual's act and deed, or that the individual in good faith believes the document is the act and deed of the person on whose behalf the individual is causing the document to be delivered for filing,taken in conformity with the requirements of part 3 of article 90 of title 7,C.R.S., the constituent documents,and the organic statutes,and that the individual in good faith believes the facts stated in the document are true and the document complies with the requirements of that Part,the constituent documents, and the organic statutes. This perjury notice applies to each individual who causes this document to be delivered to the Secretary of State,whether or not such individual is named in the document as one who has caused it to be delivered. 9. The true name and mailing address of the individual causing the document to be delivered for filing are Gerrard Nathan M. (Lust) First) (Middle) (Suffix) 1739 S. County Road 13 (Street number and name or Post Office Box information) Loveland CO 80537 (City) (Slate) (ZIP/Postal Code) United States (Province—it applicable) (Country) elf the jbllowing statement applies,adopt the statement by marking the bay'and include an attachment.) O This document contains the true name and mailing address of one or more additional individuals causing the document to be delivered for filing. Disclaimer: This form/cover sheet, and any related instructions,are not intended to provide legal,business or tax advice, and are furnished without representation or warranty. While this form/cover sheet is believed to satisfy minimum legal requirements as of its revision date,compliance with applicable law, as the same may be amended from time to time,remains the responsibility of the user of this form/cover sheet. Questions should be addressed to the user's legal,business or tax advisor(s). ARTORG_LLC Page 3 of 3 Rev.02/28/2008 WELD LV II, LLC 3821 DERBY 'FRAIL ROUND ROCK. 'I EXAS 78681 EMAIL: I IO1.LI RCRI id IOIMAI I.C.OM ITU PI IONE: /O2-433-1551 CHI: 102-59I-9581 I'ehruary Ilk 2015 Weld Count Planning 1553 N. 17th Avenue Greeley. CO S063I RE: Designation of Authorized Agent Dear Planning Department: Gerrard In\estments. EEC is currently under contract vkith Weld kV II EEC to purchase our land located at 6433 CR 36 (parcel 095718000009). Martin Marietta is then subsequently under contract with Gerrard Investments. I.I.C. to lease our property so that it can he a part of Martin Marietta's proposed I lighwa5 34 Development project. I. Jack I toiler_ President of I!oiler Enterprises. Inc. and Manager of Weld I.V II. ITC. authorize David I lagerman. Vice President General Manager of Martin Marietta Rocky Mountain Division. to he the Authorized Agent Ibr the I JSR application related to the I lighway 3.4 Development project that Martin Marietta is proposing to permit on our property. In addition. Pam I lora with Tetra Tech may he the designated point of contact for communications about the application. Sincerely. \VEID LV II, I.I.C. • I3v Jack Iloller President of I loller Enterprises. Inc.. Manager of Weld I.V II, I.LC STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY (Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 38-30-172) Jack Holler, being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and states as follows: 1. The name of the entity that is the subject of this Statement of Authority is Weld LV II, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (the "Company"). 2. The mailing address for the Company is 1935 Village Center Circle, Las Vegas, NV 89100. 3. The name and position of the person authorized to execute instruments conveying, encumbering, or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf the entity, is Jack Holler, as President of Holler Enterprises, Inc.. a Nevada Corporation, Manager. 4. The authority of the foregoing person to hind the entity is not limited. DATED: (22, _/ ;G/52015. Jack, oiler President of Holler Enterprises, Inc., Manager STATE OF / P.(p+1 ) ss. COUNTY OF C.21 /// c,r co^ ) The foregoing instrument was sworn to and acknowledged before me this Z day of February, 2015, by Jack Holler, as President of Holler Enterprises, Inc., Manager. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ( 1 ---ofJ .... CHARLESAGUDRY Notary Public i 7'= MV COMMISSION EXPIRES ... ?- Ocloher 5,2015 tt �t; DEAN HELLER STATE OF NEVADA CJL-dlu.LSE.rraav-- Srunurr opiate m¢' (7/I au Idmini nrgar R!_NEP L.P-IR/T_2 1i SCOTI II?:1NDFRSOApal Srnromrr ofSu,a %^ , y./I., (iunrrrrrrillI rnrdiryi,, PuffI„7 RCC7,`C GLLIc IIS(= /), dun RS Dopurc. -rn ov t„r 5WUhrin Acrndu OFFICE OF TIM /0) / SECRETARY OF STATE Certified Copy June 5,2006 Job Number: C'20060605-1791 Reference Number: Expedite: Through Date: The undersigned filing officer hereby certifies that the attached copies are true and exact copies of all requested statements and related subsequent documentation filed with the Secretary of State's Office, Commercial Recordings Division listed on the attached report. Document Number(s) Description Number of Pages 20060359100-46 Articles of Organization 3 Pages/I Copies Respectfully, DEAN HEELER Secretaryy of State By ) - \ I IC Cctttlic Io0 terk Commercial Recording Division 202 N.Carson Street Carson City. Nevada 89701-4069 Telephone(775)684-5708 Fax 17751684-7138 DEAN HELLER Secretary of State 206 North Carson Street Carson City,Nevada 89'701.4299(775) En 81.\ Wobsie:84 secr EO41.5632006-6 Website:secretaryofstate.blz ootbi 0359100-46 Articles Of Organization Date Filed 6/5/2006 12 :17:57 PM Limited-Liability Company In the office of (PURSUANT TO NRS 86) Dean Heller Secretary of State ABOVE SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY s.Name 01llmfted- WELD LV!l,LLC Check box if a liability Company Series Limited- Liabiiity Company El 2.Resident Aden( SMITH L,ARSEN&WIXOM Name and Street 'Name Addresst 1935 VILLAGE CENTER CIRCLE LAS VEGAS NEVADA 89134 istibt l d N ri---i"1- Physical Street Address City Zip Code wham proms rafy_.419 _ owl Additional Mailing Address City State Zip Code 3.pisa9lutfen Date; (OPTIONALAte Latest date upon which the company is to dissolve(if existence is not perpetual). LisblKtrlM6t 4.Management. Company shall be managed by ®Manager(s) OR n Members 5. NamesylmigAgsfailiga. ;HOLLER ENTERPRISES,INC of Managerfs)or Name h►p►nket3t 8 12 Market Crest ? La V as I NV 69110 (attach**Usti pat .._._....._..-. . .Is_ pars as n.�„s Address . _ _ + - State Zip Code Nattte'__._... _ _ _... ...... .!_...._- lE_ . Adrress City State Zip Code Name -.. .. Address City , State Zip Code a.Nantes.Addresses and Sisznetures of Michael Wixom Ortsatnhrera Name Signature fir;core Nan one orvan►ret 1935 Village Center Circle Las Vegas NV 89110 path R4deVatiloaaq Address City Stale Zip Code 7. Certfffcate of I her by ccept ippoin s Res' nt Agent for the above named limited-liability company. Acceptance of Appotnbnent of Resident Agent; Authorized Signature of R.A. r On o . . inpa`ny Date This form must be accompanied by appropriate fees. .°. ��yyt !iyri la A'f4'N e J!J 7•a, r. ::� .•.Lt. . 'Pr A - Rego on 72it Ulci R Martin variette March 23, 2015 Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Designation of Authorized Agent Dear Planning Department: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Martin Marietta) is currently under contract with Gerrard Investments, LLC(Gerrard)to lease property located at 27486 CR13 (parcel 095718300044, 095718000009). I, Patrick H. Walker, President of the Rocky Mountain Division of Martin Marietta, authorize David Hagerman, Vice President/General Manager of the Rocky Mountain Division of Martin Marietta to be the Authorized Agent for the USR application related to the Highway 34 Development project that Martin Marietta is proposing to permit on Gerrard's property. In addition, Pam Flora with Tetra Tech may be the designated point of contact for communications about the application. Sincerely, Mapt< Marietta Materials, Inc. Patrick H. Walker, President, Rocky Mountain Division Rocky Mountain Division 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201, Westminster, CO 80021 t. (720) 245-6400 www.martinmarietta.com Patrick Walker, President of Martin Marietta Rocky Mountain Division http://www.ma rti nm a rietta.com/locations/rocky-mountain/ etta.COM N-MJ =cI Fostering Accountability with... 121]0 Church Ranch R-g SU IR 221 ,- angE We r m rater.Lo'nrda 50Lll �kE -_ rl_>>i _ ,_rums intsls .'C (720)245-6400tr .,_„_� rac f rratM1are L. V`r-..,•.ns Patrick Walker 6v Potential Impact on Bees and Organic Farms Highway 34 Development The public expressed concerns that the proposed operation could impact the bee population and the nearby organic farms and gardens. Concerns specifically cited the increased sound and dust and the change in air quality as reasons the bees and organic farms would be impacted. As stated in other areas of this USR application and the Supplemental Reports, Martin Marietta is committed to meeting the State air quality standards and the State and local noise regulations. The proposed operation will have better air quality and generate less noise than the regulated maximum standards. Below are additional discussions and research about the specific community concerns. Potential Impact on Bee Population Concerns were expressed that the increased sound from the proposed project will negatively impact the local bee population. Tetra Tech investigated this claim and we were unable to find any studies measuring the impacts of noise on bee populations in a location similar to the proposed site, where existing uses such as a major state highway and an active railway would contribute to the baseline noise levels in the evaluation. However, in 2003, the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration published a literature review regarding noise effects on wildlife, and had this to say about Honeybees: "Honeybees will stop moving for up to twenty minutes for sounds between 300 and 1 kHz at intensities between 107-120 dB." The proposed project will be well under these sound levels. Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration. Office of Planning, Environment& Realty. (July 14, 2011) Noise Effect on Wildlife. Retrieved from https://www.thwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise effect on wildlife/effects/wild04.efin. Potential Impact on Organic Farms The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a program to certify crops to a specific standard, so they can be marketed as USDA organic. The standards for 'USDA Organic' regulated the farming process and materials used on the farm. For example, the USDA organic seal on organic crops verifies that irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, prohibited pesticides, and genetically modified organisms were not used in the farming process. The proposed Highway 34 facility will not impact the soil or water quality on surrounding properties (see the drainage statement and plan), nor will the proposal change the current farming processes on surrounding organic farms; therefore, the Highway 34 Development will not impact the ability of nearby Certified Organic Farms to meet the USDA organic standards. Source: US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. (April 4, 2013) National Organic Program: Organic Standards. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv I .0/ams.fctchTcmplatcData.do?template=TcmplatcN&navlD= Organ icStandardsL ink NOPNationalList&right\av I—Organ icStandardsLinkNOPNationalList&t op\av=&lcftNav=&page=NOPOrganicStandards&resultTypc=&acct=nopgcninfo. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page I of7 Applegate Group, Inc. Water Resource Advisors for the West Math 31, 2015 M r. James Sharn Martin Marietta Materials 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201 Westminster, CO 80021 RE: Highway 34 Site Water Resources Impacts Dear James: The purpose of this letter is to summarize my conclusions regarding potential water resources impacts from Martin Marietta's proposed Highway 34 development. This site is located east of Loveland, CO near the intersection of Larimer County Road 1 and the Union Pacific Railroad and is situated entirely in Weld County. Currently, the property serves as a main office and equipment storage area for Gerrard Investments, LLC and irrigated agricultural land owned by Weld LV II, LLC. The development plan calls for the construction of a new concrete plait, asphalt plait, wash plait, recycle plant, and various support buildings on the site, which will be served by a new railroad spur to allow railcars to load and unload at the site without interfering with existing railway traffic on the Union Pacific line. The portion of the site that will be undeveloped may remain in agricultural irrigation. A figure showi ng the proposed site plan i s attached. The proposed development was evaluated for potential water resources impacts. A site visit was conducted on Mach 11, 2015, during which I met with Lar Voss of Colorado Laid & Water, LLC to di sruss the proposed development plan. M r.Voss owned and i rri gated the property i n the past, and isfamilia-with the area. The irrigated area of the site is served by the Farmers Ditch, which runs adjacent to the north east edge of the property. A man ditch headgate near the northeast corner of the site delivers water to a lateral which runs west across the northern edge of the site. Much of the property is i rri gated from this lateral. At the northwest corner of the site, this lateral turns south along Larimer County Road 1 where it passes underneath the rai I road to irrigate neighboring I ands south of the property. A second main ditch headgate is located a bit further down ditch along the northeast corner of the site. This headgate leads to a lateral which runs south along the east edge of the property. 7405 W. Highway 50, Suite 123 1490 W. 1214 Avenue,Suite 100 118 W.61h Street, Suite 100 Salida,CO 81201 Denver,CO 80234 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 303-452-6611 www.applegategroup.com Mr. James Sham RE: Highway 34 Ste Water Rewurces Impacts March 31, 2015 Page 2 of 2 This lateral serves a portion of the property, but principally delivers water to neighboring laids south of the site. According to Mr. Voss, there is a system of underground tile drains which drain the property. The drains underlie this property only, and to M r. Voss' knowl edge they do not connect to drains underlying neighboring properties. The outlet of that drains feed Koenig Reservoir, for which there is a seepage water right decreed in Civil Action 10077. The principal source of water to the drains is return flow from irrigation of the subject property. Note that, as a seepage right, pursuant to Colorado Water law there is no requirement that irrigation of the property must continue in order to generate return flow to fill Koenig Reservoir. Additionally, as relayed to me by Mr. Voss, seepage into Koenig Reservoir does not currently contribute a significant amount of water to the reservoir. Instead, the reservoir is f i l l ed primarily by surfarp del i veri es of Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) units. Based on my site visit and investigation, it does not appear that the proposed development of the property will have any significant water resources impacts The centerline of the new railway spur will beat least 50 feet from all existing laterals, and at least 200 feet from the main Farmers Ditch. At this distance, the vibration from the passing rail cars is not expected to have any effect on the ditch or I ateral s. Devd opment wi I I not occur on or near the exi sti ng I ateral s which del i ver water to neighboring properties. The railway spur will cross over laterals which serve the property itself, so in order to continue irrigation on the property a culvert through the new railway spur will need to be constructed. Due to the presence of drain tiles underneath the property which discharge to Koenig Reccrvoi r, best management practices (BM Ps) for the storage of potential contaminants (including petroleum, oil & l ubri cants) need to be followed. Such B M Ps i ncl ude secondary containment on all fuels storage, as well as an active Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. I trust you will find this information useful. Should you have any questions or concerns, fed free to contact me. Cordi al I y, Applegate Group, Inc. Jared Damns, P.E. Water Resource Engineer JMD/ta cc: AG Fi le No. 11-126 N:\11126 Martin Marietta Materials General Water Resources\Discipl Ines(Technical)\WRFNI\Water Rights\Kelim Property Development\Kelim Property Development docx A practicing Denver physician, Dr. Scott Phillips specializes in medical toxicology and internal medicine. Medical toxicology is a scientific discipline dealing with the evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of adverse effects of substances on people. Currently, Dr. Phillips holds a university faculty appointment in toxicology and is associate clinical professor at the University of Colorado-Denver in the Department of Medicine, Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology. Additionally, he is an attending physician at the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, and in a medical practice in Denver. He is a member of The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, The American College of Medical Toxicology and many other professional associations. What types of emissions could be released by the asphalt plant at Martin Marietta's Highway 34 Development? The majority of the emissions at asphalt mixing facilities come from the combustion of fuel, such as natural gas, which is used to dry and heat the rock or aggregate, and to keep the temperature of the asphalt hot. Most of the other potential emissions, such as dust generated during the drying of aggregate, are captured by baghouse filters that help prevent their release into the environment. The asphalt plant will operate under an air permit issued by the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The permit sets maximum emission limits that are protective of human health and the environment. It isn't the presence of these compounds that pose a health risk, but the amount and duration to which a person may be exposed. The state air permit limits releases of the following compounds: • Total suspended particulates (TSP) • Particulate matter (PMio), which are particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less • Sulfur dioxide (SO2) • Mono-nitrogen oxides (NOX) • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) • Carbon monoxide (CO) What has the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded about asphalt plant emissions? Over a decade ago, the EPA reviewed emissions from asphalt plants and determined that these facilities are not a major source of air pollution. They were subsequently delisted by the agency. Are the emissions from the proposed asphalt plant going to be harmful? CDPHE will set emission limits for the asphalt plant to be protective of human health and environment. The amount or level permitted to be released at this plant would not pose a health risk to employees or residents. How would emissions from this plant compare to other sources? Carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and some members of a group of chemicals known as volatile organic compounds (which are made by incomplete combustion) also are emitted from many other common sources. These include automobiles, gas stations, fireplaces and beer breweries. Specific sources can be viewed at the EPA website. If I can see or smell emissions from an asphalt plant, does that mean the plant is releasing too many compounds? At times, there may be noticeable gases coming from an asphalt plant's stack, but in almost all circumstances this is steam—the loss of water vapor from the drying of aggregate at high temperatures. Sometimes odors from the heated materials may emanate from asphalt plants. Although they may be noticeable, these odors would not be at levels that would cause Adverse health effects to either plant staff or to the community. These odors would also be regulated by the CDPHE permit. Will asphalt plant employees be at a higher risk of health effects? Human studies have found no clinical evidence that asphalt plant production has contributed to illness or cancer. Studies by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have verified that emissions from asphalt facilities do not present an environmental or public health hazard. Additionally, the asphalt plant at the Highway 34 Development will be required to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) stringent workplace safety and health standards. Plant employees will be trained, will wear personal protective equipment and will be routinely monitored to ensure workplace exposures do not harm their health. Facility workers would be closest to potential sources of emissions, but these would be are at low enough concentrations that OSHA would not require asphalt plant employees to wear respirators. It is Martin Marietta's practice to monitor their asphalt plant employees for soluble benzene and total suspended particulates, which are total and soluble airborne particles or aerosols. It has been Martin Marietta's experience that results of such monitoring at similar plants owned by Martin Marietta are well below acceptable levels as determined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). OSHA will also require the Highway 34 Development to create Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to communicate potential workplace hazards and appropriate precautions to take to reduce potential health impacts. MSDS risks and precautions are not applicable to nearby communities, as residents would not be exposed to the same concentrations of compounds as plant workers. Is there a difference between asphalt plants and asphalt roof coatings? Yes. It is important to understand the difference between an asphalt plant (such as the one proposed at the Highway 34 Development) and asphalt "tar" or coal tar used in roofing materials or street coating. The potential health effects are very different. It is important not to confuse roofing worker health studies with asphalt plant health studies. Roofing asphalts are much different chemically and physically than what an asphalt plant produces. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, asphalt plants are not associated with increased cancer risk. Since people will live near the plant, are they at a higher risk for health effects? Plant emissions dissipate and disperse rapidly once they are released from the stack. Since the most concentrated levels of compounds are found in the stack—and these are released within regulatory limits—no health effects to the community are expected as a result of plant operations. Could exposure to this plant cause cancer? No medical studies have been identified that link residential exposure to asphalt fumes with the development of cancer. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, health studies of asphalt plant workers also have shown no measurable increase in cancer. The increases in cancer rates were seen in asphalt roofers and asphalt mastic pavers, who worked with different asphalt materials and compounds. Are there special risks to people with respiratory or immune system problems? No. As permitted, these releases do not pose a health hazard and therefore do not impose special risks to susceptible populations. Air pollution can aggravate asthma, but does not appear to cause asthma. STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL ACEC Arn CONSULTANTS , LLC ENGINEERING FOR LIFE April 1, 2015 Mr. James Sharn Martin Marietta Materials 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201 Westminster, Colorado 80021 Subject: Assessment of Air Emissions Martin Marietta Materials Facilities on Highway 34, Weld County, Colorado Project No. : 4572.003 Dear Mr. Sharn : Stewart Environmental Consultants, LLC is pleased to provide the enclosed Air Emissions Assessment performed at Martin Marietta Materials Facilities, U.S. Highway 34, Weld County, Colorado. Results of our assessment are described in the report. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to working with you in the future. If you have any questions or comments relative to this report, please contact our office. Sincerely, STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, LLC 1is 7tiv David R. Stewart President and CEO Enc. 3801 Automation Way, Suite 200 l Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 I 970 .226 .5500 I 970 .226 .4946 stewartenv.corr Consulting Engineers and Scientists LTAZA STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, LLC AC EC MEMBER ENGINEERING FOR LIFE Air Emissions Assessment performed at Martin Marietta Facilities U .S. Highway 34, Weld County, Colorado Prepared for: Martin Marietta Materials Prepared by: Stewart Environmental Consultants, LLC Consulting Engineers and Scientists Fort Collins, Colorado April 2015 3801 Automation Way, Suite 200 I Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 I T: 970 .226 .5500 I F: 970 .226 .4946 I W. stewartenv.corr Consulting Engineers and Scientists Table of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Background 4 1.2 Overview of MMM Site Operations 4 1.2.1 Asphalt Plant 4 1.2.2 Ready Mix Plant 4 1.2.3 Asphalt Recycling 5 2.0 REVIEW OF EMISSION ESTIMATES 5 2.1 Asphalt Plant Emissions 5 2.2 Ready Mix Plant Emissions 6 2.3 Asphalt Recycling Emissions 7 2.4 Facility Wide Emissions 8 3.0 DISPERSION MODELING AND RELATED HEALTH EFFECTS 9 3.1 Dispersion Model 9 3.2 Modeling CO Dispersion from Asphalt Plant and Asphalt Recycling 9 3.3 Modeling HAP Dispersion from Asphalt Plant and Asphalt Recycling 10 4.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 12 FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U.S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 3 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Martin Marietta Materials ( MMM ) is planning the operation of a hot mix asphalt plant, a concrete ready mix plant, and asphalt recycling ( Highway 34 Facility) just outside the community of Kelim, Colorado, located in Weld County. The site is located to the southeast of the intersection of U .S. Highway 34 and Weld County Road 13. The Highway 34 Facilities will also contain a rail unloading facility, AC storage, a wash plant, aggregate sales, and a portable recycle plant. MMM has requested the services of Stewart Environmental Consultants, LLC (Stewart) to assess the estimated air pollution from the proposed facilities. Stewart has been assigned the following work, which is documented in this technical report. 0 Review Air Emissions Inventory 0 Review Air Dispersion Modeling 0 Assess Potential Public Health Impacts of Criteria Pollutant and Hazardous Air Pollutant ( HAP) Emissions 0 Summarize Findings in a Technical Report 1.2 Overview of MMM Site Operations The area immediately surrounding the Highway 34 Facility is semi-rural in character, with a few residences surrounding the property and a residential housing development located to the northeast. An image of the site from Google Earth is shown in Figure 1 . 1.2.1 Asphalt Plant The asphalt plant is a parallel-flow drum mix plant fired on natural gas with a maximum capacity of 450,000 tons/year. The asphalt plant produces "warm mix" asphalt, which is a combination of liquid asphalt cement, aggregate, sand, asphalt binder, and recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) . A "warm mix" plant operates at temperatures of less than 300 degrees F, which is 30-70 degrees F cooler than a more conventional "hot mix" plant. The "warm mix" plant consumes about 20 percent less fuel . 1.2.2 Ready Mix Plant Ready mix refers to concrete that is batched for delivery from a central plant instead of being mixed on the job site. Each batch of ready mixed concrete is tailor-made according to the specifics of the contractor and is delivered to the contractor in a plastic condition, usually in the cement mixers. Ready mixed concrete is particularly advantageous when small quantities of concrete or intermittent placing of concrete are required. Ready mixed concrete is also ideal for large jobs where space is limited and there is little room for a mixing plant and aggregate stockpiles. Ready-mixed concrete is often remixed once it arrives at the jobsite to ensure that the proper slump is obtained . However, concrete that has been remixed tends to set more rapidly than concrete mixed only once. Materials, such as water and some varieties of admixtures, are often added to the concrete at the jobsite after it has been batched to ensure that the specified properties are attained before placement. The ready mix plant has a maximum capacity of 325,000 cubic yards per year. Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U .S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 4 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC 1.2.3 Asphalt Recycling Similar to the asphalt plant, 90,000 tons/yr of recycled asphalt will be processed on site. Approximately 20 percent of the recycled asphalt will be fed to the "warm mix" asphalt plant. The emissions for the recycled asphalt facility are calculated separate from the asphalt plant emissions, as the recycle plant will not be run at the same frequency. 2.0 REVIEW OF EMISSION ESTIMATES The Clean Air Act requires the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment above certain limits. EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution, and sulfur dioxide. The criteria pollutants of concern from the MMM Highway 34 Facilities are carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compounds, particle pollution, and sulfur dioxide. Hazardous air pollutants (HAP), also known as toxic air pollutants or air toxics, are those pollutants that cause or may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological effects above certain limits. EPA is required to control 187 hazardous air pollutants. The sources of HAPs from the Highway 34 Facility is the asphalt plant and the recycled asphalt plant. Emissions from the Highway 34 Facility were estimated using in part using emission factors. The EPA document titled, AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, is the primary compilation of EPA's emission factor information. It contains emission factors and process information for more than 200 air pollution source categories. A source category is a specific industry sector or group of similar emitting sources. The emission factors have been developed and compiled from source test data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates. 2.1 Asphalt Plant Emissions Emissions from asphalt plants are generally divided into ducted production emissions, pre-production fugitive dust emissions, and other production-related fugitive emissions. The asphalt plant is a parallel-flow drum mix plant fired on natural gas. The most significant ducted source of emissions from this type of plant is the rotary drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water, PM, products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including VOC, CH4, and HAP) . Pre-production fugitive dust sources associated with asphalt plants include vehicular traffic generating fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads, aggregate material handling, and other aggregate processing operations. Production related fugitive emission sources include the transport and handling of the asphalt from the drum mixer to the storage silo and also from the load-out operations to the delivery trucks. Since the drum process is continuous, these plants have surge bins or storage silos. Table 1 summarizes the estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the asphalt plant as estimated using the appropriate emission factor from AP-42 and the plant maximum production rate of 450,000 tons/yr. An emission Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U .S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 5 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC factor for PM2 .5 is not directly listed in AP-42, but AP-42 gives a PM2 .5 fraction of 5 .5% for the uncontrolled emissions. Table 1 - Estimated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Asphalt Plant Emissions from Emissions from Emission from Silo Total Emissions Criteria Pollutant Drum Dryer (tpy) Truck Load-out (tpy) Filling (tpy) (tpy) 1 � PM 3.89 0.09 0.11 4.09 P M 10 1.17 -- -- 1.17 PM2.5 0.82 -- -- 0.82 CO 52.2 0.24 0.21 52.66 NOx 4.68 -- -- 4.68 SO2 0.61 -- -- 0.61 VOC 5.76 -- -- 5.76 Table 2 summarizes the estimated HAP emissions from the asphalt plant. Please note that HAP emissions are reported in pounds whereas the other pollutant emissions are listed in tons. The HAP emissions were calculated using the maximum production rate of 450,000 tons/yr and the appropriate AP-42 emission factors. Table 2 - Estimated HAP Emissions from Asphalt Plant HAP Emissions from Drum Dryer (Ib/yr) Benzene 140 Ethylbenzene 86 Formaldehyde 1,116 Hexane 331 Toluene 54 Xylene 72 2.2 Ready Mix Plant Emissions The primary pollutant of concern from ready mix plants is particulate matter, consisting primarily of cement and pozzolan dust but includes some aggregate and sand dust emissions. Emissions of select metals are associated with this particulate matter. All but one of the emission points are fugitive in nature. The only point sources are the transfer of cement and pozzolan material to silos, and these are usually vented to a fabric filter. Fugitive sources include the transfer of sand and aggregate, truck loading, mixer loading, vehicle traffic, and wind erosion from sand and aggregate storage piles. The amount of fugitive emissions generated during the transfer of sand and aggregate depends primarily on the surface moisture content of these materials. Table 3 summarizes the estimated emissions from the ready mix plant as estimated using the appropriate emission factors from AP-42 and the plant maximum production rate of 325,000 cubic yards per year. The emissions were calculated using the AP-42 emission factors for plant wide emissions for central mix concrete. Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U .S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 6 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC Table 3 - Estimated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Ready Mix Plant Controlled - AP-42 Controlled - AP-42 Source Emission Type Emission Factor (lb/ton) Emissions (tpy) PM PM10 PM PM10 Aggregate transfer fugitive 0.0069 0.0033 2.26 1.08 Sand transfer fugitive 0.0021 0.00099 0.69 0.32 Cement unloading to silo point 0.00099 0.00034 0.32 0.11 Cement supplement unloading to silo point 0.0089 0.0049 2.91 1.60 Weigh hopper loading fugitive 0.0048 0.0028 1.57 0.92 Mixer loading fugitive 0.0184 0.0055 6.02 1.80 Fugitive (tpy) 10.53 4.12 Point (tpy) 3.23 1.71 Total (tpy) 13.76 5.83 The values provided in Table 3 summarize the emissions generated from the ready mix operations; truck traffic is not accounted for. Wind erosion has not been factored in at this time. 2.3 Asphalt Recycling Emissions As previously discussed, emissions from asphalt plants are generally divided into ducted production emissions, pre- production fugitive dust emissions, and other production-related fugitive emissions. When the recycled material is processed, the emissions from the drum will also consist of water, organics, combustion byproducts, CO, and PM . The pre-production fugitive dust sources will include vehicular traffic and material handling. Other process fugitive emissions will result from transport and handling of the recycled material . Table 4 illustrates the anticipated emissions from the recycling of asphalt, when assuming that 20 percent of the 450,000 tons/year of recycled material will be re-processed through the "warm mix" asphalt plant. The same AP-42 emission factors were used to calculate these emissions. Table 4 - Estimated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Asphalt Recycling Emissions from Emissions from Emission from Silo Total Emissions Criteria Pollutant Drum Dryer (tpy) Truck Load-out (tpy) Filling (tpy) t Y ( pY) PM 0.97 0.02 0.03 1.02 PM10 0.29 -- -- 0.29 PM2.5 0.20 -- -- 0.20 CO 13.05 0.06 0.05 13.16 NOx x 1.17 -- -- 1.17 SO2 0.15 -- -- 0.15 VOC C 1.44 -- -- 1.44 Table 5 lists the estimated HAP emissions from the recycled asphalt operations. These emissions were calculated assuming maximum throughput of 90,000 tons/year and the appropriate AP-42 emission factors. Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U .S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 7 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC Table 5 - Estimated HAP Emissions from Asphalt Recycling HAP Emissions from Drum Dryer (Ib/yr) Benzene 35.1 Ethylbenzene 21.6 Formaldehyde 279.0 Hexane 82.8 Toluene 13.5 Xylene 18.0 2.4 Facility Wide Emissions The total estimated emissions from the Highway 34 Facility are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7. Table 6 - Estimated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Highway 34 Facility Asphalt Plant Asphalt Ready Mix Total Emissions Criteria Pollutant t Recycling (tpy) Plant (tpy) t ( pY) Y g ( pY) Total PM 4.09 1.02 13.76 18.88 Total PM10 1.17 0.29 5.83 7.29 PM2.5 0.82 0.20 n/a 1.02 CO 52.66 13.16 n/a 65.82 NOx 4.68 1.17 n/a 5.85 SO2 0.61 0.15 n/a 0.77 VOC 5.76 1.44 n/a 7.20 Table 7 - Estimated HAP Emissions from Highway 34 Facility HAP Asphalt Plant (Ib/yr) Asphalt Recycling (Ib/yr) Total Emissions (Ib/yr) Benzene 140 35.1 176 Ethylbenzene 86 21.6 108 Formaldehyde 1116 279.0 1395 Hexane 331 82.8 414 Toluene 54 13.5 68 Xylene 72 18.0 90 Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U .S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 8 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC 3.0 DISPERSION MODELING AND RELATED HEALTH EFFECTS 3.1 Dispersion Model The EPA AERSCREEN model is the recommended screening model for air pollutant dispersion estimations. The model produces estimates of "worst-case" 1-hour concentrations for a single source and includes conversion factors to estimate "worst-case" 3-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, and annual concentrations. Stewart conducted air quality dispersion modeling using the AERSCREEN model (Version 11126) . The AERSCREEN model was run using a unit emission rate of 1.0 grams per second . This allowed the results were then adjusted to the actual emission rate by multiplying the AERSCREEN output by the emission rate in grams per second . This accounts for the relationship in the model that pollutant concentrations are linearly proportional to the emissions rate. The AERSCREEN output files will be provided upon request. 3.2 Modeling CO Dispersion from Asphalt Plant and Asphalt Recycling AERSCREEN was modeled by using a unit emission rate ( 1.0 grams per second) . The modeling results were then adjusted to the actual CO emission rate by multiplying the AERSCREEN model output by the emission rate in grams per second. The CO emission rate was determined by multiplying the maximum capacity and the applicable emission factor. This methodology accounts for the known relationship in the model that concentrations are linearly proportional to the emissions rate. The AERSCREEN modeling result was then added to a "background" concentration, which accounts for ambient concentrations attributable any regional pollutant sources not explicitly included in the modeling. Ambient monitoring data collected over the period 2009-2015 at a Greeley monitor (905 10th Avenue) was used to determine the "background". The model results are compared to the NAAQS in Table 8. Table 8 — AERSCREEN CO Estimates and NAAQS Values Adjusted AERSCREEN Adjusted AERSCREEN Background Total NAAQS Impact Concentration from Concentration from Concentration Concentration 3 Asphalt Plant (ug/m3) Asphalt Recycling (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m ) 1-hour 1,966 109 2,941 5,016 40,000 8-hour 1,769 98 2,500 4,367 10,000 The dispersion modeling results shows that the predicted CO concentration using AERSCREEN complies with the NAAQS. There is ample conservatism in the modeling analysis such that there is high confidence that the NAAQS would not be exceeded . Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U .S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 9 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC 3.3 Modeling HAP Dispersion from Asphalt Plant and Asphalt Recycling Stewart conducted an assessment of the public health impacts associated with the reported HAP emissions from the asphalt plant and asphalt recycling. The HAP modeling analysis was conducted using the modeling results from the AERSCREEN model . The results for each HAP of interest were determined using the unit emissions rate modeling by multiplying the AERSCREEN modeling results by the appropriate emissions data for the HAP pollutant of interest. Stewart's analysis reports emissions for the following HAPs: benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, hexane, toluene, and xylene. The HAP modeling was conducted for two receptors near the Highway 34 Facility where people are known to live and/or congregate. The locations are the Highway 34 Facility boundary and the nearest home within the Indianhead Estates neighborhood (south of U .S. 34 and west of Weld County Road 15 ) . The HAP modeling analysis considered both acute (short-term) and chronic ( long-term) health effects of the pollutants of interest for both locations. For the acute effects analysis, Stewart estimated the maximum 1-hour concentration of each HAP and for the chronic effects analysis Stewart estimated the maximum annual average concentrations for each HAP. The emission estimates at each location were compared to the EPA Safe Concentration Thresholds and Reference Exposure Levels ( RELs) for the State of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) . California has instituted the most stringent emission policies in the country, and the Highway 34 Facility complies with and is well below those levels. Table 9 shows that the estimated HAP emissions near the property boundary are within both the EPA Safe Concentration Thresholds and the OEHHA RELs. The combined asphalt plant and recycled asphalt plant emissions show acute and chronic impacts well below the safe concentration thresholds. When above the EPA acute and chronic threshold concentrations of 1300 ug/m3 and 7.8 ug/m3, respectively, benzene has been linked to damage of the hematologic and nervous system and has also been shown to hinder development. The maximum acute and chronic impacts of benzene near the property boundary were found to be 1.78 ug/m3 and 0. 18 ug/m3 respectively. Therefore, the level of benzene emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. The maximum impact of ethlybenzene emissions were also found to be substantially lower than both the EPA safe concentration thresholds and the OEHHA RELs. These acute and chronic emissions were estimated at 1. 10 and 0. 11 ug/m3, which are well below the EPA safe concentration thresholds of 140,000 and 2.5 ug/m3. When above the REL, ethylbenzene has been linked to kidney, liver, endocrine system, and developmental issues. However, the modeled ethylbenzene emissions are more than 20 times below this permissible level . Therefore, the level of ethlybenzene emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. The calculated formaldehyde maximum acute and chronic impacts were found to be 14. 14 ug/m3 and 1.41 ug/m3. These values are significantly less than the EPA acute and chronic thresholds of 55 ug/m3 and 13 ug/m3. These values are also substantially less than the OEHHA RELs. Therefore, the level of formaldehyde emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. Acute and chronic maximum impacts of hexane were found to be 4.20 ug/m3 and 0.42 ug/m3. The chronic value is orders of magnitude less than the OEHHA REL of 7,000 ug/m3. Therefore, the level of hexane emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U .S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 10 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC The maximum acute and chronic impacts of toluene were calculated to be 0.68 ug/m3 and 0.07 ug/m3. The EPA safe acute and chronic safe concentrations are set at 37,000 ug/m3 and 5000 ug/m3. The impacts calculated are much lower than the OEHHA RELs of 37,000 ug/m3 and 300 ug/m3. Therefore, the level of toluene emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. The model estimated acute and chronic xylene maximum impacts of 0.91 ug/m3 and 0.09 ug/m3. OEHHA set acute and chronic RELs at 22,000 ug/m3 and 700 ug/m3. The predicted impacts are well below both exposure limits. Therefore, the level of xylene emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. Table 9: Impacts at Facility Property Boundary Acute Impacts Chronic Impacts Calculated Max EPA Safe Calculated Max 1-hr EPA Safe California California Annual Pollutant Impact (ug/m3) Concentration OEHHA REL 3 Impact Concentration OEHHA REL 3 3 (ug/m ) Threshold 3 (Highway 34 Site) Threshold (ug/m ) (ug/m ) 3 (ug/m ) (Highway 34 Site) (ug/m3) Benzene 1.78 1300 1300 0.18 7.8 60 Ethylbenzene 1.10 140000 0.11 2.5 2000 Formaldehyde 14.14 55 55 1.41 13 9 Hexane 4.20 0.42 7000 Toluene 0.68 37000 37000 0.07 5000 300 Xylene 0.91 22000 0.09 700 Table 10 shows that the estimated HAP emissions at the nearest residence in Indianhead Estates are within both the EPA Safe Concentration Thresholds and the OEHHA RELs. The maximum acute and chronic impacts of benzene near Indianhead Estates were found to be 1.40 ug/m3 and 0. 14 ug/m3 respectively. Therefore, the level of benzene emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. These acute and chronic emissions of ethylbenzene were estimated at 0.86 and 0.09 ug/m3, which are well below the EPA safe concentration thresholds of 140,000 and 2.5 ug/m3. Therefore, the level of ethylbenzene emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. The calculated formaldehyde maximum acute and chronic impacts were found to be 11.13 ug/m3 and 1. 11 ug/m3. These values are significantly less than the EPA acute and chronic thresholds of 55 ug/m3 and 13 ug/m3. These values are also substantially less than the OEHHA RELs. Therefore, the level of formaldehyde emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. Acute and chronic maximum impacts of hexane were found to be 3.30 ug/m3 and 0.33 ug/m3. The chronic value is orders of magnitude less than the OEHHA REL of 7,000 ug/m3. Therefore, the level of hexane emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U .S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 11 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC The maximum acute and chronic impacts of toluene were calculated to be 0.54 ug/m3 and 0.05 ug/m3. The EPA safe acute and chronic safe concentrations are set at 37,000 ug/m3 and 5,000 ug/m3. The impacts calculated are much lower than the OEHHA RELs of 37,000 ug/m3 and 300 ug/m3. Therefore, the level of toluene emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. The estimated acute and chronic xylene maximum impacts are 0.72 ug/m3 and 0.07 ug/m3. OEHHA set acute and chronic RELs at 22,000 ug/m3 and 700 ug/m3. The estimated impacts are well below both exposure limits. Therefore, the level of xylene emissions is not an issue from an environmental compliance standpoint. Table 10: Impacts at Nearest Residence in Indianhead Estates Acute Impacts Chronic Impacts Calculated Max EPA Safe Calculated Max 1-hr EPA Safe California California Annual Pollutant Impact (ug/m3) Concentration OEHHA REL 3 Impact Concentration OEHHA REL (ug/m 3 ) Threshold 3 (Highway 34 Site) Threshold (ug/m ) (ug/m ) 3 (ug/m ) (Highway 34 Site) (ug/m3) Benzene 1.40 1,300 1,300 0.14 7.8 60 Ethylbenzene 0.86 140,000 0.09 2.5 2,000 Formaldehyde 11.13 55 55 1.11 13 9 Hexane 3.30 0.33 7,000 Toluene 0.54 37,000 37,000 0.05 5000 300 Xylene 0.72 22,000 22,000 0.07 700 Table 9 and Table 10 show that the HAP concentrations at the property boundary and at the nearest residence in Indianhead Estates are within both the EPA Safe Concentration Threshold and RELs for the State of California's OEHHA. 4.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS MMM is planning the operation of a hot mix asphalt plant, a concrete ready mix plant and asphalt recycling in Weld County, Colorado to the southeast of the intersection of US Highway 34 and Weld County Road 13 . The asphalt plant has a maximum production rate of 450,000 tpy, the ready mix plant has a maximum production rate of 325,000 yd3/yr, and approximately 90,000 tpy of asphalt will be recycled . The facility wide emissions from the Highway 34 Facility are presented in Table 6 and Table 7 of this report. Stewart conducted an assessment of the public health impacts associated with the reported HAP emissions from the asphalt plant and asphalt recycling. The HAP modeling analysis was conducted using the modeling results from the AERSCREEN model . Stewart's analysis reports emissions for the following HAPs: benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, hexane, toluene, and xylene. The HAP modeling was conducted for two receptors near the Highway 34 Facility where people are known to live and/or congregate. The locations are the Highway 34 Facility boundary and the nearest home within the Indianhead Estates neighborhood (south of U .S. Highway 34 and west of Weld County Road 15) . The HAP modeling analysis prepared by Stewart considered both acute (short-term ) and chronic ( long-term ) health effects of the pollutant of interest. For the acute effects analysis, Stewart estimated the maximum 1-hour Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U .S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 12 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC concentration of each HAP and for the chronic effects analysis Stewart estimated the maximum annual average concentrations for each HAP. As shown in Table 10 the HAP emissions included benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, hexane, toluene, and xylenes. The HAP values are well below both the EPA Safe Concentration Threshold and Reference Exposure Levels ( RELs) for the State of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) . California has instituted the most stringent emission policies in the country, and the Highway 34 Facility complies with those levels. Our conclusion is that this facility will not negatively impact the surrounding environment or affect human health as it will meet all environmental standards. Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U .S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 13 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC Figure 1 Site Location Air Emissions Assessment Martin Marietta Materials U.S. Highway 34 Facilities Page 14 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants , LLC •.- _ r._ , . - - ,7 ., ..- - , 7 _.,±_ ... . • IP allill s. r - _ - - 777 _" a• RI'im'11Fr,onta e, .�..^ _ — _.ti • j� - ,a ,- , �9. R ei r 58 , �4 ., - gir Lakota,Ct v - is:-," ;ft . -1 II _ .% i ' 3/4; cKelIM: 1 I. i 1� r I 1 % _� ..j y f 5k . r -- _��•� � i , . �t .{ Xidjonqu,n-Jr iallika-a. •4 Its- I Ste. ^ -! _. .i N,._ ,•, j "J y ,f , 4- . , \ % a t 1 4 (4 ' �. \ - ' it. _ (p M Highw y 3 • Gh. .. _ 4 't 'mos\ . ilk Ali _ ....: • _ iii, . . z ...„. t .... _ ., _...,.... ti nii.u .....uti. .--,f-e.„,,- , , . . _ 7 . y - 1 IL• • (fa ' , 1 - •� 4. 15 Allik - , - `i y' • . • ..� i — L . jk . 1 1 A * . - r al 4 it atomsrpt I - 1 ...lig" ye 4 • 1. 1 7 - •_ - ,f _�Nit le i k., 'N 1 • f. _ < 5 Goo `, 1/4 C c�c� le earth t e" Google earth miles 1 km 1 Wildlife Desktop Review II- Martin Marietta, Inc. Highway 34 Development Project Site Weld County, Colorado II- II- Prepared for: II- MARTIN MARIETTA, INC. 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201 Westminster, CO 80021 II- II- II- Prepared by: Tetra Tech 4900 Pearl East Circle, Suite 300W Boulder, Colorado 80301 II- Tetra Tech Project No. 133-24097- 15002 II- II- March 26, 2015 Highway 34 Development Project Site - Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 REGULATIONS 1 2. 1 Federal 1 2.2 State 2 3.0 HABITAT AT PROJECT SITE 2 4.0 SPECIES REVIEWED 2 4. 1 Federal 2 4.2 State 5 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 6.0 REFERENCES 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 4. 1 . 1 Federally Listed Species Considered Table 4. 1 .2 Migratory Bird Species Considered Table 4.2. 1 State Listed Species Considered LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 . Project Location Map Figure 2. Bald Eagle Active Nest and Roost Sites Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 i Highway 34 Development Project Site - Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. 1 .0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of a wildlife desktop review conducted by Tetra Tech , Inc. (Tetra Tech ) for the Martin Marietta , Inc. (Martin Marietta) proposed Highway 34 Development project located near the intersection of Highway 34 and Weld County Road 13, in Weld County, Colorado (project site). Tetra Tech evaluated the 133-acre project site ( Figure 1 ) for the potential occurrence of wildlife species of interest. For this project, wildlife species of interest include those that fall within the following categories: 1 ) listed by the U .S. Fish Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened , endangered , proposed , or candidate, 2) migratory birds, including bald and golden eagles, and 3) listed by the state of Colorado as threatened , endangered , or special concern . This report was prepared by Chris Ansari , Biologist, with 15 years of biological resource experience including : wildlife habitat analysis, vegetation mapping through aerial imagery, and field surveys for federally and state listed flora and fauna. This report provides summaries of the regulations, data reviewed , wildlife species of interest potentially occurring at the project site, and recommendations for avoidance or minimization of impacts to wildlife. The findings presented in this report are based exclusively on desktop analysis of publicly available data , including aerial photography, agency geographic information system (GIS) data, and other agency records. No fieldwork was conducted for this report. 2 .0 REGULATIONS 2. 1 Federal The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that consultation with and concurrence by the USFWS are required for any project with the potential to affect federally listed species. Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies must consult with the USFWS to ensure that federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. If the proposed project has a federal nexus (i .e. , federal agency funding , authorization , or implementation), Section 7 would apply. The lead federal agency must prepare a Biological Assessment if the project has the potential to affect a listed species, and must obtain an incidental take permit if the project would adversely affect a listed species. Alternatively, if the project does not have a federal nexus, Section 10 of the ESA would apply, which mandates that non-federal entities such as states, counties, local governments, and private landowners must obtain an incidental take permit from the USFWS if the project would result in "take" 1 of a listed species. To receive a permit, the applicant must submit a Habitat Conservation Plan to the USFWS that ensures that the effects of the authorized incidental take are adequately minimized or mitigated. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it illegal for anyone to "take" any migratory bird or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to federal regulations. The migratory bird species protected by this act are listed in 50 CFR 10. 13 . The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) provides more specific protections for bald and golden eagles. The USFWS has statutory authority and responsibility for enforcing these acts and can issue take permits if impacts to covered species cannot be practicably avoided . 1 Defined under the ESA as "to harass, harm , pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 Highway 34 Development Project Site - Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. Depending on the potential for impacts to species protected under the acts described above, limitations may be placed on project siting , design , construction , or operation , and mitigation may be required . 2.2 State Effective January 1 , 1985, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) established a list of endangered or threatened species in the state of Colorado. It is unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship and for any common or contract carrier to knowingly transport or receive for shipment any species or subspecies of wildlife appearing on the list of wildlife indigenous to this state determined to be endangered or threatened within the state. Take is defined as "means to acquire possession of wildlife; but such term shall not include the accidental wounding or killing of wildlife by a motor vehicle, vessel , or train ." Laws and regulations pertaining to Colorado endangered or threatened species are contained in Title 33 Parks and Wildlife - Wildlife: Articles 1 and 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The state also maintains a list of species of concern . These species are not protected under state law but are being monitored for population health . 3 .0 HABITAT AT PROJECT SITE Tetra Tech used publicly available aerial imagery to evaluate habitat at the project site. Most of the project site is cropland . Commercial development is present in the northwest corner of the project site, and two residences are located along the southern boundary of the project site (Figure 1 ). No wetlands or riparian habitat are present within the project site. The lands surrounding the project site are also predominantly cropland . A residential community is located northeast of the project site, and Koenig Reservoir is located southeast of the project site (Figure 1 ). There are few mature trees that may provide bird nesting habitat within or adjacent to the project site, with only four located at the residence along the southern boundary of the project site. There is a riparian area between the reservoir and the project site that appears to be dominated by shrubs or dense tall grasses. The Big Thompson River is the closest perennial waterway, located approximately 0.75 mile south and southwest of the project site (Figure 2). 4.0 SPECIES REVIEWED 4. 1 Federal Tetra Tech used the USFWS's Information , Planning , and Conservation system ( IPaC, USFWS 2015a) and the aerial imagery interpretation of habitat described in Section 3.0 to identify the federally protected species that may occur at the project site. The IPaC report generated for the project site identified six federally listed wildlife species that should be considered in an effects analysis for the project site. Table 4. 1 . 1 evaluates the potential for each of those species to occur at the project site. Species that Tetra Tech determined are not likely to occur at the project site are grayed out in the table. Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 Highway 34 Development Project Site - Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. Table 4.1 .1 Federally Listed Species Considered Common Scientific Potential to Occur at Name Name Status* Preferred Habitat** Project Site Birds Mexican Strix FT; ST; Old growth or mature Not Likely; Project site Spotted Owl occidentalis MBTA forests has no old growth trees lucida or forested areas Least Tern Sternula FE; SE; Is only known occur in Not Likely; Project site is antillarum MBTA the southeastern portion located in northeastern of Colorado Colorado Piping Plover Charadrius FT; ST; Sandy lakeshore Not Likely; Project site is melodus MBTA beaches, sandbars located in croplands within riverbeds, or sandy wetland pastures Whooping Grus FE; SE; Mudflats around Not Likely; Species may Crane americana MBTA reservoirs and no longer occur in agricultural areas. The Colorado species has not been seen in Colorado since 2002. Mammals Black-footed Mustela Experimental Only found in managed Not Likely; Project site is Ferret nigripes Population, population colonies not located in close Non- proximity to managed Essential; SE populations Preble's Zapus FT; ST Well-developed riparian Not Likely; Project site is Meadow hudsonius habitat with adjacent adjacent to riparian area Jumping Mouse preblei relatively undisturbed and water source, but grasslands and a nearby relatively undisturbed water source. grasslands are absent. *FT — Federally Threatened FE — Federally Endangered ST - State Threatened SE - State Endangered MBTA — Migratory Bird Treaty Act **Habitat descriptions from IPaC Species Information (USFWS 2015a) and USFWS 2015b. One federally listed species, Preble's meadow jumping mouse (PMJM), had limited potential to occur at the project site based on publically available information . CPW data identified an area approximately 1 mile of the project site as PMJM occupied range. Suitable habitat for PMJM may be present in the southeastern corner of the project site, where there is a narrow riparian area and a nearby water source (Koenig Reservoir). However, photos of the area identify the area as a dense thicket of cattails (Latifolia sp. ). In addition , project site is comprised of croplands rather than the undisturbed grasslands that PMJM prefer. The USFWS was consulted to determine the likelihood of PMJM on the project site (Tetra Tech 2015). The USFWS determined that it is "highly unlikely" that PMJM would be present in the riparian area or on the project site due to the small isolated nature of the location and its separation from other known PMJM locations. The IPaC report generated for the project site identified an additional 17 migratory bird species that should be considered in an effects analysis for the project site. Table 4. 1 .2 evaluates the potential for each of those species to occur at the project site. The migratory bird species that are also federally listed are included in Table 4. 1 . 1 above and are not repeated in Table 4. 1 .2 . Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 Highway 34 Development Project Site - Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. Species that Tetra Tech determined are not likely to occur at the project site are grayed out in the tables. Table 4.1 .2 Migratory Bird Species Considered Common Name Scientific Name Status* Preferred Habitat Potential to Occur at Project Site Freshwater wetlands American Bittern Botaurus MBTA with tall dense Not Likely; No wetlands lentiginosus occur at the project site vegetation MBTA; Possible; Known nest Bald Eagle Haliaeetus BGEPA; Nest near bodies of and roost sites located leucocephalus SC water in large trees 0.75 mile southwest of protect site Shrublands associated Not Likely; No Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri MBTA with sagebrush shrublands or dominated landscapes sagebrush located at the project site Grasslands and Not Likely; Project site mountain parks, located in croplands. A Burrowing Owl Athene MBTA; usually in or near review of aerial imagery cunicularia ST prairie dog towns did not identify a prairie dog town in or near the project site Nest in a variety of Possible; Project site Dickcissel Spiza americana MBTA habitats, including located in croplands croplands Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis MBTA; Found in arid and Possible; Project site is SC semi-arid grasslands located in grasslands Not Likely; There are no Golden Eagle Aquila MBTA; Nests on cliffs cliffs in the vicinity of the chrysaetos BGEPA project site Possible; Project site is Calamospiza Nests and forages in located within the Lark Bunting melanocorys MBTA grasslands shortgrass prairie region of Colorado Nests in dense trees Not Likely; Project site Loggerhead Lanius MBTA and shrubs with semi- has no dense trees or Shrike ludovicianus open areas for shrubs foraging McCown's Calcarius MBTA Found in shortgrass Possible; Project site Long_ spur mccownii plains and croplands located in croplands Charadrius MBTA; Inhabit prairie Not Likely; Project site Mountain Plover grasslands, and plains located in an area montanus SC and fields dominated by cropland , In Colorado, breed on Not Likely; Project site Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus MBTA cliffs and rock does not have cliffs or outcrops from 4,500- rock outcrops 9000 ft in elevation Prefers cliffs but will Possible; Bald eagle Prairie Falcon Falco MBTA inhabit nests of bald nest and roost sites mexicanus eagle, raven, or other located 0.75 mile hawks southwest of project site Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 Highway 34 Development Project Site - Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. Common Name Scientific Name Status* Preferred Habitat Potential to Occur at Project Site Red-headed Melanerpes Nests in standing Not Likely; No standing Woodpecker erythrocephalus MBTA dead trees dead trees located at project site Oreoscoptes Nests in dense stands Not Likely; Project site Sage Thrasher montanus MBTA of sagebrush or other has no dense shrub shrubs vegetation Found in open Possible; Project site Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus MBTA grasslands, hayfields, located in cropland stubble fields Found in shrub-steppe Not Likely; Project site is Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni MBTA areas with scattered located in a grasslands trees, large shrubs and ecoregion with riparian areas developed croplands *MBTA — Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act SC - State Special Concern ST - State Threatened Bald eagles are found throughout Colorado nesting near bodies of water in large trees. The mature trees located adjacent to the residences along the southern boundary of the project site may provide nesting or roosting opportunities for bald eagles. These trees are located near two water sources (Koenig Reservoir and Big Thompson River). CPW data identify a bald eagle active nest site and roost site approximately 0.75 mile southwest of the project site within the Big Thompson River floodplain (Figure 2). The few mature trees and tall structures present at the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for other raptors as well (two species are identified in Table 4. 1 .2). The project site also may provide suitable nesting habitat for some ground nesting birds (four species are identified in Table 4. 1 .2). Adjacent to the project site, Koenig Reservoir provides habitat for water fowl . CPW data identify Koenig Reservoir and the Big Thompson River as foraging locations for several migratory birds. 4.2 State Tetra Tech reviewed CPW's Resource Stewardship GIS All Species Activity Mapping Data (CPW 2014). No state listed wildlife species were identified for the project site; however, CPW's database is limited to documented occurrences of species and is not considered comprehensive. Colorado lists 74 species as threatened , endangered , or special concern . Tetra Tech used habitat descriptions (CPW undated) and the aerial imagery habitat interpretation described in Section 3.0 to evaluate these species for their potential to occur at the project site. Table 4.2. 1 lists the wildlife species that were evaluated for the project site. Those that are federally protected are included in Tables 4. 1 . 1 and 4. 1 .2 above and are not repeated in Table 4.2. 1 . Also, amphibians, mollusks, and fish species were eliminated from evaluation because there are no water bodies within the project site. Species that Tetra Tech determined were not likely to occur at the project site are grayed out in the tables. As Table 4.2. 1 shows, there are no state protected species expected to occur at the project site beyond those that are also federally protected . Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 Highway 34 Project Site — Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. Table 4.2.1 State Listed Species Considered Common Name Scientific Name Status Preferred Habitat Potential to Occur at Project Site BIRDS American Falco peregrinus SC Nest in high cliffs or bluffs overlooking Not Likely; Project site has few trees and no Perecrine Falcon anatum rivers and coasts cliffs or bluffs in the vicinity Columbian Sharp- Tympanuchus High mountain shrub-grassland Not Likely; Project site located in low Tailed Grouse phasianellus SC community elevation grasslands columbianus Greater Sage- Centrocercus SC Sagebrush communities Not Likely; No sagebrush located at the Grouse urophasianus project site Grassy hummocks, watercourses, Not Likely; No mapped occurrences in Weld Greater Sandhill Grus canadensis SC beaver ponds and natural ponds lined or Larimer counties Crane tabida with willows or aspens. Gunnison Sage- Centrocercus Occurs in the southwestern portion of Not Likely; Project site is located in Grouse minimus SC Colorado northeastern Colorado Lesser Prairie- Tympanuchus ST Is only known occur in the southeastern Not Likely; Project site is located in Chicken pallidicinctus portion of Colorado northeastern Colorado Numenius Found in large, open, level to gently Not Likely; Project site is located in Long-Billed Curlew SC rolling grasslands; found primarily in northeastern Colorado americanus southeastern Colorado Plains Sharp-Tailed Tympanuchus SE Known to occur in Douglas County only Not Likely; Project site is located in Weld Grouse phasianellus jamesii County Southwestern Empidonax traillii Found in dense riparian habitats. No Not Likely; Project site is located in cropland Willow Flycatcher extimus SE known to occur in Weld or Larimer with a small riparian area adjacent counties Found on beaches, dry mud or salt flats, Not Likely; Project site is located in cropland Western Snowy Charadrius sandy shores of rivers, lakes, and ponds. with a small riparian area adjacent Plover alexandrinus SC No known occurrences in Weld or Larimer counties Western Yellow- Coccyzus Found in open woodlands, parks, Not Likely; Project site is located in cropland Billed Cuckoo americanus SC deciduous riparian woodlands. No known with a small riparian area adjacent to occur in Weld or Larimer counties MAMMALS Black-Tailed Prairie Cynomys Found in native grassland habitats, Not Likely; Project site is located in cropland. Dog ludovicianus SC shortgrass prairie, sagebrush steppe, Review of aerial imagery did not show prairie and desert grasslands. dog colonies. Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 Highway 34 Project Site — Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. Common Name Scientific Name Status Preferred Habitat Potential to Occur at Project Site Botta's Pocket Thomomy bottae Found in woodlands, scrubland, and Not Likely; Project site is located in Gopher rubidus SC agricultural fields. Identified only in northeastern Colorado southeastern region of Colorado Gray Wolf Canis lupus SE Species is presumed extirpated in Not Likely; Species not found in Colorado Colorado Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos SE Species is likely gone from the State Not Likely; Species not found in Colorado In Colorado, found only along the Not Likely; Project site is located in the Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis SE western slope in semi-desert shrub northeastern region of Colorado communities Lynx Lynx canadensis SE Found in subalpine forests Not Likely; Project site is located in croplands within the shortgrass prairie Found in deep sandy soils in the plains. Not Likely; Project site is located in cropland Northern Pocket Thomomys talpoides Pocket gophers are regional described in in an region dominated by plains gophers Gopher macrotis SC Colorado. The plains gopher occurs in Weld and Larimer counties Found in riparian habitat along perennial Not Likely; The closest perennial water River Otter Lontra canadensis ST water features feature is approximately 0.75 mile southwest of the project site Swift fox Vulpes velox SC Found in desert shrublands in western Not Likely; Project site is located in croplands valleys within a shortgrass prairie ecoregion Townsend's Big- Corynorhinus Found in caves, mines, and structures in Not Likely; There are no caves, mines, or Eared Bat townsendii SC woodlands and forests woodlands at the project site pallescens In Colorado, found in higher elevation Not Likely; Project site is located in lower Wolverine Gulo gulo SE alpine areas. Only one recorded elevations within the shortgrass prairie observation in Colorado (2009) REPTILES Triploid Checkered Cnemidophorus SC In Colorado, found in the southeastern Not Likely; Project site is located in Whiptail neotesselatus region northeastern Colorado Midget Faded Crotalus viridis Found in high, cold desert dominated by Not Likely; Project site is located in croplands Rattlesnake concolor SC sagebrush Longnose Leopard In Colorado, occurs on the western slope Not likely; Project site is located in Lizard Gambelia wislizenii SC northeastern Colorado Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 Highway 34 Project Site — Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. Common Name Scientific Name Status Preferred Habitat Potential to Occur at Project Site Kinosternon In Colorado, found only along the Not Likely; Project site is located in Yellow Mud Turtle flavescens SC eastern margin northeastern Colorado closer to the foothills than to the eastern border Common King Lampropeltis getula SC In Colorado, found only in southeastern Not likely; Project site is located in Snake and southwestern regions northeastern Colorado Texas Blind Snake Leptotyphlops dulcis SC In Colorado, found in the southeastern Not likely; Project site is located in region northeastern Colorado Texas Horned Phrynosoma In Colorado, found in the southeastern Not likely; Project site is located in Lizard cornutum SC region northeastern Colorado Roundtail Horned Phrynosoma In Colorado, found in the southeastern Not likely; Project site is located in Lizard modestum SC region northeastern Colorado Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus SC In Colorado, found in the southeastern Not likely; Project site is located in recion northeastern Colorado Found in marshes, ponds, and edges of Not Likely; Project site is located in cropland Common Garter Thamnophis sirtalis SC streams; restricted to aquatic, wetland, with no adjacent streams Snake and riparian habitats associated with floodplains of streams 'Habitat descriptions from CPW Species Profiles (CPW undated) SC - State Special Concern SE - State Endangered ST - State Threatened Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 Highway 34 Project Site — Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following wildlife species of interest were identified as having the potential to occur at the project site: O Bald eagle O Ferruginous hawk O Prairie falcon • Four ground-nesting migratory birds ■ Dickcissel ■ Lark bunting ■ McCown's longspur ■ Short-eared owl These species are included in this review because of their general habitat requirements or because of historically recorded nesting and roosting sites nearby. No known occurrences of these species nesting or roosting on the project site were identified during the review of this area . A bald eagle nest and roost were documented as occurring within the Big Thompson River floodplain located approximately 0.75 miles southwest of the project site. This location is outside the recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for human activity (Listed below). The project would not have an effect to either the nest or roost locations. The project site has four mature trees that have limited potential for bald eagle nesting because they are isolated trees with limited visibility to the nearby water source. A review of photos taken in March 2014 of these trees shows no raptor or other avian species nests (Photos 1 and 2). There were no known occurrences of ferruginous hawk or prairie falcon nest or roosting sites near the project site. Prairie falcons can inhabit abandoned bald eagle nests. As mentioned above, the closest known bald eagle nest is located approximately 0. 75 miles southwest of the project site. The trees on the project site have potential for ferruginous hawks or prairie falcons because they are located next to an open grassland area. A review of photos taken in March 2014 of these trees shows no raptor or other avian species nests (Photos 1 and 2). Four ground-nesting migratory birds have the potential to nest on the project site. These species can be found nesting in grasslands and croplands. However, the project site is an active cropland that is regularly flood irrigated and cut three to four times a year. Under these conditions, the project site has very limited potential for ground nesting birds. To minimize effects on these species, as with any development project, Tetra Tech recommends Martin Marietta adhere to the temporal and spatial restrictions listed below by either 1 ) initiating construction outside of the active nesting period , or 2) conduct a preconstruction survey at the project site to determine the presence of nesting birds. If nesting birds are identified during the survey, the nests would be flagged and the recommended spatial buffer around the nest be maintained until the birds have fledged . If all such restrictions cannot be met because it would preclude Martin Marietta's ability to construct the project, Tetra Tech recommends consulting with the USFWS to obtain clearances. CPW's recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors include: Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 Highway 34 Project Site — Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. O Bald eagles: no surface occupancy within 0.25 mile radius of active nests, restriction on human encroachment from October 15 through July 31 within 0.5 mile radius of active nests, no human encroachment from November 15 through March 15 within 0.25 mile radius of an active winter night roost, and no human encroachment from November 15 through March 15 within 0 .5 mile radius of an active winter night roost if there is direct line of sight between the roost and the encroachment activity. The known bald eagle nest and roost site are more than 0 . 5 mile from the project site; therefore, no avoidance is required for those locations. O Ferruginous hawk: no surface occupancy within 0 . 5 mile radius of active nests and a restriction on human encroachment within 0.5 mile radius of active nests from February 1 through July 15. O Prairie falcon : no surface occupancy within 0. 5 mile radius of active nests and a restriction on human encroachment within 0 . 5 mile radius of active nests from March 15 through July 15. Ground-nesting migratory birds are generally active April 1 through August 31 . Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 10 Highway 34 Project Site — Wildlife Desktop Review Martin Marietta, Inc. 6 .0 REFERENCES Chapman , S. S . , Griffith, G . E. , Omernik, J . M . , Price, A. B. , Freeouf, J . , and Schrupp, D. L. , 2006, Ecoregions of Colorado (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston , Virginia, U .S. Geological Survey (map scale 1 : 1 ,200,000). Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2014. CPW All Species Activity Mapping Data. Website. http://www.arcgis.com/home/group. html?owner=rsacco&title=Colorado%20Parks%20an d%20Wildlife%20-%20Species%20Activity%20Data . Accessed March 2, 2015. CPW . Undated . Threatened and Endangered List. Website. http://cpw.state.co. us/learn/Pages/SOC-Threatened EndangeredList.aspx. Accessed March 2, 2015. Tetra Tech . 2015. Personal communication between Chris Ansari , Tetra Tech, and Leslie Ellwood , USFWS. Conversation topic: Is Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat present at the Hwy 34 Project Site? March 11 , 2015. U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015a. Information , Planning , and Conservation System . Website. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed March 2 , 2015. USFWS. 2015b. Environmental Conservation Online System : Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Website. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0C2 . Accessed March 2 , 2015. Tetra Tech March 26, 2015 11 FIGURES Wyoming a' ► —Cheyenne _Le.....a.r.„..Thi P oject Location li re___§ Denver ,it Colo ' a' -' 0 if I 4. 41 11.1 u- . - ••--';.._.,:L I' lizona New Me i fo Oki . home I „ -;R.v __ r y ;- 4 • I 4 t i E) 1 . j 1 1 jO .IS:r!( sue._. •. .t i \ iiiik tv,o _ M J r r • d444 • SI .` ----- .� •tam . - - - it . . _ T• S - ., 'fit• 'Is �V I ` - El r P I r _ . 3 , i , \ . r. 4 • II 1 1 \ + Iiii ` 1 r ` tJ \ • . %.4 / i„tt it iI 1II 0l) ,I \ \be, t 1 _ tr • \ �—er > n ot: Ell , *pa... N.' ..L... : W :'�1 _ JL. Koenig ► � _ o y :fti . I J it 1`' Reservoir4 . ` Al • wa r W .! , i i!? 0 - \ -" IPI ` - ` f `. m 71 \ K I. iIN X11, . . lir" . - - .elk in Q 1 ,000 t ` 1 ; M f !1 r. J Project Site M P tii I • FIT o MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS Project No.: 133-24097-15002 v TETRA TECH HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT Date: MAR 03, 2015 dlib) WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Designed By: JJA o www.tetratech.com Figure No. r 4900 Pearl East Circle, Ste 300W o Boulder, Colorado 80301 PROJECT LOCATION MAP ctPHONE: (303) 447-1823 FAX: (303) 447-1836 — tv�r. y as ran •r. ditelr•ya V - r— - - --- —� . • • - .. • . I. P , g , `IS • L 1 I es. _ - ; 4 r lse it e 441,104 !IL, f - 1111111— r . + ati� I itie - .: _ 4:1/4:- �� 'V,/ .. 1 4 V // i 4 t IP _ ,, A "....;;. jv e4 „iv.. ` - •90 100W �° p p 4 _ f; is, .:.• esi •o s_ . • en _ Legend 3 C' a Project Site n ` ' 4,000 ■ ! c .&,.s %4 Bald Eagle Nest Site N �\�� Bald Eagle Roost Site CO 7 I l i • M :• . - I I•MISIi ` �►`�F �,°/ CD MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS Project No.: 133-24097-15002 v NI a Ilbi TETRA TECH HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT Date: MAR 03, 2015 n WELD COUNTY. COLORADO Designed By: JJA C; www.tetratech.com Figure No. cri 4900 Pearl East Circle, Ste 300W BALD EAGLE ACTIVE NEST Cr Boulder, Colorado 80301 AND ROOST SITES 2 C PHONE: (303) 447-1823 FAX: (303) 447-1836 PHOTOS it '• AY+ \ ( ( t it i r- 1 A , 'hit. _ { •' 1,{ •. t y am t• « __..........r. .. ar :yj. • r. as*, .y l • , •�� /- / l . GM ".44.f lfb. • ;� f LI. . • . ..1• l "'/. A.• • _jgp.,• v •. e • I • ,)„,,....),,,11/2. '\'it 'r-1 ^• \ lac• ' • }7• Photo 1 . Trees on Project Site looking northeast • /)l • JrCC 1 y `. -.!'E. . :.fit``i �` L { -• ,7- -- \. /�SrAY TY•y�Y v `� I I I -'4TT'' ♦li a ,- A L1 • . s, . . _ grti6 , . . 1 '•• 1 _ L SlittR sway- < _ .� �y !S .t''Y -Y_:. l - - ." - 1- _�„wrie• mow. ,.' i' •.K ♦ n.�` _ ...` ,S.y' w ( ivs. ! ��f•f!C h «~" '� �. 1'^.+. ' ^4 j . •vt A. •.T S!I\.�•�'. '.•{Y�i.:n J 1'�T� ..e C,. ' "'•.b ., '�' i a 1 `�l ,# • ' -`.. , Y;,.r. Ib- >1/ > .. .• .� A✓\^ .1�. > n� ,,,�t,>, .r. Iu .. .w h"�' \.ly�' F'r.r. L? 1. _ . - - -'t•.. i'�I '1• _ ::t Y .- •! - tiilwb `11�.'a W: :•w• - - •L{'' ' .•.- . . ' Photo 2. Trees on Project Site looking south MARTIN MARIETTA'S CULTURE OF SAFETY & COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY Highway 34 Development The safety of our employees and surrounding communities is a core value at Martin Marietta, and our company culture reflects our strong commitment to safety and sustainability. Safety Day-to-Day Martin Marietta has extensive safety plans in place to ensure workers and the community are safe and that all materials handled or produced on the site are done so responsibly. Employees annually receive 62 hours of training related to safe practices, ethics, and best management practices, in addition to technical training. Daily operations include safety tailgate meetings every morning, Job Safety Analysis (JSA) on tasks conducted, observations, near miss reporting and, if an incident takes place, a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is conducted with corrective actions implemented to prevent reoccurrence. We are always developing our strongly decision-based safety culture in which everyone is empowered to stop unsafe actions. It's continual; there is no end,just a clear and consistent message that improvement and safety is of the utmost importance. Fostering Accountability with the "Guardian Angel" Credo For Martin Marietta, safety is not viewed solely as a policy or program,but rather a lifestyle known as "Guardian Angel." Employees serve as Guardian Angels by holding themselves and each other accountable. If an unsafe environment or activity is witnessed, each employee, regardless of position, considers it his or her duty to speak up. Employees observe each other during the workday and are encouraged to stop tasks or projects they deem unsafe. The Guardian Angel Creed serves as a standard and a constant reminder for employees to keep themselves, and each other, safe. It states: 1 am now and will always be empowered to stop any actions or processes that will endanger any other person or myself, and will do so with no fern. of retribution from anyone at Martin Marietta Materials. I will do so because I am totally committed to working in a safe environment that my family and I know will allow me to come home safe and healthy. The Guardian Angel lifestyle is highly visible through signage as well as discussions at annual meetings and monthly safety meetings. It is this consistent messaging that encourages employees to keep safety at the forefront and to hold each other accountable, not only on the job, but after hours. We're fostering a culture that is behavior-based, not compliance-based, so we continually train on safety and regularly revisit and refer to the Creed, from the onboarding stage onward. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page I ut 3 Environmental Safety Martin Marietta is a good environmental steward in our operations. We build and operate our facilities at a standard well above the requirements of the various regulatory agencies. The Highway 34 project will be governed by several state and federal regulatory agencies, and no adverse impacts to air or water are anticipated. The EPA and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHL)'s Air Pollution Control Division regulate the activities proposed on the site (aggregates processing, stockpiling and loading, asphalt, and ready-mix concrete plants). The proposed facility will obtain an air permit by demonstrating compliance with state air-quality standards. In addition to an air permit, the facility will be required to obtain a Weld County Land Use permit, building permits, state engineer permits, fuel storage permits, a storm water management plan, a spill prevention control plan, and fuel storage and tank safety' plans. All of the permits and plans are designed to protect workers, the public, and the environment. Air Quality Air emissions modeling is required for all operations on the site, which will detail the required measures to he employed at the site to ensure operations are conducted within the air-quality standards established by CDPHE. Facility workers would be closest to potential emission sources, but concentrations arc low enough that OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) does not require asphalt plant employees to wear respirators. Human studies have found no clinical evidence that asphalt plant production has contributed to increased incidences of illness or cancer. Workers are monitored for total suspended particulates, which are airborne particles and soluble benzene. Results are well below acceptable levels as determined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Dust Mitigation Martin Marietta will incorporate dust control measures at the facility to remain in compliance with our air quality permit. Plant designs are optimized to minimize dust exposure through engineering, bag houses, and water sprays; most of our manufacturing operations are covered and so capture most dust. Water trucks and sprays will be used in areas where dust may be generated. Main roads in and out of the facility and around the ready-mix and asphalt plants will be paved to reduce dust generated from vehicle traffic. Odor Control Martin Marietta will comply with the federal, state, and local odor regulations. Occasionally, odors from heated materials may emanate from an asphalt plant, but they pose no danger either to plant personnel or to the community in which the plant operates. However, Martin Marietta already plans to take steps to minimize odor generation through plant design and a vertical orientation of the liquid AC tanks. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 2 ut 3 Additionally, Martin Marietta trains and certifies staff to operate and maintain equipment that measures odors. This ensures full compliance with all rules and regulations. Verified by both Larimer County and Martin Marietta, our operations are well below and have never exceeded any existing odor regulations. Water Water is a precious resource in Colorado and Martin Marietta will manage this resource carefully, recycling and reusing about 80% of the water used on the site. The site is also designed to conserve water within the facility itself. Martin Marietta will provide the volume of water required for the proposed operations to the municipal water district. No mining will take place on the property and all facilities will incorporate the required environmental protection and utilize best management practices. No adverse impacts to groundwater are anticipated. Visibility and Noise Control The proposed Highway 34 site will operate within the limits of Weld County's noise regulations for industrial activities and would follow all Weld County regulations in regards to sound levels, which are 80 to 85 decibels at the fence line for industrial properties. By comparison, a passenger car traveling at 65 miles per hour is about 77 decibels, a power mower is 107 decibels, and a power saw is 110 decibels. The site provides ample setbacks for the main operations, the asphalt/concrete production areas, proposed to be located on the western side of the site and away from the majority of our residential neighbors. Vehicles will travel in a circulatory pattern to limit backup potential, with loaders having "broadband" back-up alarms that mimic the sound of a duck. A berm along the eastern edge of our site is proposed to serve as both a visual and sound barrier. The berm would be vegetated with native grasses for a natural look, and we will be working with the county and immediate neighbors to finalize the vegetation plan. Additionally, the buildings would be painted a neutral color to visually blend into the area. Sustainabilitv Martin Marietta is committed to sustainable operations as part of our greater commitment to local communities and the global community. The vast majority of water utilized in the operations will be captured and reused. Electrical and water conservation efforts are incorporated into the design and operation of the facility. Martin Marietta also recycles returned materials into additional construction products, and used products developed by the operations (batteries, tires, scrap steel, etc.) are collected and shipped off site to be recycled. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 3 ut 3 COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF INDUSTRY Highway 34 Development Martin Marietta is a leading supplier of aggregates and heavy building materials, with operations spanning 32 states, Canada, and the Caribbean. Dedicated teams at Martin Marietta supply the resources for the roads, sidewalks, and foundations on which we live. Martin Marietta's Rocky Mountain Division began in 2011; however, for the past 50 years, our personnel and operations have been a vital part of the northern Colorado community, producing aggregates, ready mix concrete, and asphalt while providing road construction services to the communities we help build and support. Community Economic Benefits Colorado consumed 48 million tons of aggregates in 2013. The aggregate industry in Colorado directly employees over 1,600 people and indirectly employees 70,000 people. (Source: Colorado Stone Sand & Gravel Association.) Nationally, every dollar spent in the industry generates S1.58 in the economy. Martin Marietta will invest an estimated S20 million in developing the Highway 34 Project, employing 100 people with average salary and benefits of more than $70,000. Indirectly, the project will employ 4,300 employees who live and work in the region. Estimated property tax and sales tax generated by the project during the first 10 years is in excess of S36 million, Key customers that Martin Marietta serves in Weld and Larimer Counties include county and city governments, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), general contractors, homebuilders, and oil and gas companies. As aggregate deposits become depleted in Northern Colorado, construction costs and traffic congestion will increase as materials must be imported from surrounding areas. Martin Marietta's project will help reduce long-term construction costs and truck traffic by bringing in raw materials via rail to a central distribution point. Consider that an average home requires 400 tons of aggregates to build, with transportation being the largest cost associated with the materials; importing aggregates by truck costs 25% more than rail,resulting in substantially higher costs to build a home. These increased construction costs also impact building schools, stores, and streets and highways; one lane mile of interstate requires 40,000 tons of aggregates. Many economic factors affect real estate values, but based on our experiences, we do not expect the project will harm nearby property values. Property values are closely tied to the economic climate of a community and Weld County has one of the strongest economics in the state of Colorado. One outcome of a strong economy is increased building demand, which results in sustained or increased property values (as evidenced by the continued development of the Route 34 and 1-25 interchange). Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page I of Community Support Martin Marietta employees live and work in the communities in which we operate. Our success through the years is a direct result of being a good neighbor and involved in the community. Educating future generations is important to us; our team members provide educational tours of our operations to students from grade school through college level, offering learning opportunities related to science, math, geology, and other environmental sciences. We also extend these learning opportunities to the community and our neighbors, hosting regular meetings and open houses. Additionally, we support and participate in local community activities including youth sporting activities, the Greeley Stampede, Boy Scouts, food banks, local community events, and many other organizations. Through our legacy operations, Martin Marietta has been a part of the community for over 50 years. Our business is a long-term business, and we are committed to supporting the communities we help build. Giving Back to the Community When Natural Disaster Strikes When natural disasters have taken their toll in Colorado, Martin Marietta's Rocky Mountain Division has historically stepped up and provided significant support for the communities in which it operates: • Rebuilding After the Hyde Park Fire In 2012, a forest tire sparked by a lighting strike set ablaze the area near Fort Collins, Colorado. This devastating fire burned more than 87,000 acres and destroyed 259 homes, making it the third most destructive fire in Colorado's recorded history. Whale Rock Bridge, previously a wooden bridge that was the entrance to a subdivision west of Fort Collins, was burned entirely after the fire swept through. The Rocky Mountain Division donated 10 yards of concrete and contributed to the new bridge by supplying fire resistant materials, making it safer and sturdier for residents in the future. • Much Work to Be Done After a 1,000-Year Flood Event After unseasonably heavy rain in mid-September 2013, flood conditions erupted throughout Colorado as excess water saturated the ground, leaving it with nowhere to go. The flooded area was massive, with 17 counties affected. 1,500 homes were destroyed and 17,000 damaged, and more than 11,000 people had to be evacuated. More than 200 miles of state- owned highways were damaged, as well as many bridges and roads and other infrastructure. Martin Marietta donated materials to help people get around immediately after the incident. They donated 27 concrete blocks for temporary bridges on Fish Creek and product to restore Highway 34, one of two main roads into the area, for recovery in the city of Estes Park. The Specialty Aggregates district also provided more than 30,000 tons of rip rap to Union Pacific and Jefferson County to fix canyons, rail lines, and access roads. Similarly, the Rocky Mountain Division aided the West Fort Collins Water District by offering supplies and equipment to repair a vital water supply line; providing a bulldozer and numerous loaders and graders, the Division aided in finding the cause of the broken line: a breach in a nearby silt pond. Martin Marietta donated concrete to repair the breach, and utilized their dewatering pumps to remove water to access the broken water line. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 2 o/2 lb TETRA TECH June 26, 2015 Ms. Diana Aungst, AICP Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Modifications to Hours of Operation for Highway 34 Development (USR15-0027) Dear Ms. Aungst: Martin Marietta's existing application indicates that they are requesting to have the right to operate 24/7 to be able to respond to special project requests; however, most days the facility will only operate during daylight hours, Monday through Saturday. Plants will operate longer during the construction season and less during the winter, early morning and night work will generally only occur intermittently during the construction season. In response to comments heard from the community regarding the proposed hours of operation, Martin Marietta would like to provide the additional detail regarding their requested hours of operation. • Hours of Operation for Asphalt: o The plant will typically only operate Monday through Saturday o The standard hours of plant operation will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. o Load out from storage silos will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. o When the plant is operating at night, it will only occur when material is requested by cities, counties or CDOT for night paving projects. Operations will be considered "night operations" when they take place between the hours of one hour after sundown to one hour before sunrise. Depending on the request of the jurisdiction purchasing the asphalt, night operations could occur seven days per week. o When Martin Marietta becomes aware of projects that require night operations, they will email the Weld County Planning Director to let him/her know about the plans to operate outside of daylight hours, who the project is for, how long it will be occurring, and where the materials are being delivered. • Hours of Operation for Ready Mix Concrete: o The Ready Mix Concrete Plant will only operate Monday through Saturday. o Actual operating hours of the Ready Mix Concrete Plant will vary depending on weather and business levels. The plant will generally not begin operating until daylight. Occasionally, it may need to operate earlier to accommodate daily business demands; however, in no instance will the plant ever operate before 3:00 am. o The plant will not operate more than 16 hours per day. Tetra Tech 1900 S.Sunset Street,Suite 1-E, Longmont,CO 80501 Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com ltTETRA TECH Ms. Diana Aungst June 26, 2015 Page 2 o Ready-mix trucks will generally operate during plant operations, but may return to the plant after plant shutdown to be cleaned and parked. • Hours of Operation for Aggregate and Recycling: o Aggregate sales and recycling operations will only occur Monday through Saturday. o Aggregate washing and recycling operations will only occur during daylight hours (dawn to dusk or 6:30 am to 6:00 pm during the winter), actual operating hours will vary dependent on weather, and business levels. o Train unloading operations during the summer will only take place between the hours of 6:00 am and 8:00 pm, actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site. o Train unloading operations during the winter will only take place during daylight hours, actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site. If you have any questions about this information, please let me know. Sincerely, TETRA TECH 1. - // Pamela Franch Hora, AICP Senior Planner cc: David Hagerman, Martin Marietta P:\24097\133-24097-15002 ProjMgmt Correspondenceneld County\modifications to hours of operation.docx lb TETRA TECH June 26, 2015 Ms. Diana Aungst, AICP Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Explanation of why the Highway 34 Development project (USR15-0027) is critical for future of Weld County and Why the Proposed Site Was Chosen Dear Ms. Aungst: In order for Weld County staff to make a decision about what to recommend regarding the Highway 34 Development project (USR15-0027), it is important for staff to understand why this project is critical to the future of Weld County from an economic development perspective and also understand why this is the only site out of 13 studied that meets important criteria for a successful operation. The proposed Highway 34 Development project is an important project for Weld County as a community and as a customer of our materials. As indicated in the USR application (in the Questionnaire), the supply of aggregate resource in Colorado, particularly rock product, is quickly becoming depleted in northern Colorado. Martin Marietta has a rock quarry west of Cheyenne called Granite Canyon. In order to continue to provide rock product to the northern Colorado market to support the demand for construction related materials, Martin Marietta needs to transport crushed rock from Wyoming into northern Colorado. The transport of the material must occur by truck or via train. One train load (approximately 117 train cars) of rock product is the equivalent of approximately 400 truckloads. Martin Marietta recognizes that there is already a significant problem with congestion on 1-25 as well as along the support network of highways in the area. Therefore, Martin Marietta determined that the best solution for getting rock into the northern Colorado market area would be to bring it in on a train to minimize the impact of truck traffic on the region. In Wyoming, Martin Marietta has the ability to load Union Pacific trains with rock product from Granite Canyon and send it straight to Colorado. From a cost and logistics point of view, it is best for the destination/unloading point in Colorado to be off of Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Currently, Martin Marietta is unaware of any other companies in northern Colorado who are seeking to find a way to bring rock product into Colorado via rail. In fact, Martin Marietta currently supplies other construction materials businesses with rock product because they cannot get the material from any other source. Martin Marietta will not be able to continue supplying the rock products to meet market demand if they don't find a way to get the rock product into Colorado. In addition to the challenge of having a limited supply of aggregate materials, the other challenge Martin Marietta will soon be faced with is not having an asphalt plant in Weld County. Martin Marietta currently operates an asphalt plant at their 35th Avenue facility. However, that plant is located within the boundary of a mining site and once mining is complete, Martin Marietta's permits from the County and State (DRMS) require that Martin Marietta remove their Tetra Tech 1900 S.Sunset Street,Suite 1-E, Longmont,CO 80501 Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com ltTETRA TECH Ms. Diana Aungst June 26, 2015 Page 2 asphalt plant and all other equipment when they reclaim the site. This will likely happen within the next 5 years leaving Martin Marietta without an asphalt plant in Weld County. There is one other asphalt plant in Weld County, it is operated by Asphalt Specialties and is located in Firestone. That asphalt plant facility is also located on a mining site and so more than likely it too will need to be removed once mining is complete and the site needs to be reclaimed. This then becomes a problem not only for the operators, but also for Weld County because there is the potential for Weld County to soon have no asphalt plants. This would significantly raise the cost of public and private roads, parking lots, etc. In order to make asphalt and concrete, it is essential to have rock product. Therefore, in order to minimize the amount of truck traffic associated with asphalt plant and ready mix concrete plant operations, the aggregate unloading facility should be located in the same place as the asphalt plant and ready mix concrete plant. Trucks have to be used to make local deliveries of aggregate product and to deliver asphalt and concrete. There is no way to avoid generating truck traffic from a facility like this. Since a significant amount of development that is occurring and is projected to occur is happening along the 1-25 corridor and into Greeley, it is best to get the trucks out to Highway 34 in as short of a distance as possible. Weld County Road 13 is planned by the County to be a major north/south arterial corridor with four lanes of traffic and so it makes sense to use this road as the direct route to the highway. Trucks will only need to travel 1/2 mile north on Weld County Road 13 to get onto Highway 34. In addition to the many sites along the Union Pacific Railroad that Martin Marietta considered for a proposed site (all of which are explained in the Site Selection Report that was included in the USR application), Martin Marietta did consider property in Weld County's North Greeley Rail Corridor Subarea. Since Martin Marietta has mining sites in this area, the first thought was that a rail facility in this area would make sense. However, after further investigating that area, Martin Marietta determined that the North Greeley Rail Corridor Subarea is really better suited to users such as the oil and gas industry that have significant activity happening on the eastern side of Weld County. Based on existing growth and projections for growth, Martin Marietta believes that the final destination of most of their product will be to the west along the 1-25 corridor. Currently, the options to head west from the North Greeley Rail Corridor Subarea are to use Highway 392, which is Main Street in the Town of Windsor (Windsor has indicated to Martin Marietta that truck traffic through the middle of their community is not acceptable), or to use a circuitous route to bypass Windsor which means there would be more traffic on County Roads that were not designed to handle the truck traffic. We recognize this project is being met with intense local opposition from neighbors who live near the proposed site. We are working hard to address their concerns and as we have communicated, Martin Marietta has made several high cost changes to their plans to minimize impacts. This is a challenging situation that we are not taking lightly and will continue to work to resolve. Industrial sites and residential neighborhoods co-exist throughout Weld County as well as other locations in the State and the Country. Many industrial operations are near expensive homes. Martin Marietta has successfully co-located with many neighborhoods around the Country. We respectfully ask the staff to carefully consider the global benefits of this project to Weld County, local businesses and the region. ltTETRA TECH Ms. Diana Aungst June 26, 2015 Page 3 If you have any questions about this information, please let me know. Sincerely, TETRA TECH i Pamela Franch Hora, AICP Senior Planner cc: David Hagerman, Martin Marietta P:\24097\133-24097-15002 ProjMgmt\Correspondence Meld County\explanation of market and site.docx Community Leader Forum Martin Marietta conducted a Community Leader Forum on July 9, 2015 from 4:30 p. m . to 7 :00 p. m . at AgProfessionals Conference and Meeting space in Greeley, Colorado. The event was attended by 27 Weld and Larimer County business owners, senior managers, and various governmental officials. The forum addressed the economic impact of the project and the challenges facing northern Colorado's continued economic growth with depleting natural resources. Attached is the invitation to the event and the sign in sheet. 4 r rOil r _ M/ � �l M ru • lt • ' • r .4fl gilts /A Martin Highway 34 Project— Community Leaders Forum Please join us for a Community Leaders Forum to learn about and discuss Martin Marietta's Highway 34 project which rs proposed to be located east of Weld County Road 13, 1/2 mile south of Highway 34 At this invitation only event, we will explain the project and its importance to the economic vitality of Weld County and you will have an opportunity to discuss the project with Martin Marietta's management team We hope that you will be able to join us, Date: July 8. 2015 Time: 4:30-7:00 p.m. Location: AgPro Conference & Training Center 3110 67th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80634 For additional information, please contact David Hagerman at 720-245-6400 or davrd hagerrnan@maro nmarietta com Martin Martetta It is not just What we make. It is what We Phone: 72o-`45-6400 Make Possible. Finail: dasid.hagermanCmartinmalietta.Com Martin Highway 34 Project Marietta Community Leader Forum Wednesday, July 08, 2015 If you would like to receive updates on the project please Name Organization provide your email address --N.-0J ri,:)-----g-4 ki i e Mtie ii- Pit-Xiun- /kIng, ' r-91tA ar\- 71(Z4 >2-1 7-7r/-cx,-. ce s 61 9---I-- Ve_4-- fir-, r r16-r- 0--r" co .f.. to 0-o , '� s 71S-I(// Z-si,-e- lb_/4 L. P%Hji-Or-4 (&:- (1 8 1(_ 4 Fr /.A5 geALsrl Bi eir5 • 7g-N-4 J c--1 c-F g% 6/4-e- Y C1/41 ( 6CCI leci t-14 c D Avi °-Pil'-- , 51151i.e-- ( v [ kbL-46,- ,;\,y . SLR CA-Cgi 'it P RR. S_c cS. yE.--) t,T co ` = 1 r li\/‘ A-Cx.c AN) 5 13 ick-priX Alk Martin Highway 34 Project Marietta Community Leader Forum Wednesday, July 08, 2015 If you would like to receive updates on the project please Name Organization provide your email address L Al la L*nP ICy R 9ClYd D IC LC1—atciccr t— k 5 i ep Lot A 00 S 37t c_ fita Ce rit) 2) &1U) r ed c.) Ale L ke, salcx„ C, 0 CYt 2 C-1 () Li viLiA re.-rat Co os, 1�f (�s j 71 N-tcr- r L Cc, cQ\ck 3ok,NOA Adivi /7;"---42-t-tf> 1-EFF 1.J 6M — Iv/Zion c+{o , tE C t cal-Jar Fs ' ( 564 i p �/ � i, , Sys &� ‘Lt1( _ foe / L v SITE SELECTION REPORT Northern Colorado Market Union Pacific Rail Line for Rail Unloading and Sales for Aggregate Concrete Production Asphalt Production Martin ^ariotta March 2015 Martin Marietta ("Martin") is a leading supplier of aggregate and heavy building material in the northern Colorado market. These materials build schools, homes, and roads by providing the materials that build our communities. Martin Marietta has a number of operations in northern Colorado as depicted below in green . All of these are sand and gravel operations that will be depleted of aggregates in the next 10 years or are concrete and asphalt plants that are served by those aggregate sites. Once these sites are depleted of aggregates, these facilities will need to be reclaimed and a new location for a ready mix concrete plant, asphalt plant, and aggregate sales yard will be required. These sites are needed so we can continue to serve the growing northern Colorado market. Many of our competitors are in the same situation with depleting reserves and associated support facilities. ie. ilibi(7:47-__ , } 4 . 4 Aar, .:, •„‘ 4' i 'AIM:, JP re Y ... . • C r t .- . 'yam' . I _ r r ;II ` M .' !F29 .� w.S1µ J .tom fr 0: , . _ _f r * a ' -7 .y _ ... ., . . a _ C.� i•�f Trilby-Rd-rilij1 - c ►-a . I.4•\:.4 _ _ Three Balls s � • g _ ... (9 . 4.', a 08— s il a ► . i ys . �. � '``• . • C . - rsan e �4 - /Y j 1 -� r F - • •:. .. .. %'' _ 21 — -= A...A 1 of r,.a r3 t1 t 6.-* sc., .lin ' .41' 1 \ 3 ii • ten!:• �' - - Ei -_-�-- - QL 0velan o 25 I . i _ J : . ..s - " ., Pr rs • �NI% $ _ ' ra s1, _ Vii, i" lam'► - Y r"1. till 44 - H _ 27 , -Coe i�-earth - . . ,d __ Most of the large parcels along the river corridors in Northern Colorado that are conducive to mining have been permitted and are being mined out. As a result, Martin Marietta will soon need to import aggregate from outside the northern Colorado market to continue to meet local demand . The most efficient way to transport this aggregate to Colorado is via rail. Martin currently owns a quarry outside of Granite Canyon, Wyoming with access to the Union Pacific Rail line. For this reason, the most efficient way is to find a location along a rail line in Northern Colorado to construct a rail unloading facility, concrete plant, asphalt plant, and aggregate sales yard that is close to areas where high economic growth is occurring. Furthermore, concrete and asphalt are perishable products, which means there is a limit to how far they can be transported . If on a truck for too long, asphalt cools and hardens and ready mix concrete begins to set and becomes less workable. Haul costs are a large portion of what consumers are paying for when product is delivered to project sites. If we chose a site that was 20 miles outside of the market, consumers would be paying for an additional 30 minutes of driver time to the site and back to the plant/sales yard. A typical concrete pour for a residential basement would cost the consumer an additional $5,000 over what a local competitor would be offering. A larger commercial project would pay an additional $125,000-$250,000 for the same product they could get from a competitor that is located within the northern market area. Asphalt and aggregate would have similar cost increases. Having a plant/sales yard 20 miles further out means one driver would make fewer daily round trips. To compensate, the vehicle fleet would need to be expanded to deliver an equivalent amount of product to the consumer and thus require additional vehicles on the roads. All three operations need to be at the same location and close to the market to reduce vehicle traffic and in the process, reduce our carbon footprint. This report examines Weld County sites along the Union Pacific Rail Line that are within the same general area as Martin's current facilities. The following two criteria were used to initially select properties that we thought might be able to accommodate a future rail site: 1. Adjacent to the Union Pacific Line 2. Parcel or combination of parcels between Kelim and Milliken around 100 acres There were thirteen properties that we identified that met this initial selection criteria. All thirteen properties are shown and numbered below: te . II l kL? 1 4 58 1 �p d iii. llek1 • 2 2 . A F � . - a i' 3 4 �, III- I 5 6 6 4 ' r • i - - r. Nit 7 7 1 i, f rill r I I, 8 •, _. _ _ _• , _ ._ r �� a� lair-y ... 94 9 f'. it, Air Elri t I -7 s4 - i Pr- k' `'w 'a A • ; ;" ` r � lir A-14.4.. . - , • i 'I........... -7*JD 1 , , • a60 -- S 1st St " a . 0 inS. • !it . • . 21 1. ."' - _- �►a '� .. 1 41. w i [y _ . . r , 13 O 2015 Google ' �, r . . . , / Next, we evaluated the viability of each potential property using the following set of criteria : 1. Properties that could fit at least 6000' of rail track in a closed circle while meeting UP Railroad turning radii and rail spur requirements. 2. Properties without existing features on the ground that would create a track obstruction. 3. Properties with an elevation drop of 25' or less across the property (the rail loop must be fairly flat to function as an unloading facility). 4. Properties in close proximity to the interstate and State highways. 5. Properties with nearby access to a signalized intersection to allow for trucks to more easily turn onto the highway. 6. Properties requiring little travel along County roads to get to the highway. 7. Properties with few neighbors. 8. Properties that avoid haul routes that run in front of subdivision main entrances. The table below outlines our evaluation of all thirteen properties based on these eight criteria. If a criterion was met, it was given a score of 2, if the criterion might be able to be met, it received a score of 1, and if the criterion was not met, it receive a score of 0. Star ( * ) means no further evaluation was completed due to the site not being able to accommodate initial siting criteria. KEY 0=No 1=Maybe 2=Yes Properties Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Fit 6000' railroad track loop 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Void of track obstructions * 2 * * 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 Elevation drop < 25' * 2 * * * 2 0 0 * * * * 0 Close to Hwy 34 & 1-25 * 2 * * * 2 0 0 * * * * 0 Signalized light * 1 * * * 0 2 2 * * * * 0 Low impact to county roads * 2 * * * 0 0 0 * * * * 0 Few neighbors * 0 * * * 1 1 1 * * * * 0 Avoids subdivision entrances * 2 * * * 0 2 1 * * * * * Total 0 13 0 0 1 9 8 7 1 1 1 2 4 CONCLUSION: The Gerrard/Weld LV II site is Property 2 in the above table. As shown, Property 2 received the highest score indicating that it was the most favorable site. More specifically, here is what we found related to the property: 1. It is within 10 miles of most of our existing locations and markets. 2. Rail track would fit with the required Union Pacific turning radius. 3. The grade elevation drop is around 20 feet from north to south. 4. The site is close to State Highway 34 and Interstate 25 with the least impact to County roads, and the County road being impacted (WCR 13) is considered a major north/south thoroughfare through the County that is planned to handle higher traffic loads. 5. CDOT has a plan to add a traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy 34/WCR 13, when warranted. 6. Only a 1/2 mile of WCR 13/LCR 1 will be impacted before reaching State Highway 34. 7. The Weld LV II property was for sale and Gerrard was willing to negotiate with Martin to lease their property. 8. The short haul route to State Highway 34 does not run in front of a subdivision main entrance. Martin is currently investigating another site along the Great Western Rail Line, east of the town of Windsor. The Highway 34 site is a larger site with additional setbacks, open space, and buffers. In addition, it has easier access to major arteries and is located directly on the Union Pacific rail line, eliminating the need for additional rail transfers between multiple railroad companies. 1 2 3 I 4 5 I 6 7 e IS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS : USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USRI5 0027 LEGAL DESCRIPTION : V j = o N HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT LOT B OF RECORDED EXEMPTION NO. 0957-18-1 -RE-2803, RECORDED w m co m OCTOBER 24, 2000 AT RECEPTION NO. 2802122, BEING PART OF THE 3 4-• U FOR : MARTIN MARIETTA 6287+($67 $1 ' I +(1 6287+:(67 6 2)! 16(&7,21 n 72: 16+,31 1257+ 3 N o LL F RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. , COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO. ? E A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 18 , TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH , RANGE CO mc% 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P . M . , COUNTY OF WELD , STATE OF COLORADO o AND W CO N- (6433CR56 & 27486CR13 ) o M a) THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 5 o r M NORTH, RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P. M. , WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING - - S MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: a CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER AS ASSUMED 72 -1 %($5 - 6287+ ❑ i00000DDE D :(67 - $1 ' -i : ,7+I $//: %($5, 1 '6 -1&217$, 1 (' VICINITY MAP HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO: R68W R67W BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 18, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 4960Th \ ` `\ N I THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER SOUTH 2 I 1 / 6 °Y " 1 S II II I I I III I I :(67- - )((7 72 1$ 132, 17 121 17+( I 11257+(5/< I 5,'"+71 2)I :$< °'"° OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT E - , 2)I :$< 1 6287+ ($67 )((7 17+(1 &( '(3$57, 1 '1 6$,' .1I _ o csun,/ r i 4/c 1257+(5/< I 5,`+71 2) I :$<u1257+ (67 )((711721 $ 32, 17 ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID ° ° 1 —j " •'/ JI ' ' 1257+ /, 1 ( - 6287+ DOCDD0000 \ :(67 - - )((7 -727+( 71257+:(67 a • _ Y� CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE TRUE POINT OF +' -ail. =L BEGINNING, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO. -� ahoma � ' - . � , Sch Imo . / / A .,Ur,. _ - ./• r 4889:__• �__. iYJT5 �\ `�f __.. .. • - __/ `\ e0 V @Q�v _ i � . I/ ! PROPERTY OWNER' S APPROVAL : 11 - - - — _. �il 2 ,vs i - - - ✓✓ THE UNDERSIGNED MAJOR PROPERTY OWNER DOES HEREBY AGREE - - _- a95p.-- j TO THE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS °' DESCRIBED HEREON THIS DAY OF 200501- 070 Go , . ' \ 1%GLAND ICI4447 �D �� 4941 1495�WY 34 . • . r h• _ -N----� ° 1 i � � , _ ° /Dry GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 11,___±._&-AMERg v - / o BY: NATHAN M . GERRARD, MANAGER• //-----1 ' a9zv / � as PROJECTLOCATI N s F -. . _ 4 - _ E PLANNING COMMISSION I17cam ORES AT �P.di L - m WESTER!{-. 1: * SOiE �� v • f4®oo � � �' ° 13 CERTIFICATION : } , THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION m 4679 'a HAS CERTIFIED AND DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF IT °14 • --_ - COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, FOR THEIR ,>Iss ° \� e \ H e9zr.rr CONFIRMATION , APPROVAL AND ADOPTION THIS USE BY SPECIAL 1 �/ �tp _ ,,,PD _ 'Officer� - ° REVIEW AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON THIS DAY 4�a k �1 \ • i _ OF 20 C V\` 9j CHAIR, WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Z- t' sj 2 i4 -_3= = 4824 a. r_ w ; 1 2 11 24 HILL 1 \ y�� aa �O a_ DATED:co O ( • BOARD OF COUNTY CC !�U :4 � _ °• r 'J � �, � .�s °� 1. + 12) la❑ �� I � _� M94 gel . �� . •�" 1; b � ` ` ` ` ,/ COMMISSIONERS CERTIFICATION : Z ,d°/,< � ��, hob ., . , ,ti- 4 � �', � ` �ae sll .e-,,, aeo9 _ e I II • ' , r° ,mrIll \ THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ce d\\` : ,'ll .4_, -, ‘ K'N29 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, DOES HEREBY CONFIRM AND ADOPT THIS 2 126 _ - o -` ' , ' I \ I USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS SHOWN w X ) 1 �j l 1 u � ''1 AND DESCRIBED HEREON THIS DAY OF , wil ct . (\,:kN-,,1 \,__. ./(2:J-- ,/ -,-_-‘ _ 0 B ' /rte-- c �� 5 — ".1 9\ . 1 ; ] - LI . g�� ° - i ?? / r I-i / / .� 1 1. b Cp. U i� • ----� I� r % �� = 3 � ' �a CHAIR, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS o = I` W 5002 \ ` �\ (. , C, [r x .p Q i H NI w �/ % l �� /�/ ° .el \ \,, Hardman ATTEST: w w CD i w ° \ \(\ � % ' \_, \ ` WELD COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD E' 't 2 O w a9_ 0 - a ° _ _ pet � � � p 92 x � / -, ° 775 I ( I47� D : 14825 „` _ DEPUTY CLERK TO THE BOARD = s CC o U) > � O N O U 0 in N el 07 M 0 1000' 2000' 4000' SHEET INDEX : Project No.: 133-24097-15002 Ca A SHEET 1 COVER SHEET Designed By: FJM SCALE: 1 ' = 2000' SHEET 2 SITE PLAN Drawn By: RWP SHEET 3 PARKING PLAN Checked By: PFH m m SHEET 4 DETAILS 1 SHEET 5 LANDSCAPE PLAN 15, N O to v Sheet ® - - - - - - Bar Measures 1 inch 1 2I 3 I 4 I 51 6 7 USE BY SPECIAL,. ..,.. R.E. VIEW - USRI5 0027 v g o2 Pi HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT W co � M FOR : MARTIN MARIETTA N oLL C Ea 2 F A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 18 , TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH , RANGE E 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P . M . , COUNTY OF WELD , STATE OF COLORADOl'i ' J in (6433 CR 56 & 27486 CR 13 ) W I'mM r f STOP SIGN AND SIGN DIRECTING d W 1/4 COR., TRUCKS TO TURN RIGHT EXCEPT EXISTING FUEL STORAGE TANK \ 2 SECTION 18, T5N, FOR LOCAL DELIVERIES OWNER: ACCESS I \ - R67, 6TH P.M. CHARLES ROAD C 1/4 COR., SECTION 18, T5N, a FUTURE AUXILIARY LANE PATRICK MORRIS READY MIX TRUCK R67W, 6TH P.M. • I I I I IMPROVEMENTS TO WCR 13 ARE PROJECT ID SIGN COVERED PARKING FND #6 REBAR W/2.5" ALUM. CAP N. NOT REFLECTED ON THIS PLAT; EXISTING MODULAR (EXISTING STRUCTURE) FND #4 REBAR OWNER: . THEY ARE UNDER DESIGN / W/CAP LS 80462 WELD 34, LLC CONCRETE REORGANIZED FARMERS OFFICE BUILDING SECONDARY EXISTING EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL IRRIGATION DITCH COMPANY SWING GATE ACCESS ONLY SUBSTATION STRUCTURE REC. NO. 2814989 — — J - - LEGEND : X---X-- —XN --" "n _X---------.....x \:.. E 11 Ir :rile ...� � • ■� +�'�� . •��'! o ° ,w_eeoeoe !�■■ ------------ 40.' / ^ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC €€,, i"'' A� '' �' �� ++��; �4+++� �� \ :-.N UT EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE FUTURE ROW IA Ir • �Q �� '' .• �1 \ \ ' - - f{ri. S,j$j lyXX'. . 0000o^0000000ooa soaoso °O000ao°o0000° o ,4e,--;;;;;1_3• 71-11r- �, /++ ° e .�\ . \ \ \\\• •15 FUTURE nil GATE GATE IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII +,,,,te ��+ � ° ��`�� V A A I . k --- \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ EXISTING CONTOURS (1 ' INT.) UTILITY EASEMENT Il 1 •—" : RIDGE OVER es• a.,�� GRASS BERMe • . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \y\ . OWNER: wall ' ♦ CKS +' +�" �y DIANE S REID G EXISTING GAS PIPELINE V`�' XYYYryY.Yn-LYy.YY.Y1 / KI L` ,�'.+, ''" °° ° ° °eo°o e ee a O� PAIIIMINIaMM 411* • \\� �••,..... \\ � / y�\'\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \1 \ \ `p SECONDARY I t �\ �( � _ ��!�' ,�+�' F SCALE • • •....• � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ UE EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC I 4• �.�I v • °. �,,� V v EMERGENCY 1: ��,� ( _ SNi ! 00/441 � STRUCK l HOUSE � Es. �\ �\ V A \ V - A x�, \ • +•, +� �. �., \ \ \ \ EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE / �'•' TAGING 1 •�. , ACCESS ONLY o, • +% •� — \+ �\ � I ( ,/ • ( •,•: l;�; READY MIX 40:4; t \ TEMPORARY •' � �� •� �•�� '••'� REA EQUIPMENT .I ��.,, , A A AV A \V A \ \ \ \ t f 1 W EXISTING WATER LINE O O I►r �■ y„` TARP •• "�V • • 7, ��!� .• PARKING -AREA- + G A G DISPATCH o A X �or,i t� R sir \ \ \ !�+ ; , iQ, • � • •: • •t ■ • �SS \\\ \ \ EXISTING PARCEL '� , FUCCSIATIONS Di ��I •9: B�� \; N x x x x OFFICE BUILDING . / `'gip. \ EXISTING FENCE A . a ■, e TRUCK SCALES ♦`� ;; Yoo ‘° . ir( •, !c.� �' v xx xx xx xx EXISTINGIll r • . I 1 It l(/� + • • / +\ / EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED SEPTIC FIELD �— _— = Q"'♦ READY MI • S .11� QC / / / ••••tEa , \ \ OWNER: it CONCRETE ' "'�''T� / / / •'•�• \� \-, ,,,, \ x x x x PROPOSED BARBED WIRE FENCE EXISTING SHOP I • 'Iii. �'�° • •i ��I�r � ; • LUMP t• ��V\ + \GERRARD u. ili0 PLANT (UP TO c • HED / ° �*FUTURE EXPANSION •i t!� I:I T P USR BOUNDARY D cn •o•• STN�ENTS, x � ,■,4 I MAINT 110' TALL) r © I CONVEYOR( / / e••LELt', u,i �•� ° BUILDING • / rS ' / I V A ��FOR QC LAB I EXISTING + + " uIl / • PROPOSED DRAINAGE SWALE TRUCK WASH +i �; k: •I _ • / !•�`2� _ - ''iii iii . _�►�i . - - CONEX ,� / / / / \ \ °<s�+s`. \ — — — .•++ on IS h RAILER ASPHALT ` !��V �� SECTION LINE • _ / SEP G +, • •c• �� :� ■� ° '� READY MI _; STATION �R�ILER / FIELD o+i®V �1A •• ;;I : / , TRACK +, . \ ! J EXISTING ASPHALT SEPTIC Ate\ •i m '"'' +! I •i �\ EXISTING 60' ROW j ••\+ •• • o +• n ;l�. . ' •• RECLAIMER/ \ \ +`:•. • ml W� PER BOOK 86, PAGE 273 ( FIELD P AGGREGATE +i` ! ,■, • A ' SHOUT I ++�\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I LI l EXISTING RAILROAD TRACK ••• \ `As • I �' Yr I AGG. I EQUIPMENT \ \ CLE PORTABLE \� /STORAGE-AREA A V 'i� � �� PILE +'.�� •i• !+` ,'.;, • . CONVEYOR U \ \ \ \ �i\ �� OWNER: •i• ' +'; ,�'\ •. U °°+` I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11. PROPOSED RAILROAD TRACK } CHRISTOPHER C & •'�+• ,% ' �� N i • _ oV \ • ;, \• h II *CLAIR GAS CRIES-- - II 00 MARSANNE HOWARD \ ' ��`'° + • 0 ° TO B-- LdWERED cox\ � � � . PROPOSED PAVEMENT `+ ,�°�+� AGG:•. CONVEYOR °.+` I ASPHALT CEMENT • �•\ •,++p+�,.e LOAD AGG. ,�� .�• \ tli, • , I HOPPER I-- PILE I PILE i ` — _ °fin I STORAGE +•. . \ +;.•\ • Z C7 \ is /I OWNER: GRASS �• . �� . � •.uurnm: W Z V i °° n ��_ ., I � • 31• �� •- I Y \ � ' I(I\ CHERYL FRIEDE :se, +� oa. - _ .,��I PROPOSED GRAVEL ROAD AGGREGATE BINS �+ `� • • � , . 7 GC., " — ; ii /' m !. ♦ I d n ` _ 50 GAS R.O.W Ci l' U)) � .f .. ■ _ �``� • • T „ ! 1 \ EASEMENT f I:I ¢ ' I PROPOSED AREA GRAVEL C I CONEX �•�� RPIN _ . � (1 V _ __ (REC. NO. 3457112) / ill �� 6I , TRAILERS +R \*!i,�,, \ y \ " ) / T�/ ' ° � / E OPERATIONAL LIGHT FIXTURE • �.. FINISH FINISH - i / P' ;iltiSSO ? ( SECURITY LIGHT FIXTURE p • RECYCLED RECYCLED RAP \ \ \ - / / � \ - n• - v r; • } ASPHALT PLANT • ''`',, CONCRETE a RAP RUB LE\� \ / e / o TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ARROW a NP TO 100' TALL) 't+•fie ��. / --__III v — - - / ° �%� E w L ,� • ° • I RAIL' C-AR o ■! ' U ��O 'gip - I / / ■, co •i % 0 TRASH ENCLOSURE W ,,� � UNLOADING / �/ / tpt fi,/ j / O o •- : ': RUBBLE 'I ,Uj y0 ++,�� . A, . Jite 1 v CONVEYORS TO_ / / DRAINAGE FLOW�c +• • * \ I - ! f ,.cC.;JIlyA� �GREGATE PILES • �.� Wcn • Of\ ••+ ••i040\0 ` I I-II" I;I WASH \ el / 0 } OWNER: ti +++ii •.; PLANT p•�' it WELD LV, LLC Oy •+i, '+•: , ` ,,,,PLANT \ i•�' • Y ¢ PORTABLE RECYCLE ''•+ '.•: .. ,Al ;<°++o' ® N.. C7 PLANT EQUIPMENT •+i• �••: NO BUILD AREA I ' — .0j +ifi i; I CONEX •++• • °7;. e DETENTION POND +��' /7 O + • ° 3.36 ACRES CONEX i�+f TRAILERS •• %Alps e ¢ vs p41pe�o� y� • TRAI +++•J B •••••• ++ w�• T`Ckli�f■1 R..e v ueT e v e o i seen. eee"a'6`e°69,'.aa69.{doe o•.Ilr lare:,A •Amor c. �+� / I I/ ( i w INTERNAL PROPERTY LINE STRUCTURE OFFSETS ■■■■■■.■.■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ I■•STRUCTURE OFFSET TO INTERNAL ++i GR / 'I- \ / 1/ I� cc STRUCTURE • + / \ HEIGHT PROPERTY LINE ++p+ / \ / KOENIG RESERVOIR w w O < F■�• -- - w I READY MIX UP TO 110' 56' ••i• \ I ---- EXISTING BUILDING © Lt O J CONCRETE PLANT +•• \ TO BE EMOVE, Q m tL i 0. LT_i • j LOAD HOPPER UP TO 20' 8' \ \ } O in = I I ASPHALT PLANT UP TO 100' 106' ` - J v C Fes-- Li H PORTABLE \ �S� � l \ � OWNER: ¢ 0 (n U I RECYCLE PLANT UP TO 15' 25' i''i�i1/4 • �_ i WILBUR J BOEGLI • o CONEXTRAILERS EXISTING '� �- 1i1 �/ ' .LO OUT-BUNGS � O) T 'rte ism,■ - -�. __g. / — N — — - — — — — — WCR 56 — — — — r — v - - — _ — _ — _ - - ,/,', •` EXISTING co n EXISTING 60' ROW HOUSE PER BOOK 86, PAGE 273 o Project No.: 133-24097-15002 A kIN rl Designed By: FJM r 2 Drawn By: RWP H a v Checked By: PFH 22 ti M 0 100' 200' 400' Lo -- 2 T N SCALE: 1 " = 200' o LO I-: Sheet , O Bar Measures 1 inch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USRI5 0027 i Era HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT W IU M 3 U en FOR : MARTIN MARIETTA g oLL F A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 18 , TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH , RANGE CO 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P . M . , COUNTY OF WELD , STATE OF COLORADO 5' J (6433 CR 56 & 27486 CR 13 ) W O � OM PARKING PLAN 0 a - - ' � � — — fin — - - _ _ .. �� z x— �i x )(=max_ y X � X X x X PARKING BASED ON BUILDING SIZE i — ' N_ — - - - • - READY MIX TRUCK COVERED PARKING .— - — — _ •0• / ••rr•nrcnrrrrrrrrr00000 oo oo'-. < -� BUILDING BUILDING NUMBER OF PARKING PARKING \ / / / •• a •a• app o 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . SIZE (SF) EMPLOYEES REQUIRED BASED PROVIDED \= • . 0 0 0 - ON CODE 7 / ' — x � - — — — — — — — / ♦•••••• i •Oaaaaaro o° o:°'0 0 . . - _ MODULAR 1 ,200 5 5 5 et -- \ r ;:\ \'\ — — / ♦ �•••aa o o:°o' \ \ \ \ ` - '0000'0'o'o'O'0'0'000'0'0'0"0'0'0'0'0'000000000000000"0'0'0'0'0'000000000 0"0'0 . ♦ . -0e OFFICE �� , _, 5^" <> " "000 °0 o°°0 o°0 0 O0°0 000 0 0 0 0 000000 000 0000 000 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0000°. ♦♦aa �•p o0 o° V A (EXISTING) I � l( h s \ — ,a a• MODULAR 900 5 4 4 Y i 1. (' I -- \ \C _ ^ \ \ x / ♦♦O oo . \ \ OFFICE 15 STANDARD SPACES r i / \ \ ♦♦�♦♦♦♦ ~ s♦a♦ o o \ , N ` - CR9s E (EXISTING) 1 ADA VAN ACCESSIBLE \ / ' / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ♦ ♦�°° o f \ \ se MODULAR 1 ,200 5 5 5 SPACE �' I _ / � / / \ \ \ ♦♦♦♦a / ♦a♦a 'o°o \ _ - - \ ` GRASS BERM ��40 DISPATCH — ` .,, . e �� A )) 25 STANDARD ♦ , o00 \ \ (PROPOSED) . _ � _i , ►s■ SPACES \ O♦♦♦ t ♦ "\ \o°o'o o" . . . . -: v yI OFFICE 14,400 10 34 34 � , ' ♦ , \ 1 _ (PROPOSED) ' � ,� - - - / / _ ♦ ♦♦ / 00000000 •.O. • 00N 0 / CI . 0000000 000SHOP 14,500 7 15 15 IIH / / I / ♦ ♦O♦♦ A ��\\ 713STANDARDA (EXISTING) lV` / / L 6 I 1 - OSHOP 14,500 7 15 15 1 V� SPACES 1 • - I I - STANDARD / ',/ � n V \ v °o°(PROPOSED) r �, 21 STANDARD / SPACES, 2 1 - / V A oOC LAB 4,000 6 4 4 \tI\` SPACES ADA Ci / �/ \ \ READY MIX EQUIPMENT (PROPOSED) ♦ I ACCESSIBLE j \ \ e, / \ , I � v x PARKING AREA SCALEHOUSE 4,800 5 12 12 \\ SPACE �( / x "ii 1 OFFICE • °♦♦� AV A � I I � I ikt I � Av v \ READY MIX 100 1 .5 .5 ♦♦i:�\ � )1 �} v A PLANT ♦O♦��\j1 V� A ) � � i A \--._ � 4 STANDARD N 36 STANDARD 7 CONTROL I I • \ \ \ \ SPACES, 1 ADA SPACES ROOM ♦♦.� I ` r / / \ x \ ACCESSIBLE SPACE V - - - \ �, ASPHALT PLANT 100 1 .5 .5 I \ / / CONTROL ♦ \ ) \ \\ N / / \ \� \ �_ / ROOM ♦i�A\ \\ VA v i / \ D ASPHALT 1 ,800 5 6 6 ♦i,A\ X �� TRAILER iceA\ VA i ' ' 00 00• ^, T SUBTOTAL 57 101 101 �e�♦ C �,A - - / / / " 0 . . o 0 0 0 , --- PARKING FOR TRUCK DRIVERS AND FIELD WORKERS I '. \ \` IJlI 1 / °°o� 1 I 1111 EMPLOYEE NUMBER OF PARKING I �`�\\ V �� i / / ( I ' 1. o v , x o°o TYPE EMPLOYEES PROVIDED '.,,\ \ \ TRUCK DRIVERS 45 45 • I A -\� C J - A A � _ -- — o 11111111 11S ANDARD SPACES, . ,: x xx / Is E,___ ,2 AD ACCESSIBLE OFFSITE FIELD 25 25 .♦s ♦� \ �� / „✓ u � . x x x — ♦ �s, WORKERS ♦♦ ♦♦i r� „- -- a ri o� M A 4- /// ° / SPA E ON-SITE FIELD 14 14 ♦4 k / *FrI-11 ) SUBTOTAL WORKERS I •�, .� OWNER: o / I SUBTOTAL 84 84 I • �o♦\ p GERRARD 1 \ \ f m TOTAL SPACESARKING 141 185' I \ ♦♦♦♦;�`♦ INVESTMENTS, LLC 2; L� ♦♦♦\♦♦a \ x 5 o MAINT 5 STANDARD T \ \ 1OUT OF THE 185 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED, WE HAVE PROVIDED SIX (6) ADA ♦ ♦ , \ o / N ♦ ,A ♦♦ I �' . , ,/ / BUILDING SPACES, 1 ADA K____{ ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES AND ONE (1) OF THE SIX (6) IS VAN ACCESSIBLE. ♦♦� \♦i♦� o. / j // \ , „. ..„ O, , „ •., , ,♦c� Aa♦� �� A� V I ; °o. // ACCESSIBLE SPACE 3 v, \ , r..---- , , „ , __ , ,„ _____ , „. ,,, to ♦♦♦♦• , \ Vv� / V A v „ v c \ __ „ ., , , ), I I <„ , \ 1♦%� � i� ♦ \ t: ia•ana•�oo v T , \ \ , _ \ ) IA \ \ N V 111111111 NN N 0 5 9 8' 9 9 ♦♦♦�\\ ♦♦♦♦Q ••a\\••ai o°o La)a C°) — s l`/ ^ \ //�\�\ \ \ \ \ r �--� .. ; o IIIIIIIII \ . �. � 1 �A ♦01 • \ 3 STANDARD \ AGG. \ \\ ♦♦i� a♦� as oo \ — SPACES NN \ PILE \ ♦♦\\\ ♦♦,, ♦♦ �� oo T \ EC o B ADA ACCESS 19' (TYP) I ♦♦i\;\\ `)� `'\�.\,°oo c 1 I 40 STANDARD Q \ AISLE \ ♦♦�♦\\ ♦i��a♦ `.♦� °o,/\ ��) SPACES -I w ¢ \ Q Q n • \\ 4�., g • : = aO \ \ \ I N J 00 e V A ILuw ACCESSIBLE VAN STANDARD I • ♦%� V .♦��♦♦ vV \ V A AGG- Z J PARKING ACCESSIBLE PARKING ♦ pA\ �*4 , \ \ _ = W et o SPACE PARKING SPACE SPACE \ �;'\ C♦;'� ` \ \ PILE u) et ,w v 'I v I I ) \ - - Q 0 O • ♦♦ '�iO A V I / PARKING SPACE DETAIL ♦ v ` ----- - �"- y v T \ NOT TO SCALE I I ci) ♦♦. \\\♦♦♦♦ \ N. - \ \ , • s\\ ♦♦ ' \ \ FINISH FINISH \RAP \ \ ♦ �p� ♦ ♦'+♦�c;• \\ C I RECYCLED RECYCLED RUBBLEI � \ \ \ o� •�� \ :•;. � ,, . \. .� CONCRETE I RAP \ \ Project No.: 133-24097-15002 a CA A Designed By: _cwo Drawn By: i- d Checked By: 8°2- d `r' © 0 50' 100' 200' t 3 , rn NBL° T SCALE: 1 " = 100' U Sheet _ - - - - - Bar Measures 1 inch 1 2 3 I 4 5 I 6 7 I is USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - USR15 - 0027 = E N HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT V FE t FE Ti O M a. O co co FOR : MARTIN MARIETTA 3 ~' " X w E Li_ F A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 18 , TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH , RANGE co 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P . M . , COUNTY OF WELD , STATE OF COLORADO F J N (6433 CR 56 & 27486 CR 13 ) LY O M co O WELD COUNTY' S RIGHT TO FARM : SOILS MAP : LIGHTING PLAN NOTES : El, C o WELD COUNTY IS ONE OF THE MOST PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES, TYPICALLY I 79 LIGHTING PLAN RANKING IN THE TOP TEN COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY IN TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELD COUNTY CODE, ALL SOURCES OF LIGHT SHALL BE SOLD. THE RURAL AREAS OF WELD COUNTY MAY BE OPEN AND SPACIOUS, BUT THEY ARE INTENSIVELY USED - - SHIELDED SO THAT LIGHT RAYS WILL NOT SHINE DIRECTLY ONTO ADJACENT FOR AGRICULTURE. PERSONS MOVING INTO A RURAL AREA MUST RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT THERE ARE PROPERTIES WHERE SUCH WOULD CAUSE A NUISANCE OR INTERFERE WITH THE USE DRAWBACKS, INCLUDING CONFLICTS WITH LONG-STANDING AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND A LOWER LEVEL OF 16 ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. NEITHER THE DIRECT, NOR REFLECTED, LIGHT FROM SERVICES THAN IN TOWN . ALONG WITH THE DRAWBACKS COME THE INCENTIVES WHICH ATTRACT URBAN 82 ANY LIGHT SOURCE WILL CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD TO OPERATORS OF MOTOR DWELLERS TO RELOCATE TO RURAL AREAS: OPEN VIEWS, SPACIOUSNESS, WILDLIFE, LACK OF CITY NOISE AND PROJECT 80 VEHICLES ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREETS. NO COLORED LIGHTS WILL BE USED CONGESTION , AND THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE AND WAY OF LIFE. WITHOUT NEIGHBORING FARMS, THOSE SITE WHICH MAY BE CONFUSED WITH, OR CONSTRUED AS, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. FEATURES WHICH ATTRACT URBAN DWELLERS TO RURAL WELD COUNTY WOULD QUICKLY BE GONE FOREVER. I THE FACILITY WILL UTILIZE TWO SEPARATE LIGHTING SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL E AGRICULTURAL USERS OF THE LAND SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO CHANGE THEIR LONG-ESTABLISHED LIGHTING AND SECURITY LIGHTING AS DESCRIBED BELOW. AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES TO ACCOMMODATE THE INTRUSIONS OF URBAN USERS INTO A RURAL AREA. WELL-RUN 1 . SECURITY LIGHTING WILL USED AFTER SUNDOWN . AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WILL GENERATE OFF-SITE IMPACTS, INCLUDING NOISE FROM TRACTORS AND EQUIPMENT; 78 A. METAL HALIDE WALL PACK LIGHTING WILL BE USED AROUND ALL BUILDINGS AND SLOW-MOVING FARM VEHICLES ON RURAL ROADS; DUST FROM ANIMAL PENS, FIELD WORK, HARVEST AND GRAVEL 4 CRITICAL AREAS (ENTRANCES/EXITS, FUEL STORAGE ETC.). ROADS; ODOR FROM ANIMAL CONFINEMENT, SILAGE AND MANURE; SMOKE FROM DITCH BURNING; FLIES AND MOSQUITOES; HUNTING AND TRAPPING ACTIVITIES; SHOOTING SPORTS, LEGAL HAZING OF NUISANCE WILDLIFE; AND B. LED POLE MOUNTED LIGHTS, UP TO 25-FEET TALL WILL BE USED IN EQUIPMENT THE USE OF PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS IN THE FIELDS, INCLUDING THE USE OF AERIAL SPRAYING. IT IS COMMON - 4 _ _ 85 _ _ PARKING AREAS. PRACTICE FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS TO UTILIZE AN ACCUMULATION OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY ANDI C. SECURITY LIGHTING WILL BE CONTROLLED BY A COMBINATION OF MOTION SUPPLIES TO ASSIST IN THEIR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. A CONCENTRATION OF MISCELLANEOUS AGRICULTURAL SENSORS AND PHOTO CELLS IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH IECC MATERIALS OFTEN PRODUCES A VISUAL DISPARITY BETWEEN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS OF THE COUNTY. SECTION STANDARDS. 35-3.5-102, C. R.S. , PROVIDES THAT AN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION SHALL NOT BE FOUND TO BE A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE NUISANCE IF THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ALLEGED TO BE A NUISANCE EMPLOYS METHODS OR PRACTICES THAT SOILS LEGEND : 2. OPERATIONAL LIGHTING WILL BE USED WHEN OPERATING AFTER SUNDOWN . ARE COMMONLY OR REASONABLY ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION . A. LED POLE MOUNTED FIXTURES, UP TO 25-FEET TALL WILL BE USED IN THE WORK © AREAS. WATER HAS BEEN, AND CONTINUES TO BE, THE LIFELINE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY. IT IS UNREALISTIC TO 4 AQUOLLS & AQUEPTS, FLOODED B. OPERATIONAL LIGHTING WILL BE CONTROLLED ON ITS OWN CONTROL CIRCUIT ASSUME THAT DITCHES AND RESERVOIRS MAY SIMPLY BE MOVED "OUT OF THE WAY" OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 16 COLBY LOAM, 3 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES o soa aoo• SO THAT IT IS TURNED ON ONLY WHEN OPERATING AFTER SUNDOWN. 42 NUNN CLAY LOAM , 1 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES WHEN MOVING TO THE COUNTY, PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS MUST REALIZE THEY CANNOT TAKE WATER SCALE 1" = 1000 78 WELD LOAM, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES FROM IRRIGATION DITCHES, LAKES, OR OTHER STRUCTURES, UNLESS THEY HAVE AN ADJUDICATED RIGHT TO THE D WATER. 80 WELD LOAM, 3 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES 82 WILEY-COLBY COMPLEX, WELD COUNTY COVERS A LAND AREA OF APPROXIMATELY FOUR THOUSAND (4,000) SQUARE MILES IN SIZE (TWICE THE 1 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES SIZE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE) WITH MORE THAN THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED (3,700) MILES OF STATE AND 85 WATER COUNTY ROADS OUTSIDE OF MUNICIPALITIES. THE SHEER MAGNITUDE OF THE AREA TO BE SERVED STRETCHES AVAILABLE RESOURCES. LAW ENFORCEMENT IS BASED ON RESPONSES TO COMPLAINTS MORE THAN ON PATROLS OF THE COUNTY, AND THE DISTANCES WHICH MUST BE TRAVELED MAY DELAY ALL EMERGENCY RESPONSES, INCLUDING LAW ENFORCEMENT, AMBULANCE, AND FIRE. FIRE PROTECTION IS USUALLY PROVIDED BY VOLUNTEERS WHO MUST 9 LEAVE THEIR JOBS AND FAMILIES TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES. COUNTY GRAVEL ROADS, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN THEY ARE BLADED, WILL NOT PROVIDE THE SAME KIND OF SURFACE EXPECTED FROM A PAVED ROAD. SNOW REMOVAL } PRIORITIES MEAN THAT ROADS FROM SUBDIVISIONS TO ARTERIALS MAY NOT BE CLEARED FOR SEVERAL DAYS AFTER A I I m MAJOR SNOWSTORM . SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS, IN MANY CASES, WILL NOT BE EQUIVALENT TO MUNICIPAL SERVICES. I I I RURAL DWELLERS MUST, BY NECESSITY, BE MORE SELF-SUFFICIENT THAN URBAN DWELLERS. -1 - -. PEOPLE ARE EXPOSED TO DIFFERENT HAZARDS IN THE COUNTY THAN IN AN URBAN OR SUBURBAN SETTING. FARM I RE- RE- I EQUIPMENT AND OIL FIELD EQUIPMENT, PONDS AND IRRIGATION DITCHES, ELECTRICAL POWER FOR PUMPS AND CYCLE CYCLE CENTER PIVOT OPERATIONS, HIGH SPEED TRAFFIC, SAND BURS, PUNCTURE VINES, TERRITORIAL FARM DOGS AND I LIVESTOCK, AND OPEN BURNING PRESENT REAL THREATS. CONTROLLING CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES IS IMPORTANT, NOT I BIN BIN I ONLY FOR THEIR SAFETY, BUT ALSO FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE FARMER'S LIVELIHOOD. K J K J i C 1 ' 2 I I 20'-0" (MAX) I _ i, z o_ - I- o_ 2 �I i 0 w I w a u; I / / / / / / / C Lil I H N co D DUMPSTER o CC / / / / / /z Ce Q N I O METAL SIGN WITH 4' v STAINLESS STEEL REDHEAD o ANCHOR BOLTS TO ATTACHvi / / / / SIGN TO PRE-CAST H B CONCRETE BASE in 0 ct 1//� Martin GROUND I- I- = VCI"ICttc w w O J_ PRECAST v ° • • / `// • Q ct)} a Oi Q H CONCRETELo w BASE HIGHWAY 34 �' . ° \\/ • ° z O I DEVELOPMENT / A l _ > W ° 22'(1 132676 \ / A 4, 4, Ct WW co 0 Q A • A • - Q U METAL POSTS 3' A o INTO GROUND N • ° A • • NOTES : BACKFILL AND N \//\�\��\� \ \� / �� \7/ > �\ \�/\ • ° A COMPACT HOLE A 1 . ALL ENCLOSURES SHALL BE LEVEL WITH THE PARKING AREA. M I I I 2. ENCLOSURES SHALL CONSTRUCTED OF A SOLID MATERIAL TO PROVIDE SCREENING AND WILL BE BE FROM 5' TO 6' IN HEIGHT FROM PAD TO TOP. o A • o ° A. — A Project No.: 133-24097-15002 N A 3. ENCLOSURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON A 4" THICK (MIN) CONCRETE PAD. o_ I I Designed By: FJM U 2 11 4. PAD SHALL BE SLIGHTLY SLOPED TO ENSURE DRAINAGE. Drawn By: RWP a) a 5. THE BOTTOM OF THE GATE SHALL BE 1 ' 6" ABOVE THE PAD. Checked By: PFH iii \\ ( 1 PROJECT ID SIGN DETAIL PERIMETER BARBED WIRE FENCE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE o / SCALE: NTS NOT TO SCALE 4 n NLID NOT TO SCALE r _ - - - - - Bar Measures 1 inch 1 2 I 3 I 4 5 I 6 7 ti IS USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW — USRI5 0027 i E wog HIGHWAY 34 DEVELOPMENT W m co -8 ism 8 co FOR : MARTIN MARIETTA g 3 oLL F A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 18 , TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH , RANGE co 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P . M . , COUNTY OF WELD , STATE OF COLORADO O 01 J (6433 CR 56 & 27486 CR 13 ) LEGEND : W O r co O M STOP SIGN AND SIGN DIRECTING o W 1 /4 0 TRUCKS TO TURN RIGHT EXCEPT EXISTING FUEL STORAGE TANK -x-x•-x•-x- PROPOSED BARBED WIRE FENCE r SECTION 18, T5N , FOR LOCAL DELIVERIES OWNER: ACCESS o R67, 6TH P.M. CHARLES ROAD .., , i4 COR. , SECTION 18, T5N, USR BOUNDARY Cil PATRICK MORRIS READY MIX TRUCK R67W, 6TH P. M. PROPOSED DRAINAGE SWALE FUTURE AUXILIARY LANE FND #6 REBAR W/2.5" ALUM. CAP IMPROVEMENTS TO WCR 13 ARE PROJECT ID SIGN COVERED PARKING NOT REFLECTED ON THIS PLAT; EXISTING MODULAR (EXISTING STRUCTURE) FND #4 REBAR OWNER: - - - - SECTION LINE THEY ARE UNDER DESIGN W/CAP LS 80462 WELD 34, LLC CONCRETE REORGANIZED FARMERS OFFICE BUILDING ` PROPOSED RAILROAD TRACK SECONDARY / IRRIGATION EXISTING EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL DITCH COMPANY SEE ENTRANCE DETAIL / STRUCTURE SWING GATE ACCESS ON1.�' cI ipcm , Ti -,ni I REC. NO. 2814989 BELOW, AT RIGHT ��—� PROPOSED PAVEMENT „m � mow_ E '~ QOO9� ®\®�®®®® ® �® �k QO GRASS 40 FUTURE RC �� = \ O ` + +\ 8 PROPOSED GRAVEL ROAD \ _., 'I s,%.a°.. o°.°ooa ve�8°na eoa eovee°nee° °nee°noa•n o°a•un e4.n°o / 8 / y 15' FUTURE I XI GATE \\ 11111111111111111111111111 / j O O ` O UTILITY EASEM [ • •� \ oninC' E OVER ' O GRASS BERM \ \ a \ O OWNER: PROPOSED AREA GRAVEL ' • ,� 08111L111 \ ACKS / ` ' \\ • k\ O DIANE S REID � ' . .2,,,,_ .: ,� z1 ��7 \ SECONDARY \ ® /4/ / + -1-„.• O PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE EMERGENCY °_ ` CC _ f / TRUCI• \ 0 ` ® . Oill ::::BREEN TREE ACCSONLY O +% \ / iOFFICE BUILDING \\ % FUELSTNL ® / / <, �♦ Fp + ' TRUCK SCALES .°° ��i�, EXISTING C 1 / �� !�� t SEPTIC FIELD ® p � ' O �'a♦'��` EXISTING SHOP - e,p�: FUTURE EXPANSION ' �\n0 j � ONVEYOR ya a . \ D FOR QC LAB EXISTING III ��•�� '�♦ � U TRUCK WASH • °°�� i � i � `ONEX °'': LANDSCAPE NOTES : ©Q TRAILER, I ASPHALT SEPTIC �!♦` 0TRAILER I READY MIX STATION FIELD TRACK EXISTING 60' ROW SEPTIC - R/ !� � 1 ) LOCATION OF ALL TREES AND SHRUBS ON THE PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. FIELD - _ - / it ir AGGREGATE PER BOOK 86, PAGE 273 r ' _ I - / f EQUIPMENT °♦�� ♦ I • ° ♦" \ 2) DRIP IRRIGATION TO BE INSTALLED FOR ALL TREES AND SHRUBS. SCALE PORTABLE L I STORAGE AREA ♦i�..� OWNER: ` L� CONVEYOR e \,I I 3) WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BE PUT IN PLACE BY OWNER. } CHRISTOPHER C & i1 _ SINCLAIR GAS LINES` ' m MARSANNE HOWARD I * TO BE LOWERED 'e\�` I ¢ 4) REVEGETATE ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO DRYLAND GRASS PER SEED MIX. ASPHALT CEMENT \; CONVEYOR a`f STORAGE I �IL� • I� o OWNER: 04. . _ �� 00 CHERYL FRIED AGGREGATE BINS \ o 0 • • .: . 50' GAS R.O.W 0 0 GRASS SEED MIX FOR BERMS CONEX \ '''•-•%., ' , ' %' (REC.EASEMENT ` TARPING ARFA NO. 3457112) AND DISTURBED GROUND TRAILERS Fyl - �'/ /� ' , o¢ PLANT LIST Z x 1 R-E&OED HR4 . / t) . W ASPHALT PLANT . COMMON BOTANICAL MATURE PLANT o_ co- LOW GROW SEED MIX (ARKANSAS VALLEY SEED MIX INC.*) (UP TO 100 TALL) \/ N� a QUANTITY Y ic, * - RAILCAR 0/ / NAME NAME SIZE SIZEco co 30% EPHRAIM CRESTED WHEATGRASS O L � - •• w D 4,' TX � UNLOADING ;�•, p 25% SHEEP FESCUE y :s . -0 ♦ / PLAINS POPULOUS } O BLE - III �) CONVEYORS TO e°y ' 50' 2" CALIBER 40 ct o iT •i °♦., , ! '• yl AGGREGATE PILES ;e' / COTTONWOOD SARGENTI w p 20% PERENNIAL RYE iC ♦♦♦ �'` �` � ' �i• °/♦♦ I- Z - 15% CHEWINGS FESCUE p % ♦�. :: -- I' • , ¢ ¢ OWNER: 9�! ♦♦i %c ` ��--- �E'ar� ' „♦�< / p • WASH •, AUSTRIAN PILAUS HIGRA 50' 6-8' B&B 45 10% CANADA BLUEGRASS �O ♦♦♦ ♦,•�`' —: ---- '1 PLANT o�♦� ' PINE O WELD LV, LLC y ♦♦� .,. ROCKY MTN. JUNIPERIS Y ♦'♦�°., ' 25' - 35' 6-8' B&B 45 ct 0 SEEDING NOTES : ' ; ;' JUNIPER SOPULORUM ¢ PORTABLE RECYCLE ♦ ♦`. >;�♦.� 2 ¢ THIS SEED MIX GROWS 8-12 INCHES TALL WITH AVERAGE RAINFALL. REQUIRES PLANT EQUIPMENT ♦♦♦i '♦`i`c �� N • : UILI " E ' / = G!�J ROCKY MTN. JUNIPERIS , ♦ ♦ e + 25 - 35 5 Gal . 22 o_ LITTLE TO NO MAINTENANCE AND IS GOOD FOR SOIL STABILIZATION . THIS MIX IS CONEX ♦i . Vii: �� • ETENTI • N ' • N • ;#' / GO JUNIPER SOPULORUM a SUITABLE FOR AREAS WHERE MOWING IS DIFFICULT OR NOT DESIRABLE. TRAILERS ♦♦♦♦ ��♦;��: . , �� 3.3 • ` C ' ES CONEX %��2�♦♦ . ef •.♦♦♦ •� ,��•`` ��_��_� •_—• TRAI - �� ENTRANCE DETAIL : 0 NEW SEEDING: ♦♦i -F •��'8i .• - • •. •. •.a. ° -ii'4r�� / © € 1CJ B DRYLAND: 10-15 LBS/ACRE ♦♦♦♦♦ a k !uiGGiGi�iuGiiiGiGGGGGiiiiGGGiou. ur�P�'r�/ if Ln ct OVERSEEDING ♦♦ \' ® •Dfec 0 4- �i" X/ EXISTING VEGETATIIO�N (TYP) I i- N CL DRYLAND: 10-15 LBS/ACRE ♦♦i♦ ® KOENIG RESERVOIR � '4` * 4 'R '* w z O cii w p♦ x x� EXISTING BUILDING ( E w0 W I OBTAIN A SOIL TEST FOR AN AVERAGE OF SOIL SAMPLES TAKEN FROM SEVERAL ♦i♦♦ k TO BE REMOVED Q } a i H LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE SITE. ♦♦♦ -I In Q ♦ SHORT BLOCK WALL = J x ♦♦i♦♦ + WHITE SPLIT RAIL FENCE Z _ U o BROADCAST BIOSOL NATURAL ORGANIC FERTILIZER AT A RATE OF 1500-1800 POUNDS •♦♦ OWNER: Et W ¢ PER ACRE, UNLESS THE SOIL SAMPLE INDICATES A MORE SUITABLE RATE. APPLY AT ♦ SIGN Q p ' O N THE TIME THE SEED IS DRILLED. �!♦♦ ° + WILBUR J BOEGLI xx / \ _ 2 Z o EXISTING _ — 1 IUD - in OUT-BUILDINGS S / * - ' r DRILL SEED AT THE RATE OF 15-20 LBS. (PLS = PURE LIVE SEED) PER ACRE. APPLY J I o TWO TONS OF CERTIFIED WEED FREE STRAW PER ACRE, CRIMPED AND TACKIFIED. — e BROADCAST SEED ON AREAS THAT ARE TOO STEEP OR TOO SMALL TO BE DRILLED WCR 56 1 - . co AT THE RATE PER MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS. IF SEED IS BROADCAST EXISTING I x I I 1 HYDROMULCH WITH A SLURRY OF WOOD FIBER AND TACKIFIER AT A RATE PER EXISTING 60' ROW HOUSE it: MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION . PER BOOK 86, PAGE 273 EXISTING VEGETATION (TYP) o ` Project No.: 133-24097-15002 N A \ x WHITE SPLIT RAIL FENCE Designed B BB o_ SEED MAY BE SPRING OR FALL DRILLED BETWEEN THE APPROXIMATE DATES OF N ) MARCH 15TH TO MAY 15TH, OR AUGUST 15TH AND NOVEMBER 15TH . J ir — Y = Drawn By: JJA QS aA r\ Checked B PFH �_° N MANAGE WEED GROWTH BY MOWING OR APPLICATION OF A BROADLEAF WEED Y' HERBICIDE UNTIL A SUITABLE STAND OF GRASS IS ESTABLISHED (APPROXIMATELY 2 "'O v0 /0 O O OO L 1 I- YEARS). 0 100' 200' 400' O I a O � -Crn, vOO- O �asaaa-� 5 LO Q 0" *FORMULATIONS AND VARIETIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. . O„ O„O„O�O„O„O„O_O„O„O„O„O�O - O„ SCALE: 1 " = 200' 0 Sheet Bar Measures 1 inch VISUAL ANALYSIS MODEL PHOTOS Highway 34 Development Martin Marietta hired Chase Mullen, Director of Digital Design, with MIG, Inc. to develop a visual analysis model of the facility to help neighbors visualize what the proposed Highway 34 Development facility will look like. Some neighbors to the east of the facility were concerned about how the facility might impact their views to the West. Below is a legend followed by screenshots showing various views of the facility. In addition, we have provided a couple of aerial views of the facility. The model was generated using final topography for the site and architectural renderings of the facilities. For purposes of this application, we focused on the views looking from the east to the west. LEGEND - * - :- ' Lics..j 1 , - , .�--0 `41:4'5 4 - . -:-: _ i i, ,- , : 1 -i 4 i i-k.. . te,--Asi---.1 -1.., **, ' -1 4.4:3:,:, .; ' • • , :. Rtse„, ‘ _ h .� .Y i • �r r _ • .., w y‘. -4: -I.-_:.,, ... : i 'R/ 0 . - , f t \? el a ;Ik' Et Th, 1 I Al . . ' , II Nka. L1\\'‘ - -.XL_ 1 - . 1 -\L-SPLi..±N\c. :_ :'elk - - 21(16 - '7: ' - a I ik. ,, ..- . , , , , _ • . ..... _ __ , ',,-;_. -\ _ . , ,_ , ,,, Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 1 of 5 From Viewpoint "A" Looking Northwest F 1/2 1 . From Viewpoint "B" Looking Southwest 1. ellar Z - Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 2 of 5 From Viewpoint "C" Looking Southwest MIL jam rrisa From Viewpoint "D" Looking Southwest Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 3 of'S From Viewpoint "E" Looking West .� - ate, ••"� • - ,„iv es �. _ _ 11111Sa Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 4 of'S Aerial View from Southeast of the Site Looking Northwest - _ - - �,y=_ - _ — _ T C - ` -1 , Allarli I I i I I PCP........... ._.... - .::::77;;./C- 11. 4111WWPRIPPI. r \ Aerial View from Northeast of the Site Looking Southwest •-rte_ I 1. • a- ice. 4 . ate F'l1 7+f. gellr ++ \ t Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 5 of 5 COMPLIANCE WITH WELD COUNTY CODE SECTION 23-2-230, SUBSECTION B Highway 34 Development The Board of County Commissioners shall approve the request for the Special Review Permit only if it finds that the applicant has met the standards or conditions of this Subsection B and sections 23-2-240 and 23-2-250 of this Division. The application has the burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions of this Subsection B and Sections 23-2-240 and 23-2- 250 of this Division are met. Within this application package, Martin Marietta has demonstrated that the Highway 34 Development project will meet the standards and conditions of Section 23-2-240 (Design Standards) and Section 23-2-250 (Operation Standards). In addition, Martin Marietta has demonstrated that their proposed project will meet each of the standards and conditions of Section 23-2-230, Subsection B as described below. 1. The proposal is consistent with in Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect. A detailed explanation of how the project responds to each related Goal and Policy in Chapter 22 of the Comprehensive Plan is provided in the Questionnaire, included in the USR application package. 2. That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the USE is located. The proposed project is within the Agricultural zoning district. The Agricultural Zone District allows for Gerrard's construction business as well as Martin Marietta's proposed mineral resource development facilities including materials processing, asphalt and concrete batch plants and transloading as uses by special review. Martin Marietta is applying for a Use by Special Review Permit as outlined in Article 11, Division 4 of the Weld County Code. 3. That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surround land USES. The western portion of the facility is currently operating in accordance with an approved USR (USR-1584)by Gerrard as a construction business, shop, and office. Gerrard will continue to compatibly operate on this site for up to a year after approval of Martin Marietta's proposed facility. Martin Marietta is seeking to permit the property to allow for the operation of a transloading facility to unload aggregate materials from the Union Pacific Railroad line, an aggregate wash facility, a recycled materials processing facility, an asphalt plant, asphalt cement storage, and a ready mix concrete plant. Much of the surrounding area is in the Agricultural zone and is planned for more intensive uses due to the proximity of Highway 34 and the two railroad lines that cross through the area (Union Pacific Railroad and Great Western Railroad). A residential Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 1 of 7 neighborhood, lndianhead Estates Subdivision, is located to the northeast of the proposed project site and there are some individual homes in the vicinity of the project. Martin Marietta seeks to be a good neighbor in this area and so very early on in the process of developing a plan for the project, Martin Marietta held an Open House for neighbors to attend on January 27, 2015. Consistent with County notification requirements, all neighbors within 500' were notified of the meeting, but the meeting was open to the general public. Well over 100 people attended this Open House meeting. Attendees lived both within the immediate area as well as in Loveland, Johnstown, Fort Collins, Eaton, and Boulder. At the meeting, information about Martin Marietta's concept for the project was available and representatives from Martin Marietta and Tetra Tech were available to answer questions and hear attendees' concerns. We also provided comment cards and an email address for attendees to use to provide their feedback. Martin Marietta kept records of all who attended the meeting and all of the comments received to date so that we would not overlook any significant concerns raised by neighbors. A copy of all of this documentation is a separate report titled "Neighborhood Meeting, January 2015" in our application package. Based on the feedback that we received, below is a summary of the primary issues of concern that we heard from the public: • Why did Martin Marietta select this site and not some other site far away from where people live • Impacts on views to the west • Noise • Air pollution • Odor from the asphalt plant • Health risks associated with the asphalt plant • Impacts on wildlife in the area • The project will only be to the economic benefit of Martin Marietta • Property values will be negatively impacted • Traffic generation • The safety practices of Martin Marietta Therefore, Martin Marietta took it upon themselves to address each of these land use compatibility related issues in this application in order to do their best to make sure they would operate in a manner that would allow them to be good neighbors. Below is an explanation of how Martin Marietta has responded to the neighbors' concerns: • A Site Selection Report was prepared to explain why Martin Marietta decided to propose the project on this particular piece of property. This report is included in the application. • A consultant was hired to prepare a Sound Analysis Report to analyze the noise that is anticipated to be generated by the facility. The Report demonstrated that the facility would operate in compliance with both Weld County's and the State's noise regulations even with no noise mitigation. However, in an effort to be a good and compatible neighbor, Martin Marietta will be implementing noise mitigation techniques through the installation of landscaped earthen berms on the site so that they operate in a manner that is quieter than the allowed standards. In addition, Martin Marietta will be using white Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 2 of 7 noise back-up alarms, a below-grade hopper, and acoustical enclosures. A copy of the Sound Analysis Report is included in the application. • A consultant was hired to develop a computer generated Visual Analysis Model of the site. The interactive model is available for us to show any interested parties, but for purposes of this application, we have included snapshots from the model from points around the site looking toward the project to give people an idea of what will be seen. • As is required by the County, a Dust Mitigation Plan has been developed for the project and is included in the application. In addition, APEN permits must be obtained from the State for the facility. Information regarding the APEN permitting requirements is provided in the application. • An Air Emissions Assessment for the Asphalt Plant, Ready Mix Plant, and Asphalt Recycling facilities was completed by Stewart Environmental Consultants. This assessment concluded that the air emissions for the proposed Highway 34 facilities are well below the EPA standards and the more restrictive California air quality standards. The assessment concludes that this facility will not negatively impact the surrounding environment or affect human health as it will meet all environmental standards. Refer to the Air Emissions Assessment in the Supplemental Documents. • Martin Marietta contacted Dr. Scott Phillips, a physician who is board certified in medical toxicology and internal medicine to provide information related to the health impacts of living near an asphalt plant. The findings are that the facility will not pose a health risk. More details can be found in the Answers to Asphalt Plant Health Questions document included in the application. • A Wildlife Desktop Review report was prepared by a biologist who looked at the site for the potential occurrence of wildlife species of interest. The site was cleared of having any significant species currently inhabiting the site. There were some species of migratory birds that were noted as having the potential to occur at the project site and so, as with any site, it was recommended that Martin Marietta initiate construction outside of the active nesting periods or have a biologist take a look at the site prior to construction to clear the site of having any of the migratory birds present. • Martin Marietta put together a document titled Community Benefits of Industry. It is true that Martin Marietta is a for-profit company and so they operate to make a profit; however, Martin Marietta's business is a key component to ensuring the economic health and wellbeing of all residents of northern Colorado. The Community Benefits of Industry report is included in the application package. • Real estate values are impacted by a variety of factors and so it is hard to determine the correlated impact that this proposed facility may have on neighboring residential properties. However, Martin Marietta recognizes this concern and they have proposed a plan that aims to mitigate impacts on the adjacent properties in order to minimize negative impacts on property values (including berms, open space buffers, acoustical enclosures, clustering the location of activities, etc.). In addition, as landowners, Gerrard and Weld LV are concerned about their property value. They have a desire to see that their land is put to its highest and best use and they see that this can best be done by taking advantage of the excellent rail and road access this property has to offer. • As is required by the County, a traffic study was prepared for the project that identifies the amount of traffic projected to be generated and the road improvements that will be Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 3 of 7 required at the site access to WCR 13 as a result of the project and at the WCR13 and US Highway 34 intersection as a result of the background traffic and project traffic. • The safety of Martin Marietta's employees as well as the surrounding communities is a core value at Martin Marietta and their company culture reflects their strong commitment to both safety and sustainability. Included in the application is a report titled Martin Marietta's Culture of Safety and Commitment to Sustainability which provides more information on this topic. • Some neighbors expressed a concern that their organic gardens and farms would be destroyed by the facility. Martin Marietta investigated the USDA's National Organic Program Standards. Information that was found is included in the application package. However, to summarize the findings, according to the USDA website, "the organic standards describe the specific requirements that must be verified by a USDA-accredited certifying agent before products can be labeled USDA organic. Overall, organic operations must demonstrate that they are protecting natural resources, conserving biodiversity, and using only approved substances." When it comes to organic crops, "the USDA organic seal verifies that irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, prohibited pesticides, and genetically modified organisms were not used." Martin Marietta's operation will have no impact on these factors. 4. That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the future DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone and with future DEVELOPMENT as projected by Chapter 22 of this Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities. As stated in section 2, above, the proposed project is within the Agricultural Zone District, which allows for Gerrard's construction business as well as Martin Marietta's proposed mineral resource development facilities including materials processing, asphalt and concrete batch plants, and transloading as uses by special review. Future land uses in and surrounding the proposed project area are referenced in several public planning documents and in the Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA) between the City of Greeley and the Town of Windsor. The proposed project area was carefully selected by Martin Marietta for their proposed facility because it meets many of the criteria necessary to support their facility, especially access to active railways, a county arterial road (WCR 13), and a State Highway (Highway 34). This proposed project area is also located in a region where a significant amount of economic development is taking place. According to the Census Bureau, it is one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the nation. As a result, there is a significant demand for construction materials (aggregate, concrete, and asphalt), all of which will be generated and provided by this proposed facility. For more information about Martin Marietta's site selection process,please see the "Site Analysis Report"included in the application. The proposed site is compatible with the level of development anticipated for this area according to the Comprehensive Plans for Greeley, Johnstown, and Windsor. Below is an explanation of what each Comprehensive Plan proposes for this area. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 4 of 7 Greeley The project area is within the"Greeley Annexation Area" per the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Greeley and the Town of Windsor. The IGA delineates a Strategic Employment Development Corridor (consistent with Greeley's Comprehensive Plan). According to this IGA, the project area is within the Secondary Corridor Area, which allows land uses that are: "...permitted within the annexing jurisdiction and may include residential, retail, restaurant, neighborhood commercial and other institutional uses as may be defined by the annexing jurisdiction." The City of Greeley's 2060 Comprehensive Plan shows the project area just south of the US 34 Employment Corridor. The City of Greeley's Comprehensive Plan also states that heavy industrial and manufacturing uses should be located: "To take advantage of existing freight rail corridors, air transportation, and major arterial roads." Johnstown The project area is over a mile from the current city limits of the Town of Johnstown, but it is shown to fall within the Town of Johnstown's Growth Management Area, according to the Town of Johnstown 2006 Comprehensive Plan. Johnstown's Comprehensive Plan designates the project area as Large Lot Residential, although it is directly adjacent to Employment and Commercial Mixed Use Districts that they have planned for the Highway 34 corridor. In addition, due west of Martin Marietta's proposed facility and immediately west of WCR 13/LCR I, on land that is within Johnstown's Growth Management Area, is an existing rail unloading facility that is used to unload frac sand. Martin Marietta's proposed use of the rail will be compatible with this existing rail unloading operation in the area. Windsor While the project area does not fall within the planning area for Windsor, Windsor has annexed land northeast of the intersection of WCR 13 and Highway 34. According Windsor's Land Use Map, the land north of Highway 34 from WCR 13 all the way to WCR 17 is proposed as an employment corridor. In addition, Windsor recognizes that according to Windsor's Comprehensive Plan (3-7): "Siting requirements for industry should include parcel size, topography, access to rail and transportation and other infrastructure requirements." 5. That the application complies with Article V of this Chapter if the proposal is located within any Overlay District Area identified by maps officially adopted by the County. This project area is not within an Overlay District Area. 6. That if the USE is proposed to be located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve PRIME FARMLAND in the locational decision for the proposed use. The proposed project area was carefully selected by Martin Marietta for their proposed facility because of the proximity to existing transportation infrastructure (railways and highways) and because of the close proximity to the end user (business owner). Locating the proposed facility with this existing infrastructure closer to an urbanized area seeing substantial growth and with Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 5 of 7 clear plans to develop into a regional economic corridor allows for the preservation of contiguous larger areas of prime farmland in the more rural outlying areas of Weld County. 7. That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY. Protecting the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County is very important to Martin Marietta. This is demonstrated by the following: • Martin Marietta has selected this site for the facility due to its close proximity to development activity in the County, access to the railroad, and easy access to primary road corridors. Placing the facility in the area where the demand for construction materials is highest helps to minimize impacts on County roads and decrease the costs of the materials. Many businesses and industries depend on the products generated by Martin Marietta. It is important to have Martin Marietta operating within the community to ensure that there continues to be competition in the industry and to maintain the economic health and wellbeing of Weld County. • Martin Marietta is prepared to construct the road improvements that are required to adequately serve this facility in a safe manner. In addition, one of the reasons Martin Marietta specifically selected this site was its direct access to roads that are planned to handle the increased traffic levels. WCR 13 is proposed as an arterial through the County and CDOT has plans for intersection improvements where WCR 13 connects to Highway 34. In the near future, the intersection is planned to have a light and CDOT's long-term plan calls for an overpass at this intersection. • Martin Marietta will obtain the required air permits and operate in compliance with all applicable air quality standards set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. • In order to make sure the facility would be able to operate within the noise standards of Weld County and the State, Martin Marietta had a Sound Analysis Report prepared. The Report shows that the facility would comply with the County's and State's noise regulations which restricts the noise level for an industrial facility to 80 decibels at the property line. However, in the interests of being a good neighbor and improving compatibility between the industrial and residential use, Martin Marietta plans to use berms, white noise back-up alarms, a below-grade hopper, and acoustical enclosures to significantly decrease the noise impact on the neighbors. • The same berms that are planned at the facility for noise mitigation will also serve as a visual buffer into the site. Martin Marietta had a Visual Analysis prepared. The Visual Analysis is a computer generated model of the site that shows what people will see from neighboring properties and the surrounding rights-of-way. While the model is interactive and it can be navigated by the modeler in a live setting, within the application we have provided snapshots from around the site looking toward the project to give people an idea of what will be seen. • The idea of living near an asphalt plant scares many people as they have concerns that it will smell bad, impact their health, and damage their organic gardens and farms. Martin Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 6 of 7 Marietta will be using vertical tanks and condensers to control odor, they employ certified nasal rangers, and have purchased equipment needed to make sure they are in compliance with the County and State odor regulations. Martin Marietta also hired a medical doctor, Dr. Scott Phillips, who is board certified in medical toxicology and internal medicine, to address health concerns raised by neighbors. A copy of the report from Dr. Phillips is included in the application, but the conclusion is that the asphalt plant will not pose a health risk to employees or neighbors of the facility. When it comes to organic gardens and fauns, based on the USDA's organic farming requirements, this project will not impact the ability of organic gardens and farms to remain organic. • Safety is of utmost importance to Martin Marietta. This includes the safety of their employees as well as the safety of the people living in the communities where they operate. This commitment to safety is addressed in more detail within the document titled "Martin Marietta's Culture of Safety and Commitment to Sustainability" that is included in the application. Highway 34 Development Weld County Use by Special Review Application Page 7 of 7 COMPATIBILITY EXAMPLES Industrial Development co- existing with Residential Industrial and residential land uses co-exist in close proximity to each other in a number of locations throughout Colorado. Attached are some images showing examples where this is the case. Compatibility is not dependent on which land use comes first. Often times, residential uses come in after the industrial uses; this demonstrates that it is acceptable to have residential and industrial uses next to each other. In a way, it is better for the industrial use to come in after a residential use because then the industrial use is required to take extra steps to be more compatible. When the industrial site already exists, no additional steps need to be taken to improve compatibility. In the instance of the proposed Highway 34 Development project, both the railroad and highway existed before the residential uses. Highways and railroads are transportation systems that are needed to support both local and regional economic and industrial development. Firestone Boulevard, Longmont CO I I/ ' im . WI .. , , , a 1 l 41 Mining a • ' ' Ready-Mix I .r- tot a _ \ _., . .- ' . ,.., • . •.,,,.... . • • . • • . • _ .. . , . . D.4 , . , . •, , , , . Aggregate ' 4 .. fI - .1 :I!i • .1.6 ► e • °"'4 ti . ' 13 Asphalt '�' . ` yet `�` ..r. . I • . t _ _ ` . • 24 fir-estop e-Blvd ..+-- I • - ' 1 i - - ii a rile � - 4--? 1 , . .r. _ ` air at II ' I �R: .,. 11 .. w t y•. �.r NI 1 % , t . _ratalltill' .. iii• i It I 1- J. Average Property Value : $70,000 - $325,000 590 Houses within a 3,000 feet radius of the site Ready-Mix, Aggregate Plant and Asphalt Plant near residences Note : Additio iai deveiopmeit is planned directly along the eastern boundary of the production area . 0 Street & County Road 27, Greeley CO its PL - .4. 04 aria es 4:A, --...„,,,,z,za:. IF , .., .. • , it MirInt, k 1/04, ,. , , .. . S , . mr_ ........_ .... ,. ..,,,,, I A* a 3 • I. *- 164 t 70 1 '1 ady-mix ,_ Ps .4 Aggregate I, . .., , ,,, . ` t to ' Aggregate I' l - a A . 3 116 : I " 4 l} i:4' Asphalt i .. ` Ready-Mix ►n, • L r, is, ' 1 Il R • o r 0 �, • '' <ateauRkd• t . T . •• 14 67...#0t-'..Lew . *-N r• _ t- • - - - _A Average Property Value : $450,000 - $ 1,000,000 24 Houses within a 3,000feet radius of the site Ready-Mix, Aggregate Plant and Asphalt Plant near residences. Route 7, Longmont CO i ag'ecoacri' Rd:N. ` lel 1 1'1 Re - • v-Mix - 0J � I � . } �` co � ' C ostagecoach-Rd=S. r ` t; C.: M in 0 __;) 1 -O of Il‘'" o � a) •0 )717-Ave ., las- i . » ' - Upper -i- ir-Ave ,. \it I G ove=Awe '� �•� : aliVy)• .. f 'v. ji t { . 4 C I I a irt: . 6110€[:4 -- ' -1.. _ i. , if 1 -_ .!... . : C Mining . 4i • l /, ; t. rill'I It-I . = ee - - ` fir. ' I 7 'ay • Aggregate - ' rill • ! IA 1 t 1 4 if TH - \ Ready-Mix - i I / / Googic ' � ot-- . 1 • . 4. .I•Q:25 ) i. .., , . ; , r , cs_., . . .. , e' • Average Property Value : $210,000 -$ 1,000,000 350 Houses within a 3000 feet radius of the site Ready-Mix, Aggregate Plant and Mining near residences Coachline Road, Castle Rock CO . ....0 alb C 4 )010744 0 itb"fteNit Ne S ♦ s t L ' I. . i • lip 4_ ,f�..•r r , . S; J �I. k , •-_. r _ - •— — 'Vol _ n s o erg�er�R�o .;,, L . i 14,.. .s� ' lfr. at Brick 8t ' ' •> > Manufa u '' "' 0t I ' 1r W . ♦ y ♦ TI et i I ti ,fir?�� e ., i r< a n icil?)' 4 '' lea - 9 A" "a ito es . lqf `.fr'/%!fir Ns ,p • _ • �■ A , r _- ..-vieg .e. .- .--C 41 •L'i ali ' IN es; , 9 .„, "la .1° ;0 CO - i , \IA 4r. . n I • r w lit = AS m, - k •a •" `� t 00 . ar" t ■ ", 4. 1 !�` -1* 1 • i ss = I'tat eb ' --. S ' - ' S00111W - - a . 1 Average Property Value : $380,000 125 homes within a 3,000 feet radius of the site Asphalt Plant, Ready-Mix Plant and Brick Manufacturer near residences Pecos Street, Denver CO .„ prii--.4.... •7, _ 7! 7 II tit-A, . i• - -7.--,*. le .-•-•• Precast �, Concrete =. ., _ " - ., ii . , . .. ? , . , . kik Asphalt 4 � . .. . .4 . , V 1110 /, t , it i ` i . M * .. „_ ill r - , ` ; Care �� Dr— .�. : �z �� =� i 1Kaft - .4.. __' ..ii ::: ,ili'l • • VV-55th-Ave - I � .. . - -- - ' io r y t(15it- r - I°M roo : ' w' .. . • rt .• 4' 54th-Ave ~ . ' t' ,A t .,- Y } ' I 11 i • I 1-YI , - „ _ � • j�`: . i li 'JJ ' c ."„ U�J-53rd-'Ave y _ + U • .i P :G 2® 1 • ' ry, II 6 d) r W-52nei�Pl I o Google �?. . "t, rk., U • Average Price Value : $220,000 150 Homes within a 3,000 feet radius of the plant Asphalt Plant, Rail Yard and Precast Concrete plant near residences Pecos Street, Denver CO Mid-Town Development - .a .en- le 4.. .`� . d ,, , m C-- - -----W 69th-Ave r .t 41 - � , A • � ':. ,�ZI t ,�''o WM68t Midtown ; r • i • ,� `� 0': 68th - �' �- ',Development . W 807th Ave- - — �_�` y VI IA 1 . --- , 1 : . 4 - 1 4t , I Asphalt d le r. , 41 a .' �� • ci• sa. a pi 1 it••i s ,,--_ . r''. 1 Asphalt 1 ;61 . �r r *A.4 . Goth Ave r r a a - it‘t ' m • .R - :� r ordon Lake ' * Li a , -. I Average Property Value : $450,000 150 Homes within a 3,000 feet radius of the plant ( 1,000 homes plus planned for development) 3 Asphalt plant near residences South 120th Street, Lafayette CO i ',•� _ it t .• ', Aillireele it - * caIib'u r 'St . - . ' > >z1-.4 aril . ., . fi .• al:4 'MG �o 0 : • ..., : . i ktf1• - . . 7401#-—a . 're - . 1 e el % • VY /IL , 014 . .cC ai • In .. A y p . `. • . . P � 1 off ; .•• 1 l ✓ t. 7 Pile._! . 7. 4, lit/ ' per IL:: - 7 CK C) G\ L '� A. - n n e Dr ii,Ap CT -rte F 4 � 4 a ' ris a • ab Ready-Mix r . e atm ..' Ready-Mix Se Overlook Dr- - . it_ . w . .,� I y * te , .,,,,, . . v.,. ---.- .....ri:!. . .T. _„,.. „-------' i - _ c. ip, . � - Asphalt • . . el Average Property Value : $250,000 - $500,000 200 plus Homes within a 3,000 feet radius of the plant Asphalt Plant and Two Ready-Mix Plant located near residences North Taft Hill Road , Fort Collins Colorado - - - t t -S - -- - i 4111r : kip y. k : Arras 'rill * • 4 pia- mss. y WEL * , i Ag• egate Mining ' ' litiTh.• - ` +-r I :- halt " 4' i4:14PW:s. Atit 4„Pati ILamialialln - ,1/4.row . ‘ --_, . ..,ter• . • et o Q) - - - ,, t S ML . ,, , ,i. . CO Zj / n? o67 D r' .. i `-� , , - .it- espir . . . . Average Property Value: $475,000 150 Homes within 3000 feet of site Asphalt Plant, Aggregate Plant and Mining near residences County Road 18, Loveland Colorado . hil=. , -;.,4 rfit. :4. ;ct .. s - __ IIIIIIa Mil 20 • _ -�� _ • 1 .41—) Amor ' 4rt v ci ar ' •, - Q ir i at + M �.S.E.4' h " . ; ' `� , aim P. eaco f'ic o I , ,f R .i � � , ,-r ,�e: _f ! _ • Electrical pas.r Vs F Sub- tatinn ,. , -41 �t 3 j F ?. sr Ale T#.}� ' A le � ` - 'mot• t �, S 54 , i • Y Jf stjeff I MIM -- :- IsPorWater • -, * ‘� r 0 ' M Ilt ' - Treatment Plant � •tio, • ; 1 _,. . . s I • � ' • 1A j ,r � ' _ . -firer, . _ II air Ca' ' - Aggregate. s;:,?IT `--1- (* 1 41 Thh-c4k---a( • Ready- ix �a i X 'stir" 8 I k i . A � Thi 1 ti...,... .. , Goosle earth rth , _ ,Average Property Value : $240,000 250 homes within a 3,000 feet radius of the stockyard Ready-Mix Plant, Aggregate Plant, Electrical Substation and Water Treatment Plant located near residences. Boyd Lake, Loveland Colorado 4 , AV . fa-am, A Slat . - AN;rint lillibt, /' Stockva I a 4� AM O � s ' it . Te - _ J• f - p y - .s CDC t d; •' 1 1 C. V4- 4 s� IO h ' - . Future Industrial Ti yS 1 r,�� I it 4 .r,...sil Average Property Value : $350,000 180 homes within a 3,000ft radius of the stockyard Stockyard, Airport and future Industrial Site located near residences. Martin David Hagerman variottc. Regional VP/GM —Aggregate District July 20, 2O15 Weld County Commissioners c/o Diana Aungst ( USR15-OO27) Weld County Planning 1555 N . 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Aungst: Please find enclosed Martin Marietta's responses to the Twenty Potential Questions to ask MMM at June 9 Public Meeting document we received from Mr. Kisker, President of CLR-34NA and the emails associated with the questions. Many of the questions required additional review by Martin Marietta that delayed the response to the group's questions. Sincerely, JAL 4L David Hagerman Rocky Mountain Division 10170 Church Ranch Way, Suite 201 , Westminster, CO 80021 t. (720) 245-6405 f. (303) 657-4414 m. (303) 648-1554 e. david.hagerman@martinmarietta.com www.martinmarietta.com From: CLR-34 NA [mailto:clr34na@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:18 AM To: James Sharn; David Hagerman Subject: Question list Mr. Sham, Mr. Hagerman, Attached is a list of questions about your proposed operation, some of which were asked on Tuesday, and some of which did not get addressed. This is a composite list from several members of the neighborhoods represented by CLR-34NA. (And, no, I did not write them all myself!) We would appreciate your complete responses as soon as possible, as well as the responses to the questions that I sent last week clarifying things that were said in the 6/2 meeting. In addition, we presume that the outcome of your Real Estate "analysis" is predetermined. Since the report is apparently delayed for several more weeks, we would like to know the specific methodology that your hired person is using for this. Some methods are more appropriate than others, and this would allow us to assess any potential value of this study. Dave Kisker President, CLR-34 Neighborhoods Assn. "Citizens Working for Responsible Development" Twenty Potential Questions to ask MMM at June 9 Public Meeting 1 . Your USR application, as submitted, is incompatible with the normal activities of a residential neighborhood. Specifically, what changes have you now made to the site plan that will allow me to continue my right of quiet enjoyment of my property? Martin Marietta has worked diligently to address concerns raised by surrounding neighbors and in doing so, modified the original project significantly between the January 27, 2015 open house and the USR submittal. These modifications are a direct result of concerns raised by surrounding neighbors. The following modifications were made to the project prior to submitting the USR application. • The secondary access was relocated from Weld County Road 56 to Weld County Road 13 isolating traffic entering or leaving the facility to Weld County Road 13. • Additional berming is proposed within the facility to create additional visual and noise barriers. • Modifications to the asphalt plant include acoustical enclosure around the burner for additional noise controls, installation of vertical liquid AC tanks to minimize concerns related to odor. • Train unloading was modified, originally the site would start with top unloading activities and transition within a two to four year period to bottom unloading. Train unloading will now begin with bottom unloading moving the unloading activities further away from the largest concentration of neighbors. • The plant will be painted neutral colors. • The submitted USR application has approximately 30 acres, which will remain agricultural or natural. This will act as a buffer between the industrial activities and the largest concentration of neighbors. Additional modifications made to the USR after the initial submittal include: • To further reduce concerns related to odor, carbon filters will be installed at the asphalt plant. This plant and Martin Marietta 's existing plant in Fort Collins will be the only plants with these additional controls in the State. • The rail loop was modified creating additional distance between rail activities and the largest concentration of neighbors, the distance was doubled from 372 feet to 736 feet. • Martin Marietta has proposed the creation of a Community Workgroup comprised of surrounding neighbor representatives, Martin Marietta officials and, hopefully, an independent member selected by Weld County. The group would meet to review any concerns, and performance relative to USR requirements. • Landscaping will be added to the project to create additional visual and noise buffers for surrounding neighbors. In addition, up to $100, 000 from Martin Marietta will be made available to surrounding neighbors through the Community Workgroup for the installation of additional landscaping to their own property. • Martin Marietta is working with CDOT and will pay for the installation of a light at the intersection of Weld County Road 13 and US 36. • A noise monitoring program will be established. The program will be monitored by Weld County and the information will be made available to the Community Workgroup. • A street sweeper will be stationed on the site to deal with any potential vehicle tracking issues. • The height of the operation lighting light poles was reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet, the same height as all of the security light poles. Martin Marietta strongly believes the project will be compatible with the surrounding neighbors and, through the additional modifications made to the project as a direct result of addressing neighbors ' concerns, we have further increased compatibility related to the project. Additionally, industrial sites and residential neighborhoods co-exist next to each other in Weld and Larimer counties and throughout Colorado. We have evaluated a number of similar sites and believe that with the mitigation techniques that we have proposed, the Highway 34 Development project will be compatible with residential neighborhoods. 2. I am a light sleeper and live near your proposed rail loop. However, I need fresh air at night. Are you willing to absolutely limit your hours of operation to allow me to continue sleeping in my home? Martin Marietta 's existing application is requesting to the ability to operate 24/7 to respond to special project requests from Weld County and other customers; however, most days the facility will only operate during daylight hours, Monday through Saturday. The plant will operate longer during the construction season and less during the winter, early morning and night work will generally only occur intermittently during the construction season. In response to comments heard from the community regarding the proposed hours of operation, Martin Marietta would like to provide the additional detail regarding our requested hours of operation. • Hours of Operation for Asphalt: o The plant will typically only operate Monday through Saturday. o The standard hours of plant operation will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. o Load out from storage silos will be limited to being between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. o When the plant is operating at night, it will only occur when material is requested by cities, counties or CDOT for night paving projects. Operations will be considered "night operations " when they take place between the hours of one hour after sundown to one hour before sunrise. Depending on the request of the jurisdiction purchasing the asphalt, night operations could occur seven days per week. o When Martin Marietta becomes aware of projects that require night operations, they will email the Weld County Planning Director to let him/her know about the plans to operate outside of daylight hours, who the project is for, how long it will be occurring, and where the materials are being delivered. • Hours of Operation for Ready Mix Concrete: o The Ready Mix Concrete Plant will only operate Monday through Saturday. o Actual operating hours of the Ready Mix Concrete Plant will vary depending on weather and business levels. The plant will generally not begin operating until daylight. Occasionally, it may need to operate earlier to accommodate daily business demands; however, in no instance will the plant ever operate before 3:00 am. o The plant will not operate more than 16 hours per day. o Ready-mix trucks will generally operate during plant operations, but may return to the plant after plant shutdown to be cleaned and parked. • Hours of Operation for Aggregate and Recycling: o Aggregate sales and recycling operations will only occur Monday through Saturday. o Aggregate washing and recycling operations will only occur during daylight hours (dawn to dusk or 6:30 am to 6:00 pm during the winter), actual operating hours will vary dependent on weather, and business levels. o Train unloading operations during the summer will only take place between the hours of 6:00 am and 8:00 pm, actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site. o Train unloading operations during the winter will only take place during daylight hours, actual hours will be dependent on the time the train arrives at the site. 3 . I often have friends over for barbeques and evening or weekend gatherings. We also enjoy watching the sunset over the mountains. I am concerned that your industrial operation will cause my patio to be unsafe and unenjoyable for my friends and family. How will crushing concrete, releasing asphalt cement odors, operating heavy equipment, bringing in rail cars, loading and unloading trucks and trains in my back yard happen without causing my family to suffer from the noise, dust, odors that come with industrial activities? Martin Marietta 's project will provide a safe environment in which people will be able to enjoy their property in the manner to which they are accustomed. Martin Marietta is planning a 12-acre buffer zone from the closest houses in Indianhead Estates Subdivision to the railroad loop; the site will have approximately 30 acres of total buffer space between Indianhead Estates and the largest concentration of activities on the site. The concrete and asphalt plants are planned to be more than 2, 000 feet away from the nearest Indianhead houses. As indicated in the description of the proposed hours of operation (see response to question 2), most days, activities at the facility will be wrapped up and the facility closed for the day in the early evening when most people are returning home from work. The asphalt plant that we are proposing will have more odor control measures in place than the asphalt plant of any other company in the State. Martin Marietta has strived to approach residential noise limits at the surrounding property owner 's homes and all operations will operate well within all applicable environmental regulations, which are designed to protect the health and safety of citizens and the environment. 4. You say that you operate near residential communities in dozens of locations. However, in most parts of the country, your facilities are surrounded by dense forests (in Raleigh, North Carolina, for example). Will you agree to plant a similar dense forest that surrounds your property with at least a 500 foot buffer zone so that we can have the same environment as those who live near your other plants? Martin Marietta has operations throughout the United States and utilizes existing vegetation in areas to create additional visual buffer. The current site is a farm field with no tree cover and planting a dense forest on this site does not make sense in this Colorado landscape. However, Martin Marietta is preparing a landscaping plan built on the input of surrounding neighbors, which will include clumps of deciduous and evergreen trees around the perimeter of the property and proposed screening berms will have vegetative cover. In addition, we have moved the rail realignment to increase the distance between rail activities from 372 feet to 736 feet from the largest concentration of neighbors. 5. Although your toxicologist has minimized the health significance of your admittedly toxic releases, the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association do not agree. In particular, your toxicologist didn't even address the tons of small, particulate dust that your operation will spew. Since most of the health damage may not be evident for years, are you willing to place at least $75Million in a Martin Marietta Victims Compensation Fund that would not require litigation to access? It is unclear which items in particular the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association are not in agreement with; however, all operations and the site will undergo an extensive air modeling process which will take into consideration PM10 and PM2.5 in developing the final permit for the operation. This process will be conducted by Trinity Consultants and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) will review the application before issuing a permit. CDPHE will only issue a permit for a facility once it determines that the facility is meeting all applicable ambient air quality standards. The,facility will operate well within applicable ambient air quality standards and will be routinely inspected by CPDHE; therefore, a fund as proposed is not required. In fact, modeling shows this state-of-the-art plant would meet California 's regulatory standards, the strictest in the county. 6. We understand that you will be upgrading the roads on the corner of Hwy 34 and County Line Road. Are you willing to limit all incoming and exiting truck traffic to only using that upgraded route? How will you regulate and control all of the employees and independent operators who may impact neighboring roads that are not upgraded should they deviate from that route? Martin Marietta will work with the county regarding required road improvements. In addition, Martin Marietta will post a sign directing all truck traffic to turn right from the facility unless it is a local delivery. Employees live throughout Weld and Larimer counties and each will take a respective appropriate route, just as any surrounding neighbor takes an appropriate route to travel to their place of employment. 7. Various migratory and other species of wildlife have been noted in the area, including bald eagles, great blue herons, foxes etc. If there are endangered species nesting within the two mile radius that will be impacted by odor, dust and truck traffic will you cease operation until the mating and nesting season is over? Similar to what agricultural operations do in Weld County, Martin Marietta will comply with the following regulations and any regulations that are appropriate to protect wildlife in the project: • Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The ESA is designed to ensure that actions a federal agency authorizes, funds, or carries out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. The law also prohibits any action that causes a "taking" of any listed species of endangered fish or wildlife. Likewise, import, export, interstate, and foreign commerce of listed species are all generally prohibited. • Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). The MBTA "makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. " "Take is defined in regulations as: 'pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. ' " • Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (BGEPA). The BGEPA "prohibits any form of possession or taking of both bald and golden eagles through criminal and civil sanctions as well as an enhanced penalty provision for subsequent offenses. Further, the BGEPA provides for the forfeiture of anything used to acquire eagles in violation of the statute. The statute excepts from its prohibitions on possession the use of eagles or eagle parts for exhibition, scientific, and Indian religious uses. " Take includes "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. " • Title 33 Parks and Wildlife - Wildlife: Articles 1 and 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. This statue contains a state list of endangered or threatened species. The statute makes it unlawful 'for any person to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship and for any common or contract carrier to knowingly transport or receive for shipment any species or subspecies of wildlife appearing on the list of wildlife indigenous to this state. " Take is defined as "means to acquire possession of wildlife; but such term shall not include the accidental wounding or killing of wildlife by a motor vehicle, vessel, or train. " 8. Are you aware that your operation will be impacting people with acute mental conditions or those receiving cancer treatments? Since the wind often travels east to west, the odors and dust will travel to the existing and new facility that will be opening soon. Adding a disturbing odor and pollutant to those already suffering may make it difficult for them to focus or sustain healing. Will you stop production if you receive complaints from local health facilities? Human studies have found no clinical evidence that asphalt plant production has contributed to illness or cancer. Studies by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have verified that emissions from asphalt facilities do not present an environmental or public health hazard. In northern Colorado, several medical facilities operate within the same distance as the proposed Highway 34 site, if not closer. Banner Health 's new hospital in Ft. Collins is located within close proximity to two asphalt plants, and an active aggregate operation. In Lafayette, a new medical complex was completed in similar distance to two ready-mix plants and an asphalt plant and a railroad. Additionally, in Colorado Springs, the new VA Clinic is immediately across the street from Martin Marietta 's asphalt plant. These facilities would not have been constructed close to these industrial activities if such activities presented risk to their patients or staff. 9. Obviously all of the residents, businesses and wildlife in the area are likely to be negatively impacted by your locating your industrial facility in our homes and back yards. Are you willing to compensate us for our losses of property values, health impacts or loss of quiet enjoyment? The real estate analysis completed by Michael Smith, MAI of Foster Valuation Company LLC, in which impacts to property values was studied, indicates no diminution in property values is expected. This is based on looking at similar residential developments adjacent to similar industrial activities compared to residential areas without these activities. Martin Marietta worked diligently to modify the USR application to address neighbors ' concerns and the facility will operate within applicable regulations that are designed to protect the community and the environment. 10. My son is susceptible to migraines. I was told by a previous owner of an asphalt plant that the emissions from asphalt cement can cause severe migraines or even death. By building your plant next to existing homes, you are subjecting my family and others to an unacceptable risk for the pollutants and odors from your materials. Are you willing to put in writing and make the continuation of your operation dependent upon not increasing or causing health issues? If statistical evidence implies that impacts to their health are caused by your facility, will you commit in writing to surrendering the USR and promptly closing the industrial facility and remediate the property? The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment will set emission limits for the Highway 34 facility to be protective of human health and environment. The amount or level of emissions permitted to be released at this plant will not pose a health risk to employees or neighbors. Martin Marietta worked diligently in modifying the USR to address neighbors ' concerns and the facility will operate within applicable regulations that are designed to protect the community and the environment. 11 . If your application is approved, it will begin a long nightmare for your neighbors. Will you post a Reclamation Bond, sufficient to return the land that you will use to greenspace, including the removal of all structures and contamination, including the rail loop so that can be sure that our nightmare will finally end someday? Martin Marietta is developing a long-term facility that has been designed to utilize the most current technology available; we have incorporated numerous modifications, as previously outlined, to address neighbors ' concerns; and the facility will operate within all applicable regulations designed to protect the community and the environment. Therefore, a reclamation bond will not be posted. 12. Despite your claims to the contrary, it is self-evident that Property Values will be negatively impacted as has been shown to be the case near other undesirable activities such as gravel pits and landfills, where the affected radius extends up to 5 miles or more. It's estimated that the negative impact of your operations will be at least 30% and as much as 50% for the nearest properties. Will you fund a Real Estate Compensation fund of at least $75 Million to compensate current residents who sell their homes in the next twenty years? Thousands of homes throughout northern Colorado have been constructed and sold in proximity to industrial uses including gravel mines, asphalt batch plants, concrete batch plants, railways, and other uses similar to the intensity to those planned from the Highway 34 project. A property value report prepared by Michael Smith, MAI of Foster Valuation Company LLC, using the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices, indicated that no diminution in property values as a result of this project are expected. Analysis of paired sales data revealed very similar sales prices per square foot for single-family homes located in and out of proximity to more intense industrial uses similar to those planned. Foster Value Company 's report concluded "it is unlikely that completion of the Martin Marietta Weld County 34 project as planned will result in the diminution in value with regard to future sales prices of single-family homes. " 13. Since Indian Head Estates site is significantly higher (as much as 100 feet) than your proposed industrial site, 10-20' berms will do little to screen your raised rail bed, your 100 foot tall asphalt plant and your 110 foot tall concrete plant. Would you be willing to limit the height of all of your structures to no more than 50 feet, as well as construct a heavily forested conservation easement as a buffer zone of at least 500 feet to offer a modest amount of screening to the surrounding neighborhoods? The current site is a farm field with no tree cover, however, Martin Marietta is having a landscape plan prepared that is built on the input of surrounding neighbors. It will include clumps of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs around the property and undulating berms on the east side where space permits. In addition, the rail realignment has now increased the distance between rail activities and the largest concentration of neighbors from 372 feet to 736 feet. Structure heights have been minimized. The tallest portion of the facility will be the ready-mix concrete plant 's silo at 110 feet; the next largest structure will be the asphalt plant 's load out silo at 100 feet. 14. Since it is documented that even low level of concrete dust cause obstructive pulmonary disease and you will be generating tons of this type of dust at your facility, you should be responsible for regular health examinations of all residents within a two mile radius similar to the monitoring that you do for your own employees. Are you willing to accept that cost and pay for any related medical expenses caused by your dust along with paying for the relocation of any impacted families in order for them to be in a safe neighborhood? All operations and the site will undergo an extensive air modeling process, which will take into consideration PM10 and PM2.5 in developing the final permit for the operation. This process will be conducted by Trinity Consultants with CDPHE reviewing and issuing a permit. CDPHE will only issue a permit for a facility once they are confident that the facility will meet all applicable ambient air quality standards. The facility will operate well within applicable ambient air quality standards and will be routinely inspected by CPDHE; therefore, a fund, as proposed, is not required. 15. You have stated that you are a "good neighbor" and that you go beyond regulatory requirements to minimize your impacts. However, the only current example of this is related to noise, where your consultant's calculations indicate that you may approach the residential noise limits if you were to actually implement all of the mentioned mitigations. If this were any other type of USR on Agriculturally zoned land, you would be subject to the loss of your USR permit if you violate the residential noise requirements of 55dB in the daytime and 50 dB at night. Are you willing to stand behind your consultant's calculations and make meeting the residential noise requirements at your property line a condition of your USR permit, thereby losing it if you are guilty of repeated violations? Would you agree to a limit of no more than 3 violations per month, or 10 in any four consecutive months at which time you would lose your permit? Weld County noise regulations Chapter 14, Article IX, Section 14-9-40 established the noise limits for industrial activities (80 dba during the day and 75 dba at night) and the limits are measured at the property line of the noise producer property. The noise study submitted to Weld County indicates that Martin Marietta 's Highway 34 project will perform well with the limits established by Weld County. Additionally the noise level at the closet surrounding residents will be very near residential limits. The model is based on the maximum noise producing activities all taking place at the same time. As discussed in response to the hours of operation question posed earlier, actual noise levels will likely be reduced throughout the majority of the year. Martin Marietta has volunteered to implement a noise-monitoring program that will have Weld County oversight. The standards applied will be consistent with the Weld County Code. 16. I am a surgeon and am routinely up all night in the Emergency Room dealing with an intestinal bleed, for example. To recover, I sleep during the day. How will you make sure that I'm not disturbed by the heavy industrial noise being continuously emitted by your facility? The facility is being designed with acoustical enclosures, berming, and vegetation to reduce the noise level at the closet surrounding residences. Depending on the location of your property, it is very likely that the noise level at your residence will be at or below residential limits (50 decibels). For example, 50 decibels (dB) is equivalent to a dishwasher running in the next room, normal speech from someone talking 3 feet away is 70 dB, and a gas lawnmower 3 feet away is 100 dB. 17. As the people who actually live in the area know, the currently proposed site has a high water table during the summer time, it can be within 2 feet of the surface. Are you willing to provide ongoing ground water monitoring and post a bond or set up a trust that would compensate all parties, including wildlife and downstream water users for any and all contamination? The safest way to minimize ground water and run-off impacts would be to line your entire site with a clay liner to contain all spills and other water quality risks. To demonstrate that you actually WILL BE a good neighbor, would you do that at the very beginning, instead of requiring litigation to make it happen? The Highway 34 project will have a. Stormwater Management Plan and a Spill Control and Counter Measure Plan approved by CPDHE. Best management practices and secondary containment will be utilized at the facility in the control of runoff and the storage of fuels and oils. These will be approved by the appropriate government agency. The facility will have no underground storage tanks. Martin Marietta evaluated the need for a groundwater monitoring well program as compared to similar facilities and does not believe a monitoring program is warranted. 18. Your application minimizes your impact on the organic farm across WCR 13 from your site. However, the dust that you will emit, as well as the toxic pollutants may accumulate in the soil and eventually be incorporated into the produce, not only at that organic farm but also in the neighbors' gardens, etc. The State of Oregon does not even allow the siting of asphalt plants within 2 miles of vineyards because of this issue. Would you be willing to fund a comprehensive soil monitoring program (at least quarterly, all heavy metals, organic pollutants such as metanapthalene, etc.) for all of the surrounding area to a radius of 2 miles to assure that none of your pollutants are accumulating in the soil, and to immediately shut down your operation without the need for litigation and compensate the victims if accumulation is found? The Highway 34 site is being designed to utilize the latest technology at the asphalt plant. The facility will operate well within applicable ambient air quality standards and will be routinely inspected by CPDHE. Martin Marietta had a review of organic farming standards completed and confirmed that the proposed operations would not affect organic farming. Part of the area is agriculture with ongoing heavy aerial spraying adjacent to the organic farm and neighborhood gardens with industrial activities located just to the west of the proposed site. Martin Marietta will not fund a soil-monitoring program that encompasses a two-mile radius with numerous industrial, commercial, and non-organic farming activities already in operation in the area. 19. The emissions from your operation are referred to as "criteria emissions" by the EPA, and are responsible for degradation in local and overall air quality as measured by the EPA's Air Quality Index. Despite your claims of the safety of your emissions, the EPA says that at an AQI higher than 50, health symptoms begin to occur in sensitive individuals, and that at an AQI of 101 , ". . .persons with heart and lung disease, older adults and children are at greater risk from the presence of particles in the air." Would you be willing to fund a comprehensive network of realtime AQI monitoring stations for the surrounding area to alert neighbors if the AQI rises above 75 so that they may stay indoors? If the monitoring network indicates that AQI exceeds 101 , would you agree to shut down your entire operation until the air quality improves? Air Quality Index is a regional measure impacted by many factors outside of Martin Marietta 's control that are not a result of Martin Marietta 's proposed operation. Martin Marietta will not fund a comprehensive network of real-time AQI monitoring stations, as AQI is for regional measuring. 20. Odor is often the most common complaint from neighbors near an asphalt plant, despite your assurances to the contrary. The CO standard for a violation is that the odor must still be noticeable with a 7X dilution. However, asphalt fumes that pass the 7X dilution requirement may still be quite strong, annoying and even sickening. Some jurisdictions set the limit for odors at a 2X or 4X dilution. Since you claim to want to be a "good neighbor", would you agree to a permit requirement that would exceed the CDPHE allowance and instead accept a 4X dilution as the limit? Would you agree to fines and penalties, including the loss of your USR if there were more than 5 documented violations in a year? Martin Marietta has evaluated the request to lower the dilution requirement to 2X or 4X dilution. However, we believe that the additional controls being incorporated into the plant to reduce odor concerns is sufficient. Therefore, will not reduce the dilution requirement 21 . One of the slides that you showed on Tuesday indicated substantially lower noise levels at night. What portion of your facility would be operating with this noise output level? Noise levels represented are related to asphalt plant-loading activities. As indicated in the hours of operation discussion, the majority of activities which include train unloading will occur during the day. 22. You have publicly stated that you will eventually be shipping 2 million tons of product out of this facility. Yet, the stated maximum annual capacities of your concrete and asphalt plants together only account for about 1 million tons of product, implying that the remaining product will be raw aggregate. How much raw aggregate will you be shipping to your Greeley and Ft. Collins facilities, both initially and at full production? How much will be shipped to concrete/asphalt facilities owned by others? Aggregate shipments of site will make up the remained of the product not utilized for onsite operations the exact volume of shipments as well as the split of sales between internal and third party will be dependent on market conditions. Hello