The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20153624.tiff \ 1861 / CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE: (970) 336-7215, EXT.4226 �/' ■� � FAX: (970) 336-7233 1150 O STREET P.O. BOX 758 NT Y GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 _cOUr � v STATE OF COLORADO) ss COUNTY OF WELD ) I, Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Weld, State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the attached Transcript of Public Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of August 12, 2015, regarding the application of Weld LV, LLC, and Gerrard Investments, LLC, do Martin Marietta, for Use by Special Review Permit, USR15-0027, is a true and correct copy of the original as filed in the Weld County Clerk to the Board's Office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County at Greeley, Colorado, this 5th day of November, 2015. ESL CLERK TO THE BOARD r 1$61 { kV IAI Com 2015-3624 ��- )LP a0/5 �L O73 Loo? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING IN RE: AN AMENDMENT TO A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT, USR15-0027 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS USR-1584) FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, ACCESSORY USE, OR 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 PART OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS TO INCLUDE A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY, INCLUDING ASPHALT AND CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS (MATERIALS PROCESSING) AND TRANSLOADING IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - WELD LV, LLC, AND GERRARD INVESTMENTS, LLC, C/O MARTIN MARIETTA The above-entitled matter came for public meeting before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners on August 12, 2015, at 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado, before Tisa Juanicorena, Deputy Clerk to the Board, and TRANSCRIBED by Esther Gesick, Clerk to the Board. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached transcript is a complete and accurate account of the above-mentioned portion of the public meeting. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board ccei APPEARANCES: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair Commissioner Mike Freeman, Pro-Tem Commissioner Sean P. Conway Commissioner Julie A. Cozad Commissioner Steve Moreno WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY OF RECORD: Bruce T. Barker ALSO PRESENT: Acting Clerk to the Board, Tisa Juanicorena Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick Planning Services Department representative, Diana Aungst Planning Services Engineer representative, Wayne Howard Public Works Department representative, Janet Lundquist Health Department representative, Lauren Light Health Department representative, Heather Barbare Health Department representative, Phil Brewer 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Ready? Are you guys ready-staff? Alright. Alright, we'll reconvene 4 as the Board of County Commissioners. Let the record reflect that all five County Commissioners are 5 present. I will pull up the Docket number and them I'm going to give instructions. So, I'll pull of Docket 6 #2015-73, An Amendment to Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, 7 USR15-0027. Bruce. 8 COUNTY ATTORNEY BARKER: This is Docket number 2015-73. The case number is 9 USR15-0027. The applicant is Weld LV, LLC, and Gerrard Investments, LLC, c/o Martin Marietta. The 10 request is an Amendment to Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, 11 USR15-0027 (formerly known as USR-1584) for any Use permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or 12 Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(construction business with two shop 13 buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or 14 recorded subdivision plat or part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling 15 subdivisions to include a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including asphalt and concrete batch 16 plants(materials processing) and transloading in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. Legal Description is Lot 17 B of Recorded Exemption#2803; being a part of the SW1/4 and SE1/4 and Tract being a part of the SW1/4, 18 all in Section 18,TS, R67. Location is east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 13, and approximately one 19 mile south of U.S. Highway 34. The notice for today's hearing was dated June 22, 2015, and published 2 0 June 26, 2015, in the Greeley Tribune. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, thank you Bruce. Ok, um, I'm just going to give a few 22 instructions here just to remind everyone that we are in a quasi-judicial land use hearing, and we ask that 23 you respect that. With that in mind, please make sure that all of your phones are kept off or shut in the 2 4 "off' position so that it doesn't disrupt the proceedings as we go through today. Um, also, please refrain 1 1 from any outbursts in the audience. I'm going to remind everyone, whether you were here for the public 2 hearing, whether you're the applicant or a representative of the applicant, whether you're staff or 3 whether you're a County Commissioner- please speak into the microphones and speak clearly and speak 4 up, because we do have an overflow audience in the Events Center and we do have a full house, so it's 5 important that everybody has the opportunity to be able to hear what's going on. So, remember to please 6 speak up. Also,the way the schedule is going to run today is,we're going to start with our staff comments 7 as normal. So, staff will have an opportunity to make comments; we'll have up to an hour allowed for 8 staff comments. So all of you will need to get your comments done within an hour. Then we'll have the 9 applicant and their representatives to make their presentation, and they will have an hour to make their 10 presentation to the Board. So, since we'll be starting here, basically by 9:30, that means staff gets from 11 9:30 to 10:30. The applicant has from 10:30 to 11:30, and if time allows we will start, then, with the 12 opposition who we have allowed a group who is with the opposition to make a presentation as well. They 13 have stated to us that they have a presentation. I have a list of the individuals that are included in that, 14 um, so if you're included with the opposition making that presentation, you will not be allowed to come 15 up at any other time during the public hearing, except during the presentation time. The opposition 16 presentation, again, will have an hour to present and, depending on how things go this morning, we may 17 start that this morning; we may wait and start it after lunch; we'll just see how the timing goes because I 18 don't know how long staff is going to take. So, if we can squeeze that in this morning, we will. During 19 that portion, that is a portion of the public hearing, essentially, so the County Commissioners will have 20 the opportunity to ask questions. So,the opposition's presentation-those folks have been notified. They 21 know they have the hour, and they know that is to include the questions from the Board of County 22 Commissioners. We'll then proceed with the rest of the public hearing. Everyone who has signed up - 23 and we have your lists, and we have the list of folks who said that they wish to speak today- I'm going to 24 ask you as you get up to speak that you remember the things that have been said before you. There's no 2 1 reason for you to repeat them. We need to make sure your comments are relevant to the matter at hand 2 and that your comments are made to the Board of County Commissioners. Not to the audience, not to 3 the staff,and not to the applicant-that they're made to the Board of County Commissioners. Each person 4 will have two minutes and we will be timing it so that we can keep this hearing to a reasonable hour. But 5 everyone will have the opportunity to get up and speak that wishes to. We will, after the opposition gets 6 to do their presentation, we will then start with supporters, and we will rotate between supporters and 7 those who are opposed to it so that everyone feels they have the opportunity to get up and speak, um, as 8 we go through it. We will also start with Weld County residents first, so that we are assured, as Weld 9 County Commissioners, that Weld County residents have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing. 10 I think that's it. Did I miss anything Board? Anything else anybody else would like to say with regard to 11 instructions? 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: How about queueing up? 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Oh,yeah, I will be queueing folks up as we get into the public hearing. 14 So we have seats that are open here in the front. I'll call up probably, it looks like six names. So I'd expect 15 you to come up, line up, and then I'll start calling up the next name as it comes into the rotation. So, 16 please don't sit in your seat if you're supposed to be speaking and I've called your name; you'll need to 17 come sit in the front row. It also looks like for anyone who is still standing that there are a few open seats 18 over here against the wall, so I'd ask you to move to those now so you don't disrupt the hearing as we 19 move forward. Commissioner? 20 SPEAKER [inaudible]. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes, and then after we get through the public hearing, we then give 22 the opportunity to the applicant to have an hour for rebuttal and that will include questions from the 23 Board of County Commissioners. If it's our fault because we asked more questions,then it's our fault and 3 1 we go longer than an hour, but the applicant doesn't have longer than an hour for their rebuttal. Did I 2 miss anything? Anything else? Ok, with that its--yes Commissioner? 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Did you want to talk about breaking if we go past? 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes, we will be taking breaks. We will be taking a lunch break that 5 will go approximately from Noon to 1:30, because we do have-the Board has another commitment that 6 we have to go to at Noon. And, we will be taking breaks as needed, and by the Board, and we will be 7 taking a dinner break if we go that long. Because as the whole Board knows if I don't eat dinner I get a 8 headache and things go from bad to worse. {Laughter.} So, alright,with that we will basically proceed to 9 the staff for their comments,and uh,so it's up to you Diana. And again, please speak into the microphone. 10 DIANA AUNGST: Good morning. Diana Aungst with the Department of Planning Services, 11 Thank you. The applicant is requesting an amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by 12 Special Review Permit, USR-1584, for any Use Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by 13 Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts. Construction business with two office 14 buildings,two shop buildings,office buildings and outdoor storage, provided that the property is not a lot 15 in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any 16 regulations controlling subdivision,to include a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including asphalt 17 and concrete batch plants (materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. 18 Twenty-nine referrals were sent out and 16 either did not respond or indicated no concerns. A sign 19 announcing this hearing was posted ten days prior to the Planning Commission hearing by Planning Staff. 20 The site is located east of and adjacent to County Road 14, approximately one-half mile south of 21 U.S. Highway 34. The applicant is requesting an approval of a Special Use Permit for asphalt batch plant, 22 a ready mixed concrete batch plant and approximately 6,400-foot rail loop spur that will accommodate 23 up to 117 train cars and four locomotives, for a total of 121 train cars for transloading. A materials 24 processing, including recycling and wholesale and retail sales of aggregate. Aggregate materials for use 4 1 in these two batch plants will be brought in by rail three times a week. The number of full-time employees 2 will be 107. There will also be up to 45 truck drives and 25 field construction works who will be based out 3 of the facility. The USR request is also for the continued operation of Gerrard Construction as approved 4 under USR-1584. The hours of operation for Gerrard Construction will be 6:00 a.m.to 6:30 p.m., Monday 5 through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to Noon on Saturday. The hours of operation for Martin Marietta are 24 6 hours a day - seven days a week. The asphalt plant and related equipment will be 100 feet in height. It 7 will use sand, gravel, rock, in conjunction with recycled asphalt and various additives to produce asphalt 8 for road and construction projects. There will also be three vertical asphalt/cement tanks, 10 to 15 feet 9 in diameter and 40 to 45 feet in height; 30,000 gallons each. One vertical emulsified asphalt tank, 10 to 10 15 feet in diameter and 45 to 45 feet in height; 24,000 gallon capacity. And two large-capacity 11 asphalt/cement storage tanks 100 feet in diameter, 45 feet tall, and 2.2 million gallons each. The ready 12 mixed concrete plant and related equipment will be 110 feet in height and will use sand, gravel, rock, 13 cement and various additives to produce concrete that would be trucked off-site for use on various 14 construction projects. Aggregates will arrive by train up to three times per week and will be unloaded and 15 prepared for sale or used by the asphalt plant and the ready mixed concrete plant. 80,000 cubic yards of 16 aggregate and recycled asphalt and concrete will be stored on the site in separate piles. A materials 17 processing plant will crush and sort recyclable materials, including concrete and asphalt. There will also 18 be a wash plant for washing, screening, sorting, stockpiling, unloading and loading of sand, gravel, rock, 19 crushed stone, recycled materials, overburden clay and topsoil products. The recycling plant and wash 20 plant equipment are portable and may be moved around the property. Martin Marietta is proposing 21 screening in the form of a landscaped berm along the eastern edge of the property between the rail loop 22 spur and the nearby residential subdivision. The berm will be 11 feet in height on the north end and 24 23 feet in height on the south end. The variation in height is required to cover the topography of the site. 5 1 The primary access is an existing access point on County Road 13 and is currently being 2 used by Gerrard Construction. All traffic entering and exiting the site will use the new bridge that will be 3 installed over the rail loop spur. Since a train will be on the rail loop spur a great deal of the time, this 4 bridge is required to allow access into the interior portion of the rail loop spur. A 20-foot wide secondary 5 emergency access off of County Road 13 will be constructed to the south of the primary access where the 6 Union Pacific Railroad tracks cross County Road 13. An emergency access will be constructed at the north 7 end of the property; this will be a 20-foot wide, at-grade crossing of the rail. This at-grade crossing will 8 allow emergency access vehicles when the bridge is not accessible. Mr. Howard with Engineering and Ms. 9 Lundquist with the Department of Public Works will provide more details about the access and traffic 10 associated with this project. 11 The proposed use is not consistent with Section 22-2-20.G.1(Agriculture Policy 7.1)of the 12 Comprehensive Plan,which states: "County land use regulations should support commercial and industrial 13 uses that are directly related to, or dependent upon, agriculture, to locate within the agricultural areas 14 when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal or can be mitigated and where adequate services 15 are currently available or reasonably obtainable." Martin Marietta is proposing to locate on two parcels. 16 The parcel to the east is currently productive agricultural land. The soil designation on these properties 17 is "Prime, Irrigated", per the 1979 Soil Conservation Service Important Farmlands of Weld County map. 18 The proposed USR does not directly relate to, nor is it dependent upon agriculture and it will be removing 19 about 90 acres of Prime irrigated farmland from production. The proposed use is not consistent with 20 Section 22-2-20.6.2 (Agricultural Policy 7.2) of the Comprehensive Plan which states: "Conversion of 21 Agricultural land to non-urban, residential, commercial and industrial uses should be accommodated when 22 the subject site is in an area that can support such development and should attempt to be compatible with 23 the region." The site is located within the three-mile referral area of the Towns of Windsor andJohnstown 24 and the Cities of Greeley and Loveland. The site is also located within the three-mile referral area of 6 1 Larimer County. All of the affected jurisdictions submitted referral agency comments and most of the 2 comments indicated that the proposed Martin Marietta project is incompatible with the area,the region 3 and the vision for this gateway to Weld County. The Town of Johnstown submitted a referral agency 4 comments, dated June 15, 2015, in the form of Resolution 2015-07, opposing Martin Marietta's 5 application. The Resolution states, and I quote: "If this use is permitted, it would create undesirable, 6 offensive and harmful consequences inconsistent with the Town of Johnstown's Long Range Planning and 7 inconsistent with the best growth and development along the U.S. 34 corridor." The Town of Windsor and 8 the City of Greeley submitted referral agency comments, both dated May 27, 2015, which state that this 9 development is inconsistent with existing 2008 Windsor/Greeley Intergovernmental Agreement for this 10 area. Both municipalities and their referral comments state, in part: "The proposed use is incompatible 11 with the vision that the Town of Windsor and the City of Greeley have developed for this area. The batch 12 plan is an intensive industrial use and unsuited for the nature of this corridor and its impacts likely cannot 13 be fully mitigated. Approval of this USR would likely establish a sprawling and overly intense land use 14 pattern for future development of the corridor." This use is not compatible with existing surrounding land 15 uses. The surrounding land uses include 14 single family homes or lots within 500 feet of the site. 16 Indianhead Subdivision, which is approximately 100 lots, is located northeast of the site. Currently,there 17 is a single family residence on the site and adjacent to County Road 56. The application materials state 18 that some of the outbuildings associated with this home will need to be demolished in order to build the 19 24-foot high berm for the rail loop spur. As of July 13, 2015, the Department of Planning Services had 20 received 763 letters and many phone calls concerning this USR. 534 letters (706 ) are in support of this 21 USR and 229 (306 ) are in opposition to this USR. A number of letters have been received since the 22 Planning Commission hearing on July 21st. All of the letters are included -are attached to the file for your 23 reference. The ones received in the last few weeks are not included in the following percentage 24 breakdown. The supporting letters primarily originate from outside of Weld County: 426 supporting this 7 1 USR are from folks living outside of Weld County; 274 are from folks living in Weld County in places like 2 Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etcetera; and 14 are from Weld County citizens living in the Johnstown 3 area, including Indianhead Subdivision. The opposing letters primarily originate from Indianhead 4 Subdivision; 234 are from Weld County citizens living in Johnstown area, including the Indianhead 5 Subdivision; 54 opposing this USR are from folks living outside of Weld County, and 21 are from folks 6 living in Weld County in place likes Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etcetera. The issues cited in the letters 7 include, but are not limited to: health concerns, visual impacts, dust concerns, odors, noise, traffic and 8 disruption of the peace and quiet. In conclusion, the Planning Commission, at their meeting on July 21st, 9 voted to recommend denial of this USR with a four to three vote. The Planning Commission cited 10 compatibility, specifically, traffic and the intensity of the proposed use. The applicant is present. I do 11 have images of the site and the adjacent area and I'm happy to answer any questions. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: We'll look at the pictures please. 13 DIANA AUNGST: This shows the location of the site. Uh, this shows the topography 14 where,um,that there topography at the site is around 4,910 and the topography at Indianhead is between 15 4,960 and 4,980. This shows the existing improvements. Uh, we have Gerrard Construction and the 16 buildings and storage yard along County Road 13 and on the site that's to the east we have a house and 17 outbuildings that are addressed off of County Road 56. Uh,this is the view from County Road 13; I placed 18 two signs along County Road 13 and one along County Road 56. So,this is looking towards the east from 19 County Road 13; this is looking northeast from County Road 13; the view looking north along the road, 2 0 along County Road 13; the view to the northwest; to the west towards Larimer County; and the view to 21 the southwest. This is the view looking south along County Road 13; this is the view looking to the 22 southeast showing Gerrard Construction office and shop; and this is the view looking north from County 23 Road 56, this shows the existing residence and outbuildings. This is the view to the northeast; the view 24 looking east of along County Road 56; the view looking southeast; the view looking south; and the view 8 1 to the southwest. This is the view looking west along County Road 56 and the view to the northwest. This 2 is the Site Plan as submitted by the applicant. The rail loop has been decreased in size from 7,200 to 3 6,400, urn,the aggregate storage area is generally in the center of the rail loop spur,with the asphalt plant 4 and the ready mixed plant being to the west of that. Um,this shows the access point off County Road 13. 5 The secondary emergency access is to the south of the primary access and is approximately where the rail 6 crosses over County Road 13, and then there will be a bridge built which will be the primary access, 7 emergency at-grade crossing to the north. This shows the asphalt/cement storage area; at the plant, urn, 8 the heights vary. This shows the existing residence on County Road 56. This shows the location of the 9 existing batch plants in the County; we have about four in the area. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Does the Board need any clarification from Diana? 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Just one. Yeah, I didn't get the letter breakdown again. I 12 understood - 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER:The 70 and 30 percent? 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah - the 70/30, but when you went through the 15 percentages, you maybe left out a category. Uh, how many of those opposed to this lived in Larimer 16 County. 17 DIANA AUNGST: Lived in Weld County? 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Larimer County. Because you said, in support, you said 42 19 percent lived in Larimer County; 27 percent, I believe,you said lived in Weld County. Is that correct? 2 0 DIANA AUNGST: So,the supporting letters originate from outside of Weld County, uh,42 21 percent. 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right, of all the letters? 23 DIANA AUNGST: 42 percent of all the letters originated from outside of Weld County. 24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. 9 1 DIANA AUNGST: Okay? 2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, 58 percent were inside Weld County, Correct? 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Why don't you just give us the breakdown one more time? So, 42 4 percent live outside of Weld? 5 DIANA AUNGST: So, what I took is the 70 percent, um, support this application, and of 6 that 70 percent, 42 percent are from folks outside of Weld County; 27 percent are from folks living inside 7 of Weld County - in Greeley, Windsor, Longmont - places like that; and then the one percent that's 8 remaining are from citizens that live in Weld County and, um, relatively close to the site, like in the 9 Johnstown area. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, any those opposed,you said - 11 DIANA AUNGST:Those who oppose it -we have 30 percent. 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right. 13 DIANA AUNGST: Uh, 23 percent- 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: 30 percent of the 763 letters, you were able to collate 15 DIANA AUNGST: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And we've gotten a lot of letters since then, so I understand. 17 I'm just trying to understand. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Okay. 19 DIANA AUNGST: 23 percent are from Weld County citizens living in Johnstown and 20 Indianhead; five percent are from folks living outside of the County, and the remaining two percent are 21 from folks living in Weld County but in Greeley, Windsor, Longmont, etcetera. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Alright Wayne? 23 WAYNE HOWARD: Thank you. Wayne Howard, Engineering Development and Review. 24 I'd like to start out - - Thank you. What I wanted to do is start out with an aerial map that, somewhat, 10 1 gives everyone a little bit of a bearing as we work through this, so everybody's on the same page. Uh,this 2 is zoomed out - I'll give you a little bit of area. This is I-25 here; this is Highway 34; State Highway 402, 3 which turns into County Road 54. This line here is the County line between Larimer and Weld, which is 4 also County Road 13 or Larimer County Road 1. The railroad tracks - the white is the Great Western 5 Railroad, uh,that comes this way,this way and here. And the green is the Union Pacific Railroad. Course, 6 the site is here, Indianhead Estates is here and what I wanted to indicate a little bit was some of these 7 signals. This is an existing signal here,this is a proposed signal,these are three existing signals on Highway 8 34 and 25 and then these are also three existing signals at 25 and State Highway 402. Next please. What 9 I'm going to do with these maps is zoom in a little bit as we go through so we can look at some of the local 10 roadways that don't show up. As well as some of the other features. Um,this slide gives you a little closer 11 view of the State Highway system a little bit to the east of the site. So, this will be 257 as it gets into the 12 interchange with State Highway 34 and this is also County Road 17, which is an arterial, and 54 which is 13 another arterial, as well as 13 is also an arterial roadway. Uh, again,getting a little bit closer zoomed in - 14 this the Indianhead Estates, this is the proposed site, the access point currently is right here for Gerrard. 15 The railroad comes through here,the emergency access would be proposed right there, and the crossing 16 with the railroad and 34 is up here. Uh,this will be a little zoomed in to Highway 34 and how the railroad 17 interacts with the Highway; on County Road 13 the railroad crosses here, and this is the Great Western 18 that crosses here. This is about a 1,000 feet and this is about 500 feet, and this is the Kelim Frontage 19 Road. Uh,this is the site itself again,just showing the access point and then the emergency access would 20 be right there. So,with that, County Road 13 is a paved road currently and is classified as an arterial, as I 21 mentioned,which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The roadway is also shared ownership 22 with Larimer County who also classifies this roadway as an arterial. County Road 56 is the road directly 23 south of the site-the proposed site-is a gravel roadway that T's into County Road {inaudible-coughing} 2 4 designated as a local roadway which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The latest county, 11 1 traffic count on County Road 13, just north of this site was taken on November 6, 2013, indicated 689 2 vehicles per day,with 22 percent trucks. There are not counts available on County Road 56. Recent counts 3 taken on U.S. Highway 34, east of County Road 13, was taken in 2014, uh, and indicated 42,000 vehicles 4 per day,with 3.3 percent trucks. I'll go over just a little bit of the Traffic Study and I'll let Janet with Public 5 Works talk more about the traffic. The Traffic Study was submitted by Gene Capella, uh,working with the 6 applicant, and had indicated in the first phase of this site, there'd be approximately 560 round trips per 7 day. As the site grows, this could total 1, 130 round trips per day, urn, possibly around 2035. They have 8 estimated the traffic would be 95 percent going north to State Highway 34, and five percent going south. 9 We have received several referrals from local agencies concerning the additional traffic on the local 10 roadway and possible impacts. Uh, Larimer County indicated concerns of structural impacts on County 11 Road 13, site access, auxiliary lanes and tracking of debris on the site. The tracking control for this site 12 will consist of pavement on all driving surfaces internally, with the high traffic volumes. Uh, permits 13 required for the site will be: Right-of-Way Use Permits,Transport Permits, is required, and also a Grading 14 Permit for disturbance over an acre. As well as an Improvements Agreement, urn, will be required 15 between the applicant and the County, which will detail the approved haul routes outlining when off-site 16 improvements might be triggered and include maintenance agreements for the haul routes. The applicant 17 has submitted a Final Drainage Report for the project and Engineering has reviewed this. There'll be- uh, 18 some changes need to be updated with the Drainage Report is site changes,since the Report was received, 19 uh, as well as a Certification of Compliance will be required to be signed by the P.E. Engineering doesn't 20 anticipate any issues with this, uh,at this point in time. Several local irrigation companies have submitted 21 concerns related to possible impacts that might be created by this site related to increased flows, silt, 22 hazardous materials and their analysis. The applicant's engineer is here to address any of those questions 23 in his report and I would be glad to clarify anything that was stated if the Board would desire. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Does the Board need any clarification? Do you have a clarification? 12 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah,just a quick question - on County Road 13, you said that 2 that's designated as an arterial. Is it constructed as a local road right now? 3 WAYNE HOWARD: It is constructed as a two-lane paved roadway. 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thank you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright. Janet. 6 JANET LUNDQUIST: Good morning, Janet Lundquist for Weld County Public Works. Um, 7 the main concern from Weld County Public Works is that we do not want County Road 56,between County 8 Road 13 and County Road 15,which is the gravel portion of the road which Wayne Howard had described, 9 to be used as part of their haul route. We also would like County Road 50, between County Road 13 and 10 State Highway 60, also to not be used because they are a gravel roadway and the work volume traffic 11 roadways, so we don't want truck traffic on those to impact those roadways if possible. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Could you move that microphone closer to your mouth 13 please? 14 JANET LUNDQUIST: Sorry- 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: There you go. 16 JANET LUNDQUIST: There we go, okay. And,you'll have to keep reminding me because I 17 space it. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Don't worry. 19 JANET LUNDQUIST: Okay. Um, basically, the number one concern that we had with the 20 Traffic Study, and Wayne touched it briefly, was that they have identified the trip generation being 95 21 percent going north from the facility and only five percent turning south from the facility. We feel that 22 that number is slightly askew. We actually would envision that trip distribution for the site would be more 23 realistic as a 75/25 split- 75 percent traveling north, 25 percent traveling south. With that in mind, um, 2 4 it would actually trigger some additional requirements, um,for construction for this facility type. Um, so 13 1 I'm actually going to address those as well. So,if you go to the Resolution, I've actually requested a couple 2 of changes be made. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: We're not going to address those right now,though. 4 JANET LUNDQUIST: Ok, I'll just go through really quickly then. So, basically, they're 5 required for an installation of a left deceleration lane at their entrance, a right deceleration lane at their 6 entrance -- uh, I'm sorry, a right acceleration lane at their entrance. (Coughing) Excuse me, sorry, I'm 7 fighting this cough and it's getting me at all the wrong moments. Uh,and there is an installation of a right 8 deceleration lane at the facility entrance. Um, they are also triggering a traffic signal to be installed on 9 U.S. 34, as Wayne had described, um, and then the auxiliary lanes on U.S. 34 are actually short for what 10 they actually need to be. So we're actually requesting that those auxiliary lanes that, you know, the left 11 and right turn lanes off of the highway onto County Road 13, be extended and have the correct tapper 12 size, length and storage. And that was also a comment from CDOT,and then we're requesting the upgrade 13 of County Road 13, south of the facility,on County Road -from County Road 50 to County Road 54 where 14 it's currently gravel road. And then, auxiliary lanes, potentially at the intersection of County Road 54 and 15 County Road 13, as Wayne described in his overview of the area. That does connect to I-25 and is a major 16 arterial and we feel that the traffic may be using that as part of their haul route. Another key point is the 17 railroad crossings that Wayne had shown in his presentation. It's a concern of ours that there be a more 1 8 in-depth analysis of those crossings to ensure that we're not going to create a safety problem with 19 increase of train activity. I've spoken with, um, both the PUC and Union Pacific Railroad to discuss doing 20 a diagnostic study at each of those individual railroad crossings, um, with existing numbers and the 21 proposed number from this facility to determine if additional improvements would be required at this 22 crossing, including crossing arms and flashing lights. Um, and so as part of this project,we will be doing a 23 full diagnostic at those crossings to determine if improvements are required. If improvements are 24 required, it will be the responsibility for the local portion to be paid by Martin Marietta. And, I'm just 14 1 keeping it brief, so if you have any questions off of things that were discussed, either at Planning 2 Commission or my presentation today, I'd be happy to answer any of those questions. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Does the Board need any clarification? Okay,thank you. Lauren. 4 LAUREN LIGHT: Lauren Light, Environment Health. We had three different people from 5 EH that reviewed this application. I reviewed the overall application that focused on sanitation, Heather 6 Barbare reviewed the waste handling, and Phil Brewer reviewed the noise, dust and the odor. Little 7 Thompson is going to supply water. They're going to put in two new septic systems. The applicants did 8 state at the Planning Commission hearing that they would like to utilize portable toilets for drivers, and 9 I'll have Heather Barbare address the waste handling. 10 HEATHER BARBARE: Heather Barbare, Environmental Health. The applicant submitted a 11 Waste Handling Plan with the application indicating what waste will be generated on site and how they'll 12 be disposed of off-site. The Waste Handling Plan also indicates any chemicals that will be stored on site 13 and how the chemicals and materials will be managed properly. I'll now turn it over to Phil Brewer to 14 address noise, dust and odor. 15 PHIL BREWER: Phil Brewer, Environmental Health. If this application is approved and the 16 project developed, the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment has certified staff 17 members who can appraise odor, dust and noise for compliance with permits and compliance with Air 18 Pollution Control Division regulations and local Weld County Code for noise. The staff will use certified 19 instruments for the evaluations of these emissions and the emissions, if they are found to be in violation 20 will be referred to proper authorities at the State Air Pollution Control Division or with the County for 21 property enforcement action. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Does the Board need any clarification from the Health staff? 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, Phil. Currently, at the other batch plants, are we 24 employing those same monitors and reporting mechanism? 15 1 PHIL BREWER: The four other asphalt plants that exist in Weld County, and the other 2 concrete plants and the aggregate processing plants are all subject to evaluations using these same 3 certified employees, certified instruments and comparisons to the appropriate regulations. The answer 4 to your question is, yes. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright. Any other comments from staff? Did you guys miss 7 anything? Okay. So,it's basically two minutes to ten. I'll ask the applicant or their representative to come 8 forward. Urn, if their representative would like to come forward. Do you need a minute or two to get 9 things set up, or are you ready to go? 10 CAROLYNNE WHITE: I think we'll need a minute or two to get the PowerPoint ready. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. 12 CAROLYNNE WHITE: No we don't! 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. So, if you would please state your name and address for the 14 record and comments for the record and then your comments directly to the Board. 15 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Thank you Madame Chair, members of the Board of County 16 Commissioners, members of the County staff, and members of the public. My name is Carolynne White. 17 I'm land use counsel for the applicant, Martin Marietta. I forgot my pointer. We thank you for the 18 opportunity to present to you today a project which we believe is critical to the continued economic 19 development of northern Colorado. We realize that it's a complicated project and that you have a difficult 20 decision and a difficult discussion ahead of you today. And we also realize that as the applicant, we have 21 the burden of proof to demonstrate that this proposal meets all of the County standards and we intend 22 to do that today. This application consists of, basically, three components: an aggregate rail unloading 23 facility, an asphalt plant with liquid AC storage, and a ready mixed concrete plant. We intend to 24 demonstrate today that this package, taken as a whole, not only meets but also in many cases exceeds, 16 1 the applicable Weld County Code criteria for approval. From the beginning the applicant has worked very 2 hard to understand the concerns of the neighbors and to attempt to incorporate measures into their 3 proposal in order to address those concerns. Certainly, you will hear what many of those concerns are 4 today and we will share with you the changes and implemented measures that we propose in order 5 address those concerns. This feedback has been critical from the beginning in shaping the project into 6 the form that you will see before you today. Fundamentally,this is the important challenge that you have 7 before you today -to balance the private property rights of the applicant and landowners that own this 8 property to use their land at its highest and best use, and the rights of the neighbors to continue their 9 applied enjoyment of the property that they've purchased and enjoyed in Weld County. What were going 10 to do today and provide a quick overview of what the project is, orient you to exactly what we're 11 proposing to do here, focus on what we think are some of the highlighted, most critical components, 12 particularly those that were focused on in the Planning Commission, and then demonstrate how it meets 13 the criteria. We're, of course, happy to address in more detail anything that we didn't cover in our initial 14 presentation when we come to the rebuttal later. As you know, the applicant is Martin Marietta, in 15 conjunction with the two property owners that this proposal is going to be located on. We have a live 16 team of experts here available to answer all of your questions;they are not all part of our initial proposal, 17 nor am I going to introduce them each individually now, but we included the list in your packet so that 18 you know we have all of the experts available to answer any questions you have and to provide and 19 additional detail that you would like to see about any aspect of this application. 2 0 I'd like to briefly give you an overview of this company and what they are proposing to do 21 and what they already do in and around Weld County. Martin Marietta is one of the leading providers of 22 aggregate, concrete and asphalt throughout northern Colorado. Martin Marietta has been carrying out 23 the tradition of working and building in this region for more than 50 years. As a company principle,they 24 are dedicated to doing business the right way. Their employees hold themselves and each other 17 1 accountable to the utmost standards of integrity and their business ethics allow them to maintain a strong 2 commitment to honest, integrity and accountability. Right now, Martin Marietta supplies approximately 3 80 percent of the asphalt to Weld County for county roads and 85 percent of the asphalt to the City of 4 Greeley for city roads. Over the last three years, Martin Marietta has supplied from its Weld County 5 facilities, more than ten million tons of aggregate materials throughout northern Colorado, employing 6 slightly fewer than 300 people, and contributed $42 million in 2014, to the local economy in the form of 7 payroll, taxes and spending with local suppliers. This slide just shows a little bit of the community 8 involvement and what some of their facilities look like. Alright, to get specific about the proposal, you 9 already seen some visuals orienting you where it is; it's located a half mile south of Highway 34,a little bit 10 over two miles from I-25. The site is 131 acres located just off of County Road 13. It's located next to two 11 major rail lines and immediately adjacent to the Union Pacific railroad line. This is, as you will see, a really 12 important fact in the site selection and in determining the suitability of this site and how it can be made 13 compatible with the adjacent properties. As we will discuss in more detail, the combination of all of the 14 infrastructure located here between the highway,the County road system and the railroad, is part of what 15 makes this site uniquely suited for the proposed use. This project is proposed to be developed on two 16 parcels adjacent to each other. One is owned by Gerrard Investments; one is owned by Weld LV II, LLC. 17 You can see them delineated up on this photograph. Gerrard has an existing approved Use by Special 18 Review today in the County that allows for their industrial use, which is operation of a construction 19 business. That business is operation today and will continue to be operational for some period of time 2 0 during the transition if this application is approved. The principal access into this facility will be from the 21 existing access off of County Road 13, which you can see right here, and a secondary emergency access 22 just to the south of that one and just to the north of where the U.P. railroad crosses the top of the next 23 road here. The secondary access will be gated at the right-of-way so that it can be used only by the 2 4 appropriate fire and emergency authorities; it is not intended for daily use. One of the main components 18 1 of this proposal is the rail spur line that will allow this facility to be serviced by the Union Pacific railroad. 2 It is proposed to conduct, uh, construct this rail spur-the circular loop within the property. On this slide 3 we can see the original proposed configuration of the rail spur, which at that time was approximately 4 7,200 feet, and you can also see that it roughly parallels the perimeter of the property and brining it, sort 5 of, closer to the adjacent properties on all sides. As a result, in that original layout the rail loop was 250 6 feet from the edge of the property line, particularly as it approached Indianhead Estates, the closest 7 adjacent residential subdivision. In the revised configuration, which is the packet that you have in front 8 of you today,and it is what the application is today,that rail line has been reconfigured to be much smaller 9 and it has sort of been squished into more of an oval to bring it farther away from the adjacent property 10 line, most particularly the Indianhead Estates to the north and east. And, um,you can see this little green 11 circle right here represents the additional buffer space that was created as a result of making that change. 12 That buffer space is approximately 21 acres in size and it brings the edge of the rail line another 700 feet 13 away from the property line. How this will work is, the rail spur will accommodate the entire length of 14 the train bringing the aggregate materials to the site. Currently, there are approximately 18 trains per 15 week operating on the Union Pacific line. Martin Marietta will add up to a maximum of three, probably 16 two to three on average, per week to the total. The way this will work is the trains- and you have to still 17 speak into the microphone here -the trains will approach from the south, enter onto the loop, pull past 18 the entrance and park here so that they're occupying almost the entire rail loop in a stationary fashion all 19 at one time and begin the unloading process. I'll explain the unloading process in a moment. They will 20 then -they will have two engines -one on either end, and the trains will then depart the way they came 21 out the south. So these trains will not cross Highway 34; that's not a part of the proposed transportation 22 plan. Um,once they're completely on the loop for this internal track,the trains will move very slowly, less 23 than one more per hour. Uh, one mile per hour probably the maximum; at times they'll be moving 24 significantly more slowly than that. As they slowly unload their cargo into these partially enclosed hoppers 19 1 which are below the train. I'll show you a picture of those in a moment. The reason for this slow 2 continuous movement-there are several reasons: 1) it helps minimize noise, urn -anyone who has ever 3 driven a truck with a trailer will understand that when you start and stop, the coupler that attaches the 4 trailer to the vehicle to make a nose, and that's exactly what causes noise - one of the causes of noise, 5 when a train starts and stops. Keeping this moving in a very slow continuous fashion will minimize that 6 type of noise from the train operating on the tracks. Typically, this unloading process will take between 7 four and eight hours, and could take significantly less; it is exceedingly unlikely that it would ever take 8 more than eight hours for the total unloading process. The hopper is located on the south side of the 9 track that is the furthest away from the closest residential subdivision-from the Indianhead Estates. The 10 hopper is located down here. Because of the fact that if the entire loop is occupied by a train and vehicles 11 needed to access, they would not be able to cross, that's the reason why it is proposed to construct a 12 bridge right here, so that vehicles can continue to access the interior of the site while the train might be 13 unloading on the tracks or parked on the tracks. All of the land that is not developed in an active use for 14 the purposes of the operation will remain in vegetated, irrigate state, as it is today, creating somewhat of 15 a visual greenspace on the property. The aggregate operations consist of a conveyor from the hopper 16 where the material is unloaded from the train and stockpiled on the site. Also,the asphalt and concrete 17 that is removed from various project throughout the region will be brought to this site so that they can 18 be crushed, washed, and recycled and,thereby, kept out of landfills. All of these materials on the site will 19 either be used on-site for production of asphalt and concrete, or they will be sold for use in other 2 0 construction projects for companies, private citizens. Third parties can buy their material at this site as 21 well. OH, animation -that's the train. 22 Okay,so another important component of how this site will operate is how it will operate 23 internally with the vehicle traffic. One this that is of note about how this site has been designed is that 24 we have sought to cluster the activity on this site as far to the west as possible. This does two things: 1) it 20 1 keeps a majority of that activity on the parcel of property that is already permitted for industrial use 2 through the existing Use by Special Review, awarded to Gerrard Investments in their construction 3 business. The second thing it does is cluster that activity as far as possible away from the closest 4 residential neighbors. The black line you see down the middle of the Site Plan is the property line between 5 the two different parcels. The other thing that this has done--oops, I guess I don't have-okay. The other 6 thing that we've done and urn, I'll try to show it on here; each of the different of the three types of uses: 7 the aggregate, the asphalt and the cement, has its own internal loop along which the vehicles will travel 8 for unloading and loading of that particular material. So as a result, urn, what we do with this is No. 1 - 9 we minimize trucks having to back up;they each have an internal loop that they can travel on. All of these 10 roads will be paved to contribute to dust control, dust mitigation. This also keeps most of trucks to the 11 west, again - trying to keep them away from the closest residential subdivision. Separates each type of 12 vehicle to minimize congestion on the site and also potential congestion spilling off of the site onto the 13 County road, and as I mentioned, all of this activity occurs on the -- as far to the west as possible. Ah ha, 14 I think this is what I was trying to show you a minute ago. Okay, so that first one is the first internal 15 circulation -you can see right here; the second internal circulation for the asphalt plant traffic right here; 16 and this is the circulation for the aggregate traffic right here. Each of them counts separate, and that 17 again is the property line in between the two parcels. 18 So,that leads us to a discussion of how the vehicles get to and from the site, and what is 19 the traffic situation here. Traffic was probably one of the more significant issues that the Planning 20 Commission considered and that's why we're going to spend a little bit of time discussing that with you, 21 because obviously traffic is something that is a very important concern to you as Commissioners in Weld 22 County. First, let's talk about the volume;the quantity of traffic. As was mentioned by staff in their report, 23 our traffic reports shows that there will be approximately 560 round trips per day when this facility opens 24 in 2017. Over time, the 2035 projection has that about doubling to about twice that to a total ultimate 21 1 2035 traffic count of about 2,200.So,just for a little comparison,this chart is intended to give you an idea 2 of how that fits into the grand scheme of things of other types of land uses in the vicinity and also the 3 volume of traffic that already exists here. Urn, so to put it into perspective, we asked our traffic engineer 4 to analyze the trip generation of alternative uses on the site. So,for comparison,this is our daily traffic in 5 2017, so that's 560 round trips equals 1,120 total trips. Right? Urn,the existing traffic count today from 6 the adjacent residential development-990;they're roughly similar in the same order of magnitude,about. 7 Um,during some of the public comment on this project there were suggestions by residents of alternative 8 uses that they would find more acceptable and more compatible to be located on this site, so we analyzed 9 what those types of traffic generation would be,again,to just give a comparison. So,for example, if there 10 were 400 single family homes located on this site,you'd be looking at about 3,800 daily trips. If this were 11 light industrial, urn, also called by some like a business park type of use, again, looking at maximizing the 12 site - it would be about 6,800 trips per day. If we had a King Soopers shopping center here, with a -you 13 know-a couple ancillary shops around it,that would be in the neighborhood of 9,500 trips per day. And, 14 urn, speaking as the staff was earlier about some of the adjacent communities and what their plans for 15 this area are,you're probably aware that not too far away from this property on the northwest corner of 16 Highway 34 and County Road 13, within the City of-the Town of Johnstown,there's currently a proposal 17 in front of their town board to develop this project called "Encore" which would generate about 28,000 18 trips per day, uh, County Road {Highway} 34. So, obviously any use of this site is going to create new 19 traffic, both on County Road 13 and Highway 34. In the grand scheme of things, in comparison to other 20 existing and proposed uses, the traffic that would be generated by this site is relatively small. Um, there 21 were some numbers given earlier about the total number of employees using this site, uh, actually in the 22 final Resolution that you have, we believe the total maximum number - when you add all of the truck 23 drivers and the employees-is about 141 employees, so I wanted to mention that number for you. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I'm sorry, what was that again? 22 1 CAROLYNNE WHITE: 141 total employees. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. 3 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Um, it should also be noted that because Martin Marietta's business 4 is seasonal, urn,this number of 1,120 -that is the average daily trips, but that is when everything is in full 5 operation. So, during the colder months when there's not a lot of demand for these types of products, 6 you will see significantly lower daily traffic counts during those times. Also, another important number 7 relative to traffic is the total daily trips that are predicted, or projected, to be handled on Weld County 8 Road 13, which has been designated as an arterial. It is designed to handle about 17,000 daily trips. So, 9 the additional traffic that you put on that road by this proposal is well within the capacity of that roadway 10 as designed and, particularly, as it's going to be improved by this project, urn, as I'm going to show you in 11 just a moment. So, again, trying to put some perspective of how this traffic contributes to the overall 12 traffic in the vicinity- right now today, Highway 34 currently handles about 42,000 daily trips. We talked 13 about that number was mentioned by your staff. By 2035, it is expected to handle about 66,800 daily 14 trips, so it increases about 25,000 daily trips. Whether you think about it in 2017, relative to the 48 - 15 42,000 number, or whether you think about it 2035 relative to the 68,000 number - Martin Marietta's 16 total traffic contribution to this area is about two to three percent of the total traffic volume on 17 Highway 34. Um,we did have a Traffic Study prepared by our traffic engineer, Gene Capella, who is here 18 today to answer any additional questions you may have. Um, that Traffic Study also was extremely 19 conservative, for example, Martin Marietta has other plants operating in Weld County - well they have 20 one and we can talk about that in a minute. There are already some Martin Marietta trucks on Highway 21 34. The numbers in the Traffic Study were not discounted to account for that, so in essence, some of 22 those trips that will be moving from another location to this location, um,we're really double counting in 23 that 1,120 number. Um, as a result, the Traffic Study, as I mentioned, is somewhat conservative. Now, 2 4 also it was mentioned that there is some professional disagreement between our traffic engineer and the 23 1 Weld County traffic engineer about the trip distribution. So, all those 1,120 trips - when they leave our 2 facility-which way are they going to go? Our analysis indicates that about 95 percent of them are going 3 to head north on County Road 13, and about five percent of them are going to head south of County 4 Road 13. Urn, in a moment, I'm going to show you another packet that illustrates where our market is; 5 where Martin Marietta delivered these products. And, as a result, that is why we came up with this 6 estimated trip distribution of 95 percent to five percent. That is the vast majority of the markets that are 7 going to be served by this facility are all to the north. Even for some of those that are to the south, it 8 would be far more efficient for the vehicles to go up County Road 13 to Highway 34 and south on 25,than 9 for them to head south of County Road 13. Urn,there was a comment made by the staff traffic engineer 10 that the County would prefer not to see these trucks using County Road 54 and County Road 50. Those 11 routes are not part of the planned routing through this facility and there are other ways that this can be 12 enforced with Martin Marietta employees, including,signage and operating policies and traffic routes and 13 soon. Urn,they have a high degree of confidence that this is the correct trip distribution projection, based 14 on their experience of how their business operates. Once the trucks reach County Road 13, this is the 15 projected distribution going east and west; approximately 67 percent to the west, towards I-25, and 16 approximately 33 percent to the east towards the City of Greeley. When this site was originally chosen, 17 and I'll talk a little bit later about the overall site selection process, one of the things that Martin Marietta 18 took into account was the long range plans from CDOT and Weld County, of how these intersections and 19 how these roadways are ultimately going to operate. These plans reflect that Weld County Road 13 is a 20 major arterial, is planned to ultimately have four lanes of traffic, and that the intersection of Highway 34 21 and Weld County Road 13 is ultimately designated for a traffic signal. And, as I will show you in a moment, 22 Martin Marietta is planning to install and pay for that traffic signal. Ultimately, the extremely long range 23 plans in this vicinity actually call for an overpass at Weld County Road 13 and Highway 34. Uh,the bottom 24 line is that this existing roadway network is, No. 1, more than able to accommodate the proposed 24 1 additional traffic, particularly with the improvements that we're going to make. And, No. 2 is one of the 2 main reasons why this site is so suitable for this proposed use. Uh, this is a blowup of some of the 3 proposed traffic improvements that were summarized by your traffic engineer; I'll just mention them 4 briefly. There will be a southbound, left turn lane on Highway 13 going into the development; there will 5 be a proposed improved acceleration lane northbound on County Road 13. Um, some of these are not - 6 our traffic generated is not exactly enough to necessarily require these, but there is agreement between 7 Martin Marietta and staff that Martin Marietta will construct these improvements, regardless. The main 8 improvement, and the one that has received the most focus is the proposed traffic signal at Highway 34 9 and County Road 13. Um, as you know, typically, when a new traffic signal goes in, um, there are two 10 things that happen. One, its typically justified based on warranted traffic counts or long-range plans by 11 the responsible authority, like CDOT or the County, depending on whose roadway it is. And the other 12 thing that frequently happens is, whichever developer develops first, they pay for the full cost and then 13 the other developments as they come on line are required to pay their pro rata share based on the extent 14 to which their properties benefit from the addition of that improvement; whether it is a traffic signal or 15 other improvement. Um, in this situation, Martin Marietta has agreed to, and is going to if this is 16 approved,install and pay for the traffic light-they are going to pay for all of it-and there is no mechanism 17 in place by which there would be any reimbursement pro rata from the adjacent property owners. 18 Additionally, although it's certainly true that the Town of Johnstown made some comments indicating 19 they felt this proposal wasn't consistent with their vision for this property, uh, that proposed project on 20 the northwest corner will benefit significantly from the construction of this traffic light. Um, a couple of 21 other quick things I want to mention on this slide-at this intersection, in addition to the traffic light there 22 would be some additional improvements. The existing northbound lane on Weld County Road 13 will be 23 converted to a left-turn straight lane and then there will be a new right-turn lane on Weld County Road 25 1 13. Oops, I don't have animation for that,so that's right here. One lane will go through and left, and then 2 there will be a new right-turn lane going here. 3 Uh, there was also a comment made about the railways - uh, the rail crossings with this 4 roadway. They needed to be studied and that there is no current proposal for any specific improvements 5 and that there's a proposed Condition of Approval by staff in order to require that Martin Marietta 6 construct rail crossings, if necessary. Urn, typically you don't consider rail in the Traffic Impact Study; 7 that's not one of the components. It certainly is true that there will be an additional two to three trains 8 per week on the U.P. railroad line as a result of this project.And,you'll see when you review our proposed 9 changes with Staff's Conditions of Approval, that what Martin Marietta is proposing is that they would 10 agree that they will be responsible for the cost of constructing any new improvements at those road 11 crossings if a Rail Analysis determines it's required. If it determines it's required because of the addition 12 of their two to three trains; it is already required for other reasons or if it will be required after there's ten 13 more trains,then it's probably not appropriate to require Martin Marietta to pay for that entire cost. Urn, 14 there are a couple other improvements on this slide that I want to mention. Uh, there will also be 15 improvements made on U.S. Highway 34 westbound,there will be-the deceleration lane will be extended 16 and there will also be an extension of the eastbound acceleration lane turning from County Road 34 onto 17 County Road{Highway}34. One last thing I want to say about this slide while this is up here,or about the 18 traffic light in general, urn,the comments that we have received from the public on this traffic light have 19 been mixed. There are some folks who say there is a need for a traffic light at this particular intersection 2 0 and who would like to see a traffic light built there, but there are also some folks who are concerned that 21 it will slow down traffic on Highway 34 and they won't be able to make that trip as quickly as they 22 otherwise can today. Urn, the bottom line on the traffic light is it's going to be required there at some 23 point anyway; it's in CDOT's plans, it's in the County's plans and given the rate of growth in Weld County 2 4 right now,there will be a traffic light there eventually. The only difference, if Martin Marietta's project is 26 1 approved, is that it will be constructed there sooner than it probably otherwise would have. Okay, so 2 turning-can somebody tell me how I'm doing on time? 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yeah, you're about 26 minutes into it. 4 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Thank you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 6 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Okay, turning specifically to the Weld County criteria for a Use by 7 Special Review. In the rest of our presentation we're going to talk about all the ways in which this 8 proposed project meets or exceeds the standards for a Use by Special Review in Weld County;we're going 9 to demonstrate that this proposed project is compatible with the surrounding current and future land 10 uses in the vicinity; we're going to show that there has been extensive communication and outreach 11 opportunities; that there have been extensive modifications to the proposed plan and extensive 12 mitigation measures incorporated into the plan; and that this proposal is the proper balance of the 13 property owner's rights and the long term vision of Weld County. So, first I'd like to explain a little bit 14 about why they're even doing this. A lot of folks have said,"Why do you even need another plant? What's 15 the reason for this?" Um, as you're certainly aware as Commissioners, the State demography office 16 predicts that there's going to be another 75 to 100 percent growth in Weld County in the next 20 years. 17 By 2035, the population in Weld County is estimated to be over half a million people. In order to 18 accommodate these people, you're going to need strong job growth and development; you're also going 19 to need extensive investments in infrastructure, and you're going to need physical construction and 20 development of homes, businesses, schools, hospitals and all of the things that are needed to serve a 21 population of that size. Urn, these industries, and other key components of the community, are Martin 22 Marietta's customers. Some of the examples of how the materials produced at this plant are used in 23 agriculture, and that's one of the criteria, in fact,that you want to allow industrial uses that are linked to 24 Agriculture. In Agriculture you couldn't built farms, um barns- excuse me-feed areas, processing plants, 27 1 roads, whether paved or not. All of those facilities require one or more of the materials, raw materials or 2 processed materials that are produced at this facility. Urn, in water ditch repairs, ditch roads, concrete 3 pipelines, water storage spillways, pump stations, all of those things require materials to be constructed. 4 The list goes on, in residential: basements, sidewalks, playgrounds. All of those things require these 5 construction materials. Demand for these materials is growing, um, at a very high rate, along with the 6 rate of growth, not only in this county but throughout northern Colorado. Currently, Martin Marietta 7 does have a plant already operating within Weld County. Um, this plant -this is an asphalt plant that's 8 located at approximately 35th and O, uh, not too far from here. It's adjacent to, uh, City of Greeley - 9 excuse me. This asphalt plant is linked to the existing mining use at this site, urn, and just as many of the 10 other asphalt plants that you saw in that earlier slide are linked to mining. At some point, and our 11 projections are roughly about five years from now,this site will be mined out and the permit that this site 12 has requires that at that time that the asphalt plant will cease operations at that time and the site will be 13 reclaimed. As a result of that, Martin Marietta will not have an asphalt plant in Weld County anymore. 14 You saw that there were four. One of those is this one, uh,the other three perhaps will remain, but Martin 15 Marietta won't have one. As a result of not having that in Weld County, if there were no asphalt plants in 16 Weld County, all of those materials that are required would have to be transported from elsewhere 17 following processing, more trucks on your roads, increased costs, uh, very much a challenge in that 18 growing market that we talked about. So, this is really presenting -this development is being presented 19 as a proposed solution to that problem. This is planning now, so that by the time that other plant goes 20 offline,this plant would be online and can begin production of all of these materials in order to serve the 21 growing needs in the County. The aggregate resources that are needed to make the products at this plant, 22 generally speaking, come from these river basins: Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, South Platte. That's 23 historically where all of these aggregate resources have come from for northern Colorado, and actually 24 for other places in Colorado as well. Urn, as you get farther and farther away from the mountains, the 28 1 aggregate product gets smaller and smaller and eventually all you can mine is sand. These sources are 2 approaching depletion. There is a dwindling supply of aggregate material in northern Colorado, 3 particularly along the Front Range. This is what these aggregate products look like. These course 4 aggregates that are needed are in a dwindling supply. Um, in fact, we have two plants on our list that 5 we're aware of in Weld County that are now importing these materials from outside the state because of 6 lack of ability to get them at a reasonable price within the state. Again,we project that in about five years 7 this situation will become acute as it relates to construction in northern Colorado. So, Martin Marietta 8 has a source for these materials that is in Granite Canyon, Wyoming. This map depicts where that is 9 relative to this proposed project. This rock product from Wyoming could be transported, either by truck 10 or by rail. Uh,the amount of material to be delivered by trucks along the highway, if we didn't use a train 11 to deliver these materials, would be about 800 to 1,200 trucks per week, instead of two to three trains 12 per week. Additionally, rail is about 25 percent less expensive, less polluting, less wear and tear on the 13 roads, etcetera. Overall,given the whole market in northern Colorado served by Martin Marietta,the use 14 of rail instead of truck to deliver these materials to Weld County is about $18 million in savings. This is 15 the market area that this facility is proposed to serve. And so, if you think back to that 95/5 percent that 16 we talked about earlier,this is the reason why Martin Marietta has a high degree of confidence that that 17 is a realistic trip distribution. The vast majority of their markets are north on I-25 towards Fort Collins, 18 due west towards Loveland, or due east towards Greeley. One of the principle comments, um,from the 19 neighborhood group was that this project should be located elsewhere;just choose a different site. Um, 20 not mitigation,it can't be fixed,we would like you to locate it somewhere else. Um, in order to understand 21 why that's simply not feasible we thought it would be useful to share, briefly, some of the site selection 22 considerations that went into the decision to ultimately choose this site. Um, as I mentioned,this is their 23 primary service area and Martin Marietta performed an extensive search of all of the potential sites in 2 4 Weld County where they could locate this facility and still be in proximity to this market area, given that 29 1 this is the market that they're trying to serve. The two original filter criteria were: as close as possible to 2 the Union Pacific rail line, and as close as possible to a major highway. They undertook a three-year site 3 selection process and a complete site selection report is part of the application. It's in your packet and 4 you can see in greater detail,or we can discuss later in greater detail all of the other sites that were looked 5 at, what the criteria were, and why they were rejected. Urn,this is a quick summary. Some of the major 6 criteria were: close to rail, close to major arterials. And then, next criterion was: minimize impact to 7 infrastructure. Is there enough infrastructure in the aggregate to serve this, urn, this overall project, urn, 8 access to transportation infrastructure, and uh, also some of the other factors included the physical 9 characteristics of the site. Is it relatively flat, as opposed to being relatively steep so you can construct a 10 rail loop on it, is there enough physical room to accommodate all of the necessary uses, and one of the 11 very important criteria was the proximity to existing residential uses. Of all of the sites considered,this is 12 the site with the fewest nearby residential and the farthest away nearby residential. Which brings us to 13 the question of potential compatibility of this proposed use with existing and future uses in the vicinity. 14 So, what do we mean when we talk about compatibility? Compatibility does not mean "the same as." 15 Compatibility means the ability of two things which may not be the same to coexist together without 16 conflict or without trouble with minimal impacts. The mere fact that two uses are different does not 17 mean that they are incompatible. The mere fact that one may be more intense than the other does not 18 mean that they are incompatible. And,the mere fact that one is industrial and the other is residential, in 19 and of itself, does not necessarily mean that they are incompatible. Urn, it's also actually quite common 2 0 throughout Weld County to see these two types of uses located next to each other and, urn, in the packet 21 there's a more detailed report showing examples of other similar uses throughout Weld County and in 22 other locations where, uh, there is closer proximity than what we're talking about here, between 23 residential and either the same type of use or uses of similar intensity. Urn, this image right here is a 24 picture of a 30-foot facility that I mentioned earlier. You will note there is a large residential area to the 30 1 south and there's also other industrial development - this is the Martin Marietta facility here. It should 2 be noted that this residential development here is much closer than what we're proposing, uh, what the 3 end result would be if this application were approved relative to the existing residential at Indianhead 4 Estates. Martin Marietta has a long history of operating in the vicinity of residential areas and a long 5 history of imposing and carrying out a variety of mitigation measures in order to minimize that impact and 6 address any kind of issues. So, against what should we be measuring our compatibility in this area? Urn, 7 one of the principle drivers of the types of land use that result in a particular area,as you all know in your 8 planning exercises, is infrastructure. Infrastructure drives land use. This aerial photo highlights the 9 convergence of several major infrastructural corridors that are going on in and around this site. You've 10 got both the Union Pacific and the Great Western railroad,as we showed earlier,you've got State Highway 11 34, I-25, County Road 13. As a result of this existing, significant investment that has been made in 12 infrastructure in the vicinity, a relatively high degree of industrial and commercial uses have already been 13 developed in this vicinity. This graphic depicts all of the existing industrial and commercial uses in the 14 vicinity of the site. Excuse me, blue is industrial - now we add in the commercial. The commercial, shown 15 in red on this map, is all that already existing development in known, approved, planned development. 16 As you can see, there is a pattern of commercial and industrial development converging in and around 17 this convergence of the infrastructure in this vicinity. On this map, we've now added in the residential 18 uses. As you can see,there are-the residential uses are less prevalent than the other two uses combined 19 in this particular area. The standard against which we've measured ourselves for compatibility is not just 20 one single use, although that existing residential development, of course, is very important and it's the 21 one that requires the most attention in terms of potential mitigation, it is not the only standard against 22 which compatibility should be judged. The compatibility is for all current and future uses in the area. This 23 slide represents that picture of current and future uses in the area. So, how do we find out what we need 24 to do in order to mitigate impacts and be compatible? Um,this slide summarizes the extensive community 31 1 outreach that was conducted by Martin Marietta, both before, after and during the submittal and 2 consideration of this proposal. Recognizing the fact that there is a nearby residential, uh, existing 3 development, Martin Marietta, within a month of having selected this site from its site selection process 4 and before having submitted the application to the County, began to undertake a series of public outreach 5 activities. Urn, two formal neighborhood meetings were held; one was in January of 2015, and one was 6 more recently in early June of 2015. Martin Marietta also set up a website about the project and uploaded 7 all of the information as it became available to make it easy for people to get that information. Um,they 8 also provided an opportunity for comments and questions to be submitted and they also responded to 9 the questions that were submitted. They also met, both as a group and individually, with not only the 10 effected neighbors in Indianhead Estates and the organized group that's going to be presenting today, but 11 also with a number of individual property owners in and around the site in order to understand their 12 concerns and answer their questions. Following some comments and feedback about visual impact, 13 Martin Marietta also held a landscape charrette on June 24th, in which they entertained dialogue about 14 what is the best landscape plan to put in and around this site in order to mitigate visual impacts and 15 enhance the views. They also hosted a business community meeting regarding the economic impact and 16 other potential impacts to the business community as a result of this proposed project. Uh, they have 17 reached out to the community,they have incorporated their input and they have continually modified the 18 plan in order to respond to that input. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure, I'm sorry, I think we need a clarification here. 20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yes, I do need a clarification. 21 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Sure. 22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: On your community outreach up in the top left corner, your 23 January meeting- 24 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Yes. 32 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -was that in 2014 or 2015? [Microphone turned on) Sorry,2014 2 or 2015? 3 CAROLYNNE WHITE: 2015. 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, I just wanted to make sure because I thought that's what 5 you said. 6 CAROLYNNE WHITE: I also would like to know that in addition to the public comment 7 letters that were summarized by staff earlier, uh, Martin Marietta has received copies of an additional 80 8 letters of support that were submitted to the County from the business community in the vicinity and I 9 want to make sure their views are reflected in the public record as well. So what do we hear at these 10 meetings? This slide attempts to summarize by category the community concerns that were brought 11 forward and, uh,we will go through and address each one of these and show you what is being proposed 12 in order to address these concerns. Um, air quality and also health and safety issues and also odor- I sort 13 of group all those together because they're all dealt with by the same County department, as you heard 14 earlier in your staff report. Um,traffic,which we just talked about, noise,visual impacts, compatibility as 15 a whole, which sort of encompasses all of those things, property values and the potential impact on 16 wildlife. Martin Marietta has taken each and every one of these concerns very seriously, they have 17 engaged experts,they have devoted significant amounts of time and resources in order to analyze these 18 issues and to design measures in order to respond. By way of example, this summarizes some of the 19 additional studies that were commissioned as part of this application and which are in the County record 20 right not. In addition to the typically required Traffic Study, Martin Marietta also conducted a sound 21 analysis report and their sound engineer is here to answer any questions you have about noise. They 22 conducted a visual analysis and actually a computer-generated video model was prepared -we'd love to 23 show it to you today; it takes too long and would have taken up too much of our hour time, but we do 2 4 have it available and would be pleased to run it later if you think it's appropriate or if you want to see it. 33 1 Urn, we also provided a report addressing asphalt plant health issues, and the expert that prepared that 2 is here today if you have questions about that. Urn,we did some analysis related to the impact on organic 3 farms, since we learned that there is an organic farm nearby that has some concern about maintaining 4 their U.S.D.A. certification. We did a wildlife review, water resources impact report, there's a report in 5 the packet, uh, addressing the community benefits and industry. There is a real estate diminution and 6 value study addressing the concerns about property value, and then also a handout in the packet 7 explaining for the public and your benefit,the Martin Marietta culture of safety and integrity, excuse me, 8 sustainability. So, turning first to health and safety and the air permitting compliance issues, urn, this is 9 one that I suspect we'll spend a great deal of time talking about today. Urn, what is show on this slide is 10 a summary of some of the regulatory processes that are already in place and that are underway relative 11 to this proposed facility. Trinity Consultants is the consultant that Martin Marietta has retained to prepare 12 the final modeling and reports that are due to the Colorado Department of Public Health and 13 Environment, who issues the Air Quality Permit that is required for this facility. This Air Quality Permit 14 and the delegation to the State's CDPHE to enforce the air quality standards comes from the federal 15 standards from the EPA, from the Clean Air Act, from the National Ambient Air Quality standards. So, as 16 the existing structures in place today to protect human health and safety as it relates to pollution and 17 particulate matter. That process is the same process as the one at all of those other asphalt plants that 18 were mentioned earlier that to go through to get their permits that this plant has to go through to get it's 19 permit, and even if the County decided to approve this USR today, there still is this additional layer of 20 permitting that is required as to air quality. That complete file has not yet been finalized; it has not been 21 submitted to the CDPHE. One of the reasons for that is that in order to submit it,you have to finalize with 22 certainty so you can analyze what are all the different sources on the site, how tall are they, how big are 23 they, what activity is being conducted, and until this process is approved, we don't know yet what 24 additional modifications might be imposed as part of the land use permitting process, so that{inaudible} 34 1 and submit them to CDPHE. Urn,the point of that summary is to let you know that although certainly we 2 talk about air permitting as it relates to health and safety,as it relates to the concerns about compatibility, 3 and as it relates to the land use permit,there is already an existing system - an extensive and well tested 4 system,uh,in place to address the questions of air quality and human health and safety,and that Marietta 5 will be required to comply with those no matter what. Just like the oil and gas industry, and all the other 6 industries in Weld County, this industry is highly regulated at a variety of federal and state levels. None 7 the less, in order to respond to some of the community concerns, one of the things that Martin Marietta 8 has done was look for places in and around the site that could be taken to improve the overall air quality. 9 Now some of these things will also improve the air quality monitoring that ultimately gets turned in to the 10 CDPHE, but the principle reason for undertaking some of these additional measures was to address the 11 concerns raised by the adjacent neighborhood. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: At this point I thought I'd let you know you're within 15 minutes. 13 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Okay,thank you. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 15 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Then maybe I won't go through all of these, but you can see we've 16 got paved roads instead of gravel roads,water trucks will be used in all unpaved and un-vegetated areas, 17 vegetative cover in all of the areas that aren't used for the operations water sprayed. This is a photograph 18 of the partially enclosed hopper that is used to unload the material from the train. Unloading the vehicles 19 this way, uh, minimizes not only the amount of dust or potential fugitive dust that could be emitted, it 20 also is a more - it's a quieter way to unload the trains. Related to the issue of air quality and health and 21 safety issue odor; that was also mentioned earlier by your staff, um, this is a summary of the three 22 different odor control measures that will be employed at this facility, um, as a result of the concerns that 23 were raised by the community throughout the process. Martin Marietta will construct vertical liquid 24 asphalt/cement tanks, so instead of them being horizontal, they will be vertical. The point of this is it 35 1 increases the surface area of the liquid AC so there is less area to emit less potential odor. They're also 2 going to install an emission capture system and carbon filters at the plant to further minimize the chance 3 of odors becoming a problem. This is going to be the only asphalt plant in Colorado that all three of these 4 technologies incorporated in the same plant. It's also worth mentioning that Martin Marietta operates a 5 number of asphalt plants throughout the state. I believe the current count is eight and they have not 6 received any odor complaints at any of those other plants, except for one, the Taft Plant, which is in 7 Larimer County outside of Fort Collins, and if you want to talk about that one more we can, there are a 8 variety of reasons why, urn, it's not completely unexpected that there might have been a few complaints. 9 Uh, the Taft Plant is also being modified to include some of these technologies as a result of that. 10 Elsewhere, in all the other plants in all of the time that they've been operating,there are no logged odor 11 complaints for their other plants. 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Madame Chair, question or clarification? 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. Clarification? 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So,the 35th Avenue site has not had any odor complaints? 15 CAROLYNNE WHITE: That is correct. 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY. Thank you. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 18 CAROLYNNE WHITE: One of the other components that has been addressed thoroughly 19 in this process is noise. This slide summarizes the projected noise based on modeling. Of course you can't 20 measure the actual noise until after the project gets built and then you can go out there with a noise 21 monitor and measure it, so we have to do this based on modeling, obviously. Um, the green column 22 represents the residential limits if this were a residential project,the maximum noise level that's allowed 23 at the property line in residential. The purple represents the industrial noise limits under Weld County 24 Code;there is also a state statute for noise. Your Weld County Code is slightly different than State statute. 36 1 Urn, we had a sound study that was prepared by Acorn, the engineer that prepared that study is here 2 today and we can talk about it in more detail. The bottom line conclusion from that study,and as depicted 3 on this slide, is that based on the modeling and taking into account a very conservative approach, which 4 I'll explain in a moment, this study concluded that this project will not exceed the maximum noise limits 5 at the property line under the Weld County Code. And when I say "very conservative" what I mean is, 6 that the noise study assumed that all of the potential sources of noise within the entire 131 acres of this 7 project area might all be operating at the same time. And it also assumed that it would be happening 8 even at night and we know that that's not the case. But, if all of the noise sources were operating all at 9 the same time and all of them were operating all at the same time at night, taking into account all of the 10 noise mitigation that's going to be installed, this is the projected outcome of that study and it is within 11 the Weld County Code limits. If for any reason if you approve the project and it were constructed and 12 there were noise complaints and your inspectors were able to demonstrate that the noise was exceeded, 13 then you obviously have the right to enforce that under your own code. Some of the ways that we are 14 mitigating noise at this facility include: having redesigned the train track to create this 700-foot setback 15 form the property line, we've also clustered all of the potential activity as far to the west as possible, and 16 then additionally, Martin Marietta is proposing to construct several vegetated berms on the site in 17 between the activity and the closest noise receptor, namely the Indianhead residential subdivision, in 18 order to absorb as much as possible of the sound that might be emanating from the main activity in the 19 center of the project. Um,to you an ideal of scale,that 700-foot setback is a little more than two football 20 fields long. Obviously,the farther away you are from the source of the noise,the less you hear it, so the 21 more distance the better the sound is. We also analyzed the sound, in particular,from the closest parcels 22 of land in the Indianhead Subdivision. As you know, that subdivision extends further to the east and 23 further to the north and actually is adjacent to Highway 34 on the north side. And so, for example by 24 comparison, the noise models from Highway 34 is actually greater than the projected noise from this 37 1 project and there are no sound mitigation measures, um, in between the neighborhood and Highway 34. 2 These earthen berms proposed to be constructed, and here's where one of them is and here's another 3 one, uh,this is one of the most effective ways to mitigate sound. Uh, some of the other examples I think 4 I showed you already the below-grade hopper that does a couple things: it also minimizes dust and it 5 minimizes noise as well. And, we're also proposing to construct an acoustical enclosure-this is a picture 6 of another site,obviously-around the asphalt plant in order to mitigate potential noise emitting from the 7 asphalt plant. The ready mixed concrete plant will be enclosed within a building and that building will also 8 absorb sound. The circular truck route also contributes to noise mitigation and then Martin Marietta has 9 agreed to, and I believe it's one of the conditions of approval that we've proposed be incorporated, to 10 instigate a noise monitoring program so that there will be an easier ability for your inspectors to track 11 enforcement if this project is approved and constructed. 12 The next issue I want to comment on briefly is the issue of visual impacts. As I mentioned, 13 we do have that video; these are simulations extracted from the video that I'm going to show you in a 14 moment. So, some of the neighbors expressed concern about their potential views, particularly views to 15 the west. So, this simulation was constructed in order to analyze and demonstrate what those views - 16 how those views would be impacted by the proposed project. So the first thing Martin Marietta did was 17 develop a scale model of the facility and then place it within the context of the geography here so that 18 you can see how it looks. There are also some sample images in the application package that give a little 19 bit more detail on this. One of the related concerns is: What is the proposed project do to the gateway 2 0 to Greeley along Highway 34? Um,these are pictures along Highway 34. This is the FedEx facility as you're 21 driving east along Highway 34; this is the Kelim businesses in Larimer County, um from Highway 34 as 22 you're approaching County Road 13. I think one of these is similar to one of the photos that staff showed 23 you earlier. We used the visual model to get an idea of what this facility might look like from County Road 24 {Highway} 34 as you're approaching Greeley from the west to the east. In this image these greyed out 38 1 boxes are the existing businesses along Highway 34 in Kelim. Within this circle are the buildings that will 2 constitute the proposed project;that's the view of the facility. This model does not take into account the 3 existing vegetation; this photograph shows the existing vegetation. So, if you see, this is the Martin 4 Marietta facility, this is where it would be; the vegetation would block it -the existing vegetation would 5 block it from Highway 34. If there is additional development in Kelim,that will further block the view from 6 Highway 34. This image is a view taken from the closest lots in the Indianhead Subdivision, looking 7 southwest towards the proposed Martin Marietta project site. From this point the silos that you see in 8 the distance are Martin Marietta's asphalt plant and the ready mixed concrete plant. To give you a little 9 bit of an idea of scale, from this point - from the property line from the lot closest in Indianhead, the 10 asphalt plant-oh, excuse me,the ready mixed plant is 1,450 feet away from the closest, uh, property line 11 - closest residential home, and the asphalt plant is more than 1,900 feet away. That's what this distance 12 view represents. By comparison, at the 35th Avenue facility, the closest residential is about 1,300 feet 13 away. This is another visual taken from the property line of the closest residential unit in Indianhead. Um, 14 this was part of the outcome of the design charrette meeting. Um, as part of the process the neighbors 15 had originally asked, "Could we extend the berm that surrounds the facility and could we bury the height 16 of it and put more vegetation to make it look more natural?" Where ever, there's space to do that, the 17 proposal has been modified to do that;there are some areas where there is not enough room, 'cause you 18 know the berm has to slope and it takes up more-takes up more linear ground that it feels like it should, 19 given how tall it is. Um, another way that you can mitigate the view is by planting landscaping, not at the 20 Martin Marietta plant, but right at the property line of the neighbors, because the closer they are to it, 21 just like that view of Kelim, the more it's like to potentially, positively impact the view. So, one of the 22 proposals,and that is written as a Condition of Approval, is that Martin Marietta would create a fund and 23 a citizens advisory group from which distributions could be made for those neighbors who are impacted, 24 and we're talking about 5 or 6 homes along the perimeter of Indianhead to be able to participate and 39 1 install landscaping on their own property of their own choosing, in a place where they think it would best 2 address their visual impact concerns. How am I doing on time? 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You've got two minutes. 4 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Okay! I'm going to skip over property values, other than to just say 5 our analysis concluded that it is not likely the property values would be negatively impacted, uh, as a 6 result of this project. I also want to mention that the proposed hours of operation were significantly 7 curtailed, again as a result of input. This is a quick summary on the hours of operation; it's actually quite 8 a lengthy part of the staff report and application. You can look through what those hours are if you'd like. 9 Just suffice it to say that it's not going to operate 24 hours, 7 days a week. And, also the lighting on site 10 was proposed to be amended in order to, um, address and so all lighting will be full cut off. The pole 11 height for the security lighting and the operational lighting was reduced from 35 feet to 24 feet, thereby, 12 minimizing the amount of light that this project would cast. Martin Marietta proposes to create a citizens 13 advisory group in order to address concerns as they may come up and also to make recommendations 14 about the disposition of the proposed landscaping fund. This slide summarizes many of the mitigation 15 measures that I've just described. It's really a bullet point high-level summary; there's a lot more than 16 that. And, finally, in conclusion, tying all of these issues to your Code criteria for approval of a Use by 17 Special Review, um, we feel that between our presentation today and all the materials that have been 18 submitted, demonstrated that this proposed project meets all of the proposed criteria in Chapter 22. 19 Adequate services and facilities to support the use, protection of private property rights, every measure 20 that was possible has been taken to reduce conflict between land uses. This is clearly an illustration of 21 the appropriate location of industrial along the railroad infrastructure. There are also any number of goals 22 in the Weld County Code that this project relates to that were - that have not been addressed in any of 23 the other materials submitted to you and when time permits a little later today, perhaps I'll have a chance 2 4 to point some of those specific goals out for you. 40 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Quick clarification? 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Just a second, let her finish up. 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought she was done. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: She's got a few more seconds. Anything else? 6 CAROLYNNE WHITE: In conclusion, we ask for your approval of this project. It meets, or 7 exceeds, all of the applicable Code requirements. Out entire team is here to answer any of your further 8 questions and we thank you for the time and attention you've given to this proposal. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Clarification? 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yes. Quick, two things when you come back up - I want to - 11 a better understanding of how the suggested community working group could work in terms of that. And, 12 a further discussion on lighting. 13 CAROLYNNE WHITE: On lighting? 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Um hum. Thanks. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Any other clarifications needed? Alright, we're going to take 16 a five minute recess and at which time we come back the, uh,organized group for the opposition will have 17 an hour to do their presentation, which will include questions from the Board of County Commissioners. 18 {The hearing was recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 11:07 a.m.} 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Uh,it looks like we have the folks who are with the opposition 20 group up here. So, great. Okay, again I need people to take their seats and please do it quietly - we're 21 getting started. So, if you will speak into the microphone. You can pick that up if you need to. 22 DAVE KISKER: I think- I think it will work. Can you hear me? 41 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. Alright, so, urn, I'll need members of your group when they get 2 up to speak to state their name and address for the record and then again your comments, please,to the 3 Board of County Commissioners. 4 DAVE KISKER: Yes, Ma'am. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. And, we'll start you at 11:08. 6 DAVE KISKER: Okay. Thanks for your, uh,time today. Uh, my name is Dave Kisker. I live 7 at 6681 Apache Road in Johnstown; that's part of Indianhead Estates. I'm going to give us a little kickoff 8 and then we're going to hand the presentation off to several others in the next few minutes. So, um,first 9 of all I want to clear up a couple of misconceptions. I'm going to start with a couple that we just heard, 10 uh,a comparison with this site and Indianhead Estates traffic is remarkable. Uh,there may or may not be 11 990 truck/cars or vehicles, but I know there not 990 semi trucks. So, comparing trucks at the Martin 12 Marietta site with cars at Indianhead Estates is a little bit stretching. The next thing is with regard to the 13 emissions; it's true that they can be monitored or checked, but they're not routinely monitored and that, 14 in fact, is part of the problem. Now,going on,first of all-oops, sorry-the, uh, it's important to remember 15 that the USR goes with the land. Uh, all the other stuff: the community benefits, pot hole repairs,various 16 operational promises-those are not a criteria, so that means if Martin Marietta were to lease the land or 17 property to somebody else or sell it,then whatever we decide today can be done by that new person. So, 18 any restrictions we put in have to be enforceable;things like working hours, noise limits, um, other kinds 19 of factors have to be hard coded so they can be enforced. Simply having somebody say, 'Well we promise 2 0 to do such and such,' is not good enough. Uh,there actually is an emission issue that's serious, both with 21 fugitive dust - fugitive dust and potentially formaldehyde. There's going to have to be an extensive 22 detailed analysis done by the CDPHE staff. I spent an hour and a half on the phone with them talking 23 about how this will be done. Uh, as a minor point, this is not actually an asphalt batch plant, it's a 2 4 continuous plant. The Code speaks specifically to batch plants, whether this is, uh, compatible with that 42 1 or consistent with that is a question for you all, but it's not a batch plant. Uh, truck traffic matters, and 2 finally, despite what was claimed, it is estimated that roughly one percent of their production actually 3 goes to support agriculture based on documentation from various places. This is actually a definition of 4 batch plants versus drum mixed plants; it's from one of the trade sites, and the key thing is drum mixed 5 plants can operated 24 hours a day because they can store the asphalt. The batch plants don't do that 6 and so the scope of operation is substantially higher. As a matter of interest, uh, I noticed that there's 7 never been any kind of schematic presented by the applicant. There has never even been any 8 photographs submitted by the applicant. Uh, I guess maybe there was one today, sorry. But this is a 9 schematic showing the various sources - I'm sorry for the distance -the yellow is the odor sources from 10 the process,the bright orange is the fugitive dust sources and this is a typical batch plant, or typical drum 11 mixed operation as shown in EPA document AP42. Now the interesting thing here is we have all these 12 potential odor sources: silo filling,truck loading, dumping at the drum mixed plant, and the AC tank which 13 is right here. The one that the charcoal filter and the other things apply to is the AC plant only. There are 14 still odors getting generated at all the other places. This is an example. I don't know how well you can 15 see it up there, but this was taken on Friday at the Taft Hill plant. This is an example of silo loading and 16 you can see the fumes coming off and that's the odor. And if we have time we'll show other pictures from 17 the same place of the truck loading, the dumping of the drum, and so forth. There is an odor problem 18 and simply fixing the AC plant tanks is not sufficient. There are several questions that we need to answer. 19 First of all, is it compliant with Code Section 22 and 23, uh, is it compliant with the Right to Farm, and if 2 0 it's got impacts, can they be mitigated? In the next few minutes we're going to try to be addressing those 21 things, but suffice it to say,that in our estimation, in all of these related Code issues-and we're not going 22 to go through them today,we went through them in more detail at the Planning Commission and you all 23 have had to suffer through the 12 hours of that meeting, uh, but suffice it to say,the data says it doesn't 2 4 fit. Briefly, it comes down to a question of incompatible land uses and the health, safety and welfare of 43 1 residents of the County. That's both intent of the Ag Zone and also, uh,the way the USR rules are written. 2 So, that's what we're trying to deal with is can we be compatible, and of course right now it needs to be 3 compatible with both the current or existing neighborhood uses as well as those in surrounding 4 communities and we've already heard about both of those from the staff. And,the key thing in addition 5 to that is protection of the health, safety and welfare of current and future county residents. So, no I'm 6 going to turn it over to John Cummings for a few minutes to talk about some of the farming and water 7 quality issues. 8 JOHN CUMMINGS: I'm, uh, John Cummings. I live at 26700 Weld County Road 13, 9 Johnstown. I'm a farmer,wildlife biologist and Board member of the Reorganized Farmers Ditch. Uh, our 10 farm is actually about 400 yards south of this proposed facility. In previous documents and presentations, 11 uh,we discussed Martin Marietta's proposed development is not compliant with the Chapter 22 land use 12 regulations goals or policies. Today what I wanted to concentrate on is Right to Farm and water quality. 13 So, Ag producers - whether they have a dairy, ranch, farm - deal with sustainability each day from 14 environmental, economic or social issues. The enormity of the Martin Marietta proposed development 15 and the variety of activities conducted on site will have a major effect on the sustainability of the 16 surrounding farmers. Martin Marietta's intrusion will create an environment that will impact agricultural 17 practices by increasing traffic hazardous air pollutants, contaminants, fugitive dust that have a negative 18 impact on the water quality. This is just the dust aftermath of just two semi trucks going down County 19 Road 56, which is just on the south side of this proposed development. Now if you can just imagine 650 20 trucks, train unloading and front end loaders moving about the site, what kind of impact and dust 21 production that would be at that particular site. Fugitive dust does have an impact on crops. There's, uh, 22 it's estimated that up to about 200 tons of fugitive dust will be produced at this site annually. And,fugitive 23 dust related to crops,granted they will probably use mag chloride, or have proposed to use mag chloride 2 4 on this site to control dust and water to control dust. But water-that's really a wasteful use of water for 44 1 - to use to control dust, but, the other thing is that fugitive dust - there's been a number of different 2 studies; university studies, published studies conducted on the effects of fugitive dust and it's harm to 3 plants. It harms the plant and reduces yields, and in some cases, can kill the plant itself. So, this is the 4 Martin Marietta site and Martin Marietta's stormwater drainage area represents about 46 percent 5 impervious area, which means there's about 54 percent of the stormwater will percolate into the ground 6 carrying with it oil, grease, salt, house particles, silica, other contaminants, such as mag chloride as used 7 as dust suppressant. This contaminated water is going to end up in Tunie Reservoir, which is right here, 8 and then into surrounding farm fields by ground and surface water movements and underground drains. 9 And, this area is scattered with underground drains which come, go across the property, and also end up 10 in the Reservoir itself and end up in adjacent land owners' properties. And, it's worth noting that in this 11 particular area,that surface groundwater is within about two feet of the surface and that, uh, movement 12 and sometimes movement of this water is actually on the surface itself. Martin Marietta's solution to this 13 is to actually bring in fill to try and resolve this problem, but what it's going to do is affect the water 14 patterns and the dynamics of the stormwater drainage plan. And, it's also worth noting that -that if in 15 this area right here - all this has been previously irrigated land, so the flow of irrigation water is north to 16 south. They seem to show that it goes to the southwest, but this area right in here isn't really protected 17 to actually drain into the detention pond, so they show{coughing-in audible}and all these other ditches 18 and the drainage it comes out of-the detention pond and, um, going into the farmers' irrigation system. 19 So, the amount of surface water that leaves their detention pond at historic rates will carry all kinds of 20 contaminants. The release rate of their detention pond today is really equivalent to about 125 football 21 fields covered one inch deep in water, and what it's really important to recognize here is that the first 22 flood on their site after a dry period from a storm event is going to push a lot of toxins into that detention 23 pond with water and that water flows on through into the irrigation - surrounding irrigation ditches. So, 24 keep this slide in mind and this is the flow and the system of the reorganized Farmer's Ditch. It shows all 45 1 the ditches that surround this particular site. Of note, is this particular ditch right here? It is historically 2 protected - it goes right across the middle of Martin Marietta's site. There's been no contact by Martin 3 Marietta to address this particular ditch,and again,anything that comes out of the detention ponds down 4 in this area moves into all these lateral ditches and on down into farmers' fields. So, since about 1861, 5 water quality in this area has been really conserved and maintained by good farming practices. Water 6 flow amounts and patterns have been really unchanged. Martin Marietta proposed develop, 7 contaminants from that site make their way into our ditches,our drains, our groundwater and will impact 8 the farming that surrounds that particular site. Here's an example for a release point for a detention pond 9 in our area. And granted the Martin Marietta, uh, detention pond will probably take care of silt that 10 moves into that detention pond. It's not going to do anything to take care of the water that actually flows 11 through that carrying all these contaminants. So,you can see from this particular slide, the largest plains 12 here where water goes down; and all that does is slow the water volume down and speed down. And, as 13 you can see in one of our recent storm events where we had up to four inches of rain, uh, within a day, 14 the high water line on this particular device where all the water overflowed. So, again,the water quality 15 issues, uh, are emissions and contaminants leaching into the soil, contaminating the groundwater. 16 Mitigation - install a field textile under the entire site. Damage to underground drains, locate and 17 determine the drain patterns, both on the site and on adjacent farmer's sites. Leaching a mag chloride 18 into the runoff,the groundwater mitigation, no use of chemical dust suppressants. And, again, it's a lost 19 resource to use water. Contaminated ground water runoff will drain into Tunie Reservoir. For mitigation, 20 all runoff of the site goes through the detention pond -all runoff for the site, even if they have to pump it 21 out there to the southeast corner. And then finally prevent pollutions, contaminants and other chemicals 22 from leaving the site, mitigation: install a release control valve on the detention pond. In fact,the water 23 quality tests that we've given to [paper shuffle-inaudible). So in other words they could dam that up in 24 any storm event that we have, hold that water, analyze it, make sure there aren't any contaminants in it 46 1 before it's released. And the other issue that we do have - it seems like they've talked a lot about 2 Indianhead Subdivision, but have kind of forgotten all the residents of farms that are southeast corner 3 south of the development and on the west side. So, again, thank you for your time and opportunity to 4 speak. Thank you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. 6 RAY MOE: Uh, good morning Commissioners, uh, thank you very much for having the 7 opportunity to present this morning. Urn, my name is Ray- my name is Ray Moe. I live at 808 Delwood 8 Drive in Fort Collins,Colorado. I don't have any direct skin in the game here. I, uh, was basically asked by 9 my brother and sister-in-law, with a career in transportation, to kinda look at the project. They live on 10 County Road 13, halfway between U.S. 34 and the entrance to the Martin Marietta project. Up on the 11 screen here you can kinda see a little bit of my background. I've been in the world of transportation for 12 49 years. Urn, I started a company in 1983, and it's doing well; with a couple of people I started an office 13 here on the north front range in Fort Collins in 2000 and I have been blessed to retire and I've been 14 basically retired now for 10 months but have been a pro bono transportation consultant the last couple 15 of months. Uh, as you can see up there, I've been fortunate to win three national competitions for plan 16 awards, uh, I've prepared hundreds of traffic impact studies. I've prepared transportation guidelines to 17 be used by Loveland, Cheyenne and El Paso County. And, most recently before I did retire, I prepared the 18 Long Range Transportation Plan for the City of Greeley. A little history about the comments I've provided; 19 initially when contacted I prepared a letter-that's letter number 340 in the packet - I raised a number of 20 kind of bullet point issues of concern that were identified in the Traffic Study. Typically, I kinda think that 21 those issues and concerns are looked at and updated, etcetera, but I've not seen any those responses. 22 Um, we've prepared a 28-page critique of the Traffic Study as to how it addresses each of the 23 requirements of Weld County traffic guidelines. There were issues such as where did the source of data 24 come from, as opposed to being developed -as an example,trip generation/distribution was provided by 47 1 the applicant. This assumption about six lanes on U.S. 34 is also missing pieces, such as a requirement to 2 do a signal warrant analysis was not included in there or addressing the real operations. The last item 3 was the presentation at the Planning Commission. You've probably had an opportunity to review that 4 now and I thought it was education and informative and trying to kind of paint a picture that's quite a bit 5 different than what's being presented in the Martin Marietta Traffic Study. Uh, after the presentation at 6 the Planning Commission,the consultant for Martin Marietta,Gene Capella,basically said two statements, 7 and I apologize I don't like reading a lot but I want to read it 'cause it's kinda been pulled from the tape, 8 and uh, one of the statements was-we were talking about the issue of trucks,versus cars and one of the 9 statements was that heavy vehicle adjustments, or these things called passenger car equivalents are used 10 to determine length of the turn pocket but the consultant says they make no sense in traffic operation 11 analysis because heavy trucks operate the same as other vehicles. The second statement was that there's 12 going to be sufficient green time (45 seconds) on County Road 13, which will allow all the vehicles that 13 are on County 13 to enter U.S. 34 and not back up traffic. Once those two statements were made, 14 basically, it was like no more discussion. There was no more items that was discussed and we had kind of 15 raised it in there,so what I'd like to do is kinda take that point and continue on and kinda paint a different 16 picture, starting with kinda the reasons on why these things should be considered. Let's just start with 17 the trucks for a moment and the heavy duty adjustments. Um,the bible so to speak,of traffic engineering 18 is the Highway Capacity Manual. Uh, basically,that defines what capacity is, line capacity ratios, levels of 19 service - all of the things that you've got here. And, originally, that was produced in 1965, the very first 20 version was produced by a guy by the name of Jim Kell. I worked for him eight years on an update to that, 21 but what it specifically said was that you do need to have adjustments for trucks. In fact, no different than 22 having adjustments for grade or other sorts of components, the trucks have a significant impact on the 23 flow and the way they do that is through a concept called passenger car equivalents. So, just think 24 common sense wise - does that make sense? Well, kinda number one is their large size. Obviously, as 48 1 Gene had indicated,we need to accommodate longer left-turn pockets,etcetera and that, because they're 2 long, but they also take of size in the travel lane. Uh, number 2 is their operational characteristics, and 3 this is significant. Urn, there's a lot of terms out there called, like speed and capacity and those sorts of 4 things and saturation flow rates, but the bottom line is that heavy vehicles start from a stop at a significant 5 slower speed than a vehicle. That slower speed effects the wave behind that and the overall capacity. 6 And,therefore, if you have a mix of heavy vehicles in there, it disrupts the overall capacity of the roadway. 7 The third thing is that they effect passenger cars. We all do it. We all come up to a stop, we see cars in 8 one lane and semis in another lane, we shift over, we kind of make our moves, and so that's making 9 inefficiency in some of the capacities. So, when we talk about this three-to-one, you know, the Traffic 10 Study says there's 2,200 vehicles out there, but if you equate the fact that these vehicles are more of a 11 three-to-one, it's more like 6,000, and how that effects it is important. The second major issue that we 12 were kind of identifying and concerned was they kept referring to the study, they were going to have a 13 signal, we're going to have maybe an interchange, we're going to have six lanes. The study they're 14 referring to is the, uh, it's about a twelve year old U.S. 34 Access Control Plan. And what that study was 15 identified was where would you put traffic control so that you don't have someone like a shopping center 16 coming in and saying we want a shopping center here; we want a signal at that location. It has to abide 17 by some sort of overall kind of plan. There's no guidance on there as to when you need these 18 improvements; if you even need these improvements. You know, they say if you did do some 19 improvement at County Road 13, it could be a signal or potentially some interchange. It did say to also 20 kind of maintain the design of your improvements so that if someday you did do a fifth and sixth lane on 21 U.S. 34 it'd be. But if I were to start a study, I would go to the Weld County 2035 Long Range 22 Transportation Plan and see what it says. I have to a long range evaluation, which is 20 years from now, 23 that's now 2035, and the Weld County Transportation Plan and the North Front Range Metropolitan Plan 24 (MPO Transportation Plan,and the City of Greeley Transportation Plan all are financial constrained, none 49 1 of them have identified any funds to do any of these improvements, signals or widenings, and they've 2 identified it as an expressway,which means that you want to maintain the highest functional classification 3 roadway in Weld County to kind of maintain limited access, uh, was an important pointed to that. And, 4 as I said,there was no signals planned on U.S. 34 or County Road 13. So, let's talk about one of the items 5 that was requested but not provided, and that was a signal warrant analysis, and specifically, those are 6 usually requested so that you can see what's causing the need for the signal. Is it background traffic or is 7 it a project. And it's pretty simple. That's one nice thing about this. Basically, imagine that we have a lot 8 of traffic on the major street. This is U.S. 34, and we have side street traffic, we don't want to interject a 9 signal in there unless there's a certain threshold that's reached. That threshold is 100 vehicles. It's an 10 interruption of continuous flow. If I look at this chart I go out there and I count cars. This was provided 11 by the consultant-there's 21 cars, well below that threshold. If I look at the short term, a little bit less, 12 probably rounding long term 35,what we could definitely see is that there is no need for that signal to be 13 out there. Now if I start saying what happens with the addition of the Martin Marietta traffic? Boom, 14 bingo, we're past Go. We now need a signal -we have a 100 vehicles out there and if you consider those 15 are trucks,that's more like 300. It makes common sense that we need a signal. Now what our comment 16 has been is that the consultant has basically said, in their traffic study for Martin Marietta, that there's a 17 need for a signal and that Martin Marietta will put the signal in and,therefore, mitigate the impact. What 18 we've been saying is that the real the impact is both the signal and the 2,000 trucks a day that are going 19 through there that impact on the U.S. 34 corridor and the region itself and those are not being mitigated. 2 0 So, let's look at pictures. This is the picture provided by the consultant. It's, uh, basically the first column 21 says heavy duty/heavy vehicle adjustments- no they did not do that in the short term or long term. They 22 assumed a four lane U.S. 34 in the short term and six lane in the long term. And they paint a picture of C 23 level of serve at 20.8 seconds. And if you go, well ok, I painted that green - that's usually good; yellow 24 kind of like cautionary; red - if I take a look at that I say well that kinda makes, you know, not too bad. 50 1 But, keep in mind, no one had to stop before. 40,000 vehicles do not have to stop at County Road 13. 2 Now they're subject to about 20.8 seconds of delay each as they go through that intersection. If I take a 3 look at the longterm,we don't see a significant increase in congestion,in large part because they assumed 4 a six-lane roadway. So, {inaudible}we're going to magically make that disappear because we're going to 5 have a six-lane roadway we have no funds for to put in. So, I asked my former company, LSA Associates, 6 if they could give me a little pro bono transportation work for the pro bono transportation consultant and 7 re-run these with a couple adjustments. So, if I look at the Traffic Study in the back there's these four 8 pages that give this information and it's a Highway Capacity software you put inputs, etcetera. Well one 9 of the inputs in there is heavy vehicle adjustments and passenger car equivalents. So, I said replicate what 10 they've done, now do it with a traffic adjustment for vehicles, uh, on the short-term alternative. All of a 11 sudden I'm at a D level service. That delay is no longer 20.8 acres; it's 37.5 seconds. That's a big difference. 12 That is a significant level of service difference that we see out there. Now if we take a look at the long 13 term and we say,oh,we've got two things to adjust. One is there was no-we now have 2,000 trucks, not 14 1,000; we need to adjust for those, and now we have this situation where it's not six lanes. In reality it's 15 only going to be four lanes. What does the world look like? Well, it's a fail. It's basically not 33 seconds, 16 it's 182 seconds. To give you an idea - 60 seconds is the threshold for failing level of service. That's one 17 minute;this is three minutes. This is three times that. Everybody that goes through that intersection will 18 be subject to that sort of delay and what I can say is if that signal wasn't there and you just looked at the 19 traffic as it grows to 50 plus thousand vehicles, you don't have to stop there, you can continue. Um, so 20 what does this look like? In fact, one of the softwares that we used to evaluate - we used the same 21 Highway Capacity Control software but there are some evaluations out there in some jurisdictions that 22 says what do we report when it's over F. You know, we might have this sort of situation. This would kind 23 of like a level of service H for'Horrific.' 51 1 So, what does this look like? Uh, what we said to my group, and this is a signal timing all the time. They 2 use a product called Syncro; it's what all jurisdictions around here uses. But this starts painting a picture 3 of what this looks like. A level of service C in what I would call a short term. This is the day it opens so to 4 speak. You've got that short of vehicles and you kind of look at it and say'ok,that's not too bad.' Now, a 5 couple things. I've got this at an eight times speed so you can kind of see a cycle go and you can see cars 6 arrive and then see cars depart. You know, you can see how that sort of activity occurs and that. But it 7 generally works, but again, none of those east-west vehicles would have had to stop. Okay, uh, so here is 8 now the long term. This is what H looks like; this is what 'Horrific' looks like. This looks -this looks like 9 the entryway to Weld County because once that signal is there,this is what is going to appear. If I look at 10 the backup on the east-west movement it's probably about double that if I look at the full kind of like 11 frame. If I start looking at some of the backup, you know, you can obviously see that the Kelim frontage 12 road is backed up pretty much permanently. Uh, the traffic consultant says that that's not considered 13 relevant. Um,if you see that house down there right where those trucks are backed up,that's my brother, 14 Dennis's house and his wife Barb;that's why I'm here. I've kind of thought about what would people say 15 if they're kinda stopped there and they're looking at maybe having to go two cycles to get through that 16 intersection. And, they're going to ask themselves, "Who in the heck ever approved that signal to service 17 all those asphalt trucks?" So, we kinda look at things. One of the issues we raised was that the impact 18 was not evaluated other than one half mile of County Road 13 and the intersection, and our comment is 19 that it is significantly bigger than that. If I were just to take a quick right turn and, uh,go around, they've 20 cited the fact that we have this very short acceleration lane. We timed some contract trucks/cement 21 trucks and they get to about 35 miles per hour before they get into that travel stream. Uh, basically the 22 consultant has said we need to extend that, uh, 1,680 feet. I don't know about whether that is the right 23 number or not, but that would allow vehicles to kinda come out there. What I'm saying is that's not even 24 possible because what you have is a railroad there and that would mean you would have to add a new 52 1 lane over the railroad and that's not gonna happen. They don't do that. They don't provide additional 2 lanes. They'll take lanes away or maybe they'll trade one, but they're not going to go out there and allow 3 another lane. So,this improvement concerns me because you're going to have now 2,000 trucks; a third 4 of those making rights on a very short acceleration. Well let's turn left and really start getting concerned. 5 If I start going left and head out to the I-25 interstate, which is where they've identified two-thirds of 6 those trucks going north would go, I've got 114 more trips. If I convert that into, um, what the capacity is 7 of a two-lane roadway, I'm about ten percent - I've used up immediately ten percent of those sort of the 8 capacity. If I start approaching the Centerra Parkway intersection I start seeing a situation where if I want 9 to go to I-25, I need to kinda shift from that number one to that number two lane. I need to be in that 10 lane because I need to make that transition shortly after that. So, I either make that movement, you 1 1 know, either before the intersection, or potentially after that intersection, but I need to get by that 12 location at that point in time, uh, because then I get into kind of the Centerra/I-25 mixed master where 13 everybody is kind of merging into one lane or another. So, if I'm going to I-25 I have to shift over to the 14 right. If I'm coming from Centerra and want to go west on 34 go through, I have to then shift. That's a 15 1,000-foot segment where we now have introduced another, uh, 1,100- 114 A.M., and about 1,100 peak 16 trips. Urn, kinda closing here, I uh, also have concerns about the train traffic. The consultant indicated - 17 or the presentation earlier kind of indicated that they asked the consultant if that's something that is 18 typically done. He said No and kind of left it to maybe be better to be taken care of by the railroad and 19 the P.U.C. And, I'm from Fort Collins and I'm fearful of this. I'm stuck all the time because of railroads, 20 and once you give that approval it's locked in; they trump Weld County;you don't have a say in that. So, 21 there's never been any kind of evaluation of what that impact would be. Kinda the last thing I kinda have 22 my last kinda slide is I kinda call it the 'Do the Right Thing' slide. And going back,you know,ten or fifteen 23 years, you know, and you guys have been involved in some of this too. There's been a lot of talk about 2 4 the infrastructure that's serving our region. The I-25,the U.S. 34 corridor, and how important that is, and 53 1 so, you know, through that process, you know, there's been recognition that the funding for being able 2 to make a fifth and sixth lane -you can't even do I-25 let alone 34, you know. They're saying CDOT's like 3 2050, 2060, 2070 for the I-25 extra lane. And so one of the things I was really proud of, and that was that, 4 during a lot of work that's gone on the last decade. And this is - and I remember a couple County 5 Commissioners from Weld at some of these workshops kinda starting to pioneer some ideas like the O 6 Street/ Crossroads connection. Can we start introducing some relief so to speak to the U.S. 34 corridor; 7 providing some other, sort of opportunities to get there, as well as the County road 54 over the 402, you 8 know, providing some sort of parallel sort of services in that. And kinda what this plan does is almost is 9 the exact opposite. It's basically saying we're going to put a signal in; it could jeopardize your status as an 10 express way and more like an arterial highway like U.S. 85 and that-that is basically going to also change 11 the whole character of that area and your entryway. So, I'm not going to go through kinda my traffic 12 conclusions other than just real quickly. You've got - these are heavy vehicles from how we recognize 13 them, um, it's a four-lane roadway out there, uh, that the impact is both the signal and the project itself, 14 and that this entire corridor of U.S. 34 would be impacted through the project. Thank you. 15 GARY OPLINGER: Good morning Commissioners. My name is Gary Oplinger. I live at 16 27687 Hopi Trail in the Indianhead West Subdivision. I want to address Weld County Code Section 23-2- 17 230, paragraph B.6, which says that the applicant shall demonstrate that he's made a diligent effort to 18 preserve and conserve prime farmland in his decision to choose a site. Let's take a look at the site 19 selection options that Martin Marietta had. They looked at 13 sites between roughly County Road 13 and 20 Milliken and they're all along the Union Pacific track. Let's go to this next slide. I apologize for this- it's a 21 little confusing - it's the best I could do with the Weld County GIS website. But, the green shows what's 22 in prime farmland. You can see the, uh, Union Pacific track crossing Milliken from northwest to southeast 23 in the middle there. What it shows - all of these sites that I showed you previously, except for Milliken, 24 are in prime farmland. These are Martin Marietta's site selection criteria. If you look down the column 54 1 on the left you won't see 'conserved as prime farmland' there; it was not a criteria. I want to point out 2 the star in the middle there in the 'close to Highway 34 and I-25' row, uh,the distance from site six to I-25 3 was 3.9 miles and they got a maximum score 2. The distance from site 7 to County- excuse me, to I-25 4 was 5.5 miles, only 1.6 miles further; it got a score of zero. There are at least five industrially zoned sites 5 available that would not have removed prime farmland from production. All of these have access to Union 6 Pacific and all have areas significantly larger than the proposed site. One is in the North Greeley Rail 7 Sub-corridor Area, uh, Martin Marietta actually looked at this site and rejected it because Windsor 8 objected to the traffic through their town. Also, available to them are site 13 in Milliken, which we 9 addressed previously. There is a site in LaSalle on the Wetco property,Wetco Farms property. The Eaton 10 Industrial Rail Park and the Martin Marietta Greeley site. The evidence suggests that Martin Marietta has 11 made no effort to preserve prime farmland. Their main objective was to locate all of their facilities 12 (distribution,asphalt and cement)within four to five miles of I-25. That's because most of their outbound 13 truck movements will turn left to go west to I-25 out of Weld County. My 75 percent number differs from 14 what we were told previously. It's based on data provided in Martin Marietta's application and also in 15 statements made by Martin Marietta executives at a June meeting. 16 CHRIS FRIEDE: Good morning Commissioners. My name is Chris Friede, and I live at 6943 17 County Road 56 in Johnstown. Okay, as you may remember, I was here less than two months ago and I 18 thank you all for your approval of my USR15-0028 to operate a wedding and event venue,The Rockin' S 19 Ranch. I've been very excited; I put a lot of time and effort,a lot of work cleanup, I've taken advantage of 20 a lot of the great small business programs you've put in place for residents in Weld County with the Small 21 Business Incentive Program. Also working with the Small Business Development Center which has helped 22 me to really develop a solid business plan that I feel is gonna make a very viable business. Unfortunately, 23 I'm located right next to the proposed facility- it's just to the west of me, my land borders the proposed 24 Martin Marietta facility. So, obviously, I have significant concern. When I got my USR approved the 55 1 mission and the critical success factors to the approval of my USR were a peaceful rural setting, 2 spectacular mountain views, convenient located and a renovated dairy barn. Unfortunately, this - it this 3 USR is approved, my setting now becomes a noisy industrial setting. The views go to views of an asphalt 4 plant,a rail spur,train and tracks, piles of aggregate and concrete. The convenient location and dairy barn 5 now goes to a venue that is difficult to access because of all the increased train and truck traffic, 6 significantly increased noise and strong odors, and my investment that I spent over the past several years 7 in time and money to start this business will be completely lost. I want to just take a second to talk about 8 noise standards. My USR was approved for an unspecified use pairing which is 55 from 50. Martin 9 Marietta's asking for industrial use which is 80 and 75. You can see by this yellow - oops sorry - as you 10 can see by this yellow line, I can emit up to 55 to their property; they can emit up to 80 to my property. 11 How's this compatible? So I just want to take a quick little minute to talk about a scenario of what a 12 wedding would be like. What would the experience be like at the Rockin' S Ranch if this facility is actually 13 built in here? On a Saturday afternoon, my peak wedding time, also Martin Marietta's peak time in the 14 summer time. First of all the bridal party is delayed getting to the wedding; they don't get there until an 15 hour late, but that doesn't matter because the guests are delayed too because they got caught in traffic. 16 First impression is they get to my site, open their door,they are greeted by the smell of the asphalt plant 17 just across the way. Ceremony - the bridge walks down to the ceremony site, which is lavender alfalfa 18 fields down by the lake,they get down there, there's a cello playing, they start their vows and you hear a 19 hopper right across the lake start unloading the trains. You can't hear anything from their vows, nothing! 2 0 And that continues on, not just through the ceremony but through the entire reception. Now off to the 21 reception pavilion for the reception,they get to their table but the beautifully set tables are now covered 22 in dust coming across from the asphalt plant. And pictures, do I need to say more? I mean, these are the 23 pictures that will be cherished for a lifetime. This is so important to the-that part of a wedding[inaudible'. 2 4 So for me the business impact is,that is not going to be an acceptable experience and it will not make for 56 1 a viable business. Martin Marietta's statement at the Planning Commission regarding my wedding venue 2 is there's no reason this would prevent a wedding venue from moving forward. So,just to make sure, I 3 contacted wedding planners in northern Colorado. I asked five different wedding planners- I asked them 4 to come out to my facility and evaluate it, and I've given you all copies of what their statements were and 5 you can read through those. I asked them to evaluate with my plans the way they are and then if you put 6 an asphalt plant right to the west of me. No surprise. I was very excited though when I got their 7 evaluations they said this is going to be a great tie in wedding venue that would be very sought after and 8 it is very much needed in northern Colorado. No surprise. Consistently with Martin Marietta, if this 9 proposal goes through, they don't think my business would survive. Mitigation, I just want to take a 10 minute too. Um, so there was a lot of meetings. There was the public meetings and all these things that 11 happened. Um,when I got my USR approved I had a neighbor that was really concerned about noise so I 12 went and I met with my neighbor personally. I sat down, I walked him across my property, we talked 13 about it, we worked out a plan where I would address his issues. We came back and when I came to my 14 Commission meeting this part was addressed and we worked out a plan that was viable for both of us. I 15 have never once been contacted personally by Martin Marietta to really understand what the impact 16 would be to my venue, and then based on my concerns, what could be done to mitigate. And, if you look 17 at some of those things that were just shared today,they've changed the rail spur to benefit Indianhead, 18 which actually has made it worse for me. 19 BRUCE BARKER: Madam Chair. Um, you might need to step in front of the mic. 20 CHRIS FRIEDE: Oh, I'm sorry. 21 BRUCE BARKER: Yeah. Thank you. 22 CHRIS FRIEDE: And so just in closing, um, if this were to go through I just want to say that 23 this would ruin my business and would respectfully request that you deny this USR. Thank you very much. 57 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Okay, we're at the point in time where we have about 14 2 minutes for questions. Do you want to come up to the microphone, please? 3 DAVE KISKER: Can I take a couple more minutes, uh,to just run through our summary. It 4 will only take a couple minutes. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: That's fine. 6 DAVE KISKER: Jay, um, I'm going to have you wait and we'll see if we have time. Okay, in 7 summary,we feel that, um,the Martin Marietta project is not compatible with current/future uses or the 8 desires of the surrounding communities and it does not protect the health, safety and welfare of the 9 residents. So the first is what about mitigation? Um, we've heard a lot about all the stuff that they've 10 tried to do and we respect the idea that mitigation might be feasible. We've looked into that pretty 11 carefully ourselves. Um, in fact the Code requires that mitigation be one of the criteria. Let's look at the 12 plan. On the June 9th meeting, Mr. Hagerman asserted that they not only meet the regulations, they go 13 above and beyond that by a substantial manner. We don't have time to consider all the details today, but 14 let's talk about what they've really done. In most cases they've hired a study. Okay, that's true of 15 emissions, health, wildlife, property values - I could go through water, drainage, organic farm, and traffic 16 initially, and said there's no problem. Don't worry be happy. In a few places some of the proposed action 17 have actually been mentioned, in case of noise,odor,visual,operating hours. Generally,they're minimum 18 effects and even if they're part of the design standards,they're specific to Martin Marietta as opposed to 19 the site. Um, the organization 334 and others have suggested numerous other possibilities and they've 2 0 all been rejected. Uh, let's go - wrong button. We've heard about their stuff; I'm going to skip through 21 that in the interest of time. Here's some of the things we've suggested. We've suggested an enforceable 22 residential noise standard at the property line. In order to be compatible, that would mean we have to 23 be balanced on both sides. They rejected that. We've suggested a tighter odor control as some 24 jurisdictions have; instead of a seven-to-one dilution, which is the current standard,we've asked them to 58 1 do, uh, we actually asked four-to-one but they could even do two-to-one if they were truly good 2 neighbors. This would mean that only weaker odors were allowed to be emitted. They rejected that. We 3 asked them to enclose the asphalt plant and the concrete plant and lower the building heights - rejected 4 everything except possibly the concrete plant. We asked them to do the plantings internal to their site 5 instead of on our property - rejected that. We asked them to do health monitoring for the nearby 6 residents just as they do for their employees - rejected that. We asked them to put in early warning 7 emissions systems because, in fact, CDPHE while they have standards does not do any monitoring - 8 rejected that. We asked them to do a clay liner, to do other water quality issues, or soil contamination 9 monitoring- rejected all of those. Uh, we asked them to put in a reclamation box so that someday when 10 we actually want to use this site for a more appropriate purpose we can reclaim it without having to do a 11 bunch of superfund kinds of stuff- rejected that. And finally, we asked them if they would do some kind 12 of compensation funds for loss of our quiet enjoyment. So in reality - they of course rejected that. In 13 reality mitigation has generally been rejected. Now,are these just a bunch of crazy ideas? The odors and 14 emissions are real. This was Friday at Taft Hill. The dust is real;this was also Friday at Taft Hill, and by the 15 way, I assume they're required to meet the same water and standards and all that sort of stuff. The issue 16 is, the standard for fugitive dust in Colorado is that no visible cloud of dust can cross the property line. 17 The problem is it's not about visible dust, okay? The EPA standard for safety with a 24-hour exposure is 18 35 micrograms per cubic meter. That means you can't see it. Believe it or not, there's 35 micrograms of 19 talcum power in this little case. If we disburse that over roughly a cubic yard,so three-foot, by three-foot, 2 0 by three-foot, it would be even more invisible. So we talking about having the nearby residents exposed 21 to invisible stuff that's already invisible. How is that being a good neighbor? Another example,as recently 22 as June 16th they permitted an asphalt plant in North Carolina, uh, there was some internal plannings, 23 but the important thing is they agreed to a 55-foot height limit on their asphalt plant. I don't know why 24 it takes a hundred feet here. Maybe asphalt, because of our thinner air floats up into the air or something. 59 1 The point is, we can do much better. This is a site down in Centennial that's operated by Aggregate 2 Industries; this is their concrete plant. Notice the more attractive wall; it's not barbed wire or chain link 3 fence, it's actually brick. Notice the fact that the concrete plant looks a bit like an enclosed factory of 4 some sort. Even more interesting is - oops - even more interesting is the asphalt plant. That's the 5 Aggregate Industries asphalt plant. The truth is it doesn't have to look ugly and smelly and all that sort of 6 stuff. They can do better and they haven't. Similarly, it's about enforcement that your USR application 7 has a landscape requirement. You've read it, no doubt. The important thing is it's supposed to have 8 screening. This is what's there; who's going to enforce the landscape requirement? Are the neighbors 9 going to have to enforce it? The County must have the resources to be out there making sure the plants 10 don't die and that they really are effective. So, the portion about mitigation to make it less severe or 11 intense, No,they haven't done any mitigation. The bottom line is that they've done a lot of talking but in 12 reality there's not very much meaningful mitigation. Thanks. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Um, questions? I'm going to start this way this time. 14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Madam Chair. I'm going to ask Mr. Cummings, since you're 15 making points about the farmland and that's a big part of our County. We're number one here in Colorado 16 and number eight in the nation in production. I'm real concerned about the comments you're making 17 about {audience request to speak louder]. I'm real concerned about the points that you're making about 18 the possibility of contamination. Do you have any hard facts to -- to justify that you really believe that 19 this is going to contaminate our water. I know your presentation; not the full presentation again. 20 JOHN CUMMINGS: If you look at that, uh, Exhibit Z, which is our 150-page or 60-page 21 document that's front and back, there's information in there that covered that. 22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Ok, I'll go back and I'll look at it. 23 JOHN CUMMINGS: And the concern we have is like I said, is storm events. And this was 24 a typical year for early storms, there's high buildup of contaminants on that site. Whether it's from 60 1 emissions that settled down on that site or from trucks. And they do-they seem to talk a lot about their 2 vehicles, but they're opening up this (coughing-inaudible}, so you've got a lot of independent drives that 3 are coming in there. Their vehicles might not be up to maintenance and things like that. And, granted, if 4 they have a little spill they bring out a spill kit that -things that build up over time are going to work their 5 way in-percolate into the groundwater and then also move with stormwater and go right to the detention 6 pond. That's what I think the farmers are mostly concerned about is all that release of water that's 7 contaminated that makes its way into the ditch system. 8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Madam Chair, I have no others. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Freeman? 10 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I'm good for a second. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Conway. 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm good. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Cozad. 14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Um,just-just a couple of things. Urn, on Mr. Kisker, you made 15 a comment about, um,the concerns about a USR running with the land and, um, not with Martin Marietta, 16 but there's, uh,there's conditions that we can put on and development standards that actually make it so 17 that it does only run with the property owner. Is that something that you'd be open to if that was a 18 condition or development standard that we would add later? 19 DAVE KISKER: I think that's a starting point. I mean, it clearly has to have that as a starting 20 point. Um, if you're interested I actually have a few more slides on possible mitigations, but that's a 21 beginning. 22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. I just have a couple questions. I think most of my 23 questions are going to be back at the applicant, um, to address some of the concerns, but I just wanted 61 1 to make you aware that we can add a development standard and just see if you were open to that. Um, 2 I think I did have one question for Chris. Chris, your property- and I'm sorry I wasn't at your hearing- 3 CHRIS FRIEDE: I know. 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: - um, I was actually gone that week, um, but your property is 5 already adjacent to rail, is that correct? 6 CHRIS FRIEDE: I don't have rail right on my property. 7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But the rail that's already there is - is close to your property. 8 CHRIS FRIEDE: Yeah. Right. 9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And possibly how many trains do you think go by your property. 10 Like what times of the day and what days of the week in general? 11 CHRIS FRIEDE: You know, it varies. I don't, you know, just a couple at the most. Not 12 many. I mean I don't notice it that much. 13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But that rail was there when I went through your USR process, 14 I mean you were aware of that. 15 CHRIS FRIEDE: Right. They come and go,you know, and they're pretty much in and out. 16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. I think that's all if have right now. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes, Commissioner Conway. 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Since the applicant has- I'd like to see some of your slides. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Just a second. I have questions. 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Oh, I'm sorry. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Do you have any other questions? 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No, (inaudible) I'd like to see some of the slides so we can 23 figure out how to get those. 62 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. I'd like Mr. Moe to come up please. So you had some extensive 2 comments with regard to the impacts on Highway 34. So, I just want to make sure I understand it. That 3 we should be looking at passenger car equivalent three-to-one, is that correct? 4 RAY MOE: Yes, um, the bottom line is that the Highway Capacity Manual specifically has 5 an adjustment factor for heavy vehicles for calculating level of service and it's three passenger cars or 6 vehicle and you enter into their software what percent is trucks. So, in this particular case, as an example, 7 I wrote 13,that's 86-or 84 percent trucks,so those factors go into the evaluation and result in significantly 8 different results. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, the traffic impact, then, from this facility, you're saying is 10 approximately 3,000 vehicles per day? 11 RAY MOE: Oh, in terms of equivalency,they basically say that's about 2,200, I think. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: (coughing-inaudible} 1,120. 13 RAY MOE: Okay, 1,120 is round trips, okay, so that's a trip there and a trip back. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I understand. So that's for 560 round trips. 15 RAY MOE: {overtalk-inaudible]. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No-no, no-no. 560 round trips. 17 RAY MOE: That's the short term. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes. 19 RAY MOE: Okay,the short term is 560 times two,which is the 1,100 (there and back) and 2 0 if you adjusted for the three, it'd be about 3,000 for the short term and about double that -about 6,200 21 maybe for the long term. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, and so then if I'm taking your comments with regard to the 23 impacts, anywhere from 3,000 to 6,200 vehicles for this project. And, if I compared that to a light 2 4 industrial project of 6,889, I should expect basically the same kind of impacts to Highway 34? 63 1 RAY MOE: I don't know the distribution pattern for the industrial part. This on here is 2 pretty much all 95 percent headed north. Uh,you might see different distribution patterns in an industrial 3 park that would send trips elsewhere. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. But if I were to say- and I'm just looking at their numbers and 5 asking you about your numbers - so, they say for 400 single family homes its approximately, which 6 apparently there is a proposed development for that at Highway 34 and Weld County Road 13 on the 7 northwest corner. That's just under 4,000 vehicles per day, and so I'm thinking that if it's on that 8 northwest corner of 13 and Highway 34 it's going to impact that intersection in much the same manner 9 as 3,000 or so vehicles, given the passenger equivalent. Um, the light industrial same thing, which is a 10 proposed development in the area just under 7,000 vehicles per day which will impact that intersection. 11 So I'm talking about the impact of the intersection, regardless if they're heading west, east, north, south; 12 it's an impact at the intersection. Um, and a King Soopers shopping center of 9,500 and another 13 residential development of 28,000. So, we should expect the same kind of impacts from those 14 developments on that intersection? 15 RAY MOE: It's kind of interesting. The original traffic study- none of those projects were 16 included. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Well, that's because these are other projects that are outside of the 18 application today. 19 RAY MOE: They're always required to be put in the original traffic study and none were 20 included in there. What I'm saying is that, if you take a look what's out there approved and identified, uh, 21 what you have is a situation where the conversion of passenger car equivalents and the impact of that 22 will trigger the need for the signal. No one else and that would have the effect with those vehicles on the 23 corridor. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure, I'm not disagreeing with you. 64 1 RAY MOE: I think you're talking about other development in the future potentially having 2 that would further exasperate that, but what I'm trying share too with you is that the growth rate that 3 they've had out there in terms of my intuition is that most of that has been accounted for. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: But if we have any growth in that corridor its going to add to the level 5 of service that is being graded and if I'm using your numbers, correct, is that correct? 6 RAY MOE: Yeah, let me comment. On the U.S. 34 corridor they have to assume kind of a 7 growth rate which I believe would have accounted for this development along the 34 corridor. So you've 8 got 42,000 growing to 50 plus or-- 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: 68,000. 10 RAY MOE: 6Q000; something like that. So these projects that you're identifying would 11 be background kind of traffic that would be included into that traffic. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Well, in fact, any development along the corridor would have been 13 included in that 68,000 number. 14 RAY MOE: {overspeak-inaudible)I have a growth rate that is kind of a de facto standard 15 that in some part is kind of related to the history and what I was trying to share earlier too was is that 16 what we're trying to do is provide some parallel service, i.e.,the O Street/Crossroads -- 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I understand that; that wasn't my question. I think they 18 understanding though is that regardless of the development along the corridor, if it's anywhere from 19 3,000 to 28,000 in vehicle travels it's going to have an impact on the corridor. 2 0 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Commissioner I also have a - and I don't know- 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 22 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: - I don't know if Mr. Moe would know this. You might since 23 you looked at the study. Maybe somebody else would. The 42,000 that's currently on U.S. 34, what 65 1 percentage of that is trucks? And if you would convert that the same way that we're converting this what 2 numbers would be looking at there? 3 RAY MOE: Yeah,that's a good point. Uh, I think that the, uh,staff mentioned 3.3 percent, 4 uh, which in essence is the truck traffic on U.S. 34 today, and I think that that's kind of what is projected 5 for the future. So, in essence, three percent of 40,000 is -what 120, so you know you'd have to say it's 6 another,you know, instead of 42 it might be 43,000. 7 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Well, no I think the three - excuse me - I think the three 8 percent was the amount that this was going to add to the project. I don't think that that's the percentage 9 of truck traffic that's currently on U.S. 34. 10 RAY MOE: Currently what's on U.S. 34 is 3.3 percent. 11 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: In just truck traffic? 12 RAY MOE: Truck traffic. 13 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Thank you. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright. Do we have any other questions? We're at our time- 15 we're past our time. 16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Just for clarification, I'm not sure that's correct; the three 17 percent truck traffic on 34. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: We'll have to ask that later. 19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Alright,thank you. 20 RAY MOE: What I can say is I think that was mentioned earlier by one of the staff. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yeah, we'll ask staff that question. 22 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Thank you. 66 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, so at this point we are at the end of the, urn, organized 2 opposition's presentation. And, we will be taking an hour and a half for lunch. Sorry, we already had 3 other meetings scheduled over the lunch hour. So,we will be back here at 1:41 approximately. 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Question Madam Chair. So, were going to go immediately 5 to public comment, is that right? 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: We're already in public comment. 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Would it be helpful to let the people that are going to- 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: It's not going to matter,they're already getting up and leaving. Okay, 9 so we'll take a recess. 10 {Recording was paused and resumed at 1:50 p.m.) 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: It's approximately 1:50. We will, um, reconvene as the Board of 12 County Commissioners. Let the record reflect all five County Commissioners are back. I'm just going to 13 go back through some of the rules just so everybody remembers. First of all, we are in a quasi-judicial 14 land use hearing so I ask everyone to respect that and make sure that your phones are shut off or at least 15 on vibrate. Also ask that you're respectful and we don't have any outbursts in the room,so please refrain 16 from that as well. Um, I am going to call up the first, uh, six speakers and um, have you all come up and 17 sit in these chairs here. And, I will be going back and forth between those of you who signed up to be 18 supporters of the land use application today and those who are opponents of it. So, we will alternate 19 back and forth until I have exhausted one list or another and then I'll just finish off with what we have. 20 Also, I will be going through and, um, going through and doing Weld County residents first, um, and then 21 Larimer County residents will go last, unless of course I've exhausted the list, like on the support side or 22 whichever side it is,then I'll start with Larimer County folks after I've gone through the Weld County folks 23 or other counties other than Weld County. So, again, when you get up to the microphone, even though 24 you have signed in, I will need you to state your name and address for the record and then you'll need to 67 1 make your comments to the Board. So,you do not make comments to the audience,and you do not make 2 comments to the staff,or to the applicant;you make them directly to the Board. And if the Board chooses, 3 they may have questions for you so please don't leave the microphone until I've had the opportunity to 4 ask the Board if they have any questions of you - of those of you who are speaking. So, with that, I'm 5 going to call up the first six and oh, before I get into that, I know Representative Saine is here and she 6 needs to leave so I'm going to let her go first. Um, are there any other elected officials in the audience 7 that need to go first, or can I go through the line up? Is there anybody else that's elected that wants to 8 come up? Troy- I understand. Troy did you want to-do you want to come up and speak first, one of the 9 first speakers. Troy. Ok, how about I get, um, ok I've got Lori -you guys, I'm going to have to move you 10 around a little bit. Lori can I get you in the first seat- Lori Saine. And then Troy can I get-would you come 11 up please and get in the next seat? Would you guys mind scooting down a couple? Thanks. Yeah,John 12 Franklin, ok and - Alright and I have you as a supporter correct, John Moser? Mr. Moser you're on the 13 support list, I have you next, so if I could get you to sit in the next chair, so John I need you to scoot over 14 'cause I'm going to put an opponent in between the two of you. Yeah, I need you to scoot over to that 15 chair. Okay,the next one I need to call up and have come fill in the other chair up here is Mel Bickling, so 16 Mel if you would come up and fill in this chair. So, here's the way it's going to work. I'm going to call up 17 a speaker and I'm also going to call up the person to come up and fill their chair so that we can keep this 18 moving. Remember everyone has two minutes, um, to address the Board and we will be keeping time. 19 Uh, the Chair Pro-Tem is going to assist me with that. 20 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah, I can do that. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. So, again we're in the public hearing and I will call up, uh, 22 Representative Saine to go first, and if she'd like to come on up. 23 REPRESENTATIVE LORI SAINE: Thank you honorable Commissioners. I'm Lori Saine. My 24 residence is 326 Jackson Avenue, Firestone, Colorado 80520. Can you all hear me ok from here? 68 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You need to talk into the microphone because we might have people 2 sitting in the other room that need to hear. 3 REPRESENTATIVE SAINE: Okay. Okay, alright. Okay. Well first I want to say it's an honor 4 to be before you today and I also wanted to say that I've heard a lot of either/or scenarios lately coming 5 up to this particular meeting. And, particularly, arguments that it's all one or - one thing or the other. 6 That, uh, a view shed is the most important property right and that all other property rights, uh, including 7 oil and gas development, are less worth than some others. So it's, uh, I find that driving past Indianpeaks 8 and driving past - or, I'm sorry, Indianhead Estates. Driving past some of these areas - if somebody was 9 to engage in a friendly assessment of, uh, which of these things is not like the others, um, it's surely 10 obvious that some of these areas are very heavily industrial. There's a lot of businesses, including very 11 heavy transportation avenues, such as the highway, such as Colorado 13 which is going to be a much 12 larger highway if I understand correctly. And, indeed, some of these other comprehensive plans that 13 occurred and looked at in other municipalities that are close, uh, seems to suggest that this proposed site 14 for Martin Marietta will also be surrounded by more industrial uses. So, {feedback-inaudible]I would say 15 that nobody would want to plan for a subdivision in the middle of such context; however, I think that this 16 also shows that Weld County does respect private property rights. They respect private property rights 17 allowing folks to develop property as they see fit. And I would encourage the Commissioners to continue 18 this approach, um, that - because it doesn't have to be a (feedback- inaudible]argument. We can have 19 development in oil and gas, we can have subdivisions with development, and Weld County has been a 20 model for some of those development arguments. And, (feedback- inaudible] benefit the taxpayer, but 21 they also respect private property rights,especially(feedback-inaudible]. And what I've seen from Martin 22 Marietta is they show extraordinary, with huge respect in providing mitigation strategies, including 23 widening another section of {Highway} 34 and 13 and providing improvements, safety and traffic lights 24 that taxpayers would have to bare {feedback - inaudible] if this project were not to go forward. So, in 69 1 closing, I will say that I've had the pleasure of speaking with {feedback - inaudible) industry, not on the 2 State stage but on a national stage and I always speak of Weld County as far as being friendly for business, 3 so I guess my concern is this - if the {feedback - inaudible) is not accepted and this project is not given 4 approval, I'm afraid my concern is our advertisement is that Weld County is not open for business, so 5 thank you so much. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Any questions? 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Uh, Troy you wanna come up and I will call up, um, Ellen 9 Delorenzo, if you'd like to come fill in the first seat here,and Kevin Ross if you'd like to fill in on the second 10 seat. Sorry Kevin, I didn't see you here when I was asking about elected officials. Okay, please state your 11 name and address for the record and go from there. 12 TROY MELLON: Thank you Commissioners. My name is Troy Mellon. I'm a counselor for 13 the Town of Johnstown. With me also is John Franklin who is our staff Planner. And, our address is 450 14 South Parish, Johnstown, Colorado. Commissioners, um, as part of the testimony we've listened to this 15 morning, I've jotted a few notes and they're not in any particular order. The first thing I saw was the 16 allegation was that cars are equal to trucks and I don't think that holds very much water, especially a 17 heavily loaded truck coming onto U.S. 34 or using County Road 13, is a huge impact above and beyond 18 what a passenger automobile would be. Railroad traffic to the south is going to be problematic. Um, as 19 this railroad track bisects our family farm, I've had the opportunity for the last 52 years to watch railroad 20 traffic and the occasional train that goes across it. Actually, I'm somewhat concerned that that railroad 21 track is not in shape to carry this load. Um, it is in a severe state of deterioration. The trains usually go 22 faster than 15 miles per hour past our farm. (2 minute time alarm} Um, I'm also somewhat aghast that 23 Greeley is exporting a problem into Weld County. Um,the allegation or the contention that their existing 24 plant will shut down in Greeley once this is on track is somewhat disingenuous to those who, uh, are the 70 1 recipients of that load of development. The use of Johnstown's Land Use Map is quite misleading. Um, 2 we have no industrial zone in that area. We have Planned Use/Mixed Use developments that allow for 3 limited - limited light industrial. There is no heavy industrial use permitted. The sections that area not 4 annexed into town are in our Master Plan we're seeing as Residential/Commercial. Urn,the other thing I 5 would like to say is that kind of land use lasts a long time. There needs to be a reclamation process in 6 place and there needs to be a fund for that to take effect. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright-- 8 TROY MELLON: Just a promise of reclamation is not sufficient. There should be a trust 9 fund put in place to take care of when this use is forsaken. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you Troy. Questions? Yes, Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thank you. Urn, Troy can you talk about some of the, um, 12 Planned Land Use projects the Town does have on{Highway}34 corridor, including the new Shields project 13 and how much traffic that may generate? 14 TROY MELLON: Certainly. We're looking at the Shields project, which is probably, what, 15 a mile and a half to the west. Urn, working with CDOT and, um, Loveland - it's Loveland's intersection 16 actually, for intersection improvements that we'll have to fund. Um, it's not a surprise that, you know, 17 we're bring in the development and we're going to have to do something about it. Uh, the Encore 18 Development used to be known as the Miracle at 34 - I don't know that we would have approved that 19 knowing that we would have an Industrial use across the roadway. You know, we have followed our 20 Master Plan fairly recently in this area and relied upon the zoning map of Weld County in making our land 21 use decisions. This is a radical departure, you know, to take something from Agricultural to Heavy 22 Industrial use. Urn, so it would have given the Town Council pause to put in this Mixed Use subdivision, 23 you know, almost directly adjacent to it. 24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: How large is that subdivision? 71 1 TROY MELLON: Urn, it's uh - 2 JOHN FRANKLIN: Encore is 212 acres of Commercial and another 220 of Residential Mix. 3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thank you. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Did you have any other questions Commissioner? 5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No I don't.Thank you. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. And, for the record, sir would you please give your name and 7 address for the record since you answered that question. 8 JOHN FRANKLIN: Thank you Commissioner. John Franklin, Town Planner - Town of 9 Johnstown. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Commissioner Conway any questions? 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Uh, to develop on Commissioner Cozad's question, um,Troy 12 or John can answer this. That 212-acre development,what-you've already done some traffic studies and 13 its impact on the Highway 34-what are you envisioning in terms of the traffic impacts. 14 JOHN FRANKLIN: Well, without quoting specific numbers, cause they had not reached 15 that level of detail, um we expect to justify warrants, ultimately, whether its two years or five years, for 16 that development for signalized intersection at Weld County Road 13 and{Highway}34. And also Larimer 17 County Road 3 or variant of Larimer County Road 3 to the west. Uh, certainly Retail and Office and Mixed 18 Use traffic will cause those numbers to go up and require control of access at those intersections. 19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And what are those warrants off the top of your head, just 20 guestimate in terms of triggering that signal? 21 JOHN FRANKLIN: Oh, gosh. Well the primary warrant is traffic intersecting there from 22 County Road 13 and Larimer County Road 3. Um, the Commercial traffic combined with the Residential 23 traffic combined with the increased traffic along the Highway 34 corridor,which I know is on everybody's 72 1 mind, um, will certainly justify at least two of the three warrants that are critical to getting a signal 2 improvement, so we don't anticipate that to be an issue. 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And you know off-hand what that ADT is, that Average Daily 4 Traffic, count that triggers those warrants for being signalized? 5 JOHN FRANKLIN: I do not, I do not. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You can ask staff that later. 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'll ask staff- 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Uh, no I don't. 11 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I just have one. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Freeman. 13 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yah, so the 212 acres and the 220 acres for those two 14 developments - part of it Residential - part of it Light Industrial -what is the current use today? 15 JOHN FRANKLIN: Actually,the Encore is 212 acres of Commercial Mixed Use,which would 16 be Retail and Office, and then 220 acres of Mixed Density Residential, uh,today that's farmed. 17 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So,today it's currently in Prime agricultural ground. 18 JOHN FRANKLIN: Yes it is. 19 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Thank you. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Moreno? I have a couple of questions. Um, so when 21 was the Encore development permitted? 22 JOHN FRANKLIN: Uh, the property was annexed back in 2005. Uh, generally Master 23 Planned at that time. Uh, two years ago we received an application to, uh, consider a Metropolitan 24 District, uh, for the purposes of financing infrastructure. Uh, we also received an application for a 73 1 Preliminary Plan and design guidelines, which we are in the process of completing our review. Uh, the 2 anticipated development schedule, according to the owner, is approximately five years to initiate. So,we 3 expect to see ground turned anywhere from now to five years from now to begin the Commercial and the 4 Residential development. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And when do you expect to have it fully built out by? 6 JOHN FRANKLIN: Uh, there are no clear predictions as to build out. At a decent rate of 7 construction, the residential will likely complete in five to eight years. The Commercial - I really can't 8 forecast it. It's such a variable and it takes forever to fill out a Commercial area. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. And, so when you permitted the Encore development, you 10 didn't have access to all of the other planning that had taken place in the area and the other development 11 that had taken place in the area as far as Commercial and Industrial development that had already 12 occurred? 13 JOHN FRANKLIN: Well certainly. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, 'cause, well that's not what I heard and just wanted to make 15 sure. Would you agree with the comment that, um, that was made by the applicant that approximately 16 with the Encore development at full buildout there'd be approximately 28,000 vehicles hitting that 17 intersection at 13 and Highway 34? 18 JOHN FRANKLIN: Well, I would not disagree with that number. It's a - it's a - we know 19 that in the long term, no matter what is developed, including implementing our Master Plan which is 2 0 Commercial at that intersection on both sides. Uh,yes,those numbers will get very high and U.S. Highway 21 34 traffic will increase exponentially. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So when Encore was permitted,what was the number;the ADT-what 23 was the number of traffic that you thought was going to be at that intersection? 2 4 JOHN FRANKLIN: Oh, I don't have a number. I don't have it in my head, I'm sorry. 74 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, okay so what - 2 JOHN FRANKLIN: - Large. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: - were the - you only talked about a signal improvement at 13 and 4 Highway 34. At any point was there discussion about an interchange improvement? 5 JOHN FRANKLIN: Uh, we're all aware of the, uh, Department of Transportation's long 6 term view of Highway 34. Uh,we especially have been involved in the interchange at I-25 and the resulting 7 impacts on the nearby intersections. As we go out further, uh, the time frame for requiring what I'll call 8 and Urban Interchange is longer and longer and longer. Possibly, you know, through 2035, which is 9 currently on the forecast horizon. It will be 2040 soon for the MPO. 10 TROY MELLON: One point on that is - part, what we're doing with the Encore 11 development is a radical reconstruction of the County Road 3/34 Interchange. Literally pulling the road 12 to the east, probably 250 feet- 13 JOHN FRANKLIN: Or more. 14 TROY MELLON: - to, uh, decouple its influence on the railroad line that goes through 15 there. So, we've spent some time looking at the traffic impacts and know that we're going to have to do 16 some work up there. Um, it's not something that we have pursued lightly. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, did I hear you correctly that you have, um, in your planning you 18 have Commercial/Mixed Use development occurring on the northwest corner and the southwest corner? 19 JOHN FRANKLIN: Southeast corner. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: The northwest and the southeast corner you have slated for 21 Commercial development? 22 JOHN FRANKLIN: Commercial/Mixed Use development. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 24 JOHN FRANKLIN: And - 75 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And, so within your Comprehensive planning, or within your guy's 2 planning and your transportation planning, um, obviously, we all know that funding, meeting warrants, 3 um, funding of a State highway are all certain things that, you know, it gets squishy; it could happen at 4 certain times. But we all put in our plans, and I want to make sure you still have in your plans,that as you 5 develop that the developer assists with making those improvements. So, is it in your plan that those 6 developments were to assist with, uh,the impacts at the{County Road}13 and {Highway}34 interchange 7 and was it just a traffic signal? 8 JOHN FRANKLIN: Uh, at this point the developer understands that they're obliged to 9 participate in whatever traffic improvements are necessary to facilitate access to {Highway 34}. And also, 10 even to the County Road. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And at any time during the development approval of Encore, was a 12 Traffic Study done to talk about the impacts to Highway 34 with regard to your Mixed Use Residential 412- 13 acre development? 14 JOHN FRANKLIN: Uh, we relied, at that stage of planning, on the Town's Transportation 15 Plan, which does envision a signal at those two intersections. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 17 JOHN FRANKLIN: Uh, as the development approaches subdivision status and 18 development we will expect, uh, Traffic Impact Reports, uh, coupled with cost estimates to provide an 19 indication to what is required to serve that development on 34 and also the side roads. And, also the 2 0 developer's either full participation or share of the cost. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And when was the last time that Johnstown updated its 22 Comprehensive Plan for the Highway 34 corridor? 23 JOHN FRANKLIN: Uh, it was updated in 2006. 76 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And -and I just want to clarify- is that your Master Plan or is it just a 2 general Comprehensive Land Use Plan? 3 JOHN FRANKLIN: Uh, it has become the Master Plan because it guides the estimates used 4 in utility planning. And, the reason it extends out to that area is because we believe we can serve that 5 through gravity sewer ultimately to our low-point wastewater treatment plant. So, it is truly within a 6 future service area. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, great. Does the Board have any other questions? 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I do; I have a couple of follow-up questions. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Um, so I understand that you arranged with, as part of this 11 land use change, participation by the developer to help pay for these intersection improvements at 12 {County Road} 13. 13 JOHN FRANKLIN: That is correct. 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So,first and foremost,whether this is approved or not,today, 15 the long-term plan is to have a stop light at{County Road} 13. Is that correct, at Highway 34? 16 JOHN FRANKLIN: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, and have you - can you help enlighten us how that's 18 going to be paid for. You know, urn, you know Troy and I both sit on the MPO. We deal with these 19 challenges on a regular basis, as you know. Um, A - have you done a cost/benefit analysis to see what 2 0 that-whatever those improvements are;whether it's just a Stop light;whether it's an intersection design; 21 and I even heard the applicant earlier talk about a bypass, which I don't even know if that's doable. But, 22 have you looked at that as part of your Transportation Plan? 23 JOHN FRANKLIN: Uh,we did examine the, uh,and project the traffic levels using the MPO 24 data, and I hate to use acronyms but, uh, it's easier to pronounce. 77 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Urn-hum. 2 JOHN FRANKLIN: So, our consulting used the regional data and projected when those - 3 and where those intersections must be controlled through signalization. Uh, we also captured 4 information,of course,from CDOT related to widening{Highway}34, uh, up to and including,the ultimate 5 improvements, which would be more of an urban interchange. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And how much would a developer be bringing to the table to 7 help pay for those? 8 JOHN FRANKLIN: Uh, again, a lot of that share will be determined on the basis of their 9 share of the impact. Uh,the Town will also be looking at possibly utilization of transportation impact fees, 10 which we do charge for new development to pay for regional improvements, such as traffic signals and 11 medians and other control devices. 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thank you. That's all I have. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I just have one last question. So, with all of the other industrial 14 improvements and developments that have been along the Highway 85 corridor, urn, I'm sorry- Highway 15 34 corridor. I'm on the wrong highway there - on the Highway 34 corridor - was Johnstown opposed to 16 any of those? 17 TROY MELLON: Which ones are you referring to? 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: All of them that go from essentially {County Road} 13 west out to l- 19 25. Looks like the whole area is blue, which would be Industrial. 20 JOHN FRANKLIN: We don't have - I think the only things that are out there are FedEx 21 distribution area and Feldspar Manufacturing. Um, those are within Johnstown. Those were light 22 industrial uses that are low traffic, low emission, uh, and were impacted accordingly with the fees. Um, 23 there's nothing to this industrial scale out there. 78 1 JOHN FRANKLIN: If I may, urn, elaborate just a bit. Uh, the vision for the {Highway} 34 2 corridor immediately adjacent to {Highway} 34 is Commercial. Uh, even in the Ironhorse Industrial Park 3 where Feldspar and FedEx are located, the front portion of that property is designated for Commercial 4 development, as is the frontage along Larimer County Road 3,whatever that alignment ultimately will be. 5 Uh, behind that, uh, we have designated that area as Light Industrial but with stringent design guidelines 6 which dictate uses and appearance. And then beyond that is Commercial to the- 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. 8 JOHN FRANKLIN: -the Interstate. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any further questions? Any further questions? Uh,John you get like 10 one minute. Do you have any further comments that you'd like to make? 11 JOHN FRANKLIN: Urn, please. I'm just going to through a pitch, uh,that the governments 12 who have jurisdiction in and around Highway 34 are coming together, I believe, to form a unified vision 13 for that corridor: Greeley, Windsor, Johnstown, Larimer County, Weld County (I believe), uh Loveland, 14 are all coming together with - they're coming towards the table with similar views of how that corridor 15 should benefit the region and how the region can benefit from that corridor. And,we share in that vision 16 where, basically, we think pretty much on the same page. We don't have a lot of variations and we hope 17 to work with everyone to solidify that vision and make sure that we have good considered long-range 18 planning for that entire corridor from Greeley west, but we'll need your help. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Alright, thank you very much. So,just so everybody knows- 20 I figured out how to use the timer on my iPhone so I will be putting the two-minute timer on,that way we 21 keep on time. Commissioner Freeman -you've kind of been slacking off. [Laughter). Alright, next up is 22 Mr. Moser. 23 JOHN MOSER: Good afternoon. John Moser, 6600 West 20th Street, #11, Greeley, 2 4 Colorado. My main concern and why I'm here today is just to -we're going to need this - we're going to 79 1 need this plant to be able to take care of the infrastructure that we've got planned going forward for the 2 next ten years or so, and just the amount of concrete, asphalt, uh, rock that we're going to have to have 3 to do Weld County Road 49, I-25 and these other projects. Not only that, but just the amount of building 4 that's taking place here in this area. I think the site is, um, is as good as you're going to get along the Front 5 Range. You have to have rail access; you have to be able to bring the rock products in. If you took a look 6 at the trains that would have to come in there and you just have four to get the new trucks that would be 7 involved. You just bring the raw product into the area so that we can, uh, make the concrete and the 8 asphalt -we have the things that we need. I think the, um, the downside, the problem if we don't do it, 9 we lose an option, uh, that uh, is going to cost us money. You know, and what it's going to take to get 10 these projects done. So that's the only comment that I have. Thank you. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Thank you. Just a second please. Does the Board have any 12 questions? Okay,thank you very much. Alright, uh, next up is Mr. Bickling and, let's see, and I also need 13 to call up then James Piraino, if you'd come sit in this next open seat. And,Joe Burges, lives 889 Cedar, if 14 you'd come up and sit in the next seat that would be great. Alright, Mr. Bickling,go for it. 15 MEL BICKLING: Um, I think I'd better wait until you have all your handouts in hand. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, go. 17 MEL BICKLING: Okay. My name is Mel Bickling. My address is 6690 Lacota Court, 18 Johnstown. I am opposed to this application. I've worked northeast of Greeley for fifteen years as a 19 multiline claims adjuster/representative for 20 years. Martin Marietta has not met all the standards and 20 conditions for the approval of the application. Martin Marietta continues to say that they are being a 21 good neighbor. They also state Best Management Practices will be used to maintain good housekeeping 22 practices. I went to the Greeley location to see an example of a good neighbor. Went to the front 23 entrance and at first glance thing look like kind of Ok. It says with the Martin Marietta proposal, they've 24 offered a barbed-wire fence around 80 percent of the property. Barbed-wire fences are sufficient to 80 1 discourage cattle but are passable by humans. The Right to Farm states that controlling children's 2 activities is important, not only for their safety, but also for the protection of the farmers' livelihood. Here 3 is the problem: Martin Marietta is creating an attractive nuisance on this agricultural zoned site. The 4 property is located adjacent to over 100 households with children and grandchildren and kids will be kids. 5 "Hey, let's go climb that big pile over there!" Kids will do that all the time. The fence system that they're 6 offering is not adequate for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the 7 neighborhood and the County. Now back to the Greeley site,away from the main gate. The photos I have 8 given you are representative of what is found in the Greeley and several other Martin Marietta sites. Now, 9 as you can see in these photos,self-monitoring does not work for Martin Marietta. The fences are in very 10 poor condition, loaded with weeds that are higher than the fence itself, there's graffiti, there's dust, 11 there's old trailers there to screen the equipment and fuel farm. What does Weld County want? Does 12 Weld County want this type of welcome sign for Weld County? 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I'm sorry. Your time is up. Just a second please. Questions? 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Um, yah. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Just a second. Okay, Commissioner Conway. 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. So, I'm looking- I'm quickly looking through your 17 stuff here. Urn, are you saying that - I just want to make sure I understand, uh, looking at this -that the 18 fence that is on the 35th side, which I drive past every day, because I live within a mile of this pit here in 19 Greeley - that the portion, uh, that is not covered, you want that consistent. Is that what I'm hearing in 20 terms of the mitigation in terms barrier and safety? 21 MEL BICKLING: Well, anybody can go in and out. My point is the safety, health and 22 welfare of the people from our neighborhood. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right. 81 1 MEL BICKLING: That little kids, under the age of 13, it creates an attractive nuisance for 2 them and the thing is, and so, urn, it seems like a barbed-wire fence is not adequate. But if you look at 3 the Greeley site, they don't even keep track and keep the upkeep and maintenance on the Greeley site. 4 So, I thought that they would probably put their best foot forward, and so, if they say we're going to go 5 ahead and do this, then you can go to an existing facility and you can say, 'Oh, yeah, they've got nice 6 fences, they're protecting the people, they're keeping the dust down, they're keeping the trash down.' 7 And, you would think that is what they would do is put their best foot forward, but when you come to 8 Greeley, it's not that way. So, being over in Indianhead Estates,what do we have to look forward to? The 9 same stuff that you see in Greeley. It's bad. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thank you. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Cozad, any questions? 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No. My question actually will be for the applicant. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Okay,thank you very much. 14 MEL BICKLING: You bet. Thank you. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Who's up next? Uh, Scott. Mr. Renfroe you're up next. 16 SCOTT RENFROE: Thank you. Can you hear me Ok? 17 COMMISSIONERS: Yes. 18 SCOTT RENFROE: I've got to get down here; this is a short mic you've put over here. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You can lift it up if you want. 2 0 SCOTT RENFROE: So, was I allowed to do that? 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yeah. 22 SCOTT RENFROE: Thank you. I'm former State Senator, Scott Renfroe. I live at 3201 23 Grandview Drive, here in Greeley, in Weld County. Um, I've been a resident my whole life here and I have 2 4 a concrete company in Greeley. Been there for 42 years; my father started it and uh, we buy aggregate 82 1 from Marietta. I've used them in the past in land developments for asphalt. We don't buy concrete from 2 them; we buy from one of their competitors. So,just wanted to be upfront and honest with where I am 3 and what we've done, and I'm here to support what they're doing and what they're asking for with this. 4 Sitting here this morning and listening, you had many, I guess, municipalities that have said this is 5 incompatible with their vision. Greeley and, uh, Windsor have most said that. What is our vision? What 6 is our growth for the future? If you don't have an aggregate plant, you're looking at home construction 7 where you're going to have high cost construction and you're not going to have the low-income housing 8 that you want for families. Are you wanting people to wait for someone to die to build a new house? Is 9 that the type of vision that you want? Because that's what you're going to get if you don't allow the 10 growth to happen. You want growth; you want the business, but you have to have the foundation. You 11 have to have the infrastructure, and that's what this product is. Right now, I can't get concrete when I 12 want it. It's because there's a high demand and there's not enough places to get it. What that does is it 13 increases the cost and it makes you go further to get it. One thing that hasn't come up this morning and 14 we need to consider is with the traffic on the roads-they don't take their trucks somewhere unless there's 15 a demand for the product. So,the trucks that are coming out of the plant are going to a job site. That job 16 site's still going to be there if this plant's there or not, so those trucks are still going to be on the road, 17 they just might be coming from a further distance, impacting the load. (Timer} So with that, I'd like to 18 thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Thank you Mr. Renfroe. Questions? Starting this way-Sean? 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Sorry Mr. Renfroe. I just want to make sure, um, so currently 21 as a contract company owner,you are having a hard time even with -you buy from a competitor- I heard 22 that, and there are other companies other than Martin in and around Northern Colorado, but even at its 23 current level,you're having a hard time finding concrete to meet your demand in terms of your company. 24 Is that what I'm hearing? 83 1 SCOTT RENFROE: Yes, Commissioner. Absolutely. We're probably - we've been the 2 largest concrete contractor in Northern Colorado for years; we might have slipped out of that position 3 now; I don't keep track of it, but in terms of the yards that we buy, it's exponential and quite a few, and 4 urn, we don't get concrete when we want all the time and it's because of the demand; because of 5 employee shortage, product shortage, urn, you name it. So it's there and having a new plant that would 6 have the capabilities that this one would have is going to increase that production and hopefully keep 7 prices down, instead of increasing prices of a product that would have the shipping costs and material and 8 then the shipping costs out with the product that would be at a further distance. So, you'd see, I think, 9 an exponential cost increase in the product, which obviously,the builders don't eat -that gets passed on 10 to the home price or the commercial building price which then impacts the product that someone's selling 11 or the cost of the home. 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner any questions? 14 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: No. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Questions? Alright,thank you very much. Okay next up to come sit 16 up in the next seat is Natalie Rochester and Preston Konkel. Did I say that right? You know, Preston, next 17 time you need to write a little bit bigger. (Laughter) Just tellin'ya. Well look at this! Just tellin' ya! 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Mama Bear is in full mode today. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, Ma'am. Would you like to come up? 20 ELLEN DELORENZO: Hi. My name is Ellen Delorenzo. I live at 1744 Goldenview Drive in 21 Johnstown, Colorado. Uh, I am a retired person from a competitor of Martin Marietta and I'm also a 22 former County Commissioner appointed Board member in a different County, so I understand the politics 23 and I understand the process. Urn, I'm opposed to this USR request primarily for a number of reasons 2 4 you've already heard to include: the noise, the dust, the traffic due to semis and trains. In addition, the 84 1 odor came to mind today at my lunch break and I would be remiss if I did not share this with you. I chose 2 to turn left on O Street at lunch, uh it was hot, I had my windows up, my air conditioner blaring and I 3 ended up behind a semi truck so I figured, ok, that ratio is real - I'm going to have to deal with it. And, I 4 had the radio on and started singing and I'm moving along and I realize I'm at a Stop sign and there's an 5 odor that comes to my attention because I really was in the no zone at that point. And, I realize the 6 asphalt odor and I looked up I'm at 35th Street. That's today at lunch; just I needed to share that. I'm 7 also opposed to losing 90 acres of prime agricultural land,which I heard your planning staff state is not in 8 compliance with Sections 22 and 23. Um, in this time of dwindling resources [feedback- inaudible} and 9 not only of asphalt and prime agricultural land; we need to start getting creative. Um, I would like to 10 suggest to Weld County the idea of re-permitting and reusing the Greeley site. Why do we need to use 11 natural resources, um, and the other kinds of resources to rebuild something? If the need is really there 12 then you need to approve it. Um, there - that is something that should be on the table and I would 13 recommend that you think about that. Um, finally I'm also concerned as a resident of Weld County-the 14 Martin Marietta slide that was put up earlier that showed, um, a large commercial and industrial heavy 15 county, um, I think you've heard a lot about the vision [Timer}of our County and I would like to ask that 16 we do not become the next Commerce City. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. Just a second. Questions? Commissioner 18 Cozad. 19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Um, do you live in the Indianhead Subdivision? 20 ELLEN DELORENZO: No, I live in Rolling Hills Ranch in Johnstown. 21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, so one of the things that I've been kind of thinking about 22 is- one of the arguments that I keep hearing is, uh,taking Prime Agricultural farmland out of production. 23 ELLEN DELORENZO: Right. 85 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But, if you look at the Indianhead Subdivision which is just to 2 the northeast,there is a 160 acres that was also Prime farm ground. 3 ELLEN DELORENZO: Well,that's already happened - 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Right. 5 ELLEN DELORENZO: - today we're at a critical point. We're at a critical point in Weld 6 County. Are we going to move toward heavy Industrial/Commercial? 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, I'm sorry,just a second. Commissioner Cozad, did you have a 8 question in there? 9 ELLEN DELORENZO: Yah, sorry. Sorry. 10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No, that's okay. So I guess I was just going to ask you so, you 11 know-and you answered it. So I was going to ask you, what do you think that impact had on Agricultural 12 Prime farm ground at the time it was developed, but I think you answered it, so I don't have any further 13 questions. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. I have a question. What County? 15 ELLEN DELORENZO: Pardon me? 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: What County? 17 ELLEN DELORENZO: Teton County,Wyoming. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. 19 ELLEN DELORENZO: You're welcome. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Next up is, let's see, Mr. Asher is up next. Okay, I'll call up 21 two more after you. Okay. 22 KEVIN ROSS: Kevin Ross, 1500 Falcon Ridge Road, Eaton, Colorado. Uh,first off Counsel, 23 I want thank you very much for the investment you guys are doing in our current Weld County as a citizen. 2 4 As I got to drive in today, uh, from my office in Fort Morgan, I got to see one of those projects currently 86 1 going on, which is County Road 49, which to my knowledge is quite a bit of aggregate, which is what we 2 are talking about here today is a company that can supply that aggregate for our growing County. Um, I 3 come and speak with you today as President of Weld County Builders Association and I want to talk about 4 how Martin Marietta has been a strong partner to the community. We as the Weld County Builders 5 consist of a group of contractors and ancillary companies in Weld County. Martin Marietta has partnered 6 with us to help provide scholarships for the youth in the area and they've done that on a consistent basis, 7 uh, annually and we provide that to multiple youth here in the area. Um, Martin Marietta is vital to the 8 growth in this area. All the communities, whether it's Eaton, Greeley, Johnstown, Milliken, Windsor - 9 we're all experiencing large amounts of growth. On an average basis I believe 400 tons of aggregate are 10 used on a home that's being built. 40,000 tons of aggregate are being use per mile of highway being built 11 and we all know the amount of construction projects going on in this area. The jobs that this business will 12 create are a 100 plus jobs.They're high paying jobs; it's what the County needs; it's how we grow; it's how 13 we stay a sustainable system, and it takes us away from being dependent upon natural resources as oil 14 and gas. Uh, I've rarely seen a company reach out to its surrounding neighborhoods and ask to be part of 15 the plan and be part of the solution to ensure that the children are safe, doing mitigation for the traffic 16 that they've done, doing the visual mitigation to make sure it is visually appealing and it's something the 17 community can be proud of and partake in. So, I would like to commend Martin Marietta on that. 18 Ultimately, I think this is an issue of private property rights. Martin Marietta owns the ground. I believe 19 they have that right to turn that into that facility and I think they're being a great partner with the 20 community in doing that. So, I would urge the Counsel to vote with favor of this project, as I think[Timer) 21 it will be a benefit to the area. Thank you. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Questions? Start this way. Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yah, Mr. Ross, as President of the Homebuilders Association, 24 um, what are the challenges in terms of getting aggregate right now as you had pointed out in terms of 87 1 the growth,the need in terms of all of these communities? What do expect; what are you hearing maybe 2 anecdotally, but maybe specifically, as President of the Association? 3 KEVIN ROSS: I don't need specific numbers-I don't have specific numbers with me today, 4 but I know everyone is in a wait period to get that product, just like Mr. Renfroe expressed earlier. Uh, 5 coming from the Town of Eaton we are considerably low on the totem pole for getting product;that makes 6 our project times get pushed out much further. All my builders are saying the same thing. They have 7 homes - holes that are dug with foundations ready to be poured, they're waiting on product to become 8 available because the demand is so high and the supply is not there. 9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 10 KEVIN ROSS: Does that answer? Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY. Yes,thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Madam Chair? 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions Commissioners? Commissioner Moreno. 14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Uh, yes, Mr. Ross you stated that, you know, you are the 15 President of the Homebuilders Association - 16 KEVIN ROSS: Weld County Builders Association, Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I guess, uh, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I mean, 18 you made a statement about the property rights. And, property rights goes both ways and I hope that 19 you do agree with that. 20 KEVIN ROSS: I believe both sides have a say, absolutely yes. But, ultimately, I believe in 21 capitalistic views, whereas, if I own that property and, uh, have a great idea for it and can work in 22 conjunction with my neighbors, that I should have a right to build on that property what I choose. 23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Alright, thanks. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you very much. 88 1 KEVIN ROSS: Thank you. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, I think James you're up next. You all somehow got out of 3 order over there. We might have to clear the row and start over - [Laughter} - just so you know. Go 4 ahead. 5 JIM PIRAINO: Good afternoon Commissioners. My name is Jim Piraino. I've lived for ten 6 years with my wife, Lisa, at 27660 Hopi Trail in Indianhead Estates. Our home is within 500 feet of the 7 proposed project,and while I have many concerns, I would like to address a couple of them. It's extremely 8 hard to understand just how intolerable this project would be. After all,there's really nothing to compare 9 it to. That said, I would like to make a comparison of sorts; one that maybe we can all relate to. We've 10 all seen, heard, smelled and in some cases fought to stop the drilling of oil wells in Weld County. Some of 11 us may have homes close to these wells and know first-hand how offensive they are to our normal, 12 everyday lifestyle. The point I would like to make is that the oil rig activity: the drilling, the fracking and 13 the general site construction last for relatively a short time and, in the end,the impact of a producing well 14 is hugely minimized and usually blends in with the surrounding area. In stark contrast,the Martin Marietta 15 proposal is like a drilling of an oil well, except it will go on, and on, and on for perpetuity. And can you 16 imagine living next door to an oil well. Martin Marietta will meet all the regulations required of them, but 17 so do all the oil wells. Yet, we still find those wells highly offensive during the drilling process. Please 18 don't let this become our oil well from Hell. Lastly, everything you've heard about and read about this 19 project makes the assumption that it is completely built and operating; however, living close to the project 20 gives me a great concern for the noise, dust, light and pollution during the construction phase, which is 2 1 expected to last well over a year. Weld County noise ordinance states in Section 14-9-60, under 22 Exceptions: "Any noise produced from a construction site is exempt." The slated construction of this 23 project of this magnitude is certainly beyond the tolerance levels of anyone living nearby. Please, I ask 24 you to protect us from this highly incompatible project and deny the USR. Thank you. [Timer) 89 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Questions-start this way. 2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I think Steve has some. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I know. You guys don't? 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I don't have anything. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm good. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Moreno. 7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yes, sir. I'd just like to know- did Martin Marietta reach out 8 to you and did you attend some of their outreach? 9 JIM PIRAINO: I've reached out to some of their-they have reached out to us. I was not 10 invited to the one for the plants and whatnot. My take on that proposal and putting trees on our own 11 property, um, I'm 67 years old. I don't know if I got enough time to watch a tree grow. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? 13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Nope. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you sir. 15 JIM PIRAINO: You bet. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, I think we have John is up next. 17 JOHN BORGES: Hello. John Borges, uh, 1889 Sea Drift Drive, Windsor, Colorado. Um, I 18 currently I own and am president of a concrete construction company out of Windsor,Colorado. I employ 19 around 55 employees and we use Martin Marietta quite extensively for our product purchases. Um, we 20 are seeing the strain of the lack of materials or raw materials, um, on some of our project. Uh, it started 21 about four months ago. We weren't able to get rock for some of the jobs, uh, that we were doing and 22 delayed some of our projects and things like that. Um, some of this happened, you know, back in 2012 23 during the floods and I understood that was because a lot of the pits were under water, but now with the 24 new understanding that the raw materials are starting to run out, I think where this, uh,where this project 90 1 is proposed and going is a great area or location as where I consider what the hub is of what's developing 2 in that area. Urn, we could utilize some of the existing rail lines to optimize the transportation needs 3 there, um, and from that point get or disburse out to the different projects allowing efficiencies that come 4 with traffic and such for me, cause we're located all around the area, uh, we get delays, you know, with 5 deliveries and things like that and so efficiencies kind of trickle all the way down to the job site. Um, on a 6 personal note, you know, I was in the dairy business before I did this and lost two properties to, uh, 7 development. And, in this area that we're talking about here, I mean, it's inevitable. It I had a choice and 8 I had a partner or owner like Martin Marietta to come in, knowing how responsible they are on the 9 business side of it and professional they are on the personal side of it, I would have loved to have worked 10 and at least have a say in what was gonna happen. So, thank you. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,just a second. Questions. Commissioner Cozad. 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I have two questions. How long has your company been 13 working with Martin Marietta as a partner? 14 JOHN BORGES: So, I started ten years ago and they were there from the very beginning. 15 I started with two employees. Uh,two years ago because of their depth of knowledge, their attention to 16 detail, and their unparalleled support system that they have for emerging companies like myself, we 17 decided to use them solely as our provider for, uh, concrete material. 18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So my second question is - If this specific application does not 19 get approved, how will that effect your business? 2 0 JOHN BORGES: So,we're already starting to see some of that. Um,we've sent guys home 21 or employees home early. Um, we haven't been able to take on some projects because of this, uh, 22 because of some of the lack of materials. Um, delays and one of the biggest things that gets passed on to 23 the customers, or sometimes what we have to do, is take care of the increased cost which can be quite 91 1 substantial. So, in just the aggregate case,you've got costs through our delivery and then the price went 2 up quite a bit -almost 50 percent just to finish out what I needed to finish out, so. 3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thank you. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Questions? Commissioner Moreno. 5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yes, Madam Chair. Uh, John you stated - just so I can 6 understand correctly. You said you had some farmland and you sold it because of- 7 JOHN BORGES: The first one we kinda got pushed out. We attended quite a few meetings 8 like this. 9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay,well my question is-I just want to know about property 10 value. Did you lose a lot of property value because of that or were you able to sell it at a higher value? 11 JOHN BORGES: Well, like I said,for the first one, No. And,we tried to-I mean we basically 12 got pushed out-you can only fight it for so many years. Uh, part of just letting it go was we were able to 13 donate some of the land and make sure it stayed open for open space, so. Urn,the second one, urn,the 14 timing of that, you know,we lost quite a bit on that one, so. 15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Madam Chair? 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes, do you have another question? 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I do have a follow up. Urn, you mentioned you got pushed 19 out. Was that because you couldn't expand the dairy because of opposition people allowing you to 2 0 expand the dairy? 21 JOHN BORGES: No, because of a development that was coming upon us, so a lot of 22 residential and developers coming in and wanting to put in retail and stuff like that. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So it was incompatible because of the development coming 24 and surrounding- 92 1 JOHN BORGES: Yeah, and granted the farms were there first, but- 2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yep. 3 JOHN BORGES: - once things start coming closer it gets pretty, pretty intense, so that's 4 why. We didn't have somebody like Martin Marietta who,you know,through my experience we can trust 5 whole-heartedly to take over this project and make sure it's correct, but it was very-very tough time. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thank you. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other question? Alright,thank you. Okay, Natalie you're up and 8 if I could get Martin Brown, if I could get you to come sit in this first chair please,and Earl Wellnitz if you'll 9 come sit next to that,that would be great. Okay. 10 NATALIE ROCHESTER: I'm Dr. Natalie Rochester. I'm an obstetrician and a medically 11 invasive gynecologic surgeon serving Weld and Larimer Counties. I live in Indianhead Estates, 6768 12 Apache Road. I'm the mother of two and a wife and I'm here to proclaim my unhappiness and my request 13 that we not approve this USR. In my family we enjoy being outside when mom's at home and when dad's 14 at home. I have two little girls. Carly, here, is two weeks old, so I couldn't leave her for the length of time 15 it required here today. Um, you know, as a physician I can tell you I have personal concerns about the 16 health and safety living close to a potential plant such as this. Um, it would be in our back yard -in direct 17 view of our back yard. Um, I also have concerns for myself. As a physician and obstetrician and 18 gynecologist, I take a lot of call. I work 80 to 120 hours a week and when I'm off I need to be able to sleep 19 so that I can perform surgeries safely. And, being that my bedroom backs up to this proposed site, it's 20 going to be very difficult because of noise and potential lighting to be able to sleep well. As a family we 21 understand the need for progress in our community and the need for aggregate to be available, but we 22 do request that you would consider requesting a different site. A site that's not close to residential 23 communities; a site that would be less harmful to children and neighbors because this is really not 2 4 cohesive with our neighborhood and the needs that we have. 93 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Questions? Commissioner Cozad. 2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Natalie, Congratulations on your beautiful baby - so cute girl 3 and she's being good too. {Laughter} Do you have concerns about some of the other development that 4 you've heard about from some of the testimony from the Town of Johnstown? Because it sounds like 5 there's going to be a lot of development occurring up and down Highway 34. And when you moved to 6 Indianhead Subdivision, did you have concerns about the existing traffic and the emissions from that 7 traffic when you chose where you live now? 8 NATALIE ROCHESTER: So, we chose the community because it's in close proximity to 9 Medical Center of the Rockies where I do deliveries and surgery. So for me as a physician I need to be 10 able to get to the hospital in a short number of minutes when I'm called in. Um, so that is what drew us 11 to Indianhead Estates to begin with. I think that further Residential development of farmland, even 12 Commercial development could somewhat be cohesive with the community and the surrounding 13 neighborhood, but heavy Industrial is not cohesive with the land. It's not cohesive with the area and that 14 was never in my wildest dreams a thought that that would happen when we purchased our home. 15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Quick follow up? 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Um-hum. 17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Um, is there anything that Martin Marietta can do to alleviate 18 that for you? Um, is there any other mitigation that you could think of? 19 NATALIE ROCHESTER: I think having an Industrial plant of this sort this close to our home 20 - it doesn't matter how many 10-foot berms you have or how many trees, the toxins that I'm aware of 21 that cause fertility issues as an obstetrician, my children being outside and playing - you know children 22 are outside and playing,young children are effected by respiratory issues related to these things- I don't 23 feel like there's a lot that can be done to totally eradicate those concerns. So, I would always have 24 concerns. 94 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, and I don't think my question was totally eradicate. What 2 I mean, is there anything else that would help mitigate, uh,you concerns? 3 NATALIE ROCHESTER: I'm not sure that there is. 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thank you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? 6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yes, I just need a Yes or No. Did you get contacted by Martin 7 Marietta and did you attend the outreach? 8 NATALIE ROCHESTER: No. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: There were two questions- No on both? 11 NATALIE ROCHESTER: I have not been contacted and I did not attend an outreach. 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Looks like Preston is at the 14 microphone. 15 PRESTON KUNKEL: Good afternoon. Preston Kunkel, um, my address is 10402 Ute Drive. 16 That's in Weld County. Uh, I've lived there since 2003. It's really the only home I've actually every known. 17 Um, I'm an employee of Martin Marietta. I do believe in this project,um, particularly because I understand 18 there's a lot of fear and misunderstanding with this issue. Um, personally, as someone that gets to work 19 for a company that is progressive like Martin, that has the integrity that Martin has, I'm fortunate that I 20 get to see that they're willing to work;they're willing to do the effort;they're willing to do things the right 21 way; they're willing to do what's right, not only for their employees as far as the safety standard, but the 22 neighbors as well. I say that because I'm one of the people that gets to do that on a daily basis. I work 23 for a mine that's down in the Brighton area and I work with some of the best guys that I've ever been 24 around in this industry and I quite honestly would not trade any it for anything. The safety standards that 95 1 we have go well and above and beyond what is regimented or put in place by the government simply 2 because we put that there as the employees. The employees are the ones that take care of that;they are 3 the ones that make sure that those standards are set in stone and followed. And,we're always constantly 4 setting that standard higher and higher and higher. So, when it comes to issues with the neighbors' 5 concerns as far as a neighbor, I've experienced nothing but great from Martin Marietta. I consider that a 6 great company to be a part of and I'm very proud to a part of a company like that. The economy has been 7 somewhat on a good turn for the construction industry, but I can remember as a child {Timer},you know, 8 thinking that there would constantly be aggregate. We're getting to a point where we're getting low on 9 aggregate. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. So your time is up. 11 PRESTON KUNKEL: Thank you. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Questions? Any questions this way? Questions. Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, as an employee of Martin, and you work in Brighton, not 14 here in Greeley. Is that-did I get that right? 15 PRESTON KUNKEL: Not here in Greeley, yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. In, um, in terms of issues that come up - and I'm not 17 as familiar with Brighton facility as the Greeley facility, but you've heard some of the concerns. The 18 fencing, keeping kids out, and all of that. Can you explain in terms of how Martin - when community 19 members come to you,just from your personal experiences as an employee- and you've been with them 20 since, how long? 21 PRESTON KUNKEL: I've been with Martin since 2012. I previously worked for other 22 companies that they were not the same way as far as safety standards go. They honestly didn't care. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, so you've heard some of the concerns- 24 PRESTON KUNKEL: Yes. 96 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: - in terms of fencing and keeping kids out, which are very 2 legitimate issues, and some of the other issues that have been raised. Urn, how have you seen Martin 3 respond to those concerns? If raised in the Brighton facility if you've worked there for three years, give 4 me a -your perspective. 5 PRESTON KUNKEL: Our perspective, if we have issues that are on-site, so we have our 6 fences are well over eight feet tall, um, if we have holes in the fence we take care of it. We have companies 7 that you call out,they repair the hole and we make sure that we patrol the line making sure that- it's our 8 responsibility to keep people out. If people are there, only the guys that work on our sites or the visitors 9 or vendors that are on those sites, they technically are our responsibility. Their safety and well-being is 10 number one for us. Uh, just [coughing - inaudible) purchasing materials from us - we want them to go 11 home safe every single day. So,if there is an issue as far as we hear there's somebody getting into a fence, 12 we'll make sure that it's understood that it's not the greatest place to be; it's not safe for your well-being 13 and we wish you not to be there and we'll do what we can to make sure it happens. 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: How often do you patrol the fence? 15 PRESTON KUNKEL: Daily. 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Daily? 17 PRESTON KUNKEL: Daily. 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thank you. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions?Alright,thank you very much. It appears Martin 2 0 Brown, you're at the microphone, and if I - I'd like to call up Denise Rhoades and Pat Groom. 21 MARTIN BROWN: My name is Martin Brown. I live at 6859 Weld County Road 56; that's 22 right across Koenig Reservoir where this is going. I would encourage the Commissioners to listen to their 23 constituency. Listen to Greeley, listen to Windsor, listen to Johnstown, listen to what these people are 24 saying here today. We need to do what's best for Weld County and not what's best for Martin Marietta. 97 1 So they're putting rocks on a train up in Wyoming, coming down Union Pacific, and that's the only place 2 they can process that rock? That's the kind of stuff I look for under the chicken's tail- I'm sorry. You know 3 what I mean? It's not true. They have awesome resources; they need to dig a little deeper and find a 4 better location for this because no doubt there's somewhere in the state that'd be glad to have them. 5 That's all I've got to say. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Board have any questions? Alright, thank you very much. I 7 believe Earl you're to the microphone. 8 EARL WELLNITZ: Thanks of having me. I work for Martin Marietta. My address - I mean 9 my name is Earl Wellnitz and I work with Martin Marietta. The address is 4700 West O Street, Greeley, 10 Colorado. Um, I've been employed with Martin Marietta for 44 years and I - I've been - I've lived Weld 11 County for 45 years. I think it's a great County. Um, I operate - I manage the Greeley asphalt plant and 12 I've done that for 26 years at Martin Marietta facilities. And, bear with me, I'm a little nervous. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You're doing fine. 14 EARL WELLNITZ: This is not what I do - I make asphalt. Um, I live within a mile from the 15 asphalt plant and I think the asphalt plants are getting a bad rap. I've been in the asphalt business for 45 16 years; I started out as a laborer and I labored, I shoveled asphalt, I've done load, I've run paver, I've done 17 a lot this other stuff and I'm- I think I'm very healthy. I'm 65 years old and I probably shouldn't be getting 18 into all of this but I have my health and I don't think the asphalt company is getting a fair break on this. 19 Uh, Martin Marietta, they do exceed in the environmental standards and, uh, the industrial, 20 environmental standards also. And,that's all I have to say. I thank you. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, good job. Thank you very much. Questions -we'll start this 22 way with Commissioner Cozad. 23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thank you Earl. Uh, quick question. Since you're at the 35th 24 Avenue facility and it was brought up that some of the fences are in disrepair-Can you address that? And 98 1 also, urn, tell me, do you have any safety security issues there? You know, because that facility is right 2 along the Poudre Trail and there's a lot of public access that's right by the 35th Avenue, plus there's a lot 3 of Residential development as we saw earlier. So, can you talk about the safety/security issues? Do you 4 have a lot of trespassers? That kind of thing. 5 EARL WELLNITZ: Yes, uh,the security. We do have security guards out there. 6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. 7 EARL WELLNITZ: So, they patrol the place. And, the chain - we have a chain link fence 8 that probably runs all the way from the railroad tracks at the back of the property, all the way back and 9 around - I don't know, it's probably a mile long and then it turns at 35th Avenue and goes up to the gate, 10 and then the chain link fence, which is five to six feet tall, and then it goes on down to our Foreman's 11 shack and then it drops off into a barbed-wire fence. So,the barbed-wire fence is up, but it's only maybe 12 - I want to guess, uh, maybe a thousand feet and then it comes to the irrigation ditch there. 13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So, just a quick follow up. Being we're not able to see the 14 pictures that were submitted to us because they were just brought up to us as the County Commissioners, 15 but there was some pictures that showed areas where the fence is down. So, are you aware of that, or 16 do you know anything about that? 17 EARL WELLNITZ: If it is, I don't know about it, sorry. 18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, that's ok. Maybe somebody else can address it later. 19 Thanks. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Commissioner Conway. Just a second. We have more 21 questions for you. 22 EARL WELLNITZ: Oh, sorry. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Sorry Earl. Um, so, urn, as the manager of the plant, have you 24 had issues with people getting on site, urn, of the facility? Urn, and how often do you - I'm looking at the 99 1 pictures here. I don't see any fences down, maybe my eyes aren't as good as yours. What I saw was a 2 smaller barbed-wire fence. But anyway, do you have problems with the 35th Street site, with people 3 getting on, kids getting on, urn, and - 4 EARL WELLNITZ: No. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No? 6 EARL WELLNITZ: We do not. If they would come - there's a rail track also and there's a 7 fence there too. But, uh, that's not even ours - I believe that belongs to the railroad along the railroad 8 tracks there, but there's a big irrigation ditch coming off of 35th Avenue. It's probably not an irrigation, 9 it's a floodplain ditch that comes from the - clear up by the dog run back down through. It's all culvert 10 and water drains off into 35th Avenue there and it's a pretty steep ditch there. 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Urn, and uh, I know in the presentation the applicant 12 talked about how they had not had any complaints at the 35th Street site- 13 EARL WELLNITZ: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: - but if you would get a complaint, um, from surrounding 15 homeowners or residents, how would you handle it? 16 EARL WELLNITZ: If I was manager- if I was running the plant? 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Um-hum. 18 EARL WELLNITZ: - and I got the call and the call came right to me, I'd call my grounds 19 person to come in and watch the plant. I'd go directly to that address and find out what the complaint 20 was. I'd ask them before and say, "Ok what's the problem?" And then I would just go ahead and say, 21 "Well do you mind if I come over and see what the problem is?" And I'd go visit with them and then we'll 22 debate if we have something going on, depending on what the issue was, and then we would do what- if 23 we had to shut the plant down we would do that in a minute. 24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. 100 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? 2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yes, uh, Madam Chair. Urn, Mr. Robertson{Wellnitz},did this 3 -to understand -you said 44 years with the company? 4 EARL WELLNITZ: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Congratulations on that. 6 EARL WELLNITZ: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: With that, uh, in some of the presentation earlier there was 8 talk about the possibility of contamination of the water. And just knowing that the one on 35th we've got 9 the Poudre River there, we've got a couple of retention ponds there, we've got farmers that, residential. 10 Have you ever heard of any type of contamination with water? 11 EARL WELLNITZ: Uh, no. You know, if there would be a spill, it would be taken care of 12 immediately, because we have the loaders, we have tons of sand to control anything that spills. 13 Everything flows downhill. We have a low spot where the water's at. We will end up damming it before 14 it gets there if there was ever a spill. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Can I do one more follow up? 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Is it relevant? 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yes, it is. So earlier, earlier in the - in testimony the 19 presentation by the opposition group for lack of a better term - they talked about their concerns and I 20 think there was an issue about runoff from the facility. Um,on the 35th site, how do you contain weather 21 events, stream drainage issues when we do have those weather events, which we do, we have gully 22 washers. Explain to me how you would: one- deal with that problem and, I don't know if you were here 23 and heard the presentation, some of the concerns about groundwater contamination and some of the 24 other things. 101 1 EARL WELLNITZ: Sure. Uh, all of our sites- usually we have a three-foot berm all the way 2 around all of the property. All the way around and that holds all the - any rain water, any high flood 3 waters that come through. And that controls it and keeps it on our property; it will not flow off into a 4 gutter. It will run back into our area instead of running off onto somebody else's property. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Quick follow up. So, I'm sure in 2013 and 2015 when we had, 7 um, weather events, what kind of impact in terms of runoff from the Greeley site? And if you did have 8 runoff, how did you deal with that? I know {coughing - inaudible) did you one: have weather related 9 events in 2013 and 2015? Two- if you did -did you handle it just the way you described? 10 EARL WELLNITZ: Yes, we could only handle it as well as we could because mother nature 11 has its own strength that we could not handle, you know, because when the water come through - 12 actually, if I remember right, the City of Greeley - the water came through and broke the river. Come 13 through and through all the other pits {inaudible) and flooded those two pits, come across underneath 14 the railroad tracks and it came up so quick and started coming over the tracks, and the City of Greeley 15 they actually- 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Let me- let me just kind of. I think the question is are there processes 17 in place at Martin Marietta to deal with unexpected runoff? 18 EARL WELLNITZ: Well,yes. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. 20 EARL WELLNITZ: We would need those berms to try and stop it. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Exactly. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Okay up to the 22 microphone is Denise Rhodes and calling up to the front chairs is Jamie Cummings and Jeff Darnel. 23 DENISE RHODES: Good afternoon. My name is Denise Rhodes. I've lived for 30 years at 2 4 6771 Algonquin Drive in Johnstown. I'm opposed to this USR and ask for your vote to oppose this. Martin 102 1 Marietta talked about the creation of new jobs; however, they {feedback - inaudible) employees who 2 spoke out during the July 21st Planning meeting. These employees were fearful that their jobs would go 3 away if this plant was not ok'd. That tells that the jobs are not created but merely filled by other sites. 4 Based on the modeling of our Traffic Engineer {feedback - inaudible} that was done, if this USR passes 5 {feedback - inaudible) of the Martin Marietta site. With the introduction of the traffic signal at County 6 Road 34 and - pardon me - Highway 34 and County Road 13, {feedback - inaudible) on Highway 34 will 7 experience delays costs two million dollars, based on an average wage of ten dollars per hour. This will 8 grow to ten million dollars at full operation of the facility. It does not include any raise in that minimum 9 wage dollar amount. {Feedback - inaudible) monitoring for odor, noise and dust. All plants have 10 complaints and chances are this one will too. These complaints need to be dealt with immediately. Having 11 Martin Marietta provide their own monitoring is merely like having a fox guard the henhouse. Weld 12 County needs to step up and be able to address these complaints in a timely fashion. Honestly for health 13 and safety costs our local emergency and fire districts train and equip to deal with any kind of emergency 14 such as fire, explosion and of{feedback-inaudible). This requires specialized equipment and specialized 15 training. {feedback-inaudible)they need the training and equipment with the surrounding municipalities 16 to incur compensation and insurance for those events. Thanks very much. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Does the Board have any questions? We'll start this way. 18 No? 19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: A quick one. Uh, Denise, actually my question is about what 20 you just said about the fire districts needing additional specialized equipment and training. Do we have a 21 referral from the fire district? I didn't see that in there, so can you explain where that information came 22 from? 23 DENISE RHODES: Based on one of our other presentations that was not done this morning 24 and I've done some other additional research, the asphalt plant gets heated to 200 plus degrees and in 103 1 order to combat that fire they will need foam suppressant as opposed to water. And so there needs to 2 be that special equipment in place, locally,to have that. I do not know that our municipalities that would 3 service that area have that capability. 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah because I think that it's actually the fire district that's - 5 that serves Johnstown/Milliken and I'm not sure either but I just wanted to know how you came up with 6 that question. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: They actually do have a foam truck. 8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: They do have a foam truck. Thank you. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yeah. Okay, any other questions? 10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you very much. Looks like Patrick your up. 12 PATRICK GROOM: Good afternoon Commissioners. Um, I'll be speaking during the 13 applicant's rebuttal period but I was asked to put my name on the list- 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Oh, okay then you'll have to wait. Alright, that was great. I didn't 15 even get to start the timer but I'm going to start it on Commissioner Conway next time! [Laughter) Alright. 16 Uh, let's see, I'm to Jamie Cummings, if you'd like to come up to the microphone, and before you start I 17 need to call up Jacquelyn Ross and Jeff Wright. Alright, if you'd like to go ahead and start. 18 JAMIE CUMMINGS: Good afternoon. My name is Jamie Cummings. I live at 26700 Weld 19 County Road 13 in Johnstown. I oppose the approval of USR15-0027. The incompatibility issues that 20 Martin Marietta would bring to our area will irrevocably change our quality of life and the way my 21 neighbors and I live in our community. The constant noise generated from 24 hours, six days a week 22 production with the Martin Marietta plant, noise from the volume of truck traffic, noise from the 23 additional train activity, will destroy the peace and quiet that we currently appreciate. And our 2 4 neighborhood is so quiet that you notice the quiet. With constant noise it would be difficult to have any 104 1 comfortable outdoor time with friends and family,to sleep with our windows open, have outdoor meals 2 and enjoy our home in the same manner that we do now. The traffic volume of approximately 1,100 daily 3 trips to eventually approximately 2,200 daily trips that Martin Marietta proposes will be traveling on 4 County Road 13 which is right outside my front door. The other concern that I have is that I don't think 5 that Martin Marietta has brought up, um,the truck traffic that comes from the independent retail truckers 6 and what the volume of that traffic would be. Because the plant would be generating and emitting dust 7 particles and a permeating asphalt chemical odor, I and my neighbors will no longer be able to do the 8 simple activities I'm sure you get to do at your house. Like opening your windows to let in the fresh air, 9 enjoying outdoor activities like bar-b-ques or outdoor family gatherings. Outdoor activities will not be 10 pleasant because of the dust and odor. I have a two-year-old granddaughter, Shelby, who loves [Timer} 11 to come over to our farm. I want her to know and grow up with the beauty and tranquility of our area. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Just a second please. Questions? Questions. 14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Um, Madam Chair, yes. Uh, Ms. Cummings, just so I don't 15 assume anything. Are you related, first of all,to Mr. Cummings that spoke earlier? 16 JAMIE CUMMINGS: Yes, I'm his wife. 17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So, my question is, uh, since you do farm, you have to use 18 farm equipment out there, is that correct? 19 JAMIE CUMMINGS: Correct. 20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: You have tractors and everything else. Okay. Thank you. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you very much. Okay so after Jamie Cummings - Jeff 22 Darnell, right? You're up. 23 JEFF DARNELL: Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Darnell and I'm at 8005 Skyview Street, 24 Greeley, Colorado. I'm here to support the Martin Marietta Highway 34 project on behalf of the 300 105 1 employees at Hensel-Phelps Construction Company and as a citizen of Weld County. Hensel-Phelps, our 2 employees,and their families have been a part of the local community for over three quarters of a century. 3 The prosperity of our community in Northern Colorado is a direct-directly correlated, um,with economic 4 growth. With growth comes infrastructure, new structures or renovations of existing structures which 5 always require raw materials. Therefore, sustaining a healthy and vibrant community for today and 6 tomorrow will depend on aggregate and the transportation of it. The transportation this aggregate will 7 need to be conducted by highway or rail. It's going to be either/or. The location of this proposed Highway 8 34 project provides a unique access to both rail and highway, which will allow, uh, less heavy 9 transportation on our highways because of the rail. As mentioned earlier, I'm a citizen of Greeley and 10 Weld County. I've lived near an existing aggregate plant for the past four years. I do not consider this type 11 of facility to be either bothersome or a risk of my health or my family's health. Both Hensel-Phelps and I 12 support the approval of Martin Marietta's Highway 34 project. Thank you for your time and consideration. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, thank you. Questions? Start this way. Commissioner 14 Conway. 15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Can I ask you the same question I asked Mr. Renfroe and 16 others who are involved in the industry. How challenging to get aggregate for the projects you - Hensel- 17 Phelps works on and throughout northern Colorado? 18 JEFF DARNELL: Obviously, it depends on the construction cycle. Currently, we're on a 19 high cycle. Obviously,that can go down. But in today's it is very challenging. Uh, project costs are actually 20 going considerably up. A lot of jobs the developers are actually starting to shelve them and construction 21 schedules are starting to push out. So,the actual ability to gain raw material in the market place today is 22 tight. I don't know if that is the immediate outlook. If you look at the long-term outlook. I don't think 23 any of us want us to stop growing from an economic perspective and this is going to continue to grow 24 long out into the future. 106 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thank you. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? Alright,thank you very much. Okay,Jacquelyn 3 you're up to the microphone. I'm going to call up Lucas Brown and Harold Amerin. A-M-E-R-I-N. Would 4 you please come up to these seats? Jacquelyn? 5 JACQUELYN ROSS: Thank you for hearing our concerns. My name is Jacquelyn Ross and 6 I live at 6190 Weld County Road 56. I've lived there my entire life, which I'm 25 years old, so 25 years. 7 Martin Marietta has addressed a fund of$100,000 for landscape mitigation. Now this was- uh discussed 8 at the Landscape charrette which we were invited to. However, today they stated the funds would be 9 available to Indianhead Estates. Well what about the others around this on County Road 56 and County 10 Road 13? Um, like I said,we're directly south, um, between the two railroad tracks on {County Road}56. 11 Um, the only mitigation for the landscape meeting was to plant along the front of our property, which 12 we're on the south side of the road, and when the snow comes in the wintertime, our road drifts right in 13 front of our house. And, putting in trees right in front of our house is going to cause driveways to close, 14 the road to drift more and, sometimes, the County's not even out there until 11 or 12 o'clock in the 15 morning, or mid-morning to plow our roads. So that's left to the farmers who live this this area who 16 actually plow the roads. Um,so with additional vegetation this will cause more problems, um, in our area. 17 Who is responsible for maintaining the roads if this was to happen? I have asthma and allergies. What 18 will happen if dust is unbearable for me? Am I considered a residual effect to this plant? Um, I live with 19 my grandma who's 86 years old and I have a two-year-old and I just don't want her to have the same 2 0 issues I have. Um, I just really hope that guys deny this application, um,cause of everything that has been 21 said {Timer} 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Questions? Commissioner. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Sorry, real quickly. So, in the applicant's presentation you 2 4 heard about a neighborhood working group- 107 1 JACQUELYN ROSS: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -it sounded like you went on the tour or participated in some 3 meeting. Is that correct? 4 JACQUELYN ROSS: Correct. So, they invited neighbors who live within 500 feet to a 5 landscape charrette and basically we were told we need to plant trees in the front of our property. Now, 6 right now there are some trees in front of our property, but the road still drifts on either side of the house 7 and on the south side of the road between the two railroad tracks. 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,and did you raise the question about-you know, I think 9 you raised in the first part-what about the rest of us in terms of mitigation? Did you have that discussion 10 with them, or? 11 JACQUELYN ROSS: Um,yeah that discussion did take place at the landscape charrette. 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And what answer did you get? Cause it sounded like you 13 didn't get a satisfactory answer, so I'm just trying to find out what you got. 14 JACQUELYN ROSS: Um, we didn't get-they were basically-we were basically told "plant 15 trees and that will stop everything." That really doesn't stop everything with the snow. Um, last year- 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I'm sorry. The question was, were you told that the other neighbors 17 who don't live in the subdivision would also be able to participate in the landscaping$100,000? 18 JACQUELYN ROSS: Yes. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, any other questions? Commissioner. 22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Uh, Ms. Ross you said you live near where the tracks are. 23 JACQUELYN ROSS: Yes. 108 1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Do you know approximately, if you had to guess, how often 2 you see the trains come through and what part of the day is it? 3 JACQUELYN ROSS: Definitely. So I work from home and so I'm living between the two 4 tracks we have the traffic and I'm on conference calls daily so they hear the trains. Um, we're closer to 5 the Great Western railroad than the Union Pacific, but we can still hear it. Um, on the Union Pacific I 6 would say between five to six trains a day. On the Great Western there's significantly more but we also 7 have the Vestas train which crosses {County Road} 13 and 36 at the top - uh, {Highway} 34 and 13 and 8 which blocks the traffic 20 to 30 minutes on each place. Um, so. 9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? Alright,thank you very much. 11 JACQUELYN ROSS: Thank you. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. It looks like Jeff Wright you're at the microphone and I'm going 13 to call up Gary Oplinger and Michael Smith. Alright, go ahead. 14 JEFF WRIGHT: Uh, Jeff Wright, 6150 West 24th Street, Greeley. If I can I'd like to go 15 maybe a little direction here. Um - 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: As long as it's relevant. 17 JEFF WRIGHT: - it is relevant, I promise. Uh,the Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department 18 of Labor on June 17th, 2015, had a press release in which they said Weld County had a growth of 19 employment of 8 percent and that compared to 2.2 percent of the National growth, which is fantastic. 20 Niobrara News on March 8th, 2015, stated that nine major drillers on the Front Range are slashing 2015 21 spending by 30 percent, or about 2 billion dollars. Another article from Niobrara News on March 22nd, 22 2015, stated, "Colorado's latest rig count, as reported by Baker Hughes posts a low of 39 in the week 23 ending of March 20th, 2015." The rig count in Colorado for the same week in 2014 was 61 rigs. So, what 24 does that mean? What am I getting at here? For the sake of brevity I'll get out of here pretty quick. 109 1 Thirty-six percent decrease in drilling activity this year in Weld County-Jobs. Martin Marietta is bringing 2 in a new plant, or hoping to bring in a new plant. New employment opportunities - Jobs. The Greeley 3 Tribune on August 9th, wrote an article that said, uh, in 2014 the City had about 2,000 potholes, an all- 4 time high, and this year's looking even worse. Of the city's 367 miles of roads, more than 100 need to be 5 repaved. To me that screams more jobs. I think right now we're in a balancing act of losing jobs versus 6 gaining jobs. That's something I'd ask you to consider. Providing an environment that allows for job 7 creation is in you purview. Continuing to allow businesses to diversify and expand is a good way to see 8 that happen. I know that Martin Marietta has a fairly good mitigation plan. I know that the neighborhood 9 is going to be more than happy to help them stay on it, so I do ask that you seriously look at this and 10 approve the proposal. Thank you. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you. Questions? Questions? Alright, thank you. Okay, 12 where are we at? Alright, I think we are to Lucas? Alright. 13 LUCAS BROWN: Yes, my name is Lucas Brown [Timer) 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Ooops,just a second. 15 LUCAS BROWN: My time's up already? [Laughter) 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, let's start over. 17 LUCAS BROWN: Alright, my name's Lucas Brown and I live at 6859 Weld County Road 56, 18 Johnstown Colorado,which is the property directly across the reservoir, um,from the proposed site. Um, 19 even with all their mitigation and attempts to be a good neighbor, um,for those of us that live nearby this 2 0 plant will be an assault against our senses. We will see it, we will smell it,we will hear it, and with 55,000 21 pounds of dust projected yearly, uh, we'll probably taste it. Um, I've already watched well over 14 hours 2 2 of debate and testimony regarding this proposal and to me it's pretty clear what the wishes of the majority 23 of the people are. I don't really care and I hope that you guys don't what the wishes of Martin Marietta's 2 4 employees from all across the Front Range are. Uh, a lot of these guys don't live anywhere near here. I 110 1 think it's kind of classless of Martin Marietta to pay a bunch of their employees to come up here and buy 2 them lunch and waste my time and ears talking about what a great company Martin Marietta is to work 3 for. I don't doubt that but this is not their only option; this is just the most convenient and the most 4 profitable for them. Uh, you guys were elected to represent the people of Weld County and I think you 5 need to do that and deny this application. Um, if you go against the wishes of the Planning staff, the 6 Building Commissioners, and the people of Weld County, you will be proving what a lot of fear that this 7 democracy is kind of fraud because it doesn't matter what the people think; it only matters what the 8 people with money think. Uh, thank you for your time and please do the right thing and deny this 9 application. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, does the Board have any questions? Okay, thank you very 11 much. 12 LUCAS BROWN: Thank you. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, um, let's see we are to-Harold you are at the microphone. Let 14 me call up and I have a question first before I call up anybody. Um, Mr. Oplinger were you part of the 15 opposition group. 16 GARY OPLINGER: Yes I was. I think my name's already been stated. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes it was, so I'm sorry for walking up to the front of the room. 18 GARY OPLINGER: I can speak again if you want. [Laughter) 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No that's ok, but thank you. So, let me call up, um, Bob Metch - 20 Meusch -Thank you. And, I also need to call up Tom Haren. Sir? 21 HAROLD AMERIN: Hi, my name's Harold Amerin. I'm a current contractor in Weld County 22 and a farmer and currently do a lot of work with Martin Marietta on different gravel pit sites. Both last 23 year and this year during the floods we helped repair the Poudre River in several different spots where it 24 broke out and went through their plants and destroyed their stuff. And, uh, as far as housekeeping and 111 1 taking care of their own stuff, they fully stand up and take care of their own stuff. And, we work with 2 several people around the place fixing their places up that are really shocked that Martin Marietta spent 3 the money to do what we did {laughter} as far as fixing other people's places up around them that was 4 caused by water or by other stuff that wasn't even related to Martin Marietta. Um, as far as taking farm 5 ground out of production, I don't know if any of you are farmers or not but we are. We gladly have -we 6 gladly hope for that day when someone's going to come in and make our retirement. (Laughter) Because 7 if you ever farm, and Barb you know-I know your Dad-the goal is one day you do get to sell it and do get 8 to retire. On the other hand you don't. Uh, but uh,that's all I've got to say. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, great,Time. Questions? This way? 10 HAROLD AMERIN: I forgot to say one thing too. Uh, we're currently bidding CSU project 11 and we do a lot of work for schools and hospitals. We currently are trucking material from Idaho Springs 12 up to Fort Collins or from Brighton to Fort Collins and Greeley to provide the material for our jobs right 13 now. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 15 HAROLD AMERIN: And we're talking thousands and thousands of tons; not just two truck 16 loads. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. 18 HAROLD AMERIN: I have 30 trucks a day running from Idaho Springs to Fort Collins. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Alright. Did you have a question? 20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I do. Just on what you just said. Is, is-uh, are you trucking that 21 for Martin Marietta or- 22 HAROLD AMERIN: No,we're trucking it for jobs. 23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Just brining in aggregate to the area? 112 1 HAROLD AMERIN: The CSU project and the stadium -just the aggregate alone that we 2 have to import from Brighton to Fort Collins for that job,that if we had the material in Fort Collins or any 3 closer here would save CSU over$250,000. 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, a quick follow up. Is most of that truck go up I-25? 6 HAROLD AMERIN: Yes sir. 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thanks. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you. Alright, next at the microphone is Bob. I'm going 9 to call up Taunya Feyen? F-E-Y-E-N, please, if you want to come up to the chairs. Did I call Michael Smith? 10 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yes. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you. Alright, Bob you're up. 12 BOB MEUSCH: Good afternoon Commissioners, thank you. My name is Bob Meusch. I 13 currently reside at 1146 52nd Avenue Court in Greeley, and I'm opposed to this application for a USR. My 14 wife and I are currently building our dream home at 27647 Hopi Trail, Johnstown, Indianhead Estates 15 West. Uh, our home is in the southwest corner of that subdivision and is the closest to the proposed 16 project. The Board of Commissioners has seen in the Clear 34 neighborhood presentation and handouts, 17 the views of the proposed project from our new home. There is no mitigating this negative visual impact; 18 110-foot silos cannot not be seen and no berm, tree or other landscaping will sufficiently mitigate this 19 impact. This will directly and adversely impact our lifestyles, the right to peaceful enjoyment of our 20 property,as well as that of our neighbors. I have been a community banker for over 30 years. I understand 21 and believe in the free market system of competition; however, I also understand the need for appropriate 22 planning and zoning regulations and, more importantly, their enforcement. Proper planning and zoning 23 places similar,compatible property uses together, but more importantly, it provides for proper separation 24 and buffering of uses deemed incompatible by virtue of the nature of the use and intensity of the use. 113 1 This is done to ensure both the public safety and the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property for all 2 of the Weld County residents. The proposed use at this site meets neither of these criteria. Martin 3 Marietta in their own - has acknowledged in their own March, 2015, Site Assessment Study, that the 4 proposed use at this site is not compatible with the immediate surrounding neighborhood, 'cause their 5 right to propose Highway 34 and Weld County Road 13 site has a zero for neighborhood compatibility. In 6 conclusion, the proposed Heavy Industrial use at this site is far too intense of a use to be considered 7 compatible with the surrounding existing land uses and with the long term planning vision for the area. 8 Therefore, I respectfully submit the application for the USR should be denied. I think you very much for 9 allowing me the time to address the Commissioners. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you very much. Uh, questions? Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Uh, yes sir. You said you're currently building your house, if 12 I heard you correctly. 13 BOB MEUSCH: That's correct. 14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Just a yes or no answer. Were you aware of this before you 15 started construction? 16 BOB MEUSCH: No, it was not disclosed to us by the seller of the land. 17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. 19 BOB MEUSCH: Thank you. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, um, Michael Smith? I asked Michael Smith to come up. 21 MICHAEL SMITH: [from the audience) Commissioner I'm here to speak on behalf of 22 Martin Marietta side if that comes up. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Oh,so you're part of the application presentation? Alright,thank you 24 Mr. Smith. That helps. Okay, Mr. Haren. 114 1 TOM HAREN: Tom Haren, 3056 67th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. On behalf of the Board 2 of Directors of Upstate Economic Development we want to express our support for this project. Uh, the 3 creation of primary jobs in support of the necessary operations that will help build out our infrastructure 4 in Northern Colorado. We hope that as you work with existing Weld County businesses,you will support 5 their efforts to grow and expand as appropriate. Martin Marietta has been a primary sector employee - 6 employer around Weld County for years and has employed closed to 300 people in Northern Colorado, 7 so continuing this trend, this operation would bring 20 million dollars' worth of investment and 8 approximately 100 new jobs to the community. While the employment opportunities an exciting aspect 9 of the operation,the fact is, Weld County is in great need of these aggregates with the current and future 10 growth we are experiencing. Upstate Colorado supports the need for these types of building material 11 supply chain operations in Weld County. And, Upstate supports this project and requests your approval. 12 Now, I'd like to change hats real quick from my position on Upstate, as a farm owner in Gilcrest and also 13 an agricultural development company and I want to talk about the Right to Farm real quick. Um, over two 14 decades, two terms of the Weld County Comp Plan Committee, I was on the Ag Advisory Board. And, I 15 was a part of Section 22 and the Right to Farm when it was written and what I've been hearing in these 16 proceedings is a gross contortion of the Right to Farm. When, um,the Right to Farm is to protect the land 17 owner and the farmers from neighbors and encroachment of subdivisions coming in; not to be used by 18 neighbors to say, "You've got to farm." We were very careful when we worked to craft the Right to Farm 19 to ensure that Ag property owners could both be able to operate as long as they wanted to without 20 encroachment; without people complaining about nuisance and such, but we were very careful not to 21 restrict their property right but condemn them to farm forever and become free open space. So, usually 22 Ag property owners' retirement is ultimately the sale of their assets. When they determine the changes, 23 growth patterns or economics warrant. So, my company-done? 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I need you to wrap up,yeah. 115 1 TOM HAREN: Okay. Well, urn, the uh - the uh adjacent event venue used to be a dairy. 2 The subdivision or many subdivisions that encroach on dairies or feed yards that I represent, urn, used to 3 be farmland or ranch land. And, even here,this used to be a farm -there used to be 100,000-head feed 4 yard right next door, so urn - 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 6 TOM HAREN: - um, there was a time and there was a need but the infrastructure was 7 there. Uh, economics drove these choices so thank you. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Questions? Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Madam Chair I try to keep my questions to a Yes or a No. 10 With your first cap Mr. Haren you said you represent Upstate here and there are numbers with that Board 11 you're representing. Is that a unanimous decision or just a majority decision? 12 TOM HAREN: Uh,that's a majority decision of the Upstate Board of Directors. 13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you. 14 TOM HAREN: Yes. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Other questions? Okay. 16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't hear back here. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay and when did the Right to Farm language come into -was that 18 approximately 1995? 19 TOM HAREN: Urn, it was early 90's. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright, thank you very much. 21 TOM HAREN: Thank you. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,we are going to take a five minute break, approximately,so but 23 when we come back and reconvene I have, urn, Sharon Collins needs to be - Oh wait, before we take a 116 1 break. I'm sorry. We actually have one more person. Got ahead of myself. Taunya. Sorry about that. 2 Thanks for waving at me. 3 TAUNYA FEYEN: Urn, good afternoon Commissioners. My name is Taunya Feyen. I 4 currently reside at 1233 South County Road 3, Johnstown, and just recently purchased a lot in Coyote 5 Ridge Subdivision off of County Road 15 in Weld County. So, I'd like to address my concerns today 6 regarding potential increase of traffic on Weld County Roads 13 and 54. It is ultimately predictable that 7 truck traffic will head south onto County Road 13 when leaving Martin Marietta instead of turning right 8 towards Highway 34. The traffic congestion that happens on Highway 34 is certain to be a number one 9 reason for the trucks to head south. It's already well known that traffic diverts from Highway 34 using 10 these small county roads to avoid the current congestion problem. I do not believe that Martin Marietta 11 has an appropriate plan to mitigate this from happening. This will create heavy traffic on County Road 13 12 which will lead to deterioration of this road -two-lane road, costing both Weld and Larimer counties lots 13 of money for road repairs and maintenance. Even worse will be the increased heavy traffic on Weld 14 County Road 54, also Larimer County Road 18. This road is very narrow, has no shoulders and is extremely 15 hilly, which creates visibility problems. There is also a narrow bridge that could be a big problem with 16 heavy truck traffic. Thompson River Ranch is currently expanding their subdivision east up to Larimer 17 County Road 3 which will certainly generate a lot more traffic on these roads. And, having the extra 18 burden of truck traffic from Martin Marietta will certainly going to put a lot of risk to these families in this 19 area. Wintertime conditions on this road are horrible and there are many accidents and road closures. 20 We, personally, have had a couple of occasions leaving the road and ending up in our pasture. Lastly, 21 there is already big problem for those of us that use this road on a daily basis and that is the interchange 22 at I-25. On many occasions I have had to sit through three to five light cycles before I can get through this 23 intersection and onto the highway. {Timer} Adding these large semis to the equation is going to be 24 harrowing. Thank you. 117 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, questions? 2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Just one quick follow up. You had mentioned - because this 3 will be a topic of discussion I'm sure. Can you all hear me? Sorry. Um, there seems to be a dispute on 4 the 75/25 and the 95/5. Urn, is there anything from road mitigation that you're looking for us to look at 5 or ask the applicant about in terms of that truck traffic going south? 6 TAUNYA FEYEN: I don't personally have any suggestions. I just - I just know it's going to 7 happen and it's worrisome, but I don't know what to do to fix it. 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, so there are not specific areas of the road you want 9 them to look at or mitigate or anything in terms of that discussion? 10 TAUNYA FEYEN: No. Honestly, right now,Weld County Road 54(Larimer County Road 18) 11 is so narrow, I don't even know how they would ever make that big enough to accommodate all that traffic 12 that's going to be going. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Alright, thank you. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Alright, so at this 15 time we are going to take a break but when we come back Sharon Collins is on deck, along with Jeff 16 Reckard. 17 (AUDIO PAUSED] 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay I need everybody to get to their seats please, we're going to 19 reconvene. So, as you're going to your seats I need you to keep it down. Okay, I'm talking to all people 20 who are speaking now,you need to stop talking-we're getting ready to go back into our hearing. Okay, 21 so let's see. Alright,so I have Sharon at the microphone. I'm going to call up Michael-J. Michael Earwood, 22 please, if you'd come up to the microphone. And then I also need Greg Meidema, at least that's what it 23 looks like to me. Alright, go ahead. 118 1 SHARON COLLINS: Sharon Collins, 27811 Hopi Trail, Indianhead Estates. I oppose. 2 Bearing in mind last week's nearby gas line explosion and the rail train derailment and explosion in La 3 Salle, here's another scenario. On a hot summer's day during MM's busy season a truck loaded with 30 4 ton of hot asphalt falls off the elevated bridge onto a moving train below and punctures the facility's gas 5 line. The train derails, especially since squishing the track into a tighter oval increases that risk, sparks 6 ignite a wildfire on the grassy berm and our Shangri-La and Highway 34 traffic become Dante's inferno. 7 The magnitude of the disaster much like the oilfield fires in Iraq prevents evacuation, becomes widely 8 known in the media as the Weld County Martin Marietta disaster and importantly effects the results in 9 the next Weld County elections. This graphic example is perfectly possible as documented in my letters 10 dated 539 and 805. Please don't allow this industrial attack on the safety of Weld County residents and 11 travelers. This facility would be hugely incompatible and dangerous at this location. A new asphalt plant 12 should be put where a much larger buffer zone could be planned from the outside. Also, there's lots of 13 new compatible construction going on within 1.2 miles of the proposed site so builders are obviously 14 getting their materials from somewhere. With two other plants, maybe MM wants to complete a 15 monopoly. Um, in a free enterprise system we know that costs will increase, especially with a monopoly 16 and they'll be passed on to consumers who won't even be aware of it. Finally, as somebody who actually 17 lives next to this site, it's already like a demolition derby just trying to get a car from County Road 15 onto 18 {Highway}34 and traffic commonly backs up for at least a mile at the County Road 17 signal during peak 19 hours. Thank you. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Questions? Any questions? Okay,thank you-thank 21 you very much. Next up was Jeff. Jeff? Jeff Reckard. 22 JEFF RECKARD: Sorry about that. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: That's okay. 119 1 JEFF RECKARD: My name's Jeff Reckard,935 South Fulton Avenue, Fort Lupton,Colorado. 2 Been there since 1978 and Weld County resident since 1961. Been in the pipeline construction business 3 for the last 39 years and definitely laid a lot of pipe in those years. Of course it takes building material to 4 bed that pipe. Uh, also,the biggest change I've see is, uh, a lot of municipalities and districts are going to 5 3/4 inch rock bedding which, of course, is a common aggregate in concrete and asphalt so it's becoming 6 harder to get, especially up here in the Greeley-Weld County area 3/4 inch is depleting rather quickly. 7 Therefore, the only other place to get it is from Brothers Black Ag plant which is in Golden which is a 8 crushed rock. So, like I say, I'm all for this proposal that they can train it in from Wyoming crushed rock. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you. Questions? Alright, thank you very much. Okay, 10 alright I need to call up-just a second please- Mike Chrisman and Steve Tool. Okay, go ahead sir. 11 MICHAEL EARWOOD: Hi, my name is Michael Earwood. I live at 27261 Hopi Trail, that's 12 Johnstown; that's Indianhead Estates. I actually live on Hopi Trail that backs up to County Road 15 at the 13 top of the hill. I've got a very good view of that site that you're talking about. Um, mining site and the 14 noise that we're going to hear-a berm's not going to help us; it's not going to mitigate it. We can hear it. 15 I mean it's as simple as that. I stood out on your back parking lot here at lunch time and listened to the 16 backup horns, um, from gotta be a mile away, so we know were going to hear noise there. But, other- I 17 won't go into that. Um, I want to talk about a little bit of history. I grew up in Commerce City and back 18 then it was called Derby and Welby and some other names of a small trucking community. It had an oil 19 refinery on one side and a military arsenal on the other. My folks knew that when they moved there. It 20 was cheap. They could live there. They could actually buy a home there and they did and I grew up there, 21 and little by little industry came. Just like this is looking like. A little bit here- a little bit there and pretty 22 soon you've got an industrial neighborhood, which is what you have today in Commerce City. You drive 23 up 6 and 85 and you see nothing but industrial complexes one right after the other. My question to you 120 1 is on {Highway}34 corridor is that the look that you really want to have coming into Weld County? Thank 2 you. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, thank you. Anybody have any questions? Okay, thank you 4 very much. Okay, looks like I've got Greg- I don't know how spell your-thank you. 5 GREG MIEDEMA: Good afternoon Commissioners. My name is Greg Miedema. I live at 6 925 Woodvine Drive in Windsor, Colorado. I'm with NOCOHBA - the Home Builders Association of 7 Northern Colorado; I'm their Executive Director. NOCOHBA supports this project with the goal of 8 maintaining affordable housing. I mean, that's our big point today is with support of affordable housing. 9 NOCOHBA is the local chapter of NAHB (National Association of Home Builders). NAHB represents about 10 160,000 businesses{Timer}across the country. I'm done. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Oops, sorry. No you're fine. You're fine, sorry. 12 GREG MIEDEMA: {overspeak - inaudible] 240 businesses, we represent about 11,000 13 employees. The growth in Northern Colorado is not in question. The question is how and where we 14 accommodate it and whether we create a hierarchy in housing by pricing residents out of areas from 15 policy regulations or costs impacted by adverse policy decisions. A plant that utilizes Colorado's rich 16 history and network of rail transport will keep costs of aggregate products a key component to housing 17 and infrastructure that comes with it that will lower costs and {coughing - inaudible]. The proposed 18 location of this plant optimizes existing rail lines as well as space available for the plant that would have 19 otherwise might be under-utilized. Rail transport where one rail shipment is the equivalent to about 400 20 trucks and accompanying road traffic is significantly less expensive than over the road hauling. Some 21 experts say it's 75 percent less. This equates to a savings on average of an average home of$5,000.00. 22 Related to another perspective every $1,000 you raise the price of homes crowds out about a 189 23 perspective home buyers{Timer}in Weld County and Greeley. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Now your time is up. 121 1 GREG MIEDEMA: -this means that you'll lock out about 550 home buyers. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. Questions. 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Um, can he just repeat the last part because the timer 4 distracted that? 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure, could you please repeat your last sentence there? 6 GREG MIEDEMA: According to a study by AHP,every$1,000 of an increase in home price 7 in Weld County and Greeley, it takes 189 prospective home buyers out of the market. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, any other questions? 9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And what was the 500? 10 GREG MIEDEMA: Well, because - the low estimate of $3,000 increase in the cost of a 11 home would take out 550 home buyers; not just from this area,from Greeley and Weld County. 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, thank you very much. Okay up to the microphone is Mike 14 Chrisman. I'm gonna call up Royal Kupec, K-U-P-E-C. That's what it looks like to me anyways. And,Josh 15 it's either Oshan or Deshan. Okay, go ahead. 16 MIKE CHRISMAN: Good afternoon Commissioners. My name is Mike Chrisman. I'm a 17 resident of Indianhead Estates at 6713 Apache Road, Johnstown. I oppose this project. I've heard talk 18 about property rights. The thing about property rights is all property owners have them. You should be 19 able to do anything you want to on your property as long as it does not one bit of it come onto mine. 2 0 Interestingly, as a homeowner, I'm not even allowed to direct rainwater onto my neighbors' property. I'm 21 not able to balance my rights with my neighbor. That an intense industrial operation with stinky, dusty, 22 ugly attributes can infringe on my property rights and negatively impact my way of life is just wrong. The 23 issue you before you is complex. Later today when they are able to respond to the public comments, 2 4 Martin Marietta will assert that we are all wrong. Maybe we don't have the experts. Maybe we're just 122 1 whining. Maybe we're just unknown. None of this is true. It's not about the unknown or change and we 2 are not just whining. Many of us have invested hundreds of hours trying to understand this proposal; 3 both its positives and negatives. We've studied the technologies, the regulations, the procedures. It 4 would be an insult to just brush away our concerns as Martin Marietta tries to do like they did at the 5 Planning Commission hearing. Thoughtful consideration will demonstrate that they are valid. We know 6 that development of the US corridor will happen - U.S. 34 corridor - and we embrace it. We want this 7 area to be a beautiful welcome to Weld County and this organization, Clear 34, is willing to do our part 8 and we do have the expertise among ourselves,the County staff, surrounding communities and those we 9 have retained to assist us. All of our experts confirm this is a bad idea. There is no right way to do the 10 wrong thing. This proposed use is clearly{Timer}the wrong use-{Timer) 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, it's a different one. 12 MIKE CHRISMAN: I respectfully request you deny this incompatible use. Thank you. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Sorry, thank you. Questions. 14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Madam Chair? 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Uh, Mr. Chrisman. The same question I asked earlier about 17 property owners. Were you contacted by Martin Marietta and did you attend any of the outreach? 18 MIKE CHRISMAN: I attend the meetings I was invited to. I was only invited to one as a 19 representative of the Clear 34 Organization but as a member of the community I was not invited to any 2 0 of them. 21 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. Steve, 23 you're up on deck. Steve you're up- Steve Tool. 123 1 STEVE TOOL: Thank you Madam Chair. My name is Steve Tool. I'm a retired Realtor and 2 Real Estate Appraiser from Fort Collins. I also spent six years in the general Assembly as a State 3 Representative from House District 52, which is the eastern side of Fort Collins. Urn, I wanna - urn, I live 4 at 6808 {coughing-inaudible] Drive in Windsor now. It's on the Larimer County side of Windsor. I want 5 to, uh, congratulate this County Commission on the foresight that I believe this Commission has with your 6 work on the, uh, Transportation Summit that you did in June. With your work on, um, I-25 and the I-25 7 Coalition, and also your work on the Northern Integrated Supply Project. I think these are examples of 8 leadership. Uh, I think you have another opportunity for leadership when it comes to the expansion of I- 9 25 from Highway 66 to Highway 14 in Fort Collins. Uh,when you look at the potential that this aggregate 10 facility could provide to future construction along the I-25 corridor in transportation projects within Weld 11 County, I think it's a - it's, uh, very positive from a stand point of cost control. I've been working on this 12 project for about 18 months and the cost of the project has gone from 965, uh, the project cost of$965 13 million up to $1.1, soon to be $1.2. The sooner we get to this the better. And the more access we have 14 to resources to- uh, resources to build this project the better. Uh,that's my testimony. Thank you. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Questions. Question? 16 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yes, um, Madam Chair. I know most of your resume Mr.Tool 17 but I didn't realize it with Real Estate. But, with Real Estate the question is being asked about property 18 values possibly being decreased there. Would you say that's very accurate - your best estimate, or do 19 think that's- 2 0 STEVE TOOL: I'm not surprised at all that I got asked this question. I will tell you that for 21 me this is not a black and white issue as far as supporting this. Uh, because I also took into account, as a 22 Real Estate Appraiser and a Broker, uh, what the potential impact might be on the project. And, I would 23 have to say that that would certainly be something that you would look at; that you would determine 24 relative value increases or decreases based upon apparent sales in - you know, it just makes common 124 1 sense that there may be some negative impact on property values. So, truthfully,that's sitting there as a 2 property owner. 3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. Alright, 5 are you Royal? 6 ROYAL KUPEC: Yes sir- Ma'am. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Come on up and let me call up also Pete Straub and Roger 8 Knoph. And we're ready for you to start. 9 ROYAL KUPEC: My name is Royal Kupec and I live at 27761 Hopi Trail, Johnstown, 10 Colorado. I'm an accredited Safety Auditor, Associate Safety Professional, Monitored Safety 11 Management. I'm a safety professional. I work up and down the Front Range. I've been working up and 12 down the Front Range since 1990. I'm here to talk about fire and explosive hazards. Uh, I know that you 13 did a referral to Johnstown, uh, Fire Marshal and I know that Johnstown's Fire Marshal filled out the 14 referral but he also did a letter to a third party to help him fill out a referral. He did not get the letter in 15 time to finish the referral. The referral and the information I'm talking about is on Exhibit BU; you have 16 those documents in front of you. The fire and explosion hazards on the asphalt plant, there's been 17 approximately 22 fires over the last five years; that's five a year- a little over five a year. The asphalt is 18 difficult to put out once it starts. It requires an AFFF foam. Johnstown does not have an AFFF foam. Now 19 I understand that Windsor does but that will take a second alarm in order for that to get there. A foam 20 retardant rescue system didn't have the availability of the SDS, the third party report, and if they didn't 21 have that information they couldn't use the Emergency Response Guide to fill out the documents that you 22 requested. Uh, if a fire occurs you have to isolate and evacuate in all directions for a half mile, according 23 to the SDS Emergency Response Guide in the third party's information. If they use water to cool the 24 vessels,the vessels are heated to above 212 degrees they'll expand with explosive force. That's the reason 125 1 for the half mile evacuation. As we know,the distance from the housing subdivision to these tanks could 2 be an issue. Evacuation will evacuate over 150 families. This project simply has too much risk, is 3 incompatible with this area.They need a bigger larger buffer zone between homes and this facility. Thank 4 you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Questions? {Timer)Commissioner. 6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yes, just a couple quick questions. Um, you said that you do 7 safety management and that kind of thing and who do you do that for. What kind of safety management 8 do you do specifically? 9 ROYAL KUPEC: I'm a consultant up and down the Front Range. I do construction, 10 mining, general industry, oil and gas. 11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, and then,you mentioned the number of fires- I think you 12 said an average of five per year. Was that a nation-wide statistic and - 13 ROYAL KUPEC: What I did for that statistic is I went to the internet. I looked it up on the 14 internet so I didn't go through any formal review. I looked up on the internet, wrote up all of the ones 15 that happened in the United States.They're listed in that same packet that I've given you, or was given to 16 you. I went through year-by-year and listed out the major fires off the internet and came up with my 17 statistics. 18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thank you. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner. 2 0 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: In terms of those facility fires that you looked at,do we know 21 if they were older facilities, newer facilities, similar type facilities, or these were just five fires you were 22 able to find out? 23 ROYAL KUPEC: There are total of 22 fires; five per year. These - I don't know the age of 2 4 any of these facilities. 126 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thanks. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? Alright,thank you very much. So it is Josh,Josh 3 - is it Doshan or Deshan? Lives on Mahogany Way in Windsor. Josh, you must have failed penmanship. 4 (sigh-laughter} 5 JOSH DURAN: I did pass that class. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Did you say your name was John? 7 JOSH DURAN: Josh. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Josh, okay see. Alright. Do you want to start the timer? 9 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yes. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay.Your turn. 11 JOSH DURAN: I'm Josh Duran. I live on 1900 Mahogany Way in Severance,Colorado. Uh, 12 my dad and his two brothers own Duran Excavating for the last 40 years in Weld County. As we go through 13 this point of trying to widen I-25; everybody's driven on it and seen how from Fort Collins to Mead where 14 it actually opens up to three-way how long it takes you to get there. The only way to feasibly do that in a 15 timely fashion is to have a place where we get material close. As of right now all of the road base and 16 three-quarter rock is coming from up in the mountains. It costs a lot more,takes more time to get here, 17 and we can't afford to do what we want to do through that order. Um, we're running out of material as 18 we speak. It's not five years down the road, it's not two years down the road, it's right now. Um,we have 19 three or four projects going on in Weld County and Larimer County,you know,all of the material is getting 2 0 imported. Um, you know,we keep talking about trucking on the road. Well, if it's coming down I-25, it's 21 coming through everywhere we've gotta go. We've had floods through here. All that material to fix that 22 stuff came from somewhere else. Um, it's in need and we have to have it. Thank you. 127 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you. Questions. Alright, thank you very much. Okay, at 2 the microphone I need call up Alice Anderson and Dino DiTullio. I'm sure I didn't get that one right. 3 Alright, whatever. 4 PETE STRAUB: Good afternoon Commissioners. My name is Pete Straub. I live at 27793 5 Hopi Trail. Our family home is on the far west border of Indianhead Estates. The proposed plan is a short 6 700 foot away from our elevated patio deck and picture windows where we live, relax and entertain with 7 family and friends. This proposal is a pure economic play by the applicant. It's about minimizing their 8 costs, increasing their profits and increasing their convenience to the marketplace. Your decision is not 9 to eliminate this proposed plant, its jobs or the many other benefits to Northern Colorado. It's only about 10 insuring that it's located in the right place for all stakeholders you represent in Weld County. With a No 11 vote, Martin Marietta or its competitors will be back with a better, more workable proposal and 12 government will work for all. The applicant is obligated to mitigate noise below industrial noise limits. 13 What did they do? Another study, a proposed berm, enclosed some equipment and designed a below- 14 grade, uh hopper but they still propose to have the ability to conduct operations 24/7/365. The proof of 15 the efforts will be ineffective in this case because most of the affected homes are much higher elevation 16 that the top of the proposed berm, including virtually all the homes in Indianhead Estates. More shrubs 17 had some positive effect; however, at their Fort Collins plant we know that operational noise impacts 18 people up to a mile away from the facility. One final word about noise. Full spectrum noise impacts, 19 including low frequency resonant hums and harmonic vibrations are the most difficult to control and were 20 not studied by the applicant. These are common with train movement, heavy equipment and switching 21 operations. [Timer) Alternative siting of these plants is the best mitigation to these impacts. Thank you. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Just a second. Questions?Question. 23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: A simple question again. Were you contacted by Martin 2 4 Marietta during the outreach and did you attend? 128 1 PETE STRAUB: Um, yes we attended every one of their open houses that we could and 2 engaged Martin Marietta's engineers and management, in many of these issues voiced our concerns. 3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Just a second. We still have more questions. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Follow up real quickly. Were there suggestions you gave to 6 Martin Marietta as part of that process? 7 PETE STRAUB: Yes, I think that they were listed on the presentation. 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So they were part of it? 9 PETE STRAUB: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. So, Roger Knoph you're at 12 the microphone and I'd like to call up Eric Wingerson and Troy McWhinney. 13 Hello, may name is Roger Knoph. I'm a resident of Weld County within the City of Greeley. 14 I just wanted to say that in many communities, including the City of Greeley and other northern Colorado 15 that have seen industries located asphalt plants, gravel and concrete plants and communities by them. 16 At this time don't seem to be a major community issue. The trucks that will come on line from rail 17 (inaudible)most likely reduce the amount of trucks coming from other locations cause I don't think it will 18 create an increased demand of the overall use of aggregate. And that any time you add railroad siting 19 you have increased risk of industrial use because of its potential desire. That's all I have to say. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, thank you. Just a second please. Does the Board have any 21 questions? Any questions? Alright, thank you very much. Alright, Alice I believe you're up next. Thank 22 you. 23 ALICE ANDERSON: Hello, my name is Alice Anderson and I reside at 6897 Comanche Court 24 in Johnstown, Colorado. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my strong opposition to this proposal. I'm 129 1 going to address only one issue in the interest of time and repetition, which is that of Martin Marietta 2 being a good neighbor - neighbor and that's your Exhibit BU. My belief is that good neighbors look out 3 for each other. They encourage friendship, mutual understanding and act with honesty and integrity. 4 And, I bet that's your definition as well. It appears to me that Martin Marietta has an odd way of showing 5 good neighbor attributes. They did offer means for input and a few small concessions, but they do just 6 enough to get by, unless they're pressed and if it happens to be in their best interest. For instance, 7 neighbor notification-they notified only those required for the County Code. They were reluctant to offer 8 answers to relevant questions posed by their potential new neighbors. We asked 30 questions on June 9 11th, received 22 answers on July 20th, eight questions were not acknowledged, and this was the night 10 before the Planning hearing. There are no offers to purchase any residence on the site borders, they 11 refuse to post bonds of any type for views requested restriction and they abused the letter process by 12 offering letters of support in the form of form letters. There is sufficient evidence that neighborliness is 13 not their best asset. Neighborliness was offered in the form of dollar diplomacy, a policy of promoting 14 their business and clients' interests over all other individuals and entities. And,this was strengthened by 15 their financial resources. Please deny this USR. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Questions? Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Have you received follow up answers to the eight questions 18 that weren't answered on July 20th? 19 ALICE ANDERSON: Not to my knowledge but we can address Dave Kisker on that if you 2 0 like. 21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Thank you. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? Commissioners? Okay, thank you very much. 23 Dino. 24 DINO DITULLIO: Hello, my name is Dino Ditullio. I live at 50- 130 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I got pretty close. 2 DINO DITULLIO: -yeah,you were close. Dino DiTullio, 5020 Hogan Drive in Fort Collins. I 3 own a farm, uh, on County line road in Weld County. I'd like to make a couple points, uh, this afternoon. 4 I'd like to discuss some of the merits of Martin Marietta. We've been a landlord to these folks for the past 5 ten years, as we own the Three Bells Pit in Larimer County,just across the County line road. Uh, they've 6 been model operators for us. They've been accountable, pro-active; when they tell you something you 7 can take it to the bank. They are people of their words and they get things done. Uh, in my experience 8 they go above and beyond in mitigating concerns and solving problems as they arise. Um, rest assured 9 they will comply with any conditions you put forth on their Special Use Permit and, uh, we've seen 10 firsthand how they work, with not only neighbors but the County staff. We have an active residential 11 development immediately adjacent to the Three Bells Pit, uh, and we've been active since 2005. To-date, 12 we have not had a complaint about the mining operation from a residence. I would submit that the fear 13 of the aggregate operation and the fear of the asphalt plant is greater than the reality. I would encourage 14 people to look at, uh, our project at Timnath Ranch, uh, immediately adjacent to a pit. And, to look at 15 their Rigdon Asphalt plant which is immediately adjacent to residential development in Fort Collins. Um, 16 my second point-as I look at this map I see a whole lot of blank white space between a U.S. Highway and 17 a rail line. This is the Front Range of Colorado. A vacant field next to a rail line should not only expect 18 development but should expect impact of the development. The fact that it hasn't happened earlier and 19 that the existing development in the area has enjoyed isolation for 30 years {Timer} shouldn't preclude 2 0 the inevitable development of land next to a rail way. My last point-this project and its location may not 21 be perfect. No project or location is. Somebody's always made. Nobody wants it next to them. They 22 always prefer it somewhere else, but the fact is that it has to go somewhere. It may not be perfect but I 23 do think it's appropriate. As a community we all need this asphalt. We all need the aggregate, we need 2 4 the concrete. We need our streets paved and our potholes filled. Approving this site on this rail line at 131 1 this location will keep hundreds of trucks off our roads on a daily basis! Literally hundreds of thousands 2 of truck trips and their impacts will be eliminated. This benefits a vast majority of your constituents. Every 3 local minority has a noble coffin viewed in a vacuum but a basic tenant of representative democracy is 4 that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. For these reasons I believe you have a 5 responsibility to the majority of your constituents to issue this Special Use Permit. Thank you. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure,thank you. Questions Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yes, um, Madam Chair. Sir, you said you live by the one in 8 Fort Collins. Is that correct? 9 DINO DITULLIO: Uh, we own the land on which the aggregate is going in Larimer County. 10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: And you said in your statement that, uh, whenever there's a 11 problem or something they're addressed very quickly. Is there - can you give us just one - one incident 12 that you can think of that may be at all a concern? 13 DINO DITULLIO: Uh, if there is an issue with cattle over a fence line or a gate being left 14 open or a dust issue, uh, a weed issue,trespass- 15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: - it's immediately addressed. 16 DINO DITULLIO: It's immediately addressed. 17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Thank you. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Any questions? 19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I have two quick questions. At the Three Bells Pit, uh,that's up 2 0 on County Road 13 and 392, kind of more west of there. 21 DINO DITULLIO: We had the - it was under the Tiger Pit on 392 just north and just west 22 of County line. 23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: At that facility is there asphalt/concrete plants? 2 4 DINO DITULLIO: No batching there. No. 132 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Just gravel? Okay, and then how long - that's your property. 2 They have a lease on it. How long have you had that lease with them? 3 DINO DITULLIO: Uh,we've had that property since 2007, uh, so going on eight years. 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thank you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions Commissioners? Alright. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: One quick - I'm sorry, one quick follow up. Urn, have there 7 been any complaints about noise or the operations that you're aware of around the surrounding 8 residents? 9 DINO DITULLIO: No we-we're developing the land immediately adjacent and we're about 10 500 houses occupied of about 1,000 unit master plan. And we have not had one complaint on the 11 aggregate operation. We have lots of complaints about lots of other things but none to do with Martin 12 Marietta. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Have any problem selling the lots? 14 DINO DITULLIO: Nope, not at all. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. 16 DINO DITULLIO: Thank you. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Um, up at the microphone is Eric and calling up Chris Friede 18 and Scott Erlich. Go ahead sir. 19 Hello and thank you very much for allowing me to present this morning-or this afternoon. 20 Uh, my name's Eric Wingerson. I live at 27601 Hopi Trail,Johnstown. I'm against USR1S-0027. I'd like to 21 make some comments on air pollution on also on site selection. Uh, pollution particles will come from 22 every aspect of this factory. Uh, the most dangerous particles are fugitive dust, asphalt, cement uh with 23 its formaldehyde and diesel exhaust. Dust causes particulate matter, the worst being 2.5 micron-sized 24 particles which are invisible. These pollutants enter the body through the lungs and digestive system 133 1 creating body-wide irrigation and initiation of inappropriate blood clots and cancer. The World Health 2 Organization, in 2013, stated that PM 2.5 caused short and long-term risks, including body-wide blood 3 vessel disease causing heart attack and stroke, aggravation of asthma and COPD and other respiratory 4 conditions, increased hospital admissions, increased bladder cancer,and death from blood vessel disease, 5 lung disease and lung cancer. World Health Organization notes inseparable groups or patients with lung 6 or heart disease, the elderly and children who suffer from poorly developed lungs when exposed to air 7 pollution. The EPA has consistently lowered acceptable limits in particulate matter each five years that 8 they have been revising their, uh, levels in'97,2003 and 2013. As our understanding of the various health 9 aspects has become better understood. Uh, I'd like to switch topics for just a second. One of the things I 10 haven't understood about this is why other alternative heavily, heavy Industrial zoned sites have not been 11 considered. Other sites are locally available, uh, for aggregate. Uh, in Milliken as I understand [Timer) 12 there is mining aggregate available there and it would not require any training or trucking in and also in 13 the old Kodak industrial/heavy industrial site there's a rail running through it and aggregate probably is 14 minable at that site. Also, at Kodak are Haliburton, Lower J, Vestas and Front Range Energy. One of the 15 problems I've seen from the get-go of this is this project is so large that it really isn't compatible with the 16 local area and that if it were divided up into several other site, uh,different sites it would ease the impact 17 at all of the sites. Thank you. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Thank you. Questions. Questions? Okay, thank you very 19 much, appreciate it. Alright,Todd or Troy, sorry. 20 TROY MCWHINNEY: Hi, I'm a property owner at the intersection of County Road 13 and 21 Highway 34. Uh, from a micro view I can understand why the residents, especially the ones right next to 22 it are concerned. I just want to ask you to look at it from a macro view. Um,you know,Colorado is blessed 23 with being one of the fasted growing states in the entire nation and that hot spot is here in Northern 2 4 Colorado. My guess is if you drew a circle around this hot spot, from Greeley to Evans to Johnstown to 134 1 Timnath to Fort Collins to Loveland to Berthoud - this property's in the bull's eye of that hot spot. And, 2 from a macro view I cannot think of a better location for a project like this. I do feel for the residents right 3 next door, but um, when you take a Union Pacific rail line right next to the state highway system, right 4 next to the federal transportation system, I really echo the comments about getting trucks off the road - 5 off the local roads and the County roads and getting them as quickly as possible on the major 6 transportation system. Just also wanted to echo the cost that we're seeing in the construction industry. 7 Our costs are up 30 to 40 percent in the last five, six, seven years and, unfortunately,the incomes of the 8 residents of Northern Colorado aren't keeping pace with that. We have had to shelve many projects over 9 the last few years just because of the increase in construction costs. Um,that's all I have. Urn,Scott Erlich 10 did ask me to tell you he was not going to be able to speak; he had to leave early, but he was also in 11 support of this. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. 13 BRUCE BARKER: Name and address? I don't think he gave his name and address for the 14 record. 15 TROY MCWHINNEY: Uh, Troy McWhinney. Address is 4054 County Road 20E, Loveland, 16 Colorado. 17 BRUCE BARKER: Thank you. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Wait just a second. Board do you have any questions? No questions, 19 okay thank you very much. Alright, Chris. Chris Friede. 2 0 CHRIS FRIEDE (from audience): I've already gone. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Oh, you already went. Sorry. Okay, I'm going to call up Melanie 22 Slaughter and Peggy- I have no idea what this is. You live at 27819 Arikaree Road. 23 PEGGY PETERS (from audience): Peters. I have no new information. I am opposed but I 24 have not new information. 135 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, great. 2 PEGGY PETERS: I will pass on my time. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you very much. Okay, then how about we call up Gary Rath. 4 Ma'am if you'd like to start. 5 MELANIE SLAUGHTER: Good afternoon Commissioners. My name is Melanie Slaughter. 6 I live at 27700 Hopi Trail,Johnstown. I am strongly opposed to this USR application. Commissioners, I ask 7 you - are you 100 percent sure that this Industrial plant will not be detrimental in any way to the 8 surrounding agricultural and residential areas? Are you a 100 percent sure that this will not harm the 9 health of nearby residents in the short and long term? Are you 100 percent sure that it will not reduce 10 our homes' property value? Are you 100 percent sure the increased heavy truck traffic will not create 11 more congestion and accidents? Are you 100 percent sure it will be compatible with the surrounding 12 area? Are you 100 percent sure that it will not harm our water quality? Are you 100 percent sure that 13 Martin Marietta cannot build their plant in another location in Weld County? Are you 100 percent sure, 14 contrary to the vision of the area's planners,that you want the gateway to Weld County to become heavy 15 industry? If you're unsure on any of these questions, please vote to deny this application. Thank you for 16 taking thorough and pain-staking consideration and being attentive to any potential danger, error, or 17 harm to our community. Commissioners, if you have any doubts, please throw it out. Thank you. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Does the Board have any questions? Nope, I guess 19 no questions. Thank you very much. 20 MELANIE SLAUGHTER: Thank you. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,you are? 22 GARY RATH: I'm Gary Rath. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, go ahead. 136 1 GARY RATH: Okay, I'm Gary Rath. Urn, my wife and I have lived in Greeley for the last 23 2 years. We have a lot on County Ridge and we own a 34-acre Ag lot on County Road 15. Our intension is 3 to build there and we are opposed to siting this plant in this place. Martin Marietta has shown artist 4 renditions of what this plant would look like. I brought a 24-second video, urn, there's some for those 5 with short attention spans.This is along- 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You need to take the microphone with you please. Just carry it with 7 you. 8 GARY RATH: There's audio with this too, which really adds to the effect. This is off Pecos 9 in north Denver. And, if you wanted to see an uglier neighborhood in Denver I'm not sure where it is, but 10 I think this plant is kind of a cap stone of that neighborhood with noise and generally an eye sore. (Video 11 audio playing in the background) Urn, okay, so the proposed plant will operate 24 hours a day. It will be 12 within two miles of Residential, Light Commercial and otherwise attractive growth in the community. 13 Robert Frost wrote, "Good fences make good neighbors," but a chain link fence on a ten-foot berm - 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Could you please turn around and address the Board? 15 GARY RATH: Oh,okay. I'm sorry about that, but a chain link fence and a ten-foot berm is 16 not going to mitigate what's an unmitigated disaster. That will not decrease the effect of this. Uh, 17 (inaudible)that we need these products in this area for our growth. Urn, I'd like to see our area grow. 18 We've lived in Greeley 23 years. Over that time we've seen our community from being the butt of jokes 19 about air and, uh, cattle and the highest foreclosure rate of housing in the country to being a developing 2 0 area. This is the gateway to Greeley and Weld County. Um, I came into DIA recently.There were posters 21 there that say "Greeley Unexpected", talking about the (Timer)cultural offerings in our area and they're 22 wonderful and I think having this plant, which will be there for the next 50 years along that gateway, is 23 improper. It needs to be sited somewhere else. 2 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. 137 1 BRUCE BARKER: Does he have a copy of this to submit? 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Well we have it there right? 3 GARY RATH: It's in the record. 4 BRUCE BARKER: Okay. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Any questions Commissioners? Okay,thank you very much. 6 Alright, I need to call up, urn, Chad Neisant and then it will be Brad Thomas, then it will be Dave Stewart. 7 DAVE STEWART(from audience): I'm an expert for- 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, great. Then it won't be you. So, after Brad Thomas then we 9 will do Chase Mullen? 10 CHASE MULLEN (from audience): I'm an expert. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Then how about Gene Copella. You're an expert as well? Okay. 12 Just going to remind you all you have an hour for rebuttal. Uh, how about Kurt Burgener, you'll be after 13 Brad Thomas. Okay, who'd I call first, Carl? Chad, sorry. 14 CHAD NIESENT: Thanks Commissioners. My name is Chad Niesent. I live at 8594 Citation 15 Drive in [paper shuffle - inaudible]. I just want to take a few minutes to describe my family history, not 16 only in construction, but with Martin Marietta. Keep one thing in mind-none of my family, including me, 17 have ever had any adverse health issues, uh, related to concrete, asphalt, paving or aggregate. We've 18 also worked blue collar jobs in the field and not in the office. Uh, starting in the 1950's, my great- 19 grandfather, Alec, started working in construction as an operator for what was then a company called 20 Sterling Sand and Gravel, which is now Martin Marietta. Eventually his sons, Pat and Willard - Willard is 21 my granddad - began working as operators for the company as well. My granddad eventually moved on 22 but my great uncle, Pat, paved roads in Colorado and Wyoming for over 40 years all while sitting on top 23 of a paver. His two sons, which are my second cousins, Lonny and Tim,joined the company as well. Tim, 24 who is currently a Martin Marietta employee has over 41 years in portable crushing and aggregate 138 1 manufacturing experience. Tim works hard every day in the field making the quality products that we as 2 consumers use every day. Lonny, uh, his brother, worked for over 30 years manages highway projects 3 and also ran,you know,Wyoming projects and the machinery as well. My dad,Alan, who has worked for 4 Martin Marietta has 44 years with the company working in asphalt, crushing and fabrication as well. He 5 too working in the trenches every day. My uncle Randy, he's another current employee, he has over 40 6 years working in aggregates. I am actually the fourth generation of my family to work in the industry 7 (Timer}all for the same company, Martin Marietta. It's a fact that I'm very proud of, it spans 40 years and 8 (timer-inaudible}asphalt plant that a lot of people have heard about. Uh, in all 65 years, or six and a half 9 decades, my family has worked in construction industry. The point is that we all started at the bottom, 10 we all worked hard, we never had any health issues related to manufacturing concrete, asphalt or 11 aggregates. The reason why I'm telling you this information is to address many of the health concerns 12 that people have. Martin Marietta operations continue to raise the bar in construction by operating 13 within compliance of all regulatory agencies and continuing trying to lessen the company's carbon 14 footprint through recycling and new technologies. Martin Marietta's dedication to be a leader in safety, 15 health and environment are not just words; it's actually cultural within the company. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 17 CHAD NIESENT: We are a great neighbor. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, thank you very much. Stay right there. Questions? No? 19 Alright,thank you very much. I'd like to call up Sue Thomas and you're on deck. 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That doesn't look like Sue. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No, but Sue needs to come up to one of these chairs. 22 BRAD THOMAS: Okay, you ready? 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes. 139 1 BRAD THOMAS: Okay,Brad Thomas,7182 Lakota Lakes Road in Johnstown. I am opposed 2 to the USR. Just quickly on community planning - while it's true that currently there is no joint 3 County/Community planning agreement,the County clearly recognizes the importance of these planning 4 agreements. Just approved the Planning Cooperative Agreement with Mead, Milliken, Platteville and has 5 issued a statement of support for U.S. Highway 34 Coalition. The jurisdictions have done planning and 6 would like to engage the County. If this USR is approved, it will undermine every surrounding communities 7 plan. Only other heavy industry would be willing to locate here. Can you imagine a worse use for this? 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Questions? No questions,thank you very much. Alright, 10 I need, um,Jason Waldo. Sir, go ahead. 11 CURT BURGENER: Hello, my name's Curt Burgener. My address is 5875 Clearwater Drive 12 in Loveland, Colorado. I'm an owner of Transport Burner Trucking. We transport many materials 13 throughout Weld and Larimer Counties. I'm in support of this project. I realize it's-this is currently a very 14 controversial item. I personally have family members which are very dear to me and they are in 15 opposition. I'm sure I'll get some flack at future family gatherings for it but I'm going to hold my own. It's 16 a tough position for a lot of you and, um, I know there will be people that will be disappointed. We have 17 over 350 trucks working between Weld County, Larimer County and southern Wyoming. Um, of those 18 180 employees, 28 of them reside in Weld County and up to 100 contractors reside in Weld County too 19 that work for us. Martin Marietta is a good customer of ours and we understand the need to have a 20 centrally located regional facility to service this area with construction materials. These materials are 21 getting harder and harder to obtain. I'm no expert on impacts of surrounding properties and I'm sure 22 there's plenty of experts on both sides to tell you their point of views. What I can tell you is that Martin 23 Marietta is a good company. They have had good relations with their neighbors in the past at other 24 locations and they are a good steward of the environment around them. They stay within the permit 140 1 restrictions and make sure that contractors like us in the trucking industry that are going in and out of 2 their plants follow the restrictions and rules to help mitigate the impacts to surrounding property owners. 3 We believe that this location,versus the others that have been looked at, has the least amount of impact 4 to downtown environments, schools, and other residents. It is also strategically located in the area that 5 is close to and gives access to Highway 34, Highway 257, Highway 392, Highway 85 and I-25, and the rail, 6 which is good for all involved [Timer) in order to get products to the market using mostly highways and 7 routes that have the least impact to {timer- inaudible}. I would ask that you vote to deny this project. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, does the Board have any questions? Let's start down here 10 with Commissioner Cozad. 11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Uh, thank you Curt. Um, can you just quickly tell me, uh, 12 basically, where you're hauling material to and from? 13 CURT BURGENER: Sure. All points in Colorado and Wyoming. I mean we haul from the 14 Martin Marietta pits. We haul from other quarries and places, but mostly in eastern and central Colorado. 15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But to where are you going? Are you going to construction sites, 16 road projects? 17 CURT BURGENER: All of the above. I mean, roads, dams, windmill projects, local 18 construction sites, rail - I mean rail projects,just all over. Manufacturing, cement plants, sugar factories, 19 uh, all kinds of places. 20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thanks. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? Commissioner. 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: As somebody that's involved in trucking industry, help me 23 understand the additional cost. Obviously, common sense would dictate if you, uh, transport from point 2 4 A which is farther from point B, which is shorter, but from uh -we've heard a lot of truckers and maybe 141 1 you to- companies are transporting as far away as Idaho Springs, Brighton, maybe even further. Tell me 2 about the percentage cost in terms of how you charge for that. 3 CURT BURGENER: Most certainly. I mean, we do haul from the Idaho Springs area,going 4 up from Grand Canyon area and Wyoming, uh, and I'd say typically a freight rate could be, uh, let's say 5 about $15 bucks a ton - between $10 and $20 bucks a ton to get it here, so you're looking at probably 6 $300 to $400 bucks per load to get it into this area from those higher allocations. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. {overspeak - inaudible) Alright, thank you. Okay, thank you 8 very much. Okay, I'm going to call up Janet Ross and Tony Fiore, F-I-O-R-E. Okay,go ahead. 9 SUE THOMAS: Good afternoon Commissioners. My name is Sue Thomas. I live at 182 10 Lakota Lakes Road. I'm opposed to this USR. My topic is odor. Imagine the smell of hot asphalt. I imagine 11 all of you can draw that image that smell up in your mind instantly. That's what I and my neighbors will 12 be smelling constantly from now on if this USR is approved. Martin Marietta says they will use odor 13 rangers to monitor odor. I don't know if you know what these are. They're devices that mix pure are with 14 an odor and dilute it down and it gives you a way to measure an odor. So,the standard dilution acceptable 15 rate is seven to one. In California they require asphalt plants to have a dilution of two to one. If we were 16 to ask for this, Martin Marietta says that aren't willing to be held to the California standard in Colorado. 17 If you were to approve this plant I would request that you ask for the tighter restriction. Members of a 18 committee verified that the Taft Hill plant in Fort Collins that odors are very noticeable for over half a mile 19 away. That really can't be mitigated. As you saw in the diagram,they are willing to put in measures over 20 the large asphalt/cement tank, which will really help in that particular area, but there are multiple other 21 areas like filling the silos and loading of the trucks where you can't put a filter. There's nothing you can 22 do to mitigate that odor, but it's still escaping and emitting into the air. I'm personally very sensitive to 23 odors, smoke and fumes. Breathing diesel exhaust fumes will often throw me into an asthmatic attack. 24 I'm particularly sensitive to the smell of asphalt; it makes me totally nauseated. I most likely won't be 142 1 able to live here if you approve this plant. We love spending time outdoors. Can you imagine how it will 2 be to be grilling your steaks to the smell of asphalt fumes? {Timer} I ask you as individuals to (Timer - 3 inaudible}that Martin Marietta tells you about how great it will be to live next to their plant. Would you 4 like to live next to an asphalt and concrete plant? Thank you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Questions? 6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yes, Ms. Thomas, just real quick here. From you statements 7 here it does sound like you did attend some of that-you were contacted by Martin Marietta and you did 8 attend some of the outreach? 9 SUE THOMAS: We were, um, invited to the open houses. Other than that, No, I've had 10 not contact with them. 11 COMMISSIONER MORENO: So you did not have a conversation to discuss the odor with 12 Martin Marietta, but you were contacted? 13 SUE THOMAS: Um, in the mail for their initial open houses. 14 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay,thank you. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,Jason? Is Jason up next? Jason Waldo. And, let me call up to 16 the chairs John Wallace and, um, Duke Marquiss. 17 JASON WALDO: Good afternoon Commissioners. My name is Jason Waldo. I own Waldo 18 Trucking; address 9925 Waldo Lane. I'm in support of the proposal. Uh, my trucks haul local sand and 19 gravel all around northern Colorado. And, over the last especially one year we've noticed a huge gravel 20 shortage that's caused us to go further and all of my customers have been unable to afford the product 21 because of the difficult trucking. Uh, I employ several employees that drive our trucks and I'm concerned 22 about the continuation of their jobs with our company if we can't get, for instance, three-quarter inch 23 rock. I'd like to speak to, uh,with my personal experience is with the stewardship of Martin Marietta. My 24 trucks have been running in their pits and other pits for the last decade. While on their pits and on their 143 1 sites they are very serious. Any kind of noise that would come from our trucks they think is inappropriate, 2 uh,we get called immediately and you may get a warning and that may be it, you may no longer work for 3 them. So, they take it very seriously and the community is always looked out for from what I've seen. 4 That's pretty much all I have to say. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER:Alright,thank you very much. Any questions? No? Thank you. Okay, 6 let's see, so I think Janet was up next and let me call up, uh, Tammy Brown and Tom Peterson. Is that 7 right? Right,Tom Peterson. Okay 8 JANET ROSS: Thank you Commissioners for hearing all of our concerns. My name is Janet 9 Ross. I'm at 6248 County Road 56, Loveland. And, I do have several concerns with this application and I 10 am against it. Um, at the Planning meeting, urn, the Planning Commissioners meeting they had stated 11 there would be drainage down County Road 56. There was just a single line statement, nobody ever 12 addressed how that drainage would work. And, in the past that has been used as a borrow ditch and the 13 pipe that goes under the road fills up with silt; it will over flow and then flow into our field. And, I'm very 14 concerned about what kind of water- if that water is contaminated and how it's going to affect our field. 15 Currently, we have cattle and horses on that field and it is a very big concern. And, if that ditch does fill 16 up with silt, who's responsible for cleaning it out? Is it going to be the County? Is it going to be Martin 17 Marietta? Who is going to be responsible? In previous meetings Martin Marietta has stated the hours 18 would be 24/7 and they stated that they would be 24/7. So, if you approve this, please make sure that 19 the hours are not 24/7. If the hours are 24/7,they will operate that facility for that length of period. And, 20 I'd like to clarify with Indianhead Estates - Indianhead Estates has never been prime farm ground. It's on 21 a hill and the farmer had houses put on that property and had given it to - you know, sold it to them 22 because {Timer}it was difficult to irrigate, so it was never really prime farm ground. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Alright, questions? Yes Commissioner. 144 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Hours of operation. You said you don't want 24/7. Did you 2 have a suggestion? 3 JANET ROSS: Urn,I would like to see you set the hours to where it's not 24/7. I am directly 4 south of that facility. There is not berm,there is absolutely nothing that will mitigate the noise,the odor. 5 The wind blows from the north to the south 75 percent of the time and that's right into our property. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Do you have a suggestion in terms of hours of operation? 7 JANET ROSS: Urn, possibly 6:00 to 6:00 and maybe 8:00 in the summer time and no 8 Sundays, maybe half day on Saturday, urn, but try not to do 24/7 because they will operate that way. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, any other questions? Alright,thank you very much. I believe 12 Tony is up next and I would like to call up Carol Pernika and Randy Gustafson. Okay, go ahead sir. 13 TONI FIORE: Hi, I'm Tony Fiore. I live here in Greeley at 5208 West 13th Street Road. I 14 currently commute back to Denver where I work at Fiore and Sons, my family's business. Urn, they've 15 been located there for over 50 years. They currently employ about 300 employees. We do some business 16 with Martin Marietta, although it's not a major portion of the reason I'm here. The reason I am here is to 17 dispel the notion that living in an Industrial Zone is detrimental to someone's health. My family chose to 18 live where we worked at that Denver location,which is less than a half a mile away from the asphalt plant 19 that was just shown on the video here. Uh, around that area where I was growing up - within a mile we 20 had gravel pits, we had a sanitary landfill, we had truck equipment and storage yards, we had precast 21 concrete forming facilities, railroad switching yards,there was a railroad tie treatment facility which later 22 became an EPA Superfund cleanup site, there were junkyards, there was fuel storage and there were 23 asphalt plants. Every member of my family lived to be very healthy. I recently had a physical exam at the 2 4 Doctor and he pronounced me to be very healthy. My great grandmother lived at that site to a ripe old 145 1 age of 97. My grandmother currently lives at that site-she's 88. There is no reason to believe, based on 2 the area where I grew up,that this kind of activity is detrimental to anyone's health, at least based on my 3 experience. We are not super people, we're regular folks. We just happen to live in an Industrial area 4 and we did quite well. And, that's all I have to say. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you. Questions? Alright thank you very much. Where 6 was I? I think Sean. Sean's up, okay. While he's doing that I'm going to call up Ellen Kisker and Sarah 7 Cassidy. Alright, go ahead. 8 JOHN WALLACE: Okay, my name is John Wallace. I live at 27657 Blackfoot Road in 9 Indianhead Estates. I'm a retired engineer and I'm now engaged in fine art. I'm here today to express my 10 opposition to this application. I have provided visualizations to you that you're looking at that I've 11 prepared, uh, with aide of my family using some standard equipment [paper shuffle - inaudible) other 12 plant,taken from Martin Marietta's description.These analysis, uh,four of them show the accurate as far 13 as the orientation, the size of the equipment at the plant. I provided them for your benefit. Uh, please 14 deny this application. It is visually incompatible with my neighborhood. Thank you for allowing me to 15 speak. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Questions? Alright, thank you very much. Okay, who's 17 up next? Do you remember who I called? I think it's Tom. Tom Peterson -oh wait, I think it was actually 18 Duke. 19 FROM AUDIENCE: Duke had to leave. 2 0 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Duke had to leave. Alright,then we are at Tom. 21 TOM PETERSON: Okay,thank you very much. My name is Tom Peterson, Director of the 22 Asphalt Pavement Association. I reside at 1366 Conifer Trail in beautiful Elizabeth, Colorado, Elbert 23 County. Um, we're the State-wide Trade Association representing the asphalt industry of Colorado. Let 2 4 me make three, uh, key points. Martin Marietta is an industry leader in our sector of the industry. They 146 1 are very active in our efforts to improve product quality and have a proven commitment to support 2 industry efforts to improve operation efficiency, safety, and operate at the highest of environmental 3 standards to meet and exceed the stringent requirements of CDOT and the Colorado Department of Public 4 Health and Environment. You're dealing with a very good operator here that's using state-of-the-art 5 equipment,technology and is committed to best management practices and very accustomed to working 6 effectively in a people environment. The second point: asphalt demand, both statewide and here in Weld 7 County, continues to rise. Specifically, uh, Weld County year-to-date 832,000 tons of asphalt had been 8 bid through July, 2015, this is compared to 475,000 tons of asphalt bid in all of 2014. A majority placed 9 on state highways, county roads, city streets, airport pavements, with a good portion placed for 10 driveways,trails, bike paths, new or rehabilitated parking lots for schools, hospitals and shopping centers. 11 And, of course, asphalt is required to be produced and delivered hot. As such it can't be brought in from 12 another state or trucked in from far away. Affordable construction materials are critical for economic 13 development and asphalt needs to be produced and made available locally. State-wide there are 65 14 stationary plants. A good number of them, including other Martin Marietta facilities,operating in a people 15 environment and going above and beyond to comply with {Timer)the local planned used requirements. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,your time is up. 17 TOM PETERSON: Okay,thank you very much. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Questions? Okay, did you have a question?Okay, 19 thank you very much. Okay, it appears that Tammy Brown is up next and I would like to call up Ellen Kisker 20 and Jack Mount. Alright, go ahead. 21 TAMMY BROWN: My name is Tammy Brown and I have owned the property at 27400 22 Hopi Trail for over 30 years. My house is across the street and approximately 70 feet higher than the 23 proposed site in question. My 95-year-old mother lives in my walk-out basement. I would like for her 2 4 final years to be spent working outside in her flower beds without fear of inhaling dust and the smell of 147 1 asphalt coming from the plant, being able to sit on her peaceful patio overlooking the beautiful Rocky 2 Mountains listening to the sounds of nature and not the noise of a 117 railroad cars being unloaded and 3 up to 2,000 trucks a day be loaded. My husband figured out that 1,260 trucks parked back to back would 4 be approximately 16 miles long. I try to imagine 16 miles of trucks traveling along Highway 34 when right 5 now it usually takes me several minutes waiting for traffic to subside just to get my small car on the 6 highway. We're not mad at Martin Marietta Materials and realize they have a valuable and necessary 7 product; we just think there are other locations with Heavy Industrial zoning already in place that would 8 be much more suitable for them. Several years ago $500,000 was spent to construct a beautiful sign in 9 Highway 34 just three miles of CR13 welcoming people to Greeley. I can't imagine how a 10 concrete/asphalt/aggregate plant at the entrance to Weld County is in harmony with that vision. I 11 respectfully ask that you deny this USR. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, any questions? Alright,thank you very much. Okay, so was it 13 Randy Gustafson? Okay,thank you. 14 RANDY GUSTAFSON: I'm Randy Gustafson. I live at 1154 North Taft Hill Road, Fort Collins. 15 Uh, I'm coming here; I'm not affiliated with Martin Marietta whatsoever. I'm a neighbor above their 16 asphalt plant on Taft Hill Road. Uh, I live at the top of the hill - the asphalt plant is down below us less 17 than 1,000 years and prevailing winds and everything comes through, I'll say honestly since (inaudible} 18 was installed six years ago or so I have smelled asphalt at my house about less than five times. That's - 19 cause I've been kind of conscientious of it, you know, cause I've got an asphalt plant there. Um, Martin 20 Marietta has been a good neighbor. They've had community meetings for the area that I've gone to and 21 they have addressed concerns of everybody that's came in. You come to these and you talk to them at 22 the neighborhood meetings and they will address them and, uh, work with you. I feel that they've been 23 very good neighbors and I've been at our property for - we bought in 1991 and moved there in 1998, so 2 4 twenty-a lot of years. And, uh, I guess that's, uh,that's pretty much what I had. 148 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you very much. Any questions? Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Urn, Randy, you way that they are - do they have continual 3 community meetings with the neighbors out there? 4 RANDY GUSTAFSON: Yes, they are quarterly meetings that have gone on - goodness, 5 gracious- I bet for the last, I'm guessing at this, but probably at least the last ten years. 6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thank you. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Questions Commissioner Conway? 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, urn, a couple of issues that were brought forward - 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Can you pull that microphone a little bit closer? Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: This is the third time this week I've been told I'm not loud 11 enough.That's a new record. Anyway,a lot of issues brought forward by the surrounding community and 12 the neighbors has been noise and dust. Can you speak to that? I know you spoke to the smells. Can you 13 speak to that? 14 RANDY GUSTAFSON: Sure. The dust is minimal. You've got-(inaudible}'cause I've always 15 been real conscientious because I'm right {coughing-inaudible}so I thought I was going to get it all. The 16 dust has been minimal. They put- and I don't know what all they've done - but they have put filters on 17 and, uh,stuff like that that has maintained-there hasn't been any dust. And as for the odors, I can-that's 18 all I can say is I have not had them very often in the last six years. The noise, um, I don't think from the 19 asphalt plant any worse. We have gravel pits around the area so I can't really say the asphalt plant is an 20 issue with the noise. It's-there's a lot of truck traffic on Taft Hill Road, there's um, you've got aggregate 21 coming in and out of there so there's always trucks that are coming up the hill and down, but Fort Collins 22 also has every other road closed except for Taft right now so we're getting everything coming. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Um, do they block Jake brakes and all of that? 2 4 RANDY GUSTAFSON: Yes. There's not Jake brakes,there's no- it's just. 149 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, thank you very much. Alright, I believe, urn - did you have a 3 question? 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Steve did, I thought. 5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: No. Julie asked it. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Oh, sorry. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Um, Ellen you're at the microphone and let me call up-looks like Jeff 8 Kroeger. 9 ELLEN KISKER: Hi, I'm Ellen Kisker. I live at 6681 Apache Road in Indianhead Estates. Uh, 10 at the Planning Commission meeting and in the neighborhood report I listened to last week, I described 11 economic studies I've looked at that consider the effects of environmental disarnenities or operations 12 such as the proposed one on residential property values. And, I won't review the details of the particular 13 studies today,but the bottom line is that when those studies use complete data and appropriate statistical 14 models, um, they showed that all other things equal property values decrease as you get closer to the 15 environmental disamenity. And, the research suggests that where the neighbors closest to the proposed 16 facilities property values will suffer a loss in value of as much as 30, 40, even 50 percent. Urn, this of 17 course represents a substantial loss in quality of life that those nearest neighbors will experience from the 18 odor and all the other things we've discussed. Um, but today I wanted to talk a little bit about the 19 consequences of those reductions in property values. Urn, many nearby property owners are retired and 20 their house is a primary financial asset in their retirement savings. Urn, for some a large loss in value of 21 that asset may affect their quality of life in the future when they have fewer resources for long term care 22 and other things they need in their old, old age. So,the financial loss that may result from this operation 23 could be an unmitigated disaster for some of the neighbors. We asked Martin Marietta to set up a 24 compensation fund to protect property owners from such a loss if it occurs, um, but of course they did 150 1 not respond to that. Urn, so for that reason and for the other reasons that have been discussed today, I 2 urge you to deny the proposal for the USR (Timer}. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Does the Board have any questions? Alright, thank you very much. 4 Did I miss, uh, Carol? Alright, I'm sorry. How about you come on up next? 5 CAROL PERNICKA: My name is Carol Pernicka. I live at 27848 Arickaree Road in Johnstown 6 and I oppose this USR request. Today I'm speaking about dust. There are numerous sources for dust on 7 this site besides the asphalt plant, and the ready mixed concrete plant is the aggregate unloading from 8 the trucks, the trains transfer, the unpaved roads as well as the paved roads. Martin Marietta's own 9 analysis shows that over 500 tons per year can come just from the paved roads and much of this dust is a 10 very hazardous, small particle dust called PM2.5, which you've already heard about from the doctors and 11 the farmers. This dust is not visible,so the fact that somebody says they don't see dust doesn't mean that 12 it's not there or we're not inhaling it. Martin Marietta stated that road watering and street sweepers will 13 help control the dust, but I don't see how that's going to control the rest of the dust that will be on the 14 premises. Additionally, I would like to bring up one other issue which I have not heard addressed 15 anywhere from anyone and that is the air pollution from the locomotives from the trains which will take 16 eight hours idling around these loops per day. Anybody who's spent any time stopped behind a train at 17 any of the roads in northern Colorado is aware of the pollution that occurs from this and I don't see any 18 mitigating being proposed for the amount of air pollution, the noise and the sound from the trains that 19 will be coming as well. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, thank you. Does the Board have any questions? No, thank 21 you very much. Alright I believe we're to Sara Cassidy. There she is. 22 SARA CASSIDY: Hello, good afternoon Commissioners. I'm Sara Thompson Cassidy. I'm 23 with Union Pacific Railroad; I'm the Director of Public Affairs for Colorado and Wyoming. I'm here to speak 24 in support of the application that's before you and to make myself available to address any train related 151 1 questions that you might have that have come up related to railroad. Um, I do want to point out that 2 Martin Marietta Materials has consulted independent experts and contractors to evaluate rail crossing 3 and other transportation impacts and those experts are here to address crossings, um, and other aspects 4 of the application. But I'm happy to talk about a couple of things that have come up, urn, specifically,the 5 Union Pacific-Fort Collins Subdivision Line which would serve this facility is capable of handling the traffic. 6 In fact, we're proud of the relationship we have with Martin Marietta and are looking forward to serving 7 this facility should it go forward. I also wanted to talk about first responders and the safety record. Not 8 only of the railroad but just of Industrial development in general. Urn, we're really proud of our safety 9 record and we operate something that's called a Total Safety Culture in our company. We have a number 10 of steps in place to respond to the type of work that we do in a way that focuses first on prevention of 11 incidents but then also preparation, response and recovery. Um, as part of our response we do have a 12 Coordinated Communication Plan with first responders and we do extensive trainings. I'd be happy to 13 provide more information about that off line but just wanted to address the safety question that came 14 up. Um, I also wanted to indicate that utilizing- I know that this is a tough decision and I know that there 15 are people who have legitimate concerns about living near industrial and freight corridors and so, urn, 16 with respect to that I do appreciate the fact that this location utilizes an existing rail corridor and one that 17 we think is a facility that can handle, and not only handle, but better manage the traffic by rail via other 18 mechanisms to the site. Urn, environmental concerns and traffic concerns have been cited and there are 19 benefits to rail transportation there. Thank you. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Does the Board have any questions? Commissioner. 21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Urn, there was a question that was just brought up from the 22 previous person,Carol, urn,and she was talking about train emissions and said that nobody else has talked 23 about that? 152 1 SARA CASSIDY: Sure. Um, by comparison I will say that we feel proud of our 2 environmental record, urn, and we do-the train does emit-will have emissions; however, by comparison 3 of truck loads that will be needed to manage this same volume, urn, no matter where it's located within 4 the County, we think that trains are a preferable alternative from an environmental standpoint. Um, 5 we're also proud of the amount of tonnage that we can haul on little fuel. Not only in decreasing impact 6 from an environmental standpoint, but also other environmental factors like impact to roads and 7 congestion, urn, and those commiserate environmental impacts that would come from hauling materials 8 by a different means. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, other questions? 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: More specific, is a follow up to Commissioner Cozad's 11 question, is the idling. We just heard the concerns raised by the citizen. Can you -that maybe you want 12 to let the applicant address that, but since- 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Are you asking her a question? Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Do you know what the policy is for idling train and that kind 15 of specifics? 16 SARA CASSIDY: Yes, I will tell you just by way of background the trains operate with the 17 air pressure and often times maintaining a consistent temperature to maintain air pressure is something 18 that we have to do. Idling locomotives has been an issue in some areas; however, we do have guidelines 19 - federal guidelines that we follow, urn, in terms of idling locomotives. We also monitor emissions from 20 idling locomotives. Um, we monitor noise from idling locomotives and we don't anticipate that the 21 operating plan, urn, at this facility would create an issue where there would be excessive noise or 22 emissions from idling locomotives. Urn, especially given the hours of operation and the operating plan 23 that has been proposed. 153 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, I 2 believe Jeff is at the mic and let me call up Gary Gettman, Craig Wilson and Frank P. You used to work 3 here I still don't know how to pronounce your last name,you're up after Craig Wilson. Okay. 4 JEFF KROEGER: Jeff Kroeger, 6751 Apache Road, Indianhead Estates in Johnstown. I'm a 5 State of Colorado Licensed Landscape Architect practicing in Colorado now for 26 years. I'm opposed to 6 this project and request that you deny this application. Regional impacts into, through and over the site 7 are measurable. Significant, adequate and useful screening is simply not attainable given the magnitude 8 of this project. And then of course with the project sitting towards the bottom of the drainage basin,well 9 below the elevations of those of us in Indianhead and along those properties on County Road 15 and 56, 10 places the project in a bit of a fish bowl. It's a big visual problem to overcome. As a result the applicant 11 suggested adding vegetation to the effected neighbors' properties at the landscape charrette. (Inaudible) 12 I guess an interesting approach for sure. Frankly not one that I would have even thought of.Typically new 13 developments are charged with accommodating their liabilities on their own lots, be it drainage or parking 14 or access, mitigations are maintenance responsibilities I think should not be placed on the adjacent 15 property owners. It's nice that the applicant actually checked the box and even considered any sort of 16 berming or landscape screening to begin with, but we know and they know and you know that any sort 17 of significant visual mitigation for this facility is just not achievable. One look at the applicant's, and 18 actually many of their competitor's similar operations, illustrates how much, or frankly how little, these 19 industries seem to care about the public perception and the visual quality of the real estate that their 20 facilities sit on and how little they care about being the good neighbor tell you why these are not the type 21 of neighbors we were hoping to get. But,this gesture does speak to the enormity of the project their task 22 at hand which is to figure out how to make this big of a project more bearable or even remotely more 23 compatible by simply applying a bit of cheap lipstick. No amount of landscaping, berming,visual buffering 24 or sound walls can possibly begin to fully address the impacts on the adjacent property owners. Owners 154 1 -Chris'wedding venue and other future more appropriate businesses and developments[Timer)that are 2 no doubt coming our way as required by the Weld County - um, Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. 3 Appreciate your time. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Questions? No? Okay thank you very much. 5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, I do have just a quick one. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay Commissioner. 7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Sorry,thank you. Uh,Jeff, as a landscape architect you made a 8 comment about not thinking that the landscaping on the adjacent property is a good idea, versus 9 landscaping on the property that's got the impact on it. Urn, do you think- I guess my question to you as 10 a landscape architect - don't you think that landscaping on somebody's property is going to be a better 11 visual buffer for that use than a tree that might be,you know, 500- 1,000 feet away? 12 JEFF KROEGER: Yeah, absolutely. It's just unfortunate that's how they're getting that 13 maintenance responsibility put the homeowners. They didn't sign up for that. 14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But it's voluntary isn't it? 15 JEFF KROEGER: I guess, I don't know the specifics of how the program might work. 16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. Alright, so I'd probably let the applicants address that 17 then. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay.Alright, any other questions? Okay,thank you very much. Jack 19 Mount,you're up. 20 JACK MOUNT: My name's Jack Mount. I live at 309 53rd Avenue in Greeley, Colorado, 21 here. Um,came here today to speak on behalf of Martin Marietta.The one thing-the reason that I came 22 today was that I'm a farmer, a business owner, real estate owner (both commercially and residentially) 23 an advisory to several construction companies within Weld County and Morgan County and a former 24 Controller for asphalt companies in Oklahoma and here in Colorado. The reason that I want to speak to 155 1 you guys today is to tell you about the economic benefit that's associated with Martin Marietta, both from 2 a location standpoint and from the overall aspect of some of the needs that both Greeley and I-25 post 3 overall. And, what I want to say today is from a farmer's perspective. I'm looking forward to having that 4 operation be available so that it can expand I-25 and pull some of the traffic off the market road that put 5 both my employees and both - uh, my trucks and people that we hire to do work on our farm off of those 6 roads and back into major corridors. Um, also from an economic standpoint,the, uh, people that I advise 7 from a construction standpoint-these guys impact over 300 jobs I personally help with and, um, are very 8 important, both from a residential development and from a road development and road improvement. 9 Thank you. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Questions? Yes Commissioner. 11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Urn, Jack as a - from a farm perspective, um, do you feel that 12 aggregate industry is also something that you need in agriculture? You know,you talked about the farm 13 to market roads, um, are there other needs that farmers have that use those type of materials? 14 JACK MOUNT: Of course we also purchase aggregate to put on the roads where we 15 irrigate at and to fill in different irrigation points and, you know, a good inexpensive aggregate is always 16 important from that perspective too. 17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thank you. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, any other questions? Alright, thank you very much. Okay, I 19 believe - who'd I call up? Gary Gettman, you're next. Okay, I'm going to call up Vicki Wilson and Clint 20 Liniger. Okay, go ahead. 21 GARY GETTMAN: My name's Gary Gettman. I live at 614 14th Street, Greeley, Colorado, 22 and I just wanted to note that there has been no real mention of the collateral effect on the communities 23 of Greeley, Evans and LaSalle of bringing a mile long train through those communities three times a week. 24 And, uh, I think for some reason there hasn't been, uh,that issue has not really come up. Obviously,this 156 1 additional rail traffic will create noise pollution, obstruct traffic and conceivably delay or interfere with 2 emergency response vehicles. And, uh, I think the gentleman from Johnstown also mentioned that, um - 3 well first of all I want to be more specific in LaSalle these trains will have to switch and then head, uh, 4 basically northwesterly,then they will be going through Milliken and Johnstown, uh,crossing Highway 60, 5 Highway 257 and 402. And, uh,that's all I really wanted to point out- 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright. 7 GARY GETTMAN: -'cause that hasn't been addressed. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you very much. Questions? Okay, thank you. I believe 9 Craig Wilson is next. 10 CRAIG WILSON: Commissioners, I'm Craig Wilson. I live at 27790 Hopi Trail in Johnstown. 11 I'm here to oppose the planned Martin Marietta operations site. I've been a physician in Greeley and Weld 12 County for over 39 years and I have serious concerns regarding the health of the residents of the 13 neighborhoods in the areas adjacent and surrounding this area of the proposed site. I currently care for 14 four generations of patients in this area, not only in Weld County. Statements made that this proposed 15 site will not cause increased health risks is ludicrous. Particularly with regards to patients who have 16 asthma and COPD. We've had previous attestations and personal testimonials that are anecdotal saying 17 well everybody's healthy and they're not facts based on science which we see in the WHO organization. 18 The attempt to convince you the Commissioners that all health risks to air, ground,water can be reduced 19 or is acceptable limits by the EPA is telling you that a little bit of poison is okay. How many times over the 20 last 50-60 years have we found these studies say, "We were wrong and inadequate"? Now let's take a 21 look at what happened [unknown) River last week. Yes, different but similar in [inaudible)came back to 22 haunt and wreak havoc on that area. We're talking about the health of my patients, their children and 23 their grandchildren. The problem with the plan of monitoring air and noise pollution are evidence that 2 4 there's a problem, but once established the only control for it is fines. That's kind of woefully inadequate 157 1 in my concerns. I ask you to look at this Martin Marietta plan as the ancient Trojan Horse. They propose 2 a great gift to Weld County of progress and economy but once here they're going to spoil the air and the 3 ground and leave their scar {Timer} on this corner of Weld County. And, that's two minutes and thank 4 you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you very much. Alright, 6 Frank. 7 FRANK PIACENTINO: Good afternoon Commissioners. Oh, wait a minute, good evening 8 Commissioners. {Laughter) Frank Piacentino, I reside at 6811 Apache Road,Johnstown. I agree with all 9 the opposition in this case. Allowing a heavy, intense Industrial use within a centrally developing area will 10 incur a lot of negative impacts on the existing communities. It has been shown that the plant does not 11 meet County Code, is not compatible with the surrounding area, traffic, noise and screening cannot be 12 mitigated in any reasonable manner. I would like to talk about personal property rights. I've * since 13 November. Naturally there are a lot of factors that play in with the sale of a home, one being location. In 14 length of time we had six individuals interested in the property considering making an offer. When they 15 found out about the Martin Marietta plant all of them moved on to other properties. From what I 16 understand,there are talk between real estate offices companies now drawing contracts contingent upon 17 the approval of the plant{phone vibrating-inaudible}. With these six potential buyers moving on to other 18 property demonstrates that this project, if approved, the surrounding area will not be desirable and the 19 people will not want to live near a large Industrial plant and not have a feasible way of screening. Common 20 sense will tell you any project has a negative effect on property values and diminishes the values. I 21 personally {coughing - inaudible). In all reality, this site has been proposed because the I-25/35 (34) 22 corridor, which will enhance the bottom line of two large corporations. If these companies really cared 23 about the surrounding communities they would look closer at the negatives that this proposal brings and 24 pursue existing Industrial zoned properties with rail that would have a lesser impact on community 158 1 interests. [Timer- inaudible) strong viable companies, but not at the expense of so many others. Once 2 this area has been deemed heavy Industrial, it will never be allowed to develop in a natural way that the 3 surrounding jurisdictions and communities have envisioned. I asking the County Commission today to 4 deny this USR. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you Frank. Any questions? Okay, thank you very much. 6 Uh, Vicki. 7 VICKI WILSON: Commissioners, my name is Dr. Vicki Wilson and I live at 27790 Hopi Trail 8 in Johnstown. I come to you today with many hats. First I am a resident of Indianhead Estates West, 9 second I'm a grandmother of five, very active and curious, young boys, and third I'm a long-standing 10 member of the North Colorado Medical Center Board of Directors where one of my roles is to monitor 11 health and safety measures of the hospital in order to ensure a health environment and one that provides 12 optimal care. I would like very much to address and dispute a supposed relationship inferred at the 13 Planning Commission regarding fugitive dust, odor and health issues mainly created by asphalt plant 14 locations in close proximity to a hospital versus a residential neighborhood. The applicant at that meeting 15 implied that if they could co-exist near a hospital, certainly they could co-exist with a residential 16 neighborhood. As a hospital Board member I can assure you that hospitals are enormity equipped with 17 extensive HVAC handling systems to accept and filter out all particulates and outside odors that encounter 18 any orifice of the building. Not only are there high level, extremely expensive air handling and filtration 19 systems, but there are required on-site maintenance and regulatory standards monitored and maintained 20 on a timely basis. Additionally, hospital employees, and patients for that matter, spend the majority of 21 their time inside the building benefiting from the aforementioned air filtration system. In stark contrast 22 has none of that. In fact, we have strong winds that blow in all directions at any given time. I would be 23 remiss to believe that a 20-foot barrier some 100 yards away would keep the dust from blowing and 24 settling, not to mention infiltrating the lungs of my neighbors -a good number of us are seniors- and my 159 1 five grandsons who play outside at our park everyday they visit. Two of them have exercise induced 2 asthma that will only be exacerbated by the dust. I want you know that there's simply no relationship 3 between the air filtration systems of a hospital and an open residential area. I strongly urge you to deny 4 the request from Martin Marietta (Timer}and ask them to locate in a true industrial area of Weld County. 5 This could be a win-win. I also ask you to uphold the decisions of your planning staff and planning counsel. 6 Urn, there is an Exhibit BU that is entitled Hospital HVAC letter which will validate my comments. Thank 7 you so much. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Any questions? Alright,thank you very much. Okay,Clint. 9 CLINT LINIGER: Good afternoon Commissioners. My name is Clint Liniger. I live at 241 10 Grand View in Johnstown. I am a professional truck driver. I obtained my CDL License in 1990 and, uh, 11 have 25 years' experience in transportation as well as 16 years as Transportation Manager managing a 12 distribution company in Greeley. I do know the impact that truck fleets have on communities. Uh, 13 currently I am driving a truck for Waste Recycling near the proposed site. Uh,from a driver's perspective, 14 uh, I am opposed because I would like to highlight all the traffic and congestion that this would create. 15 Uh, I believe that there is currently a lack of infrastructure for the proposed truck traffic that this applicant 16 will bring. Uh, the merge lanes lack distance for speed. Yesterday I took a look at it myself, uh, when I 17 got to the end of the merge lane I was traveling at 40 miles an hour; when I got to the railroad tracks 50, 18 and not until I was past going east on {Highway}34 past Indianhead Estates was I up to speed. My truck 19 (feedback-inaudible]weight is half of what the trucks will do entering this plant. I think there's been a 20 lot of negative effect on, uh, businesses, not only the business in which I work but also (feedback - 21 inaudible)is for reduced productivity. Also patronage to shopping districts, the entertaining, restaurants 22 - my family and I-we're not gonna want to compete with truck traffic such has been described today. Uh, 23 the neighborhoods there's concern. My folks live on County Road 13, I am concerned for Indianhead 24 Estates, as well as (feedback-inaudible)alternate routes. {Timer} 160 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 2 CLINT LINIGER: I just want to say that, uh, I'm not against Martin Marietta or growth or 3 the necessity for products to aid in our infrastructure, I just don't think this is the correct place for the 4 plant. It's not the right place; it doesn't fit. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. Questions? Okay,thank you very much. 6 Alright, we are going to take a five minute-and I do mean five minute break. 7 (Audio was paused at 5:21 and the meeting was reconvened at 5:27.) 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Alright. Okay, if I could get everyone to their seats we're 9 going to go ahead and reconvene. Alright, where was I? Alright, sure and your welcome Commissioner 10 Moreno. 11 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I'm not sure where we were. 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Clint Liniger was the last one. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, let me call up the, uh, next three people which will be Larry 14 Sipes, Garrett Varra, and then Roxanne Chrisman and Larry you're up first. 15 LARRY SIPES: Hello, my name is Larry Sipes and I live at 6900 Comanche Court in 16 Indianhead Estates. I'm speaking in opposition to Martin Marietta's proposal. The presentations are 17 (inaudible) and you have heard from both sides. Regardless of all the points made by both sides, some 18 relevant and some not so relevant, it all boils down to the question of what does the Code say? 19 Fortunately you have the Planning Commission staff, and the Planning Commissioners to rely upon for an 20 unbiased and specialized recommendations. The Planning Commission staff has read all of the letters of 21 opposition and all the letters of support. They have an in-depth working knowledge of all the Codes and 22 are in the best possible position to assess the application without emotional attachment of the applicant 23 or the persons and entities that oppose it. Their 18-page report was a resounding "No" to the proposal. 24 The Planning Commission, after listening to the presentations of both for and against public input voted 161 1 "No". The Traffic Analysis in and of itself should be enough to have the proposal denied. The bottom line, 2 in my opinion, Martin Marietta has not shown that they can or ever will be able to meet the standards 3 and conditions set forth in the Code. In a recent opinion poll taken by the Greeley Tribune, albeit the non- 4 scientific pole, over 2,300 of the 2,634 respondents voted against the proposal. Everyone in the 5 immediate vicinity of the proposed site says "No". The City of Greeley says "No". The Town of Windsor 6 says "No". The Town of Johnstown says "No". The Planning Commission staff says "No". The Planning 7 Commissioners say "No". What does the Code say? The Code says "No". I ask you to vote in line with 8 the Planning Commission staff and the Planning Commissioners. Thank you. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you. Questions? Okay, thank you very much. Alright, 10 Garrett. Garrett Varra. 11 GARRETT VARRA: Good afternoon. My name is Garrett Varra, 12618 Weld County Road 12 13, Longmont, Colorado. I just want to speak about aggregate scarcity. I am an owner of a sand and 13 gravel ready mix concrete company. Uh, Martin Marietta is one of our competitors. We're facing a reality 14 that is going to be tough for us moving forward. Um, there is solid arguments on both sides of this 15 proposal and they are all important, but what I want to talk about is scarcity of high-quality sand and 16 gravel products and how we deal with that. I think, uh, it's evident by the fact that Martin Marietta is 17 proposing to rail these products in from so far away that we're going to be facing a shortage of these 18 materials. It's tough, you know, being very close to this industry, and knowing what's going on, I think 19 that we need to really consider how we deal with this problem because whatever the Commissioners 20 decide, there's going to be repercussions that we're all going to have to deal with as a community. And, 21 you know, up until this very point I still don't know if I put myself in your shoes what I would do, but 22 aggregate scarcity is a problem and part of the reason why we enjoy such a vibrant economy is and such 23 a good lifestyle here in Weld County is because we haven't had an aggregate scarcity problem. Uh,moving 2 4 forward I do think there will be one and I just wanted to make that point that when you're trying to attract 162 1 new and existing business to expand or to come here,uh, part of the cost of doing business is what they're 2 looking at. And when they're looking at building a,you know, a 500,000 square foot facility or a rail yard 3 or,you know, oil and gas development, um,they look at what it costs to build things and,you know,again 4 (Timer}there are solid arguments on both sides of this but we need to be very critical of all of them and 5 try to take the best path forward. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. Questions? Okay, no,thank you. Okay, 7 let's see I think Roxanne is up next and then let me call up Paul Worrel and that's - I'll have to go back 8 through the list now. Okay, go ahead. 9 ROXANNE CHRISMAN: Okay, I'll be speaking to Exhibit BU, Aggregate Supply. My name 10 is Roxanne Chrisman, 6713 Apache Road, Indianhead Estates. Commissioners, I've listened to Martin 11 Marietta speak to their diminished aggregate supply and watched decision makers use this fact when 12 recommending approval when it isn't a fact at all. Martin Marietta presumes to speak for all operations 13 in Weld and Larimer Counties when they declare that aggregate will be unavailable to meet northern 14 Colorado demands - that only a five-year supply remains. Commissioners, have you received any 15 documentation that substantiates their claim? Have they ever provided any hard, verifiable evidence to 16 support their claims? If not provided, their claims should be treated as unfounded hear-say, a ploy to 17 create immediate action through the use of scare tactics. The U.S. Geological Survey of the Department 18 of the Interior Agency is tasked with collecting quality and quantity of all mineral resources and activities 19 in the United States. They have provided me with documentation on all permitted mining activities, 20 included aggregate, in Weld and Larimer Counties. You'll be surprised to know that Weld has 350 21 operations and Larimer 225, totaling 575 operations. If those operations have been silent on the 22 aggregate depletion issue. Odd isn't it? The Geological Survey also provided me records on methods for 23 transportation of materials from quarries to operations. Reports say that 74 percent use trucks, seven 24 percent use waterways and four percent use rail. At only four percent, rail should be considered a "nice 163 1 to have", not a requirement. Any attempt Martin Marietta may make to provide documentation on their 2 depleting supply of aggregate to this Board at this time should be considered irrelevant and discarded for 3 lack of evidence. It's too late. Proof should have been provided at the outset and Martin Marietta has 4 assumed the role of spokesperson for all of the Colorado industry and they're not. I ask you to deny this 5 USR. Thank you. {Timer} 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Does the Board have any questions? Okay, thank you 7 very much. Alright I would ask, uh, Judith Feyen, F-E-Y-E-N, if she'd like to come forward please, and 8 you're up sir. 9 PAUL WORREL: Um, my name is Paul Worrel. I live at 6873 Comanche Court,Johnstown, 10 Colorado, in Indianhead Estates. I oppose this USR. Uh, I'm a degreed Engineer and a member of the 11 Audio Engineering Society. When we purchased the property 27 years ago the normal level of ambient 12 noise and the zoning would allow that low level of noise to exist in the future was the primary reason that 13 we moved to Weld County. I design and evaluate and consult on the audio equipment and audio 14 measuring equipment critical listening is a major design phase process used in{coughing-inaudible}audio 15 performance. This evaluation will be impacted by any increase in ambient noise at my location. In 16 addition, to equipment evaluations I conduct rehearsals and recording sessions. The ability to conduct 17 these activities will be prohibited by the noise levels generated by the Martin Marietta facility. Um,there 18 are two factual errors in the, uh, Martin Marietta noise plan. One of them is everybody talks about statute 19 limitations. They ignore the fact that in Section 25.12.103(3) it says that if the character of the noise is 20 periodic, impulsive or shrill,the levels need to be reduced by five db. So,five db is a substantial reduction 21 needs to be taken into account into any noise plan that{inaudible}. The other thing is the statute specifies 22 noise levels of 25 feet or more from the property line. The berm proposal that Martin Marietta has come 23 up with and the varied heights in the topography of the area, um, don't allow-their monitoring proposal 164 1 is grade level at the property line. It will be hardly correlated with the actual measurement of what the 2 statute says we should be enforcing. So, that's all I have to say. Thank you. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. Questions? 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Urn,just one quick question, Paul. 5 PAUL WORREL: Sure. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Urn, have you seen an audible noise increase with the 7 increased traffic on Highway 34? 8 PAUL WORREL: Absolutely. But,we built this-I built the addition to my home to mitigate 9 that in the location where I use. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So,you heard earlier today the discussion with theJohnstown 11 Councilman and Planner that they're going to put 28,000 more cars when that builds out. How will that 12 impact that and how will you have to correlate that? 13 PAUL WORREL: That's not as big a deal for me because of the particular topography of 14 the area. We chose a lot that's on the low side that's shielded by houses and additional plantings, so the 15 actual - the actions of the landscape and everything on the neighbors has actually really cut our noise 16 from {Highway} 34. Uh, the concern I've got is this is westerly from my property and it's a direct line of 17 sight, and especially with the height of the noise sources. There really isn't a mitigation plan here. Uh, 18 you know, other than controlling the source at the level -at the source. 19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Do you have any suggestions in terms of what we ought to 20 look at in terms of mitigating that when the applicant comes back up here? 21 PAUL WORREL: I really do. While Martin Marietta in their Noise Monitoring Plan offered 22 to commit to develop a monitoring plan that would establish fence line action levels designed if the noise 23 levels significantly higher than residential. Uh, I would lobby that significantly higher is a pretty nebulous 2 4 term and that if we're going to do something that it ought to be at some threshold. I would-since a three 165 1 db level in noise increase is 100 percent improvement- I would suggest that maybe a one db or a fraction 2 of the db above statutory limits would be appropriate level and should be to residential limits. Because, 3 otherwise it's going to impact all of us. 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thank you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? Alright, thank you very much. I believe Judith 6 is up and I called up- I need to call up Barbara Moe and Dennis Moe. 7 JUDITH FEYEN: Okay, I'd like to bring to you attention that-oh, I'm Judith Feyen. I live at 8 3687 North County Road 1 - 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. 10 JUDITH FEYEN: - which is also County Road 13. And, I'm 1.4 miles north of Highway 34. 11 Uh, our road (County Road 13) has become a detour road, uh, when the railway crosses Highway 34, uh, 12 cars will line up back to Centerra and they prefer to cut across our road and get to where they're going. 13 Also, uh,the trucks and semis from Sam's Distribution Center will come and go over our road, uh,and that 14 was a point that hadn't been brought up. I have frequently seen cars lined up bumper to bumper on our 15 road from Crossroads Boulevard, which is County Road 26, all the way back to Highway 34. Um, but the 16 other thing is that our property is zoned as Single Family Residential, surrounded by Agricultural, and 17 please understand - it's not that those of us that have one, five,ten or even more acres, uh, are trying to 18 control anyone or have our needs met above those of the big corporation, we just want to protect what 19 we have. And, * are a concern. I ask those of you who are in support of this application if you'd be pleased 20 to have Martin Marietta build in your back yard. Um, and the thing that I'm most concerned about is I'm 21 also aware that if this passes other manufacturers are interested in developing on the north side of 22 {Highway} 34 and the east side of {County Road} 13. Uh, one of these manufacturers will manufacture 23 [Timer} mag chloride and so I think that if this passes, there will be more and more industries that will 24 want to come in. And, uh, you've got a little bit of pollution from this company, that company, from the 166 1 other company, and before you know it you add it all together and it's a lot of pollution. Thank you very 2 much. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. Questions? Alright, thank you very much. Okay, I believe 4 Barbara Moe is up to the microphone, I called up Dennis and know I need to call up Vicki Betten, I'm not 5 sure- 1074 Poplar Street,Johnstown. Thank you. Go ahead. 6 BARBARA MOE: Hello, my name is Barbara Moe and I live at 1209 North County Line 7 Road, Loveland, Colorado. I am strongly opposed to this Martin Marietta asphalt plant. My husband and 8 I have been fortunate enough to spend the last 30 years raising our family on this beautiful piece of 9 Colorado. Since the day we moved in we have worked tirelessly to improve our property. After 20 years 10 working with Special Ed students I planned to make the most of my retirement by spending time at our 11 home doing the things I love. Instead, we have the misfortune to live between Highway 34 and the 12 proposed Martin Marietta asphalt plant site. If this Heavy Industrial plant is not stopped my family will 13 face an invasion of diesel trucks, shifting their gears up and down as they pass our home 365 days a year, 14 24 hours per day. Since Martin Marietta has admitted to 2,000 trucks per day, my retirement would 15 become a nightmare and my family would be subjected to extreme health risks, as per the American 16 Cancer Society web page. This plant would totally change not only my life, but the lives of all those in this 17 area and there is no way to mitigate 2,000 trucks per day possibly stopping in front of my house because 18 they'll be stopped at the light at {Highway} 34. Martin Marietta has a right to build their asphalt plant, 19 but it is extremely incompatible (Timer} with this site. And does their right take away my right as a 2 0 property owner to have peace and safety at my home. Please deny this blatant attempt to change our 21 potential for productive, health growth to a vast wasteland of industrial growth that will make the 22 gateway to Weld County look like Highway 85. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, I need you to wrap up please. 24 BARBARA MOE: Thank you. 167 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. Do we have any questions? 2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. Urn, I need to call up Lori Horn and Dale 4 Horn, and who did I have next? Let's see,who's supposed to be coming to the microphone? Dennis. Are 5 you Dennis Moe? 6 DENNIS MOE: Yep, I'm Dennis. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, alright I'm on the right page. 8 DENNIS MOE: I'm married to this woman right here, Barbara. Hopefully I won't be quite 9 as emotional but it is pretty emotional. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, if you could state your name and address. 11 DENNIS MOE: Uh, 1209 Weld County Line Road. We have the house-the very first house 12 south of{Highway}34 on {County Road}13. Our biggest concern, really, is that once that light-if it is ever 13 put up there and there's 2,000 trucks per day going through there, uh,stop at that light and it's their three 14 trucks to one car-we all know how much slower they are to pass. I know that they're going to be backed 15 up in front of my house with diesel smell going like crazy. Urn,that's just not very good. The couple other 16 things that I'm noticing the people saying, urn, if they are running about 2,000 trips per day, but that's - 17 they do very little in the winter time, what it is really going to be like in the spring and the summer time 18 when we're trying to be out in our yard, um, using it and that sort of thing? I think it will be unbearable. 19 Um, I think everybody realizes the property values there will go down. There's no way they are going to 20 go up. Who would want to live next to an asphalt plant? And, urn, there's plenty of other compatible 21 sites that I think want their facility. And, um, Grandpa always used to say that if there is a 50/50 chance 22 of something going wrong, nine out often times it will. {Laughter} 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I think Yogi Berra said that too. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I think my mother said that to my brothers. Alright, anything else? 168 1 DENNIS MOE: Just questions. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, anybody have any questions? Nope? Okay, thank you very 3 much. Alright Vicki you're up to the microphone and let me call up Anita Komer, please. Okay,go ahead 4 Vicki. 5 VICKI BETTEN: Okay,good afternoon Commissioners. Thank you for taking the time. My 6 name is Vicki Betten. Our family home is 1074 Poplar Street, um, Kelim really-it's in Johnstown but we're 7 in Kelim. And, it's about like a half mile as the bird flies from this proposed site. Um, I am opposed to 8 this. I ask that the Commission recommend to Martin Marietta that they find another location that's more 9 suitable and more compatible with the community. Um, (inaudible}this place is going to be built. We 10 have heard here and you have a very hard decision to make because you're balancing out the good of the 11 many and the economy of the entire region with the negative impact to what Martin Marietta considers 12 a relative few. (Feedback - inaudible) is with that kind of impact and the lack of ability to get the - um 13 what is it -aggregate, this facility will be built. It's just a matter of how much Martin Marietta is going to 14 pay and when it's going to be built. And, so absent of them building it somewhere else, if you decide that 15 that's what you're going to do is put it on this spot, then please, please go in and {feedback- inaudible} 16 more concessions, um, and mitigations than they've offered. We've heard just a little bit about property 17 value. And we've heard that Martin Marietta flatly said, 'No we won't address that. You're on your own.' 18 {Feedback - inaudible) could be for Martin Marietta to make a concession to all of the property 19 homeowners around the area, not just Indianhead {Timer}but all of that are affected. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions? I have a question this 21 way. 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Um, I've heard this property-uh,a decrease in property value 23 fund. Can you give me your idea of how that might work? 24 VICKI BETTEN: Well I think I stand to- I'm sorry, say that again? 169 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So you're saying one of the things that if Martin Marietta 2 really wanted to be a good neighbor is put a fund together to mitigate the property value decrease, if 3 indeed it was proven. So, I wanted to kind of get your- I've heard that a couple of times and I wanted to 4 get your idea how that might work. 5 VICKI BETTEN: Well, some kind of fund could be set up. Um, there's some kind of 6 evaluation that can be made about what the reality of this is going to be. If it's as much as they say, 40 7 percent, then take a look at the property values around there and Martin Marietta should make the 8 concession to make restitution in some value to those properties. 9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Would that occur when the property would go up for sale? 10 VICKI BETTEN: I think it should occur before that. 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So who determines that? 12 VICKI BETTEN: Well,that's to be determined. {Laughter} 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm just trying to- 14 VICKI BETTEN: Hey, I don't- {laughter/overspeak-inaudible] 15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I have one follow up, uh, you talked about - and I'm quoting 16 you here-"many more mitigations". Can you give a little more? 17 VICKI BETTEN: Yeah, I can. One of the things that has been brought up is the fire and 18 safety and I haven't heard anything from Martin Marietta about fire or safety. It's not been addressed. 19 Uh, and what I understand is that the U.S.D.S. shows recommend that if a fire occurs in a facility such as 20 this, that there be a half mile radius evacuation. A radius of a half mile all around. That takes in a lot of 21 home and it's because, um, as I understand, that there's-there are by-products from this-from the fire 22 of, um, I don't know hazardous or particles or whatever. Um, other people can speak to that perhaps, but 23 my recommendation would be one mitigation is, and building on what this gentleman just before said - 24 50 percent of a chance that something is going to go wrong. Take that and say {feedback-inaudible]of 170 1 Philips Petroleum spill in Weld county any more than this [inaudible)there is a risk, so they need to make 2 the necessary mitigation factor of the foam and they should be paid for by Martin Marietta. And I think 3 they should be trained in all {inaudible)of jurisdictions that might be called. 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thank you. 5 VICKI BETTEN: You're welcome. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other questions? Okay,thank you very much. 7 VICKI BETTEN: You're welcome. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright I think I'm to Lori Harms up next. 9 LORI HORN: Good afternoon and thank you for consideration and going through all this. 10 It will be a hard decision. Um, I am Lori Horn and our family home is at 1074 Poplar in Kelim. Um, Martin 11 Marietta only notified the minimal people that they had to. We were not notified. The numbers would 12 be skewed because it a lot of people were more aware of what was going on there would be a lot more 13 opposals and had we the money we would have provided a lot more paid representatives and specialists, 14 and we're obviously don't have the clout. Um, I can attest to the, um, noise where Marietta's own 15 company of AECOM on page 67.0 Conclusions they have said that they may exceed nighttime noise limits 16 at residences. And this is at the Industrial level, not the ambient level of the residents. Uh,this company 17 would not even return phone calls for any questions. Just didn't return calls. Um, there are other 18 mitigations that were not addressed as far as noise. If you look up on any website, um,to do with acoustic 19 block,they are supposed to be 100 feet above the noise level of where its coming from and that involves 2 0 like a leaded kind of fence thing that they put up. Nothing is said about that. And, as far as noise, um, if 21 you all know you don't get a good night's sleep, it's going to affect your whole health and well-being all 22 the way around. And, you know, I just don't see that even care about really addressing the noise part of 23 it. Um, there are many really [inaudible) like Dr. DeTienne's office and doctors and stuff that we would 2 4 like to attract and have stay. Have this built and that could go out the window. [Timer) Also,yes it is going 171 1 to go ahead and be built up, but even if it is residential or businesses, that's going to provide many more 2 jobs than - in the long run -than the low 150 or whatever that this big project will bring, so. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. Any questions? 4 LORI HARMS: Urn,yeah, if you deny I plead with you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, thank you very much. Okay, Dale Horn is to the microphone 6 and how about calling up R.J. O-t-t-a-b-i-a-n-o. Whoever that is, come on up and take one of the seats 7 and, urn, it looks like a Ms. Cox who lives at 1420 Riverside Avenue in Fort Collins, if you want to come up 8 and have a seat that would be great. 9 AUDIENCE VOICE: Can she speak first? It would make more sense. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And who are you? 11 AUDIENCE VOICE: R.J. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,yeah sure. Just have a seat and come up in the order you want. 13 Okay. 14 DALE HORN: Hello, pardon me. {feedback-inaudible}it's good to be back. 15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Good to see you. 16 DALE HORN: I live - there's really nothing I can say that hasn't been said because 17 (feedback speaking too close to microphone - many segments inaudible} I guess I'd better introduce 18 myself. (Inaudible} I'm Dale Horn and I live in town and anyhow {inaudible}seems to be like this whole 19 thing is about money. You know, one way or another, you know, I see a lot of money has been invested 20 in preparing all this stuff and, uh, {inaudible}money talks. I heard a lot of talk{inaudible}but that also say 21 talk is cheap and I can attest to that because nobody {inaudible} I'm just stating the facts. My main 22 concern is not about {inaudible}it's the people around here {inaudible}everything in the entire corridor, 23 so to speak. {Timer-inaudible}everybody's going to be effected {inaudible}impact of the whole deal. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, could I get you to wrap up, please? 172 1 AUDIENCE VOICE: He can have my time. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No he can't. (Laughter} No you cannot, you need to wrap up. 3 DALE HORN: Okay, I can't have any more time but I just want to thank you folks 4 (inaudible)and I'm sure you'll do the right thing. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Alright, uh, I believe Anita is up. 6 ANITA COMER: Hello, my name is Anita Comer and I live at 503 North County Road 3, 7 which is directly west of the proposed plant. I also own a business in Kelim so my life revolves completely 8 around this area in question. While I am concerned about the health impacts related to dust and the 9 bitumen fumes, diesel exhaust for all the people that live and work in this area, I am most concerned 10 about the huge impact the large number of trucks will have on the traffic. Congestion is already severe 11 due to the magnitude drawn to the region for the I-25 access, shopping and numerous housing 12 developments. Adding a facility as large as the Martin Marietta plant will tip the scale into disastrous 13 traffic problems on a regular basis. Because my business relies heavily on the ability of our trucks to move 14 commodities, it will create a situation that will jeopardize not only the safety of my 50 employees, but our 15 ability to successfully operate and be profitable. As a business owner I feel a strong sense of obligation to 16 maintain our ability to service our customers, so I've read the Traffic Study, I've attended meetings, and 17 I've asked questions about the County Frontage Road and nobody has a resolution. I am fearful that my 18 trucks will not be able to access Highway 34 as the video so well demonstrated. The Traffic Study says 19 that the Kelim Frontage Road will be blocked most of the time in one portion and in another place it says 20 it may be relocated, but no real solutions have been proposed. I was recently asked, why is it ok for my 21 trucks to use this intersection and not the Martin Marietta trucks? And, my immediate answer was if I 22 had 600 trucks coming in and going I would move because I wouldn't want to subject my neighbors(Timer} 23 to that kind of traffic nuisance. I believe there's a place for everything and everything should be in its 173 1 place, and I know that capitalism will prevail and this plant will find a home if it is indeed needed, but this 2 does not belong in this area and I request a "No". Thank you very much. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you. Any questions? No? Okay, thank you very much. 4 Um, I think we're going to have Silencia at the microphone. I need a-I think it's Jenny Duer- I don't know 5 that's either a Y or a U, and she lives at 1420 Riverside Avenue. You're up- please come up and sit in the 6 chair, and then, um, it looks like Mark Koentopp, K-O-E-N-T-O-P-P. Okay,go ahead. 7 SILENCIA COX: Hi. My name is Silencia and I'm here to represent the farm at 503 South 8 County Line Road 1. I'm one of the owners of Mother Love Herbal Company. We're an organic personal 9 care company that makes products for pregnancy and breast feeding. Urn, we've been in Fort Collins - 10 we're based out of Fort Collins and have been a part of the community for over 30 years. My mother 11 actually started the business, um, in our kitchen and has grown it to be distributed across the United 12 States, including locations of Whole Foods,Target and Walgreens. Herbs are the main basis for all of our 13 products and we have really strong mission to be natural and we're dedicated to using certified organic 14 products. Um, because of this importance we started operation of our organic farm about 400 yards away 15 from the proposed site. Um, we're greatly concerned that there could be potential metal contaminants 16 on our specialty herbal crops that we grow there. And, um, at Mother Love we hold ourselves to a very 17 high standard of quality and safety, so we believe in providing the cleanest products possible. But, our 18 customers are also pregnant and breast feeding woman and they rely on us to provide safe products for 19 their babies. We show our passion for organics with our community. Um, we often host community 20 events for plant identification, herb uses, and the importance of organic farming. Not only could this 21 project compromise the quality of our crops, but it could also be detrimental to the peacefulness of the 22 educational center due to the high amount of traffic and noise right beside it. So,on behalf of myself, my 23 staff and our thousands of customers, I urge you to please oppose this project. Thank you. 174 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Just a second. Questions? Could you show me on the map where 2 you -where this farm is? 3 SILENCIA COX: Yeah, here{left microphone to point out property on screen.} 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And, I'm sorry, how many acres did you say you had there? 5 SILENCIA COX: It's a 120 acres and it's all certified organic. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, any other questions? Commissioner Cozad. 7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Um,you mentioned heavy metals contaminants. Um,so where 8 did you get the information that you would have some of those types of contaminants from this facility 9 to your farm? 10 SILENCIA COX: So,the - having that was listed on the handout that I gave you - our main 11 concerns are lead, mercury and arsenic. Um, from our organic certifier when we heard about the 12 proposed site we did a little bit of research on possible contaminations because organic certification - 13 U.S.D.A. governs organic certification. I know they're primarily, uh, herbicide and pesticide use, um, but 14 possible heavy metal contaminants that were produced from known asphalt plants I think the study we 15 read was actually an East Coast asphalt plant, but that those heavy metals were known contaminants 16 generated from asphalt plants. 17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And just a quick follow up. Do you have traditional farms 18 around you as well? 19 SILENCIA COX: No, we don't. 20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: You don't have any traditional farms around you? 21 SILENCIA COX: No, we only do a site-certified organic operation. 22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'm talking around your farm. 23 SILENCIA COX: Yes, we do. 175 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So, are you aware if any of those farms are using herbicides and 2 pesticides. 3 SILENCIA COX: Yes I am. 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thank you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, any other questions. Alright, thank you very much. Okay I 6 believe we are with R.J. 7 R.J. OTTAVIANO: Good afternoon Commissioners. My name is R.J. Ottaviano. I live at 8 503 South County Road 1 and I oppose this USR request. I'm an employee as a farm manager for Mother 9 Love Herbal Company and I manage the 120 acres certified organic farm. We produce grain crops, hay, 10 vegetables, livestock and several other crops. We intentionally grow thousands of pounds of organic 11 sweet corn and pumpkins for Larimer County and Weld County Food Banks each year. Not for sale, but 12 specifically to donate to the Food Banks. This is a huge contribution to the needy in our local community. 13 We're currently leasing the farm to grow certified organic herbs that are used in our products. Jenny will 14 speak to our rigorous quality testing. Weld County prides itself on being a Right to Farm county, as it 15 should. The emissions this plant would generate pose a direct threat to our Right to Farm without 16 encroachment from toxic pollutants and contaminants. We are especially concerned about the large 17 quantities of heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that would pour out of this site. Winds blow 18 from the north and northwest in this area about one out of every three days. {Inaudible) concern that 19 dust and pollutants will be deposited on our farm. This is not only a concern on windy days. Over time 20 pollutants will build up in the soil and the ground water to the point where they're being translocated 21 from the soil and groundwater and concentrated in plant tissues. This coupled with the likelihood of air- 22 borne pollutants landing on our crops is a direct threat to our Right to Farm. As one Martin Marietta 23 representative pointed out and as the woman just asked,there are indeed aerial applications of herbicides 24 on the field to the north of us. These sprays happen a couple of times each year and we monitor for 176 1 herbicide damage. You can always tell where plants were sprayed and the burn out happened and not 2 sprayed and it hasn't been a problem. Two years ago we had corn silage in that field and I say one corn 3 plant that looked kind of gnarled and sickly looking(feedback-inaudible). That was from one little droplet 4 of herbicide. There's going to be {Timer} 25 to 50 times the heavy metals {inaudible} for Northern 5 Colorado. It's a question of how many millions you save Martin Marietta and whether (feedback - 6 inaudible)local business or are you going to protect the local constituents and residents. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. Questions? Commissioner Conway. 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Did I hear you lease the farm? 9 R.J. OTTAVIANO: Yes. We're currently in the third year of a five-year lease. We would 10 stay there for 100 years and that's what we talked about with the landowners if things go well. If this 11 asphalt plant goes in I can honestly say we probably won't be there in a couple years and it would threaten 12 the viability of our business. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thank you. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Just a second. Another question. 15 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Uh, R.J., you know, I'm trying to ask this respectfully but 16 you're saying you're a farmer but I look at the pictures that were presented before this here. There's got 17 to be dust that's created when you're plowing and everything else. How do you address that? I guess I 18 need to figure the question out? 19 R.J. OTTAVIANO: That's just something you have to deal with when you're a farmer, not 2 0 if you live in a house that you bought next to agriculturally zoned land and they want to use it Industrial. 21 And, anybody who is next to a concrete plant or an asphalt plant on a windy day will see dust blowing off 22 of it. When wind is blowing in the direction of those houses, those people are going to get bombarded 23 with pollutants and dust,then it's going to blow onto our farm as it comes north. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 177 1 R.J. OTTAVIANO: That's different than a little bit of dust off a tractor. 2 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Fair enough. Thanks. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, any other questions. Alright. Tisa could you check the 4 microphone? Sounds like it's - I guess it's ok, never mind. Alright. Thank you. 5 JENNY DUER: Uh, I'm Jenny Duer. I'm with Mother Love Herbal Company as well speaking 6 on behalf of the farm located at 503 South County Road 1,Johnstown. Like I said I'm the Quality Control 7 Manager at Mother Love Herbal Company and my concerns about the asphalt plant are in the ways in 8 which it will affect all of the medicinal herbs crops raised on the farm. Both our body care and herbal 9 supplements are heavily regulated by the FDA, as well as the U.S.D.A. regarding our Organic Certification. 10 All of our herbs go through rigorous evaluation of identity, purity, composition, and strength. This is 11 mandated by the FDA. We are required to test incoming herbs as well as finished product for 12 contamination. The asphalt plant and its known toxic byproducts will negatively impact the composition 13 and quality of our herbs. The contamination of our products with the known heavy metals would be 14 detrimental in regards to California Proposition 65,which is no carcinogens in the State of California. This 15 would require our products to be labeled as such. With such a warning, which um, given the nature of 16 our products being organic,clean,safe herbs specially formulated for pregnancy, breast feeding and baby. 17 You can imagine how detrimental that type of warning on our label would be. Um, our International 18 markets also would be affected, as they typically require more stringent testing in order to import our 19 products. I ask that you vote against this proposal. 2 0 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Does the Board have any questions? 21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I do. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes, go ahead. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Um, help me understand. I'm not familiar with the California 24 Proposition 65 Certification. Help me understand how they certify you and make you - 178 1 JENNY DUER: It's not a certification. It is, so are you familiar with known carcinogens in 2 the State of California?A lot of things are- urn, have that label,that warning. Even garden hoses for the 3 light content that are within. Urn,there's 800 chemicals currently on the list. Urn,those five that I listed 4 on that handout are what we're immediately concerned about. Um, what is happening in the State of 5 California is there's a lot of private litigation attorneys who are pulling products off the shelf and testing 6 for these types of contaminants. If our product was to get pulled and we were -we would get a 60-day 7 notice in which case we would have to prove that that contamination was not human caused. Martin 8 Marietta and their procedures are absolutely human cause. We could not prove that this was a naturally 9 occurring substance,so we would be required at that point to either pull all of our products from the State 10 of California. This would result in a very heavy lawsuit and we would also be required, if we continued to 11 sell our products in the State of California, to label it as such known carcinogens, um, it's actually, um - 12 known chemicals in the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive harm. So, you 13 can imagine how concerned we are to have a label like that on our product. 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, does somebody make a complaint to the State of 15 California,then they come pull your product - ? 16 JENNY DUER: Exactly,yes. 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: - and test it and only then, if the test comes back positive, 18 would they then ask you to pull it? 19 JENNY DUER: Correct. We also, urn, because of our international markets and because 2 0 of the mandated testing that we have on our product, we do periodic testing on that, so if we knew that 21 those contaminants were on our product that would be a breach of our own integrity to continue to sell 22 in the State of California. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thanks. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, what percentage of your product goes international? 179 1 JENNY DUER: 25 percent. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And what percent of your product goes to California? 3 SILENCIA COX: California is our largest buying state. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You'll need to come to the microphone if you're going to answer the 5 question. 6 SILENCIA COX: The State of California is our largest customer. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So,what percentage of your product goes to California? 8 SILENCIA COX: I don't know a specific percentage, but within the United States California 9 we sell the most products. So, 25 percent of our products are sold internationally and 75 percent are sold 10 domestically, and California is the largest buyer, um,followed by Colorado. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. Board have any other questions? Alright, 12 thank you. Okay, how about Mark Colintop. Is he here? Is Mark here? Alright, I believe that was it for 13 all the people who had signed up. Okay, do you have anything else? Okay, at this point, uh, we going to 14 take a half-hour dinner break, so we will be back at 6:45. 15 [The audio was paused and restarted at 6:46 p.m.) 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I'm going to allow him to get up and speak and he's one of the 17 opponents, so Tom Lord. Do you want to time him? 18 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah. Yes. 19 TOM LORD: Thank you. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 21 TOM LORD: Um, my name's Tom Lord. I live at 6820 Comanche Court in Johnstown. My 22 family moved to Colorado in the early 60's and I grew up in Greeley. Uh, I oppose this application. I've 23 been to all the meetings, you know, trying to figure it all out. I know that the growth has happened and 24 it appears that,to me from growing up here, it's out of control. Um,the biggest problem I see with Martin 180 1 Marietta's plan is that there's adequate separation in the plan that would provide any kind of meaningful 2 protection, urn, for our neighborhood. I also don't understand why they have {feedback - inaudible} 3 chosen a lot of the sites, you know. If they chose the {inaudible} site, Haliburton could be their good 4 neighbor. Um,there's Milliken[inaudible]Farms,there's Wetco Farms in LaSalle,there's the Industrial rail 5 park and there's also the Greeley site. And, um, I appreciate you listening to me and I never thought I was 6 going to be the last one. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, does the Board have any questions? No. Alright,thank you. 8 Okay, I've had a request from Commissioner Conway to allow, uh, Mr. Kisker four additional minutes to 9 come up and discuss his mitigation points.There will be no questions; however, so you have four minutes 10 to present your points of mitigation that you had. 11 FROM AUDIENCE: It's at the end of our presentation - 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Please don't talk until you get to the microphone. And, if you would, 13 please restate your name and address. 14 DAVE KISKER: Dave Kisker, 6681 Apache Road, Johnstown. And, if we could pull up our 15 presentation real quick it's at the last of that. I should preface this while this is happening, urn, we've 16 given a lot of thought to potential mitigation, but I should say that this is really going to be a hard one, but 17 if we can do it - I can probably just flip through it. [Timer paused for presentation setup]. I didn't realize 18 we had so many slides. Okay, so it seems like some of the impacts just can't be mitigated in the current 19 plan. Traffic in particular. It's tough to see how the infrastructure, uh, that we're talking about - four 20 lane U.S. {Highway} 34 is going to be able to handle this traffic, but of course as was raised by the 21 Commissioners, there is going to be additional traffic no matter what we do. It's a question of what the 22 actual impact is going to be. About the only way we could come up with that would be meaningful would 23 be if Martin Marietta agreed to either fund or pay a big part of the expansion of U.S. 36 {34}to six lanes 2 4 because that's what their Traffic Study said was necessary in order to be able to handle the traffic. Uh, 181 1 you probably need to add the interchange too somehow and, of course,the Centerra weave is still going 2 to be in the picture. Urn,visual impact is tough because of the elevation and the property values are also 3 tough for the same reasons. Urn, in terms of noise, odor and emissions, they key thing is we need 4 enforceable standards. Okay, that means that somebody has a responsibility to actually enforce them. 5 And, it's not good enough to say CDPHE is going to protect us because they're not going to enforce them. 6 It's going to take a complaint, somebody's going to have to come out and check it out and then it's going 7 to have to be enforced. In terms of odors, we really need to be tighter than the seven to one. There's 8 been dozens and dozens of complaints in Fort Collins but there's never a violation because of the seven 9 to one. We were up there a couple of weeks ago. The place stinks but there is never a violation,so that's 10 one of the things that if we're going to try to deal with it there's got to be enforceable standards. Urn, in 11 terms of noise,the only way that it makes sense is if it's a Residential limit at the property line. Urn, and 12 by the way,the big issue is the trains. You know,there was a couple of questions today about, well if you 13 knew there was a train -the catch is,when a train comes by at two o'clock in the morning and comes and 14 goes it's gone. We're talking about an arrival train that's going to take up to an hour to make its way 15 slowly around that loop, and that's just the arrival. It's going to be in the middle of the night half the time 16 probably. In terms of the unloading, it's going to take eight hours. It should take two hours at a mile an 17 hour, but it takes eight hours. You know,a mile an hour is 88 feet per minute. Uh, a train car is 60 feet or 18 less, so it should take two hours and it takes eight. Um, it seems like the only way to deal with the trains, 19 urn, is to put a limitation on when they can be active, and that means somehow the arrival as well as the 20 unloading. We propose 9:00 shut them off. Um, in terms of emissions, uh, we really need to monitor 21 PM2.5; that's the big health hazard and it's getting tighter and tighter and tighter. Urn, I've been in -I had 22 an hour and a half conversation with CDPHE on this and how it's going to be permitted and so forth, and 23 while there will be a standard that's going to need to be met, it comes down to the question of control. 2 4 And, if we don't have the control, then we don't have mitigation. Uh, operating hours,that {microphone 182 1 clatter)sorry, uh,that came up. Really,we need to be talking about something like 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m., 2 Monday to Friday, with limited permits for other hours because we know that sometimes there's no 3 choice. So, I don't know if there's a way the Commission can say - Okay, up to ten times a year you can 4 have extra hours, uh, for one or two days at a time with no penalty. But that's the sort of thing that you 5 have to look at in order to deal with the operating hours. If it just says 24/7, and by the way we'll try to 6 do better, that's not enforceable okay? There needs to be a process that can be enforced. Um, in terms 7 of compatibility I showed you the case in North Carolina where a 55-foot silo was adequate. I've never 8 heard a good reason why we couldn't do a same thing here. All they just say is, 'No it can't be. It's got to 9 be at least 100 feet high.' Um, I don't know why it would be different in North Carolina. In terms of a 10 buffer, they really need to have more land.There needs to be a buffer zone around this thing and there's 11 land for sale on all sides. Um, to the north it [Timer)turns out it's owned by somebody right now but it 12 would be purchasable. Um, and of course in enclosing the plants would make them a lot more appealing 13 looking. You saw the photos from the Centennial site. Uh,the guy that went down there said it's a whole 14 different world down there. You don't even know it's an asphalt plant, uh, unless you know that you're 15 going to look for it. It's a totally different situation. The brick wall - the stone wall that was around it is 16 not some - well I can't think of a good word - barbed wire fence. And of course the visual screening of 17 that aggregate piles would be desirable. And finally, there needs to be some kind of compensation if 18 we're not going to be able to impact-or mitigate the impacts. Um, we propose a reclamation fund so we 19 don't end up with a dead industrial site in 20 years when Weld County for whatever reason no longer is 20 the hot spot, um, and they go someplace else. Similar to the situation where gravel mines lakefront 21 property. Uh, let's at least bring it back to green space. For health issues, uh,you know, maybe there's a 22 victims compensation fund where, for certain kinds of diseases there's some financial support. Uh, 23 property value compensation, you asked Commissioner Conway, one way that could happen is to do a 24 true statistical analysis of what the expected impact is going to be with all of these activities, uh, build a 183 1 statistical model and say okay we estimate it's going to be this amount of property value lost and either 2 do a compensation now or when a sale happens to determine whether or not it's at the appropriate level. 3 Urn, I can see a way to do something like that. And finally, even with the difficulty of those things, you 4 could consider having some kind of considerable amenity to offset this disamenity. Some kind of public 5 thing that would be to the benefit of the residents. I don't know if we're talking, you know, a big solar 6 array for free power or, you know, but it would take something like that to offset the huge negative 7 impact. So those are the concepts that we've kind of been working on. Um, I don't claim that it's 8 necessarily the end, but it's a start. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you very much. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, that concludes the public hearing portion of our hearing, so 12 at this point I'm going to ask the applicant or their representatives, and/or their representatives to come 13 on back up to the microphone and this is your opportunity, urn, you remember we said we had an hour 14 here to include your comments and hopefully our questions. Certainly, if we get carried away on 15 questions that will be on us. 16 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Give me just a moment to get organized here if you would please. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You ready? 18 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Yes. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Please state your name for the record again. 20 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Once again, Carolynne White, Land Use Counsel to the applicant, 21 Martin Marietta Materials. Um, first a little housekeeping, I'd like to present these documents to the 22 County Attorney. I have four documents here that I have copies for everyone. One of them is a copy of 23 the Draft Resolution that was presented to you in your packet by staff for consideration. It contains our 24 proposed conditional Conditions of Approval and I'll talk about those in just a moment. And then, urn, 184 1 there are three supplemental letters from three of our experts addressing some of the additional 2 information that we received from the opposition group - or we received from the County that the 3 opposition group submitted to the County. Um, they submitted it I think on Friday and we got them on 4 Monday, and so we asked our experts to address some of those very briefly in writing in case we didn't 5 have time to go over it tonight. So,there's these for you guys. Alright, we're going to try to use this time 6 very efficiently and very wisely. I just want to remind the Commissioners that we do in fact have all our 7 experts here and if you would like to ask questions about a topic that we didn't cover in rebuttal of course 8 we're happy to provide the appropriate person to answer that question during or following the one-hour 9 timed portion of our presentation. Um, the first handout that was provided to you was our proposed 10 changes to the Conditions of Approval. Um, I'm glad that somebody in the opposition group mentioned 11 earlier their concern about enforceability because that concern has been raised before of all of the 12 comments and implemented measures that Martin Marietta has proposed to address some of the 13 concerns here. And so, among other things, one of the things you'll see in this handout, which is a redline 14 version of your Draft Resolution is the addition of several, um, new proposed Conditions of Approval that 15 essentially add standards of - Development Standards - Performance Standards for this permit if it's 16 approved,that Martin Marietta would be required to comply with all of these things. I won't go through 17 all of them, but just to list a couple, they begin following number 38, which was the last Condition of 18 Approval suggested by County staff. I think it's on page five of the draft that we just handed out, um, 19 codifying the obligation to establish a community working group, to establish a landscaping fund, to 20 establish and operate a noise monitoring program to collect data, etcetera, etcetera. So, all of the 21 mitigation measures that we covered today are listed here as proposed additional Conditions of Approval 22 so that the County will have the ability to inspect, monitor, measure and enforce all of those, urn, and we 23 can talk about any specific ones of course that you would like. Um, one other item I'd like to highlight 24 while we're talking about the Conditions of Approval is the hours of operation, particularly since that was 185 1 just raised as an issue in the mitigation measures. The proposed operations, as listed in the staff 2 recommendation, include-I'm just trying to find it here, sorry-here we go. Um,there are three different 3 operations that occur on the property: asphalt plant, the ready mixed concrete plant, and the aggregate 4 and recycling. Each of those has different demands and so it's proposed that each of them has slightly 5 different hours of operation. These are found on page one of the standards of approval that was handed 6 out -that we handed that people could copy-the one that staff had in your packet. Starting number 6.A 7 and, basically, you can see that these actually don't differ too dramatically from the standards that were 8 just proposed as mitigation in the presentation you just saw. What we're proposing, for example, and I 9 won't go through all of them, but for example, the asphalt plant is an operation that would be allowed 10 Monday through Saturday from one hour before sunrise to no later than one hour after sunset, with the 11 caveat that at certain times there be the ability to operate throughout the night and when that happens 12 it will only occur when there's a specific demand for it by a customer,typically a governmental entity for 13 night paving on roadways like I-25, and that Martin Marietta would notify the County staff when that's 14 going to occur so that you have advanced notice and the neighboring property owners could get advanced 15 notice of that as well. So, this is an example. I won't go through them all but if you want to talk about 16 the hours of operation further we're certainly happy to do that. Now for a part of our presentation I'd 17 like to allot some of our time to the representative of the landowner for this property who has not yet 18 had an opportunity to speak and declined that opportunity during public comment because they were 19 going to speak as part of this and I'd like to invite Patrick Groom to come up and speak to you about this 20 proposal from the perspective of the current landowner. 21 PATRICK GROOM: Good evening Commissioners and Madam Chair. Uh, my name is 22 Patrick Groom and I'm the attorney representative for the landowner, Gerrard Investments, LLC. My 23 address is 822 7th Street, Suite 760, in Greeley, Colorado. And feel free Commissioners to ask any 24 questions of me during my presentation if you have any. Um, as the Commissioners may be aware, 186 1 Gerrard Investments owns the property to the west of the two parcels and they are currently under 2 contract to purchase from Weld LV the property to the east. And assuming that this land use application 3 is approved, Gerrard would then enter into a leasehold arrangement with Martin Marietta, whereby 4 Gerrard would lease these two properties to Martin Marietta for a long-term lease and would continue 5 to own the property. And I think that's significant for this project and the Commissioners because as the 6 landowner, Gerrard Investments will continue to be responsible for this property and will continue to 7 monitor Martin Marietta and ensure that not only the terms of the lease agreement are complied with 8 but that the terms of the USR are complied with, because the landowners remains liable for any violations. 9 And I think there's that double oversight. Gerrard certainly is concerned about their property values and 10 before entering into this relationship they gave serious consideration to this project and whether they 11 wanted to enter into this relationship with Martin Marietta. And they decided,yes, it was a project they 12 wanted to pursue for two compelling reasons. The first is I have the privilege of representing the Gerrard 13 family of companies and that includes Gerrard Excavating. And Gerrard Excavating has run into the same 14 problems that other excavators have encountered in Weld County in Northern Colorado and that is a lack 15 of aggregate. Gerrard has had to go up to Wyoming on projects to get aggregate to bring back down to 16 Weld County and Larimer County and that demand is going, and that problem is going to continue unless 17 we find a solution and Gerrard thinks this project and this location is the solution to that problem. And 18 the second reason is the choice of tenant. I can say in my 20 years of land use planning practice I have 19 never seen an applicant make the concessions that Martin Marietta is going to make on this project. 20 They're not only willing to establish a fund to reimburse landowners the cost of landscaping, they have 21 made numerous concessions on the project itself, including relocating the train that runs, uh, the train 22 tracks that will run through this property in order to create a buffer between this project and Indianhead 23 Estates. In addition, as the applicant had pointed out, there are numerous other concessions to this 24 project in terms of state-of-the-art equipment that will impact and mitigate any impacts on surrounding 187 1 properties. Those are huge concessions and it's because of that practice and that type of company that 2 Gerrard is willing to enter into a long-term arrangement with Martin Marietta. There are a couple of 3 issues that I think the Commissioners need to consider in making a decision here. The first is compatibility. 4 Compatibility is not a popularity contest. Compatibility does not mean that there's no opposition to the 5 project. Compatibility means that when you have two competing uses that may be incompatible, that 6 those incompatibilities are minimized or mitigated by concessions made by the applicant. And I think 7 Martin Marietta does that in this case and makes concessions that would mitigate the impacts in terms of 8 odor, the impacts in terms of traffic, the impacts in terms of noise, and it's those mitigations under the 9 Code that make this project compatible and this use compatible with surrounding property uses. If you 10 want to change the slide. In addition, as you'll see there are plenty of uses in this area that are currently 11 either Commercial or Industrial in nature, and the location of this plant on this site is not incompatible 12 with the uses in that region. And as long as the applicant can make concessions that mitigate that impact 13 on the immediate surrounding property owners,the Commissioners should find that the use is compatible 14 with surrounding property uses. One final point I'd like to make is that a lot of arguments have been made 15 regarding the Right to Farm, as well as the fact that this is Prime Agricultural ground. The Right to Farm, 16 under the Weld County Code, is not the obligation to farm, it's the right to allow surrounding property 17 owners to continue to farm. The fact of the matter is this is the best property in order to preserve 18 agricultural land. Half of this property is already taken out of agricultural production by the Gerrard USR 19 and the other half is going to be designed so that most of the use on this property is on the Gerrard side. 20 And, over 50 percent of the Weld LV property will remain as open space and be planted native grasses. 21 And even when this use is discontinued that land can go back into production. But again, the Right to 22 Farm is not the obligation to farm, it's the obligation to protect surrounding property owners' rights to 23 farm and it's also the obligation to look at preserving that farmland if it's possible,and I think this property 24 suits those needs and suits those obligations under the Code. And the property owners,for those reasons, 188 1 would encourage the Commissioners to approve this application. I'm happy to answer any questions if 2 you have any. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Does the Board have any questions? No? No questions? Okay, not 4 at this time. 5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: [inaudible] I think I'll let them finish. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 7 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Thank you Commissioners. Urn, next I'd like to introduce Dave 8 Hagerman who is with Martin Marietta to answer a couple of specific questions that were raised about 9 site selection. The reason we feel that it's appropriate to address this again, although we did address it 10 earlier and there is a site selection report in the packet, is that the principle suggestion was, 'We don't 11 want it here, put it somewhere else.' There - it could go somewhere else and it could be better. Urn, I 12 want to be clear that we did not say that this was the only place in Weld County it could go, we said of all 13 the places we looked at this is the best place in Weld County to locate this. And, one of the reasons for 14 that is the ability to design it so that it can have the most minimal impact possible on neighbors. Any of 15 the other sites we looked at are really just moving this to somebody else's neighborhood and there 16 certainly would be neighbors there who would prefer not to live next to it as well. So, I want to introduce 17 Dave to come up and address those points very briefly and then we'll continue. 18 DAVE HAGERMAN: Dave Hagerman. I'm the Regional PPGM for the aggregates group. 19 Um, I'm just going to hit on a couple of the sites that have been brought up today. Um, the Milliken site 20 was site number 13 in our site selection profile and that particular site is currently zoned Industrial in 21 Milliken but the approved uses in that zone did not include any of our type of operations. Additionally, 22 half of the property does sit in the floodplain where the rail portion would have to be built, um, there is 23 significant elevation drop, but more importantly it would be close to the County road and right across the 24 County Road is a proposed subdivision to go in and on the north side of the property is also another 189 1 subdivision. And, the traffic would end up having to go through Milliken to work its way up to {Highway} 2 34 to 1-25. Urn, in looking at Evans and Ault, basically those two locations really add additional 3 transportation and travel costs, urn, to get the products to the market because they're outside of the 4 market and actually the viability of putting the asphalt plant there, or even the ready mixed plant there, 5 urn, potentially could not be viable because of the short product life that's available from those particular 6 products, uh, to get it to our market areas. Urn, the Greeley site - we did look at the Greeley site - 7 unfortunately, we are unable to develop a rail spur onto that piece of property that would accommodate 8 the trains that we would like to bring in to the facility. And, uh, separating the rail from the aggregate and 9 asphalt plants, uh, as has been proposed today, could be done but, it's going to add additional 10 transportation costs as well as additional traffic now moving that to the connected product plants. Urn, 11 in looking at the Northern Rail Corridor and Kodak, urn,they're all basically along this corridor here, along 12 O Street, urn,this area is fantastic for the oil and gas because of the infrastructure that's in place and the 13 fact that most of the oil and gas is east or takes {Highway}85, urn,for our trucks trying to make it to I-25, 14 particularly when we get closer to Windsor, urn, there's concerns about we don't want to go through 15 Windsor, because that's just not a good idea to go through the middle of town and school zones with our 16 trucks. So, our trucks would be heading south and getting on {Highway} 34 or making their way north 17 through various County Roads to get to 1-25. Urn, so, in all of those scenarios we felt the impacts to the 18 communities because of passing in front of subdivisions,going through communities, urn-if you go to the 19 Evans location the trucks would end up going through southern Greeley to get to 1-25 most likely - urn, 20 that this site presented the least amount of impacts to the overall community where we were looking to 21 locate this site. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, do you have a question? 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I do. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 190 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, you've heard the public comment - I don't remember all 2 of the folks, but you sat through the hearing and you heard it - explain to me the challenges with the 3 Greeley site. Because I heard two - I guess I heard two things. Um, one: I heard the site will be mined 4 out in five years, and not I'm hearing the impediment is the rail, and so explain to me the challenges of 5 the rail spur into the Greeley site. 6 DAVE HAGERMAN: Okay, so the Greeley site has been mined over the years and a large 7 portion of the property will be turned into water storage. Um, and the remaining property that isn't 8 currently open body water, or will be water storage, is not large enough to accommodate a rail spur in 9 there to accommodate our size of train. Because one of the restrictions when we look at rail locations is 10 being able to put a loop in with a large enough radius so that we don't create train issues with noise and 11 vibration and things like that, which we've taken into consideration when we chose - designed the 12 Highway 34 location. So, it really comes down to geometry and the land available to develop it. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Follow up Madam Chair? 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: The Windsor site issue is the trucks going through, uh, 16 probably on {Highway}392 through down town, is that the issue? Or either{Highway}257, is that right? 17 DAVE HAGERMAN: Yeah, basically, our trucks have to head north or south to get to I-25, 18 additionally, we did look at a couple of locations and the property that was available by rail was much 19 smaller and we didn't have as much buffer; we actually had no buffer on one of the properties from 20 neighbor-or from our neighbors. 21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thanks. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Other questions at this time? 23 COMMISSIONER MORENO: One quick question Madam. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 191 1 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Just to clarify from the earlier presentation, urn, 2 Mr. Hagerman, did -this was a number of years for the site selection -did I understand that correctly? 3 DAVE HAGERMAN: Since Martin Marietta entered the market through the Lafarge 4 acquisition, uh,we have been working on determining a location for this type of project because we know 5 of the available pending shortage in aggregates and the requirements for that and it's taken us three years 6 to sort through that. 7 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Three years. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright, thank you. 9 CAROLYNNE WHITE: The next expert I'd like to introduce is Fernando Del Monte, who is 10 going to talk to you a little bit about the water quality measures that are going to be employed at this site 11 in order to ensure that none of the concerns that were raised about adjacent properties being in danger 12 from, uh,various chemicals entering the groundwater or their property,in particular,the adjacent farming 13 properties and the organic farm nearby. 14 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: Good evening, may name is Fernando Del Monte. I'm a civil 15 engineer and a geotechnical engineer consulting for Martin Marietta. Um, I'm going to talk about the five 16 mitigation measure that were proposed by the CLR 34 Group in the water quality presentation, and just 17 expand on this a little bit. This first one was a request of installing a clay liner under the site. A 18 geotechnical investigation was performed on this site and what was found was that the near surface soils 19 pretty much are deep clays that are over claystone bedrock. Deed clay soils are the perfect type of soils 2 0 to build clay liners, so in my opinion you have a very low permeability soil underlying the site as it is right 21 now. The second mitigation - 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, let me just be clear. So that means that you don't think it's 23 necessary to have a clay liner? 24 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: I do not think it's necessary- 192 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: because you already do. 2 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: -because the soil characteristics pretty much act as a clay liner. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. 4 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: The second point that was brought up was the preservation of 5 some ditch water. The clay pipes that transmit water from irrigated water into County reservoir. This site 6 will be built mostly on fill given the condition that we found the shallow groundwater condition. Martin 7 Marietta has committed on keeping that seepage flow whenever they irrigate the undisturbed parts of 8 their property. The third point that was requested was the elimination of chemicals in the water used for 9 dust suppression, specifically, mag chloride. Um,the use of mag chloride is used by many governmental 10 agencies throughout the state and, in my opinion, it's a standard practice. If chemicals are eliminated 11 from this dust suppression water,the amount of water that would be needed to maintain the same level 12 of dust suppression will be greater, so in my opinion it's not sustainable. Mag chloride also acts as a 13 polymer that binds the sediment and sediment will end up in a detention pond that will be maintained 14 and cleaned out as it builds up. The fourth, uh, point that was requested was that all runoff from the site 15 pass through the detention pond that's designed. The current design does this. All developed portions 16 of the site for the County criteria has runoff water through the detention pond prior to release off-site. 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I have a question. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Uh, it was raised that there is an underground drain that 2 0 leaves the site. So, when you say the detention pond, does that deal with that underground drain? 21 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: The alluvial drains are these clay pipes that return seepage 22 water to the County reservoir. The County reservoir is located almost due east to where the detention 23 pond it. The detention pond is at the topography - at the lowest point of the site. So, um, the exact 24 location of these clay pipes is unknown at this time and, uh, preserve these pipes the proposal is to work 193 1 with the farmers that have worked the field and know the location of these pipes. I don't know if I 2 answered your question or not. 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, yes and no. Urn, the issue is surface water leaving the 4 site. 5 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: Correct. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That people are concerned about. So, I understand you don't 7 know where these clay pipes are that are returning the water, but I think the issue comes down to surface 8 water leaving the site and how are people, urn, convinced or their concerns are addressed that there's 9 going to be untreated water in terms of surface water leaving the site which has contaminants. That's 10 what I heard from the farmer's presentation and some of the others. So,I know you heard that and maybe 11 I'm not fully understanding. 12 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: I wasn't answering your question in the right manner based on 13 this additional comment. 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. 15 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: So, urn,there are a couple of different things that will play into 16 this, urn, and someone had mentioned that Martin Marietta will have their operating procedures for 17 street sweeping of paved areas for the dust suppression in the unpaved areas and they will have good 18 housekeeping practices that will be limited to maintain their site in a clean manner. One thing that has 19 not been mentioned at all about the specific concern for hydrocarbon release as oil freezes, etcetera, is 20 the requirement that Martin Marietta has to implement the Spill Prevention Countermeasure and Control 21 Plan. This is required by the EPA and it's been my personal experience that the EPA audits facilities that 22 has these kinds of plants to make sure these are implemented. These plan require some containment 23 measures for your, uh,storage vessels. Urn,they require training and education of the employees. It also 24 dedicates the person responsible to oversee and make sure this plan is implemented. Um, another point 194 1 I think you mentioned is that the presence of oils and greases in runoff is typical of almost any kind of 2 development. If you have commercial use application and you have a parking lot, um, you will have the 3 same issue. 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Non point pollution, basically. 5 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: Excuse me? 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Non-point source pollution. 7 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: Correct. 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Parking lot could be -Okay. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, right-of-way. 11 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: So um - 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I think Commissioner Cozad had a question. 13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: If you're not finished you can go ahead. 14 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: I have two more points that I wanted to add. 15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Can I still finish though. I do actually have a question, kind of 16 follow up on Commissioner Conway. So,when you were talking about the clay pipes,these clay pipes are 17 underground, right? And how far underground are they? 18 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: Uh, it is unknown.These are about-these are over 100 year old 19 pipes that - 20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So you guys haven't potholed them or anything like that? 21 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: Have not located every single pipe, no. 22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, I'll wait until you're done, then I have a couple other 23 questions. 195 1 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: Okay. The final point that was included in the presentation 2 earlier was the request for having a control gate at the outlet structure installed on the detention pond. 3 Urn, it might have been in the use of a outlet control device [inaudible)facility will not be necessary since 4 the secondary containment measures that will be implemented for the main concern pollutant sources 5 on the site like fuel storage and asphalt/cement storage will have their own secondary containment 6 measures, urn,installed in the vicinity of the infrastructure itself. Um,secondary containment hasn't been 7 detailed at this point, but again, it's part of this plan, uh, the Spill Prevention Countermeasure Control 8 Plan that's required on a federal level. Finally, well actually, I did talk about the Spill Prevention Control 9 Countermeasure Plan,that was going to be my additional comment to you guys. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, Commissioner Cozad? 11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Fernando, is there a ditch that runs through - like an open ditch 12 that runs through kind of the middle of the property? I thought I had heard somebody talk about that 13 too. 14 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: Yes,there is one ditch that serves this property and it's the one 15 that runs right through the middle of the site. This ditch will have to be modified to be able to continue 16 irrigating the site that we're talking about. Urn, there are other laterals that run around the edge of the 17 property and the site grading has been designed in such a way that we have kept a buffer between the 18 laterals that are around the property in order to maintain flow in those ditch laterals and not impact 19 irrigation practices. So,the only one that's being impacted is the one on site. 2 0 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But that ditch lateral was just to irrigate this property anyway? 21 It doesn't continue on any further? 22 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: To my knowledge and information it only serves this property. 23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. And did you tell me what the groundwater levels are on 2 4 this site? How deep are they? 196 1 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: So, it was mentioned earlier that it was two feet below the 2 ground surface. When we did our investigation, the shallowest we found it at was six feet. 3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any further questions? 5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, I have one question. The containment site that you're 7 talking about that gets audited by the EPA - does our department or EPA have to - Sorry (adjusted 8 microphone]. Sorry, my question was, the containment facility or structure that you need to, uh, it's 9 audited by the EPA. Does that plan get signed off by anybody? Who signs off on that? 10 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: A professional engineer. 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: But does it have to be certified by the State of Colorado or by 12 the EPA? 13 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: The EPA manages it, um, it's not on a state level. A copy of the 14 plan is not presented to the EPA until it is requested by the EPA. And once they go through the audit 15 process,they get in touch with the responsible party, uh,the design engineer that signed off on the plan 16 and other people involved in response procedures. 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thank you. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Questions?Alright,thank you. 19 CAROLYNNE WHITE: One closing comment for, um, you benefit since there's been a lot 20 of comparison to the 35th site relative to water quality,the 35th site at present has almost all of the same 21 operations that would be located at this site: the asphalt plant, the cement plant and the aggregate. In 22 addition, they also have mining and crushing -two more intense uses - but they don't have the railroad. 23 They also have essentially the same system in place in terms of the secondary containment, the 24 permitting, the detention - all of the things that Fernando just described and there has never been a 197 1 violation at that site. One of the other I think relevant facts, particularly to that point, is that the actual 2 discharge from the detention pond is tested whenever there is a discharge event. And so, it is the results 3 of those tests that I'm quoting from when I say there has never been a violation at the 35th Avenue site. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Can you tell us when the Taft site was permitted? 5 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Uh, I can ask someone and get back to you in just one moment. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 7 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Urn, the next topic we want to talk about is health, but before we 8 move on I just wanted to ask for a time check. You did mention if you ask questions we might be allowed 9 a little more time. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yeah, you're fine. 11 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Okay, urn, I'll get they answer to the Taft permitting, but in the 12 meantime I'd like to introduce our two experts on health. Dave Stewart and Dr. Scott Phillips. They are 13 going to come to the microphone together and give you a little bit more information about our air quality, 14 air permitting, air emissions, and the health issues related thereto that were mentioned in the public 15 comment this afternoon. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, thank you. You both will have to state your name for the 17 record. 18 DR. DAVE STEWART: Sure. So I'm Dr. Dave Stewart, um, 3801 Automation Way, Fort 19 Collins, Colorado. Um, and one of the things that they brought up today was, uh, as it relates to the air 20 comments. So,the CDPHE does issue the air permit. It wouldn't matter if it was at this site or some other 21 site, it would be the same process. Urn, and it's a requirement that the facility will meet the National 22 Ambient Air Quality Standards at the property boundary. How does that relate to some of the discussion 23 that happened today? So,you had some discussion,for example,on metals. Um,so metals are associated 24 with particulates, particularly 2.5 micron particulates. Urn,and one of the things that the CLR Group asked 198 1 for was an air model, so Trinity did that and what they find is that they get to the advantage of dispersion 2 and diffusion of those particulates. So those particulates are going to move out, so if I put coffee - um 3 cream in my coffee and I let it just sit there, diffusion is going to put that and make it that brown color. 4 Uh, so that same thing happens in the air. However,one of the things we know is that the metals content 5 is less than one percent of the total 2.5 particulate matter, so a very small percentage. If I - the other 6 thing we also know is that natural soils in Colorado have plenty of metals in them, uh, they're naturally 7 there, uh,that's where we find them. And so, if you were to take all -the most conservative way to look 8 at that would be take all the air, put it onto the site. It would take about 100 years to match the 9 background levels that are already there. So, it's an unusual compilation, uh, you can do the same thing 10 PAH's. But, I think that's an unrealistic analysis because you're going to have that diffusion dispersion and 11 we know that that's going to go and it's also going to meet ambient and quality standards. When the EPA 12 looks at this and the State looks at this, metals and PAH's are they exist are not the issue. The other issue 13 is carbon monoxide issue is (inaudible), uh those kinds of things, so with that that's an explanation that 14 Scott can talk about the health care. 15 DR. SCOTT PHILLIPS. Thank you and good evening. My name is Dr. Scott Phillips. My 16 address is 730 17th Street, Denver {80}202. And I want to thank you for the time that all of the 17 Commissioners have devoted to this important issue. It's complex, it's not easy, and it's something that 18 deserves a lot of attention. Well, I'm a physician; I specialize in internal medicine and medical toxicology. 19 I'm an associate professor at the University of Colorado. I'm also one of the faculty members of the Rocky 20 Mountain Poison and Drug Center. I've spent my 25-year career at this point dealing with toxicology, 21 treating patients, publishing, researching and seeing patients dealing with exposures of various kinds. I've 22 published probably eight or nine text books at least in this area, a couple hundred articles/chapters on 23 different aspects of medical toxicology. This is what I do. I was asked by Martin Marietta to come and 2 4 speak to the issues regarding exposures at this site and my reputation really is all I have at the end of the 199 1 day and certainly I would not let any of their opinions or interests sway my professional judgement or 2 scientific approach. So, I want to let you know that up front. I think it is important though to separate 3 emotion from medical facts. I think that's really crucial here. These are very emotional issues for a variety 4 of reasons and they should be, but I think it's also important to understand what the medical facts are 5 and where they came from. I think a good place to start is with the Centers for Disease Control. They're 6 a branch of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease [inaudible) has looked at asphalt plants, uh, 7 emissions from them and found that there's no health impact. So I think that's a good place to start. Of 8 course the CDPHE,as you well are aware,during this whole process provides a health review to make sure 9 that air concentration, for example, meet the NWAQS levels that are required to protect even the most 10 sensitive populations of any adverse health effects. So, NWAQS speaks to the most sensitive populations 11 in the community already and that's the goal of, uh, CDPHE to do that. So, I think in my professional 12 opinion when the rubber meets the road is that I haven't seen anything from this site or many of the other 13 sites that the State Health Department has looked at, uh, that would cause me concern for causing any 14 acute or chronic health effects. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, does the Board have questions? 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I do have one. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, go ahead. 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thanks. Uh,thank you for being here Doctor. Um, we had a 19 presentation and I don't know if you saw it towards the end of the public comment period where had an 2 0 organic farmer- 21 DR. SCOTT PHILLIPS. Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: - who is concerned about their organic crop being impacted 23 by heavy metals. As a toxicologist and somebody who studies this, um, can you assess the risk factor in 200 1 term of that. They're, I think, about a quarter of a mile away from - what'd they say - about 400 yards, 2 give or take. 3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: They were a little further than that. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yeah - 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Were they further than that? 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: - but that's okay, go ahead. 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: They're south of the site. Can you speak to those concerns 8 that they had? 9 DR. SCOTT PHILLIPS. Sure, I think actually Mr. Stewart is probably better to speak to that 10 because it deals with the transport to the air to the site. If you eat them I'm the person you want to talk 11 to. [Laughter) Because I run the [faded inaudible). 12 DR. DAVE STEWART: So the mechanism you want to look at, when metals go to a 13 particular area they-in order to be uptake by the plant-has to be at the right pH, uh, it has to be available 14 to the plant, and there are all kinds of factors that would play into this. The likelihood, as I said before, 15 the likelihood of that affecting the organic farm is very low purely because of its distance from the facility 16 and the requirement that the facility meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards at the property 17 line. So,the combination of those two things goes into the risk assessment and it would have to be uptake 18 by the plant, and as we already know, metals there are 100 times greater in the soil that exists today. So, 19 the likelihood of this facility affecting that soil and very low because those metals already exists. 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Um, a follow up question, Madam Chair,very quickly. 21 Um, the - you saw in the last presentation the concern - and it was raised in the public comment about 22 the PM2.5 monitor. Can you speak to that, or either one of you? 23 DR. DAVE STEWART: There are three ways that we measure particulates. We measure 24 all particulate matter that leaves the site. Uh, from the asphalt plant, which is where the metals would 201 1 be associated,comes through a bag filter,so a bag house. So,there was a picture of it in our presentation. 2 In that bag house is a fabric filter, so it takes out PM, um, all particulate matter but PM10 and PM2.5, it's 3 very good at that. The State has a requirement for us to meet those criteria, and so that bag house would 4 be a new bag house and it would be very efficient at doing that. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Would the Colorado Department of Health routinely check 6 on that to make sure they were performing at the level they're supposed to? 7 DR. DAVE STEWART: Absolutely. That's a requirement and then they go through a 8 permitting process every five years, re-permitting process, so they have to test it, provide those tests, 9 they make those tests public, and then they have to re-permit every five years. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And that's through the Colorado Department of Health, that 11 permit? 12 DR. DAVE STEWART: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you Madam Chair. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Cozad, do you have any questions? 15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I just want to make sure that we're clear. So how is the permit 17 enforced again? 18 DR. DAVE STEWART: So, as a requirement of the permit they have to, uh for example, do 19 a test and so they'll test for VOC's, they'll test the particulate matter and they have to meet the certain 2 0 levels that are in the permit, uh,the Air Permit. That Air Permit then goes through a recertification every 21 five years. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: But during that five-year period do you have to send in monitoring 23 reports or such to the Department of Health? 24 DR. DAVE STEWART: Yes. 202 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: How regularly are those sent in? 2 DR. DAVE STEWART: Um, it depends, but typically on a two to five-year range. It depends 3 on what the Health Department requests. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, and so if you - if the facility was not meeting the National 5 Ambient Standards at the property boundary line what would happen? 6 DR. DAVE STEWART: Well, what would happen is that they get a Notice of Violation, uh, 7 and they would have a certain time period to fix that. So, they would have to ensure that they're in 8 compliance. And, we can use the Taft facility as an example. They've just gone through two tests and 9 they're operating at about 30 percent - 30 to - depending on the parameter - 30 to 60 percent of their 10 permitted level. So,they're way below where they need to be. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. What happens if the standards change- they go from like the 12 .075 down to .07 or .065 has been threatened? 13 DR. DAVE STEWART: That's the recertification process. So, your permit is good for five 14 years but, uh, you'll be notified if you have that kind of permit, you'll be notified of that change. And, 15 you'll have to come into compliance when you recertify. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, and so then, um, it was brought up in the public testimony that 17 the heavy metals associated with an asphalt production plant are lead, arsenic, cadmium- 18 DR. DAVE STEWART: Yes. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Did I say that right? Cadmium and Benzene. Is that correct? 2 0 DR. DAVE STEWART: Benzene is an organic but the other are,yes. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And would those other metals be the ones that you're talking about 22 that are found in the soils? 23 DR. DAVE STEWART: Yes. They are all found in the soil. 203 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Just checking. Okay. Alright. And I just want to make sure that I 2 heard you correctly that you said that the metals represent less than one percent of the 2.5? 3 DR. DAVE STEWART: Of the total- less than one percent of total that if I took all the metal 4 that came out of that facility and placed them on top of the farm, it would represent less than one percent 5 of the metals that already exist. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright, that think that was it for the emissions. Good? 7 CAROLYNNE WHITE: To come back to your earlier question, um, Madam Chair, the Taft 8 site was permitted in the 1960's, um, we don't have the exact date at the moment. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. 10 CAROLYNNE WHITE: I'm going to briefly mention noise. I wasn't planning to bring the 11 noise expert to the podium. If you have further questions we'll certainly do that. What I wanted to do 12 was just briefly summarize in case there was any confusion about the data that was presented. That our 13 noise modeling shows that without any of the noise mitigation measures-if there were no berms, if there 14 was no noise monitoring, if we didn't do the acoustical walls, none of that stuff- the estimated sound 15 level at the property line would still meet the required levels for industrial. Nonetheless, Martin Marietta 16 has committed to implementing all of those sound measures and proposed them as Conditions of 17 Approval. With those sound measures the actual noise that will be experienced at the property line will 18 be significantly lower than the maximum that's allowed in the Industrial standards - the 80 and the 70 19 dBA that was referenced earlier. So, if you want to get into technical details about that we're happy to. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I just have a quick question. With the noise attenuation that you're 21 talking about, then so what will be the noise level at the property line? 22 CAROLYNNE WHITE: I have a slide. So this slide shows the results taken from a variety of 23 different measurement points. It may be a little hard to read. Um,for example,one of the measurement 24 points is right here, which is one of the residents on the southwestern most corner of the Indianhead 204 1 Estates property, and the projection there is 50 and 48. And I want to be precise when I tell you what the 2 two numbers means-is one daytime and one nighttime?-Yeah, right. So the first number is daytime and 3 the second number is nighttime. So, 50 and 48 here, 55 and 51 here at the property line, but there are 4 no residences immediately adjacent there. Obviously, the further away you get we've got 50 and 47 to 5 the next house in. Uh, looking for example to the south, we've got 57 and 48, uh, we've talked mostly 6 about the north and south on the east side, but you can also see the readings on the west, 53 and 50, 56 7 and 55, etcetera. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Does the Board have any questions with regard to 9 noise? 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, we talk about the decibels, and I always bring this up in 11 USR's, um and I don't know maybe I'll turn to our Department of Health on this, can you kind of put in 12 laymen's terms what those numbers mean? 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: The 50 to 55? 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, she answers this question all the time, 'cause I ask it all 15 the time. Okay, we're turning to Phil. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Can you talk into the microphone? 17 PHIL BREWER: You're conversation right now is greater than that. 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So,the 55 and 50 would essentially be, as I understand it Phil 19 from a practical standpoint,the level of conversation we're having right now. 2 0 PHIL BREWER: Yeah,your conversation with me and mine with you is louder than that. 21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Louder than 55 and 50. Okay. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. 23 CAROLYNNE WHITE: The next issue we'd like to address, because there are a number of 2 4 questions, particularly from Commissioners throughout testimony, related to the process. Who received 205 1 notice and when, who did Martin Marietta reach out to and when, and so on, so I want to address that 2 briefly. In particular, a couple facts that came up. There was a comment made that CLR Group submitted 3 30 questions;they got answers to 22 but not the other eight. Urn,we all checked our notes and conferred 4 during the break. We have the 22 questions that they gave us and we provided a written response and 5 that was submitted to the County; it's in the packet. I don't know what Exhibit number it is, but we can 6 find out. The other eight questions that they're referencing, certainly we did not receive any written 7 questions. We had a number of verbal questions, all of which have been answered in a variety of forms 8 that have been referenced, but all of the written questions that were received were provided with a 9 written answer and it's in the record and if you want to go through any of them we're happy to do that. 10 In particular, that list of questions included a couple of things that were suggested, specifically 11 establishment of a variety of funds. Interestingly enough, all the funds were $75 million to address 12 property values, health issues, etcetera. Other than that showing up in the 22 questions,the mitigations 13 that were proposed today had not previously been proposed or discussed with Martin Marietta, so I just 14 wanted to mention that as well. Um, to the issue of the various meetings and the notices, um, I think 15 some folks, Commissioner Moreno, may have interpreted your question of being contact by as meaning 16 like were they individually called or emailed or something, because many of those folks did receive letters. 17 We have the certified mail and so on,so I want to share with the Commissioners exactly what letters were 18 sent to whom and when. For the first neighborhood meeting the notification was 500 feet; that's 42 19 people-42 letters were sent out. We got 125 people attended; a lot of folks heard about it even though 2 0 they didn't receive a letter. The second meeting was sent to 500 feet, plus all the residents of Indianhead 21 and of that notification another 95 people attended the second meeting. The third meeting, which was 22 the landscaping charrette that's been referred to a couple times on June 24th, I think the date was, that 23 was sent only to people who were immediately adjacent, um, and that was 33 notices that were sent out 2 4 and 30 people attended that particular meeting. And to that point, at that particular meeting, that was 206 1 when it was suggested that there may be an opportunity to improve how much mitigation you get for 2 your investment by putting plantings on the property line of the individual property owners, not on the 3 Martin Marietta site. Martin Marietta is already planning to landscape their site; they're definitely going 4 to do that regardless, but as you can see from some of the samples we showed earlier, you get more 5 mitigation for your tree dollar when you plant the tree closer to the viewpoint from which you're seeking 6 to mitigate. And that's all that was being proposed. Nobody was told they had to plant trees on their 7 property, nor is that by any means the only visual mitigation offered, it was just an option that Martin 8 Marietta was offering to do and if you would like them to do that, it's proposed as a Condition of Approval 9 and they will be glad to do that. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I have a question with regard to that. 11 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Okay,yeah sure. 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I have a question on that too. 13 PAM HORA: Uh, Pam Flora with TetraTech. Um, she indicated the mailings were sent to 14 - the invites were certified mail. It wasn't certified mail, it was just mailing out to the neighbors. I just 15 wanted to clarify that they weren't certified. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. With regard to the landscaping mitigation fund, that is for any 17 of the surrounding property owners, or who is that for? Because we had that question. 18 CAROLYNNE WHITE: I'm glad you asked that. Yes, it is for any of the adjacent property 19 owners, not just Indianhead Estates. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: That was my question as well. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Did you have a question? 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I have a couple of questions directly related to the 24 landscaping, so I didn't- 207 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: That are not? 2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, but- 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, well let's let them finish up and maybe they'll get to them. 4 CAROLYNNE WHITE: So,somewhat related to what we were talking about-this may have 5 been where you were going Commissioner Conway-is,so how would this$100,000 be administered. You 6 know, I think Martin Marietta is open to some suggestions on that. But they were proposed was this 7 Community Working Group which was also part of a proposal to provide an on-going forum, even after 8 the permit would be grant, to address issues that might come up over time. And, you had asked earlier 9 Commissioner Conway, how would that work? Martin Marietta had an idea of how it would work, but 10 again, the County could structure it differently if you were so inclined. What they were thinking was that 11 you would have maybe one to two representatives from Indianhead,one to two representatives from the 12 other surrounding neighbors, one or two representatives from the County, if the County wanted to have 13 a representative to the group, and one to two from Martin Marietta. They would meet quarterly or 14 monthly, as needed, and be a forum for addressing issues that might arise and also to make decisions 15 about how to allocate the funds for landscaping on the individual property owners properties. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, did you have a question on that? 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I do. Um, I appreciate that answer. Um, I think it was the 18 landowner with the Fort Collins site that talked about how they do quarterly meetings with the residents 19 that surround the facility. Um, had that ever come up in terms of the discussion in terms of these working 20 groups; not just related to the landscaping fund, but maybe an opportunity for neighbors to come and 21 have an ongoing dialogue as this facility, if approved,would develop and continue is continual operation? 22 Since you're doing it in Fort Collins had you given any thought to doing it here? 208 1 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Madam Chair. Yes, I think that's exactly what they thought this 2 group would be. It would be a more formalized version of that - not just landscaping. Whatever issues 3 the neighbors might have they could bring to this forum and potential solutions could be discussed. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, any other questions? Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I have questions and if you're going to cover this I'll wait for 6 the answers. The two questions that came up was why 100-foot high versus 55 foot high. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Let's let her keep going and if she doesn't cover it you can ask. 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Alright. 9 CAROLYNNE WHITE: I wasn't going to cover that but we'll get you the answer before- 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: See? She wasn't going to cover that. [Laughter} 11 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Uh, the next topic I want to address is traffic. A fair bit of time was 12 spent addressing traffic and you heard a presentation from a traffic planner representing the opposition 13 group, CLR 34. LOC is obviously well respected and Mr. Moe, a well-known transportation planner whom 14 I've worked with before. Um, I'd like to ask our transportation engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact 15 Study to come up and address some of those specific points. And,while he's coming up let me just briefly 16 summarize for your benefit, Mr. Gene Coppola's credentials: 44 plus years of traffic engineering 17 experience, licensed Professional Traffic Engineer in Colorado and several other states, certified as a 18 Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE), and he's probably too modest to tell you this but he's 19 one of only 3,000 in the United States that have that certification. It's a specialized certification within 20 the traffic engineer field, um, that specifically focuses on traffic operations, which is exactly one of the 21 issues that we're really talking about here. So, I think it's real important for him to come and talk about 22 some of the issues that you heard today relative to traffic. Um, also he's a fellow of the Institute of 23 Transportation Engineers. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thank you. 209 1 GENE COPPOLA: Good evening. Gene Coppola, 9323 Hermandale Drive, Lone Tree, 2 Colorado. I'm sure you know my face. Just a few quick responses if I could please. The elephant in the 3 room is this passenger car equivalency. Uh, Mr. Moe use the factor of three to one. Um,that is only used 4 in the CDOT Access Code for determining the length of storage of vehicles. It's not used for multiplying 5 cars out. And so, when we do build these storage lanes, based upon CDOT requirements, if you have for 6 talking purposes let's say 100 vehicles, 90 of them are trucks, you would provide storage for 90 times 7 three, which is 270, plus the ten. Okay, so you provide storage with equivalency of about 300 cars. Uh, 8 so that's the only time that is used. I've never seen it applied the say Mr. Moe applied it. I mentioned 9 that at the Planning Commission. Uh,Janet Lundquist agreed and concurred with that statement. That's 10 the biggest issue that I have. Uh,the second issue is the- I was quoted as saying that there's no difference 11 between trucks and cars-what I said is that when they're moving there's no difference and that's, in my 12 opinion correct, because from a capacity standpoint, we measure how many vehicles can pass a certain 13 point in a certain length of time. So, if you've got a truck going 65, a car going 65, it's considered a similar 14 type vehicle. Now trucks do matter when it comes to intersection operations and acceleration type issues. 15 In this case we have agreed to lengthen the acceleration lanes and we'll do those per CDOT standards for 16 trucks. Uh,so,the gentleman that testified you can only get to 40,or whatever the speed was, he probably 17 (coughing-inaudible]you know,500 or 600 feet of acceleration lane provided. Um,when it comes to the 18 operational characteristics of the trucks at a traffic signal, we put into the program itself, a Highway 19 Capacity program, uh, and it's based upon the Highway Capacity Manual which is written by the 20 Transportation Research Board, um, we plug in the percentage of trucks and it takes a factor that affects 21 traffic flow because of truck performance. Um, the levels of service presented by Mr. Moe assumed the 22 1,600 cars or whatever that number was, but if you can look at this slide here this is what it will be in 23 reality. Urn,the left column is today. 24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I can't see it{whispered]. 210 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You're going to have to read that off for us. 2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: We can't see it. 3 GENE COPPOLA: Okay, okay. Today everything-you've got one lane going northbound, 4 you've got cars backed up, I fully agree with its functioning at a service level F. Urn, the typical delay in 5 the morning with a northbound movement is somewhere between 200 and 500 seconds per vehicle; 6 that's a long time. In the afternoon it's even worse. And that's only because the amount of traffic on 7 {Highway} 34. There's no gaps in traffic. That's the situation. Uh, with the improvements we'll make, 8 we're taking and providing a severed right turn lane, which will be free flowing to the east so you can go 9 north and turn right without stopping. And those vehicles will not be coming out of the equation. They 10 will have sufficient acceleration distances. So, we're only dealing with the left and the throughs. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Before you go there, are you going to answer the comment though 12 with regard to the railroad when you go to the east? 13 GENE COPPOLA: Yes. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And not enough spacing? 15 GENE COPPOLA: The signal will be coordinated with this arrow. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: But what about not enough room for the acceleration lane? 17 GENE COPPOLA: We will work with CDOT to do what we can and I believe we can go 18 across the railroad if they'll allow us. It's not Martin that's saying they won't go across the railroad. The 19 railroad has to say it's ok. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure, but is that-does that require the PUC permitting? Is that where 21 you have to go get that taken care of at? 22 GENE COPPOLA: I don't know if that's PUC or the railroad. You know they all control the 23 right-of-way at the railroad. PUC would more of a control issue. This is just providing an additional lane 2 4 across the track. I can't answer that question 100 percent. 211 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 2 GENE COPPOLA: Okay, urn, when we have that additional lane, in 2017 with Martin 3 traffic, the level of service -the overall delay with a signal. Now with a signal it's a given we'll be about 4 20 seconds per vehicle, uh,42 seconds,excuse me, on the northbound approach and about 45 seconds in 5 the afternoon. When that - when northbound {County Road} 13 gets a green ball, meaning they can go, 6 all the vehicles waiting will go. It will clear on each cycle. That will provide additional gaps for Kelim traffic 7 or anything else. Urn, so the levels of service present with the three-to-one factor applied is just way out 8 of line. The signal Martin has agreed to pay for. I did a brief signal analysis; I talked to CDOT as part of 9 the study. They told me, basically,that okay it looks like warranted-we can put it there. Okay,so it would 10 be on Martin's dollar. So,CDOT knows there's going to be a signal there,we're going to pay for it,they're 11 fine with it. The urn, and that think that's the basically the three issues I wanted to hit. I gladly answer 12 any questions. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Questions Commissioners down here? Questions? Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,so my understanding is in terms of the access plan that 15 was approved about 2003-2004,from I-25 all the way up to Greeley,there was not a Stop light at{County 16 Road}13. There was a Stop light at{County Road}15, I believe. Is that correct? And I'm looking at Janet. 17 Janet help me out here. 18 GENE COPPOLA: I've got it with me Janet, I can - 19 JANET LUNDQUIST: Okay, I actually know the answer to this. So urn, surprisingly Gene, I 20 memorized the Access Control Plans- 21 GENE COPPOLA: No I {overspeak-inaudible) 22 JANET LUNDQUIST: Urn, okay so, basically, a signal is allowable at that point as an 23 intermediate step. The final, ultimate condition that they want at that intersection is an interchange. So, 2 4 a signal as an intermediate step until they reach the full 2035 -full plan is a signal. And that's why, urn, in 212 1 CDOT's referral they are 100 percent on board with the installation with the signal as well as in my referrals 2 I've also said that that's absolutely what we want to see. Until the traffic gets to a certain point and then 3 we'll have to look at the interchange. This is a method that we've used on U.S. {Highway} 85 Access 4 Control Plan previously and it's typical of all access control plans that you'll see- 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure, so just so we're clear though. The Access Control Plan right 6 now identifies a signal as an interim step to an interchange. 7 JANET LUNDQUIST: Yes, ma'am. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Thanks. 9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay,thank you. 10 GENE COPPOLA: Anything else? 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Anything else? 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No she asked my question. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Uh, yeah, I do actually have a question with regard to the traffic in 14 the traffic studies that you guys did or evaluations or whatever you're calling them these days. So, 95 15 percent of the traffic would go north and five percent would go south. So, human nature - if the traffic 16 signal is getting backed up for any amount of time when there's a lot more traffic headed north, why 17 wouldn't you expect more of your traffic to go south? 18 GENE COPPOLA: I think it's a matter of where they're going. If they're going to Loveland, 19 Greeley or Fort Collins the quickest route is using {Highway} 34. If the traffic signal were to get backed 2 0 up,there's always the option of increasing the time so that it doesn't get backed up. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. Have you been at the traffic signal nasty snafu that's called 22 Centerra right there at I-25 and Highway 34? 23 GENE COPPOLA: Sure. Yeah, that's- 213 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So,even in a normal Honda Civic I think that's a mess, so if it were up 2 to me I'd be heading down to 402. 3 GENE COPPOLA: I agree. It's not a good situation, okay. However, to say County Road 4 13 is going to generate the same amount of traffic as Centerra is a stretch. And it's also a stretch to say 5 that when I-25/34 comes on it's going to be a lot worse. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I guess my point is if I'm headed north to Fort Collins from your site 7 and I know what I have to look forward to at Highway 34 and I-25, I'm probably more likely to go to 402 8 because I can get on the highway a lot easier. 9 GENE COPPOLA: Yeah, yeah. Yeah,yeah, I don't- 10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'd go north [whispering). 11 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Commissioner you hit on actually what was going to be my 12 concluding point after the traffic presentation and that is the mechanism that would be in place in the 13 event that our projections for some reason turn out to be incorrect and greater than five percent of the 14 traffic coming out of this facility ends up turning south. If that happens, the mechanism that's available 15 to you, urn, is through the improvements agreement. And, there's already been a proposed Condition of 16 Approval, urn, that if and to the extent the actual traffic counts after the facility is operational turns out 17 to demonstrate that a greater proportion of the traffic is headed south and if that traffic headed south is 18 sufficient to warrant additional improvements to be made on southbound County Road 13 or any of the 19 other roadways in that vicinity,then the County does have the ability to require that Martin Marietta pay 20 for and make those additional improvements. So, um,that's already typically in your Road Improvements 21 Agreements. I haven't seen a draft of the agreement for this particular site because it doesn't get 22 generated at this time, but certainly that's something that they, I think,would be willing to agree to if that 23 would address your concern about the projections. They feel very confident that their projections are 2 4 accurate given their experiences with other facilities.I think the situation you're talking about when you're 214 1 in your personal vehicle and you have the freedom to take alternative routes. These are going to be, by 2 and large excluding the retail traffic, professional drivers who are required to behave in a certain way and 3 if they violate it they are going to get in trouble. So, they're going to be more constrained than a free 4 actor would be in terms of choosing whether to turn right or to turn left. Any more questions for Gene? 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Anybody else have questions? 6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I don't think so. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 8 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Two other quick points I wanted to make on traffic before heading 9 to my conclusion, so we are going to be pretty close to an hour, even with the questions. The other two 10 points, um, there was a question asked earlier, or I think maybe it was a comment made in the public 11 comment to the effect that the Traffic Study prepared by Mr. Coppola did not include the retail traffic that 12 may be coming to the site to purchase aggregate. Actually, the traffic counts that were quoted earlier 13 does include that retail traffic that would be coming other than Martin Marietta's trucks, so that's already 14 included, um, don't need to worry about that. And then, urn,finally, as we mentioned earlier,you know, 15 any development of this site will generate additional traffic both on County Road 13 and on Highway 34. 16 Of all the potential uses that could be developed at this site, this particular use is very much towards the 17 lower end of the spectrum in terms of this trip generation. When you're talking about 131 acres and only 18 1,100 cars-excuse me 1,100 trips- made by 560 cars remember,that was also confused a little bit during 19 the day. There was discussion of 2,200 vehicles; it's 1,100 vehicles at full buildout in 2035. It's 560 vehicles 20 today generating 1,120 trips, so I just want to make sure that everyone's clear on that. So, um, just 21 wanting to wrap up with a few concluding remarks and then, of course, bring any of these experts back 22 that you might want to talk to in more detail. Oh! The rail question, I'm sorry, let me get to the rail 23 question about the permitting for the additional turn lane to cross the rail. We do have, urn, some rail 215 1 consultants here that I'm going to ask to come to the podium and answer that question, because they do 2 know the answer to that. 3 JIM MARSHALL: Hello, my name is Jim Marshall. I represent Railpros, and I'm here on 4 behalf of- 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I'm sorry, you represent who? 6 JIM MARSHALL: Railpros. Um, actually,this is Karen Hinkenson. She's also with Railpros. 7 Uh, my background is 35 and a half years with Union Pacific doing public projects, doing grade crossings, 8 [inaudible} modifications, opening/closing, grade separations. Uh,the last two and a half years I've been 9 a rail consultant with Railpros, but the question about the widening of{Highway}34 through the crossing 10 is definitely a PUC application where you go out and do a diagnostic. Probably 50 percent of the projects 11 I did with Union Pacific was road widening projects. Uh, a city would either be adding a sidewalk or 12 another lane because traffic counts would increase, so that you go through the PUC, uh, do a diagnostic 13 and they determine what kind of additional warning devices would, if any, would be needed to do that 14 type of work. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Yes, Commissioner. 16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Follow up question. Uh, so what do you think is the probability 17 of that additional lane being approved for that accel lane on {Highway}34? Do you think that's going to 18 be a problem there, or do you think that will - it will go through the process fairly smoothly? 19 JIM MARSHALL: Karen is a traffic engineer, uh, along with a representative that 20 represents Union Pacific too besides Martin Marietta, but uh, out of all the lane width changes there was 21 always a solution. I never seen the PUC's in the states that I represented ever turn down an application. 22 There was always some kind of a smooshing -you know, you may have had to add this, you know, lights 23 or gates or on this one you have a traffic light controlling that. You know you might have to add another 24 head, but uh, I had never seen where any of those have been turned down personally. 216 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,thank you. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Did you want to add anything to that? 3 KAREN HINKENSON: Yeah,just that the diagnostic process involves all parties that would 4 be involved. So it's not just the PUC deciding it; it's the County being involved, urn, adjacent property 5 owner. So, there's really a consensus helping figure out what's going on at that particular crossing and 6 what the best solution would be for it. But um, No, I don't see a problem with that crossing being widened 7 to accommodate the additional lane. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, and could you state you name please? 9 KAREN HINKENSON: Yeah, Karen Hinkenson. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Any other questions with regard to that? 11 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: No. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. 13 KAREN HINKENSON: Thanks. 14 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Finally, in conclusion I would like to just highlight a couple of the 15 important goals outlined in Chapter 22 from the Weld County Comprehensive Plan that specifically relate 16 to this project that you might not have previously had any attention directed to given the other 17 presentations and documents that you've had. There were several, urn, goals that were presented as 18 being in conflict with this plan, but there are also a number of goals, and in any Comprehensive Plan that 19 I've ever worked on, just because they're so broad and so visionary and so all encompassing, most 20 Comprehensive Plans actually have internally inconsistent goals, um, so you can always find some that 21 support it and some that may apparently be in conflict with it, but in particular some of the very important 22 goals that we think are in alignment with this project, or that this project is in alignment with are those 23 that are highlighted on your screen. One of them was highlighted by Mr. Groom when he talked about 24 the land owner,which is their right to convert agricultural properties to alternative uses when they felt it 217 1 appropriate for them to do so, and also the issue of the Right to Farm not being an obligation to farm and 2 the fact, that again, of all the potential developments that could happen in this particular location this is 3 probably the least impactful and also going to preserve such a significant amount of native grassland and 4 buffer space. I'm real surprised to hear folks say that they thought there was no buffer space because that 5 is a tremendous buffer that we're talking about, uh, closest to the Indianhead Subdivision. Um,the other 6 Goal mentioned here, or the other Policy mentioned here about conversion of Agricultural land to other 7 types of uses, including Industrial uses, should be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that 8 can support such development and shall attempt to be compatible with the region. Well, you've heard 9 how this site was selected, specifically chosen for its ability to support this type of development. We've 10 talked a lot in this presentation all day today about infrastructure and how that drives development 11 choices and that was such a major driver, not only for the selection of this site for this particular use, but 12 for many of the other uses that are surrounding in the vicinity. Um, some of the other Weld and policies 13 are listed here, in particular, I would turn your attention to the middle one which talks about the federal, 14 state and local standards that are in place that any proposed conversion of agricultural land to other types 15 of development would be required to meet. And, we've talked about it a little bit today and alluded to it 16 but the list of state and federal permits that this facility would have to obtain and comply with in addition 17 to this USR is very lengthy. And I can go through them all if you would like, but you've heard reference to 18 a variety of air quality,water quality,discharge,spill containment,etcetera. All of those permits are there 19 as additional protections to the adjacent neighborhoods and to the adjacent landowners and to ensure 20 that just by approving a USR that you would not be -could potentially be created any risks relative to all 21 of those other issues: air, noise, water quality, etcetera. And then, obviously, we talked a lot, obviously, 22 about compatibility and how to best minimize that incompatibility, or how to create compatibility by 23 mitigating some of these issues, and that's exactly what Martin Marietta is proposing to do with all of the 24 measures that that they're incorporating in here and that they're suggesting that you apply as Conditions 218 1 of Approval if you approve this project. Next slide. Urn, so uh, one of the seven criteria that's applicable 2 to the approval of the USR, it has to be consistent with Chapter 22. Some of the key criteria in Chapter 22 3 are protection of private property rights, adequate services and facilities to support the use. We had 4 talked about that infrastructure in particular but that also means water, sewer, fire, etcetera. Reducing 5 potential conflicts between land uses - pretty much everything that could be done at this site to reduce 6 the conflicts is being implemented. Um, maybe this is a good point to address your question about the 7 55feet versus the 100 feet. Um,there's been a lot of internal discussion on our team during the remainder 8 of this presentation about that question. It's really difficult to answer because we don't know what that 9 example was that you all were looking at in that photograph and whether it is a comparable facility to the 10 one that's proposed here. Um, they've gone back and looked at some of their analysis and this site is 11 presently designed at the right height and the right size to accommodate what it needs to do. Urn, it is - 12 it would not be feasible for them to reduce the height to 55 feet on the asphalt plant like the one that you 13 were looking at in the picture. Urn, if we had a little more information and a longer time it might be 14 possible to conduct a more in-depth analysis but just looking at it, it could not be changed on the fly like 15 this without significantly impacting the project. I'll go on and if you want to come back-you want to stop 16 there? 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, yeah I do. I can appreciate that. I thought they said it 18 was a Martin facility, so I didn't know of that's the case or not in terms of the presentation. But the 19 photograph they did show which is close to near Centennial and that's the enclosed building. And, I didn't 2 0 know if you want to address in terms of my notes that was one of the mitigation measures. 21 AUDIENCE VOICE: What? 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: My apology. Um, what I asked was that in one of the 23 mitigation requests was to enclose the building similar to the Centennial facility in Denver. And I don't 24 know if they're comparable, but I wanted (feedback-inaudible}since that was raised as a mitigation issue 219 1 when answering 55 versus the 100 height foot issue in regards to the question that was brought up. So, I 2 don't know if you want to - I don't know if they're comparable sites, I don't know - I'm not familiar with 3 the Centennial facility, but since that was raised I think it's incumbent upon us to ask. 4 CAROLYNNE WHITE: So, I can raise the - I can address the question of the Centennial 5 facility. Um, at present for this site the proposal is the asphalt plant is already enclosed in a building so 6 they're already proposing - excuse me. Sorry, the cement plant is enclosed in a building, the concrete 7 plant is enclosed in a building. The asphalt plant is not proposed to be enclosed in a building but it does 8 have those acoustical enclosures, which to some degree will have a similar visual affect. Uh, Martin 9 Marietta does not believe it would be feasible, nor would it be a dramatic improvement in terms of some 10 of the things that are sought to be mitigated by enclosing the asphalt plant in a building at this location. 11 If you want to have some more details about that I can - 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No, I just wanted to- I just wanted to ask the question since 13 it had been raised as part of the public comment. 14 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Um,just again wrapping up-talked about the location of industrial 15 uses along railroad infrastructure. This is an optimal site for that proposed use. Consistent with the intent 16 of the district in which the use is located - a couple folks said that they were opposed to the property 17 being rezoned industrial, but just to make it very clear, there is no proposed rezoning here. This existing 18 zone district of Agricultural allows this use as a Use by Special Review, which is the permit that's being 19 sought and the process, obviously,that we're going through here today. So, it is consistent with the zone 20 district in which it's located because it is listed as a use which can be allowed if these other criteria can be 21 met. Compatible with existing surrounding land uses-we've talked about that significantly. We've also 22 talked about compatibility with future development in the vicinity and that's not just immediately 23 adjacent but also in the vicinity and, um,you've seen a lot of maps depicting what the current and future 24 proposed development in the vicinity is. In particular, one thing that will really enhance compatibility is 220 1 the fact that Martin Marietta is going to take care of the cost of this traffic signal which will almost 2 certainly be needed by some of the other development that's coming along in the corridor. Criteria 3 number five is relevant to overlay districts;that's not applicable here. Urn, we've talked quite a bit about 4 diligent effort to conserve prime farm land. Urn, pretty much if you look for a 100-acre site that's ready 5 to develop anywhere in Weld County, it's going to either be prime farm land or adjacent to prime farm 6 land. That was already a factor in any site that could have been surveyed and that's why it wasn't listed 7 as a separate criterion of site selection analysis that was presented earlier. And then finally, this I think 8 sums up everything that we've been talking about today which is adequate protection for the health, 9 safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. And you have seen all the 10 data,you've heard our experts talk about all of the things in place to protect the health,safety and welfare 11 and so we ask you to conclude that, urn,that it does in fact meet all of these criteria and we ask for your 12 approval of the Use by Special Review that's before you today. We also want to thank you and thank 13 County staff and the members of the public for such concentrated attention that we know you have all 14 devoted to analyzing and considering this application today. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Stay right there. Questions? 16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So,some of my questions got answered by the questions of the 17 other Commissioners and just during your rebuttal, but I do some follow up questions. We talked a little 18 bit about hours of operation and is Martin Marietta willing to look at those hours of operation and reduce 19 them somewhat further or are they really going to want to stick to their 24/7 hours of operation? I'm just 20 wondering if that's not one way that we can help mitigate the surrounding land uses. 21 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Madam Chair? 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes? 23 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Um,Commissioner,so I think we would have to talk about each one 24 individually and separately because they're already- So the initial proposal was 24/7 for everything. And 221 1 then the subsequent proposal in response to the initial concern about hours of operation is the set of 2 constraints that's reflected in your conditions today. And so, urn,as we-if there are specifics,for example, 3 you know we're proposing Monday through Saturday. If you want to make a suggestion about that I think 4 they could consider each one of those in isolation but they have already significantly reduced the 5 proposed operating hours for each of the three facilities that are going to be located here in order to 6 address that very concern. I think it would be a significant challenge to try to reduce them further and still 7 have this plan serve its design purpose. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so with that in mind and looking at what you were suggesting, 9 it kind of seemed like the plant will typically only operate Monday through Saturday. I guess I'm 10 wondering why the word "typically" need to be in there; what does that mean? 11 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Because if you look at number four and you look at some of these 12 others-you know,typically it would be the standard operation rules and then there would be the special 13 occasions when they would need to operate more continuously, either at night or on Sunday in order to 14 meet specific needs of the specific job. Those are the occasions when they would notify the County. So, 15 if you set it as an absolute, then it wouldn't be true that there was this ability to exceed hours of limited 16 times. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And,the urn, operating at night is only if it's requested that materials 18 needed by cities, counties or CDOT, is that correct? 19 CAROLYNNE WHITE: That's what the proposed condition says right now,yes-for asphalt 2 0 only. If you keep reading you'll see the ready mix- 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No, I'm just looking at asphalt to make sure we get it covered. Is there 22 any other questions with regard to that? Okay, so then the hours of operation for ready mixed concrete, 23 that one is only Monday through Saturday. And so again, um,you eluded the plant- because you had on 24 here the plant would generally not begin until daylight, so is there a time when they might? 222 1 CAROLYNNE WHITE: In no instance ever before 3:00 a.m. [audience murmuring) 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Okay thank you. If you're going to have an outburst I'm going 3 to ask you to leave the room because really we're trying to get through this tonight and trying to get 4 through the applicant's rebuttal comments. So, okay. So, when you say Monday through Saturday and 5 then it says actual operating hours would vary depending on what their business levels, so the plant 6 generally would not begin until daylight and so what does-what is occasionally? 7 DAVE HAGERMAN: So, um, Dave Hagerman, Martin Marietta. Urn,what we're referring 8 to here is there are certain instances, for instance when we're doing a water tower or certain pours that 9 require a continuous pour, that would be times when we'd be starting in those early mornings. And 10 generally, you know, most of our business is - kicks off around six in the morning. Um, but in the high 11 construction period time when we do have some projects that require a continuous pour there would be 12 times when we might have to start by three, but we wouldn't ever start before that. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so if you started by 3:00 and you look at item number three 14 says you won't operate more than 16 hours you'd have to shut down by 7:00. 15 DAVE HAGERMAN: Correct. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, questions about that? Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: What's your hours of operation at the Greeley plant? 18 DAVE HAGERMAN: Typically, um, our hours of operation at the plant is most of time our 19 crews are running from about - starting about 6:00 in the morning, finish up around 6:00 or so in the 2 0 evening, but in the summertime we do have when we have continuous pours that may be starting at 3:00 21 a.m. as well and we do occasionally run some night work out of there as well. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, there aren't any restrictions on the permit for the 35th Avenue 23 site with regard to actually 6:00 to 8:00 or whatever it is? 223 1 DAVE HAGERMAN: No. [muffled voice from audience) It's daylight hours and we notify 2 the County. 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Exactly. That's what I thought. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, and then hours of operation for aggregate and recycling. So, 5 why are they always operating depending on weather? So if it's bad weather you shut down early? 6 DAVE HAGERMAN: Urn, so uh, the point Point two was trying to make was that in the 7 summertime or in the wintertime, urn, because of daylight hours we would be talking about 6:30 to no 8 later than 6:00 p.m. Urn, and then daylight hours during the rest of the year, or dawn to dusk. That's 9 what we were trying to clarify, but in the wintertime because of the nature of the business. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Does anybody have any questions about that? Alright,I'm sure 11 we may have more discussion on that but, uh, okay, Ms. White did you have any other comments that 12 you wanted to make at this time 13 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Not at this time. Our formal presentation is concluded and we're 14 awaiting questions or discussion of Conditions of Approval. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, I think the Board still has some questions, um, so these are 16 on us. So urn, Commissioner Cozad do you want to start with your questions? 17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, so-and so one of the questions I had you answered and 18 we got through some of the hours of operation. The, um, one of the things I did want to ask about under 19 the hours of operations for aggregate and recycling -we're talking about train unloading operations - is 2 0 that just for the aggregate and recycling? That's the only materials you're bringing in there by rail, is that 21 correct? 22 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, and I see Dave is shaking his head yes. 2 4 CAROLYNNE WHITE: For the record so it's on the tape: Yes,that is correct. 224 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Thank you. And urn, it looks like that will only take place 2 between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Does that mean trains could come in in the night but they would not be 3 unloaded until 6:00 a.m.? 4 CAROLYNNE WHITE: I think that's right. Let me get the expert. 5 DAVE HAGERMAN: Uh, Dave Hagerman again. Uh, yes that's correct. So our intent is if 6 a train were to arrive during the evening -we don't have control over when the train actually arrives on 7 the site-the loading activities would not begin until the time specified here. 8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, and that talks about during the summer, so what about 9 during the winter? 10 DAVE HAGERMAN: Um,during the wintertime-in the wintertime it would only take place 11 during daylight hours. 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, thank you. Urn, most the time asphalt plants are only 13 open maybe until October and open back up maybe in March, depends on the weather, urn, so - and 14 maybe this was talked about and I just missed it, but - generally is your asphalt plant going to be closed 15 during those winter months? 16 DAVE HAGERMAN: Typically our-depending on the weather-typically the asphalt plants 17 are closed. Um, in the late October - early November timeframe until late February or early March. 18 Typically. 19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Typically, right. Urn, okay, so the other question I have, and 20 probably David I'd like for you to answer this. We talked about it a little bit with the building heights and 21 the aesthetics of the buildings-are there some things that you're willing to do to improve the aesthetics 22 on the structures and maybe at least give a good faith effort to look at reducing the height of some of the 23 structures? 225 1 DAVE HAGERMAN: Urn, we are open to discussing if there's,you know,from whether it's 2 different paint schemes or some additional modifications. For instance they asked,the ready mixed plant 3 is already in a building so we need to make some small modifications to that or change some of the 4 coloring of the building. Urn, the asphalt plant, urn, we are you know, the picture that was presented 5 there of the asphalt plant was of only the asphalt plant silos. Urn, and you know, if we look at putting 6 them into a building, the loadout facility would still open, it was just basically the silos themselves, so 7 whether we look at a combination of reducing the silo height or putting facade on them, um, we can see 8 what that impact would be but the visual impact could be greater because we're talking about silos that 9 we're maybe replacing with a square box versus you know the three or four or six silos that we're talking 10 about. 11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, I'm not advocating that you do this, but I know, um, we 12 have an asphalt and concrete batch plant in Milliken and they made it look like a barn. I'm not saying you 13 should make it look like a barn but I'm just saying there are some ways you can make them show at least 14 look a little more compatible with the surrounding use. Maybe not quite so industrial so I guess that is 15 what I was asking. You know, are there some things you could do potentially aesthetically to help it maybe 16 blend in a little better in the neighborhood? 17 DAVE HAGERMAN: Um,they're willing to-and we have talked about those-whether it's 18 to paining-different paint schemes on the asphalt silos. We haven't really talked about the asphalt plant 19 in a building because we do have some safety concerns. I do believe we're talking about the entire asphalt 20 plant, urn, but definitely we have talked about making potential modifications to the building we already 21 have around the concrete plant. 22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, urn, so I'm going to jump down to fire and safety 23 concerns. There were some things that were brought up about that as well from surrounding property 24 owners and I don't know if it's Carolynne or David or somebody else needs to come up and talk about it, 226 1 but we'd like to hear what some of your fire - especially fire suppressant, safety- you know, addressing 2 those kinds of concerns for the facility. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So I basically have the same question. What are your emergency 4 safety procedures on site? 5 DAVE HAGERMAN: So, at every one of our locations we have Emergency Action Plans 6 developed and these Emergency Action Plans encompass everything from a natural disaster to a fire at 7 the location. Um,from everything from how we respond to the fire, um,or incident where the evacuation 8 points are, rallying points, how we handle first responders responding to the incident, to (inaudible)also 9 coordinate with the local fire departments. They visit the sites, they understand where everything is 10 located at, how we deal with those,talk about fire procedures if there is a fire at the facility, um, and how 11 that's going to be managed. And, you know, for asphalt plant fires - Martin Marietta - the only asphalt 12 plants we actually operate are in Texas and in Colorado, and we have never had an asphalt plant fire at 13 any of our plants. Um, any other asphalt plant on our sites across the country are contractor plants;they 14 are not Martin Marietta plants. Um, but we have very detailed plans that we develop in working with the 15 local emergency response teams to understand everything that's required. And if there's certain 16 equipment that we need to have on site to deal with things we make sure we have those things on site 17 with the fire districts. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So in other words,you would have foam on site? 19 DAVE HAGERMAN: Uh, potentially, they'll (inaudible)that through the fire department 20 that's responding how they want to handle that, and what their requirements would be. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Commissioner? 22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, I have one more question for the applicant. Um,generally 23 when we have some of these facilities in the County there's an issue with the gravel pit and so part of it- 24 a part of the gravel pit requirements is reclamation of the site and that is, um, some assurances through 227 1 the State through, urn, the permit that you have to get through the State that the property will be 2 reclaimed. So can you talk about, urn, the reclamation of the site and, since it's not a part of a gravel pit, 3 how you would ensure that the reclamation happens and that the site is clean when you leave? 4 DAVE HAGERMAN: So, urn, what's different about this - one thing that's different about 5 this site is we're looking for a permanent location so that we're not moving an asphalt plant or ready 6 mixed plant every five or ten or fifteen years as the gravel deposits are depleted. Urn, so this-our intent 7 is for this facility to be here for a very long period of time,just like any other facility. And, you know, we 8 can look at some type of reclamation fund, but the reality is we plan to be here for 40 to 50 years or more, 9 uh, operating out of this location. 10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Outside of a bond though, if you did leave the property what 11 would the company do to ensure that? 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So,just a sec-go ahead. 13 CAROLYNNE WHITE: One comment I just want to make relative to that is that, um, 14 remember that the - our property is not owned by Martin Marietta Materials; it's owned by Gerrard 15 Investments and, uh, there are provisions in the lease that if the lease were ever terminated and Martin 16 Marietta were to depart operations at the site, Martin Marietta has reclamation obligations under the 17 lease to the property owner. That may be different than what you're getting at, but um,you know,as we 18 talked about earlier, one big difference between this site and a mining site is that reclamation isn't really 19 required to the same degree. This is going to be kept a lot clean in the activities than you would see - 20 there is no mining going on and there's no excavation and so that reclamation in terms of holes in the 21 ground, that's not going to be happening. But, there is a reclamation provision in the lease and I think 22 that Mr. Groom would be happy to address that if you want to ask more questions about that. 228 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: How about Mr. Groom come back up to the microphone. I think we 2 both have a couple questions on that. Any my question isn't necessarily the reclamation; it's actually- I 3 guess I'm looking to know almost if there's a Decommissioning type plan that's associated with the lease. 4 PATRICK GROOM: There's no formal plan, um Commissioner Kirkmeyer, other than 5 express obligation that the property be restored to the condition it was in prior to the commencement of 6 the lease. So, that's effectively a Decommissioning Plan in that they have to restore the property to its 7 prior condition. Um, there are some exceptions to that in terms of foundations being left in the ground 8 and other improvements, but it was a concern of the Gerrards in entering into this lease agreement that 9 Martin Marietta would be obligated to restore the property in the event the lease terminated either 10 through a default or the expiration of the primary term. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,Julie do that answer your question? 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, and that's all the questions I have right now for the 13 applicant. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, Commissioner Conway do you have more questions? 15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No, I think I'm good. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,um,there were a couple of other-did you guys have questions? 17 COMMISSIONER MORENO: No you asked what I was going to ask. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. There were a couple other things that were brought up 19 during public testimony with regard to putting up an attractive wall or fencing instead of the barbed wire 2 0 fence or a chain link fence, something about things don't have to look ugly. Would you like to comment 21 on that? 22 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Again, let me invite the right representative of Martin Marietta to 23 come to the microphone to address that question. And that would be Dave Hagerman. 229 1 DAVE HAGERMAN: Uh, Dave Hagerman. Urn, so yes,we're-we would be willing to look 2 at putting in perhaps the larger like six-foot type fence around the majority of the property and then 3 maybe in certain locations looking at more of a decorative type fence in certain areas. I don't know that 4 it would make much sense to put one around the entire property but perhaps at certain key locations 5 close to the neighborhood for instance,or along Highway{County Road}13 or in those visual areas where 6 is more visible perhaps. That was some initial thoughts that we had. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 8 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Did that address your question? 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. I didn't know if you had further comment with regard to that. 10 CAROLYNNE WHITE: No. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, there were questions also about tighter odor control, so can 12 you talk to us about what you're going to do to control odor from the site? 13 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Yes,we can talk to you about what we're doing to control odor from 14 the site, and in particular, I'd like to ask Dave Stewart to address that question. 15 DAVE STEWART: Uh, Dave Stewart. So, the odor control is a two-prong approach, well 16 three-prong. A lot of the asphalt/concrete or cement tanks are vertical which means a smaller surface 17 area so the fumes that would come from that tank are lessened dramatically. Second, they have vapor 18 condensers on them so, uh, vapor condensers were just put on the Taft Hill plant appear to be working 19 very,very well. And,what they do is the vapors will come up, uh,the condenser will capture those vapors 2 0 and return them to the tank. Um,the air is then displaced in the tank by filling the tank, uh, not only does 21 it go by the vapor condensers but it will go through an acclimated carbon system. That acclimated carbon 22 that's-one of its main uses is for odor control, so those three tanks will be very useful for odors. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Can you give us any kind of comparable? I mean, um, you know I 24 grew up on a farm and owned a dairy farm and live across on the adjacent section from Northglenn's 230 1 waste water treatment facility,so can you give us a comparable kind of odor. I mean, because I don't live 2 next to an asphalt batch plant but I do live next to railroads and oil and gas facilities. Is there a comparable 3 kind of thing because I think downtown Denver stinks. 4 DAVE STEWART: Uh,so I don't know how to do a comparison other than the waste water 5 plant is probably a pretty good example. In waste water plants what we do is we add a chemical to the 6 effluent and that chemical what it does is deaden your sense of smell, so you don't eventually smell it 7 anymore because we've treated that chemically. At the asphalt plant, um, what we're really doing is 8 removing the odors so we're not trying to mask it, we're not trying to make it smell good, we're trying to 9 remove them and that's really what that system is all about. So, it removes those odors and controls it. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Yes? 11 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So, could you talk a little bit about - one of the things that 12 was brought up was this talking about the odor restriction but the seven-to-one and the four-to-one and 13 the two-to-one. Can you just explain a little bit about that? 14 DAVE STEWART: So, the noise ranger the first thing you have to do is become a certified 15 nose and you do that through the Health Department at the state. Uh, so you have to have a nose that is 16 sensitive to [mumbling-inaudible). Uh, and then it's a device that we use in Colorado and you will smell 17 through that and you're going to start with certain mixtures and as long as you don't smell at a seven-to- 18 one dilution, uh, according to the state rules there is no odor associated. Um,there are other states that 19 do other things, but in Colorado it is a seven-to-one ratio. 20 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Thank you. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,and then the last thing I'm not sure if this actually got addressed 22 so let's just check to make sure. There were some comments with regard to drainage going down the 23 borrow ditch. I know you talked about drainage and water control and all of that but let's just cover that 24 one more time. 231 1 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Drainage going where, excuse me? 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Down the borrow ditch. 3 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Down the borrow ditch. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes,there was concern about- 5 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Let me ask Mr. Diamonte to address that. 6 FERNANDO DEL MONTE: Fernando Del Monte. Um, drainage for the site coming onto 7 the site has been -we've designed channels to route it around the site so this drainage does not come in 8 contact with the developed portions of the site. Um, the storm drainage patterns have been [accent - 9 inaudible}design meaning that ultimately in the historic condition where water(accent-inaudible}that's 10 where water is going to end up at the developed condition. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, alright thank you very much. That will be all the other 12 questions. Do you have any other questions of the applicant? 13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yes Madam Chair I do. I just - one thing that really hasn't 14 been discussed in any of the public comment of support or anything else or in the presentations,was the 15 lighting and I'm looking at some of the standards here on the lighting. Can you explain that because I 16 know even though you may not operate at night,your intentions are during daylight,you'll probably have 17 so much lighting out there for security reasons I would think. Can you kind of explain that to us? 18 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Commissioner Moreno, I'm happy to address the lighting. I have a 19 few specific facts that I do know that I can share with you and while I'm talking I'm going to ask the right 20 person from the Martin Marietta team to come up and be available if you want more additional detail. 21 The lighting, as originally proposed, there's two lighting components: there's operational lighting and 22 there's safety and security lighting. Um, the original proposal did have the light poles at 35-foot height. 23 Concerns had been expressed by some of the referral agencies, in particular one of the other cities, about 24 the potential for that to create too much light, particularly at night. And the proposal was to reduce it 232 1 down to 25 feet, which is the standard you typically see in the dark sky ordinances. So that change has 2 been made and that's reflected today in the Conditions of Approval. Um, the other component that I 3 believe has been included is the requirement that the lighting be directional full cutoff, meaning that it 4 shines only down on the ground, not up into the sky, in case the lights do come on at night, either for 5 operational reasons or for security reasons. Those are the two principle measures. If you want to know 6 a little bit more about how many lights there are and where they are I'm not able to answer that but I can 7 get them answered for you. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, you've got 100-foot building. Does that need to be 10 illuminated for safety purposes at night? 11 CAROLYNNE WHITE: I don't know the answer to that Commissioner Conway but let's find 12 out. 13 DAVE HAGERMAN: Dave Hagerman. The security lighting at night-most of those security 14 lights will be on motion sensors and so will only come on when activated by motion in those areas. Urn, 15 our intent is to actually minimize the amount of security lighting that is on at night. Our intent for having 16 one on top of the silo at night will probably not have a security light at the top of a 100-foot silo if we were 17 not in operation. Um,the security lights will be more down at the ground level of the facility. 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Help me understand how the lighting at the 35th site and this 19 will compare because I'm a visual person so I can drive by 35th and I can see it. Its hard to- 2 0 DAVE HAGERMAN: Uh,that would be probably better for one of the-for somebody else 21 - 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I know they're different but I'm just trying to get a - 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So what exactly is your question? 2 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: How the lighting on the 35th facility would compare to this? 233 1 DAVE HAGERMAN: So 35th's security lighting is on the - around the buildings and they 2 are on photocells as well. They come on and off at night. There are certain lights that are on all the time; 3 we don't have many of those that are on motion sensors. Uh, they are proposing to have more- most of 4 our security lighting on motion sensors. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, does the Board have any other questions for the applicant at 7 this time? Okay,thank you very much. I will ask if the Board has any questions of staff at this time? 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yes. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Just a second, I'll start this way. Any questions? No? Okay, 10 Commissioner Conway. 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I want to give Janet an opportunity. I raise this earlier in the 12 day of the difference between the 75/25 and the 95/5 and I've given you ample time to review your 13 rationale there because that's what you put in the report and help me understand that. 14 JANET LUNDQUIST: Actually, uh,Commissioner Kirkmeyer kind of answered it really well. 15 Um, basically, when you're driving from the south of that facility another great alternative route is Weld 16 County Road 54 which turns into 402 which also reaches I-25. Urn, and it's a fantastic alternative route 17 so I think it's highly likely that if they do maybe have congestion on U.S.{Highway}34, like if there's a train 18 or something,that people are going to want to turn south. Um,typically you don't see a trip distribution 19 that heavy to one side or the other, so 95/5 percent is a very skewed for the volume of traffic that they 2 0 have. Um, in a facility where maybe it was a lower volume of traffic I would have an easier time believing 21 it with-and I'm doing single trips, but over 2,000 single trips a day-it's hard to control that many drivers. 22 And, unless they are specifically trucks owned by this facility, I believe it will be hard for them to control 23 that. For that reason, that's why I'm recommending a 75/25 split. I think it's a little bit more realistic. 24 They did bring up the fact that this is something potentially to be covered by the improvements 234 1 agreement. I think we are proactive due to the volume of traffic that we look at that ahead of time,rather 2 than just putting it in an improvements agreement because if you're looking at their short timer, we're 3 talking a difference of 56 trips per day, which is their five percent, or 280 truck, which is my 25. And, if 4 we're looking at their ultimate it's a difference between 113 and 565. Again,when this facility is actually 5 up and operational, you will have a much better concept of what that traffic will actually be. But, if you 6 look, that's quite a range and that's a pretty low volume to say that in the short term with more than 7 1,000 trips per day they're only going to have 50 trucks turning left. I think that's unrealistic. 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Anything else? 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Nope. 11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So, I have several questions but, um,since you brought this one 12 up first, I want to have a follow up on that. Um,Janet I'm still not sure where you got the 75/25 through. 13 I mean, to me it just seems like a random number that wasn't evaluated other than it's just your sense. 14 And, you know, the applicant actually based the number of traffic and where the traffic is going to go 15 based on the market and their business. So, I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with 16 what you're saying and Commissioner Kirkmeyer is saying about if there's traffic backing up, people are 17 going to take alternative routes. They might go straight north. If they're going north they may go straight 18 north on {County Road} 13 but they also need to go, you know, if they're going the other direction they 19 probably will go south but I'm still not 100 percent convinced on the 75/25 and I think the appropriate 20 place of that is in the Improvements Agreement and actually track the number of vehicles that are going 21 out of there. Because the thing is, if we say 25 percent the, my question to you is, does that trigger 22 improvements,versus the five percent that they've come up with? 23 JANET LUNDQUIST: Yes. Yes it does. 235 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: And can you tell me what those improvements are that they're 2 not agreeing to do? 3 JANET LUNDQUIST: Yes. And, if I can actually answer this in a two-part answer. Uh, the 4 first part - where we came up with the 75/25. Um, we actually had a meeting with the Planning 5 Department/Engineering, Public Works, Larimer County, and CDOT and we were discussing different 6 various facilities that are similar to this one and it was that group consensus that a more comparable 7 number would be 75 and 25. And, that's based off of our past experience with looking at facilities that 8 were in Larimer County, under CDOT and in Weld County. That's where we came up with that number. 9 But you're 100 percent right. There isn't a guide book that says that it absolutely will be one or the other, 10 that's why I say we have to look at that range that I gave before. And then the second part of your question 11 is the triggering. Um,the two things that are triggered, and it's actually in your Resolution if you want to 12 flick to that. It's that second, number 1 prior to recording the plat, if you look at letter E and it's - the 13 number, or numbers 6 and 7. Um,the two things that I believe could be potentially triggered if they have 14 higher than five percent would be the upgrade and paving of County Road 13, from County Road 50 to 15 County Road 35. Oh, sorry- County Road 54 which is currently a gravel roadway, but keep in mind that 16 even when they reach their ultimate with their five percent, they could be triggering that number just 17 even at their (coughing - inaudible} their ultimate they would be triggering that. Um, and then the 18 auxiliary turn lanes at County Road 54 and 13 is also a location where I believe they would be hitting 19 triggers. Right now there's actually, um, I have a lot of buildup at that intersection, so the auxiliary lanes 20 that would be required at that intersection is just-would be a southbound free-right onto County Road 21 34 and then a right deceleration lane on County Road 13 turning onto County Road 13 moving north. You 22 asked if was can just handle that within the improvements Agreement? I believe you're correct. We could 23 do that; we could count and try to monitor that, but at the same time again, with the volumes that they 2 4 have with this it does bring concern to me. Um, in my preference, I would prefer that we require auxiliary 236 1 lanes at 54 and 13 because just like Commissioner Kirkmeyer mentioned, I think they're going to turn to 2 go to 402, but they aren't necessarily going to take 13 all the way down to 50 and then over to 60. I think 3 it makes much more sense. So making an auxiliary turn lanes at 54 would accomplish that and then we 4 could say even something as simple in their haul route plan that in the improvements agreement - Don't 5 use the unpaved portion of County Road 13. And then we would be able to alleviate the requirement or 6 trigger it. Sorry I was a little long. 7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No, that's okay. And I think, you know, that answers my 8 question. I just want to make sure,you know,we're basing these two conditions on what you think might 9 happen versus what actually happens, which is the whole reasons why we do an improvements 10 agreement. Uh, because you said that it happens at ultimate buildout - their ultimate buildout is what 11 they would trigger these improvements. 12 JANET LUNDQUIST: The paving on {County Road} 13 south it would happen - 13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Right,the two miles- 14 JANET LUNDQUIST: - at would happen at ultimate. 15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So, I guess with this condition the way it is though, we're asking 16 them to do it now. 17 JANET LUNDQUIST: Exactly, and that's why it's on there that way is we- 18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Are you just not comfortable putting it in the Improvements 19 Agreement? 2 0 JANET LUNDQUIST: I think originally when we separated this and if you look at the original 21 Resolution, it didn't even talk about the construction improvements that they would have to make. I just 22 want this to be very transparent and very clear as to what is required to them for mitigation. So, I want 23 to make it very clear that your expectation of them is to either do all of these improvements, or do some 2 4 of these improvements and put some of them in the improvements agreement. 237 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah. 2 JANET LUNDQUIST: I think this is one of those cases where I want to be very up front with 3 what the requirements are. 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well I understand that, I just want to be consistent with how 5 we've done other projects. If it's things that are going to be triggered at ultimate or there's other-some 6 numbers that aren't happening now, um, I'd rather see that in an Improvements Agreement and the 7 transparency is those do come in from of us and we have to approve those. Um, so that's just my 8 preference; I don't know how everybody else feels about that. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. What other questions do you have for staff? Do you have 10 more questions Sean? Commissioner Conway. 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Nope. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Cozad. 13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I have a couple for Diana. Um, one of the references that has 14 been talked about several times -got brought up at the Planning Commission. Didn't really get brought 15 up today, but the Intergovernmental Agreement between Greeley and Windsor, um, are you aware why 16 Weld County was not included in that agreement, or is any of the other Planning Department staff aware 17 of why we were not a party to that agreement? 18 DIANA AUNGST: Diana Aungst with the Department of Planning Services. Urn, I do not 19 know why that particular IGA did not include Weld County. I did talk to the Director of Planning for 2 0 Windsor, Mr. Scott Ballstadt, and he was working for the Town of Windsor at that time, although he was 21 not closely involved with the generation of that IGA, it was Mr.Joe Plummer at that time, and we do not 22 have information as to why Weld County was not involved. 238 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, maybe they just didn't like the Board. [laughter) You 2 know, if they're planning an area and a lot of the land is in Weld County you would think they would 3 include us. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: They figured it would be within their municipalities very shortly. 5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Got it. Um, and I'm starting to lose my voice so I'm sorry, 6 hopefully everybody can hear me. Um,the other thing that I read-it's somewhere in the materials is this 7 site is actually not in the Planning Area for Windsor. Is that correct? 8 DIANA AUNGST: Diana Aungst with Department of Planning Services. Yes, the Growth 9 Management Area for the Town of Windsor ends at U.S. Highway 34 as you travel south from Windsor 10 proper, so no it is not included in the Windsor Growth Management Area or their expansion area at all. 11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,and then one other clarification. There were actually two 12 referrals from the City of Greeley. One was from Community Development and the other one was from - 13 we got a letter from Greeley City Council. Um,they seem to maybe not be exactly on the same page and 14 I noticed Greeley wasn't here today. Um, did you take that into consideration- did staff take all that into 15 consideration when you were looking at your recommendation for denial? 16 DIANA AUNGST: Um, yes, staff took all that into consideration. Um, although what we 17 were focusing on was incompatibility so that was the areas that we took for the staff report. 18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, so - because one of the criteria is Master Plans of 19 surrounding communities. It seemed like the letter from the City Council was supportive of the 20 application. 21 DIANA AUNGST: It was, however, the area is also not in Greeley's Growth Management 22 Area, nor is it in Greeley's proposed annexation area. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Then why did we send them a referral? 239 1 DIANA AUNGST: Because they are adjacent to the site, although their Master Plan does 2 not go out that far. 3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: One other thing on the City of Greeley and if you want to 4 comment on this too. In Greeley's 2060 Comp Plan they talk about the importance of putting industrial 5 uses along existing rail and our Comp Plan also says the same thing. And so I guess my question to you 6 too is, has that been considered in your recommendation for denial as well? 7 DIANA AUNGST: Diana Aungst with the Department of Planning Services. Yes, staff did 8 realize that normally industrial uses would go along rail, urn,and we had to weigh the compatibility of the 9 site with the rail and the compatibility of the site versus the surrounding,existing and proposed land uses. 10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So your main reason for denial from the Planning staff 11 department was mainly on the compatibility issue, but not necessarily on the other criteria. 12 DIANA AUNGST: Correct. 13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, urn so the other questions I have - I think we answered 14 most of them with Janet and Wayne but I have one other question, so just a real quick one. The signal 15 that's at{Highway}34 and{County Road}13 is in the Highway 34 Access Control Plan-it's identified as an 16 interim condition. So, what does that mean? Is that - is that interim condition based on a time frame or 17 is that based on triggers,traffic counts, or something like that? Can you explain that? 18 JANET LUNDQUIST: It's actually, urn, based off of more like the triggers. So basically,they 19 know that going from a basic intersection that's not controlled with a signal and going to an interchange 2 0 is a huge jump. So what they're looking for is that we are going to hit this, urn, point where we signalize 21 - maybe add additional lanes with an increase to the signal - and then eventually we will get to the traffic 22 volumes at that location that we would trigger an interchange. Um, the numbers are not hard and fast 23 that you get blank amount of trips on {County Road} 13 and blank amount of trips on U.S. {Highway} 34 2 4 that would trigger it, urn, it's a little bit more hard set. They look at truck percentages,they look at times 240 1 of day that the traffic's there, safety, accident reports and things like that. So, it is something that it's 2 monitored continuously and then eventually triggered to that point. 3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So large developments that might be around it might also 4 trigger? 5 JANET LUNDQUIST: Yes, absolutely. 6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. 7 JANET LUNDQUIST: Development is a huge impact, um, whenever we do anything with 8 traffic. 9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay, and then the last questions I have are for Phil. I don't 10 think I have any for Heather. So, Phil, are you a certified Nose Ranger? 11 PHIL BREWER: I am. 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So,would you be the personthat, um-odorcomplaints-would 13 you be the person that would go out there or are there others at the Health Department that are also 14 certified? 15 PHIL BREWER: We actually have four who are certified. 16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. 17 PHIL BREWER: And our instrument, the Nasal Ranger, is annually certified. 18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think that's all I had. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Commissioner Conway did you have any more questions? 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yes, as a Nasal Ranger have you gotten any complaints? 21 PHIL BREWER: Your question again sir, I missed - 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: As a certified Nose Ranger, have you been summoned to 23 essentially assess the 30-foot [papers rustling-inaudible]site, or any odor or anything? 241 1 PHIL BREWER: No, I have not had any complaints of odor at any of the asphalt plants 2 operating in Weld County since 2001. 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, since 2001, we haven't gotten one odor complaint? 4 PHIL BREWER: That is correct. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thanks. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Anyone else? 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Nope. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, Commissioner Freeman? 9 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yeah, I just had one. We kind of talked about it a little bit 10 earlier today and I wanted to get back because I'm not sure that I really got the answer. And that is the 11 percentage of truck traffic that's actually on State Highway 34. 12 JANET LUNDQUIST: It is currently three percent based off of the 2014 count. Um, I think 13 the question that was going around during that time was if CDOT used the three to one ratio. But I think 14 that it is three percent right now. Urn, and it is a split between the single unit vehicles and combo unit 15 vehicles. And I can look at the exact split between them if you'd like to know if they're big or small 16 vehicles. 17 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: No, thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Can I follow up on that? 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And if this would be approved and they would be using 21 {Highway} 34, what percentage increase would that - in your guestimate - how many - what percent or 22 how would that impact the percentage? 23 JANET LUNDQUIST: You know,to be honest, I can't really say, urn, because traffic changes 24 so rapidly and with it being a count from over a year ago, um, and the development has changed along 242 1 this corridor even within that year, um, and then even with this traffic depending on the trip distribution 2 - if there are people going south versus north - I can't really anticipate that. 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, so you know that the current traffic in 2014- 13 or 14? 4 JANET LUNDQUIST: Well we could do a worst case scenario calculation, so bear with me. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, please. 6 JANET LUNDQUIST: I'm going to get out my trusty- 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I know it's a guestimate. I know you're a traffic engineer and 8 you like specifics. I just asking for a guestimate. 9 JANET LUNDQUIST: Okay, so let's see here. 10 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: And Commissioner, you know I must be driving on State 11 Highway 34 at the wrong time because there's more trucks than that when I'm on that road. 12 JANET LUNDQUIST: So, worst case scenario that would bring it up to 8.4 percent. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Almost double? 14 JANET LUNDQUIST: Umm, hum. And that's assuming 100 percent of their traffic goes to 15 {Highway}34. And it doesn't count for anything that may have been included in the last year. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: What was the total traffic count? 17 JANET LUNDQUIST: Uh, 42,000. And there's about 1,300 truck trips right now on that 18 corridor. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, any other questions? Commissioner Moreno, you have any 2 0 questions? No? Okay,so I have a question. Um, could you put up the map that shows all of the land uses 21 that are either currently or planned for the {Highway} 34 corridor? I'm just going to call it the red and 22 blue map. That'd be great. And the yellow is Residential, correct? Is that correct? The yellow is 23 Residential? 243 1 DIANA AUNGST: Diana Aungst with Department of Planning Services. This map was 2 created by Martin Marietta, but from looking at the legend here: Yellow is Residential, Red is General 3 Commercial, Blue is Industrial, and the Hatched is Proposed Industrial, and the Hatched with white lines 4 is Proposed PUD Mixed Use. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, do we have a land use map that you put together that shows 6 all of the Industrial and all the uses in the area? No? 7 DIANA AUNGST: No,we do not. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, can you put the pointer on right where the development - 9 where this development application is located on that map? It's right there? So here's the confusing part 10 for me. Because typically when we have maps up there and, urn, Planning Department puts up a map and 11 shows where all of the uses are; the USR's, if there's any changes in zone, and I guess I'm having a hard 12 time trying to understand your compatibility- how you say it's not compatible with the regional land uses. 13 So maybe you could explain that to me because that's what I'm having some difficulty with. Because I'm 14 looking at all of the blue and the red the large scale Residential developments. I mean, you know things 15 that are going to - urn, that Johnstown is approving that's going to have 28,000 vehicles at that 16 interchange. Um, you know, some of the other developments that aren't even up there that they talked 17 about. So, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why you keep saying it's not compatible, so 18 maybe you could go through that a little bit better for us. 19 DIANA AUNGST: Sure. Diana Aungst with Department of Planning Services. Urn, when 20 staff was reviewing this application we looked at the existing land uses and we concentrated on the areas 21 that were say within a quarter mile to a half mile of the site. So, if you look around the site you see yellow 22 to the northeast, you see yellow to the northwest, you see yellow to the southwest, and then you have 23 Ag land to the north, which they indicate on here is proposed Industrial but, in fact, is zoned Ag. Even 24 though we have an application in, it has not been rezoned to Industrial. We have the area north of U.S. 244 1 Highway 34 which is the blue area. They're showing as Industrial but it's actually limited Industrial,which 2 in-which in Windsor is pretty much Commercial. Um,and then they show red to the southeast,which as 3 far as I know that's still a dairy farm and even though it may someday be converted to a USR that is indeed 4 Commercial use, right now it's Ag. So,staff was looking at the area within about a quarter mile and at the 5 existing land uses; not at the proposed land uses, and then we also used the Master Plans for Johnstown. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Their Master Plan from 2006? 7 DIANA AUNGST: Yeah, their Comprehensive Plan. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright, does the Board have any other questions for staff? 9 Okay at this time I'll bring it back to the Board for discussion. 10 COMMISSIONER MORENO: I'll just make a simple comment Madam Chair. This is a very 11 difficult one because I'm right where you are with compatibility. 12 AUDIENCE: We can't hear you! 13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay, is that better? I am having a difficult time with this one 14 too, uh, with Commissioner Kirkmeyer's questions about compatibility. Uh, with the recommendation 15 from the Planning Department, uh, when I look at that I just don't see that it's not compatible here so. 16 But, uh, I'm - right now I'm not sure yet where I'm at. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright. Who would like to comment? Any other comment? 18 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Go ahead Commissioner. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Conway. 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, I have a question for the Chair. Are we going to go 21 through and look at any of the Development Standards? 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. I brought it back to the Board for discussion. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, that's what I thought we were going to do. So, I'm 24 going through that thought process right now; I didn't know where you were going so. 245 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Unless Mike wants to. 2 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: No, go ahead. 3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So, as far as the Conditions of Approval, urn, I know we got a 4 redlined copy from the applicant. Urn, and actually my changes actually started in the same place. If this 5 is approved, uh, number 1.C it talks about the Traffic Study and then there's some redline additions that 6 we could go with one or the other and, urn, it looks like the applicant is ok with going with the second 7 one, which is the direction I was going. And, while they added a little bit of information as a direct result 8 of the additional trains visiting the Highway 34 development, which I think actually clarifies if we go with 9 the second part of that Condition. So, I would like to go ahead and go with the second part of that 10 Condition and add the language as presented by the applicant. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Does the Board have any objection to that? Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Um, the second one is 1.E and again I'm fine with going 13 with the second part of that Condition. There were two options for us to take: one wasn't detailed. It 14 was very general and it basically just says that the applicant should address the requirements and the 15 concerns of the Public Works Department, but then the option for us is to go with a more detailed 16 Condition there, which I actually like better because I think it specifies exactly what Martin Marietta has 17 to do as far as improvements. The only thing that I would like to discuss further is number 6 and 7, uh, 18 where is talks about the upgrade and paving of County Road 13 from County Road 50 to 54 and the 19 auxiliary turn lanes down at the intersection of County Road 54 and 13. As I stated previously, I think I 20 would like to take those out of this Condition of Approval and just have those be a part of the 21 Improvements Agreement with triggers that would trigger those actual improvements that are based on 22 generally how we always do things with applications when they come in like this, rather than stating go 23 ahead and do it now even though we're not actually triggering it or we're not sure if it's going to be 24 triggered. 246 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, and the triggers would be what? 2 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think there's triggers that Public Works has that trigger 3 pavement and it's the number of trucks that are on that road, so- 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure, and so are we going to know that-that it's associated with the 5 application? 6 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think there's - they can put their, um, little things out in the 7 road and count trucks that are going out of the facility and how many go left. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: It's not just trucks; it's vehicles. 9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: All vehicles. They can do that at their facility. They can monitor 10 that and track it. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: [inaudible) left or right. 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: There's ways to do it. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Can I ask Janet a question? 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Janet. It's me again. Uh, do you have some suggestions on 16 how-you know, I'm with Commissioner Cozad that I think we need transparency here and I think we need 17 certainty in terms of this. Do you have some suggestions on how we can meet these triggers and help me 18 understand what those triggers might be. 19 JANET LUNDQUIST: Sure. First off, um, the pavement piece of it, Commissioner Cozad, 20 that's correct. It is based upon volumes of traffic. We currently have about 500 trips per day on that 21 section right there, um, so pretty much even with their five percent addition, if it goes completely down 22 on that gravel road section we're triggered pavement. So, you could say, um - we could include in the 23 Improvements Agreement to basically say they would be paying their proportional share based off of 24 anything that moves south because Commissioner Kirkmeyer is correct in the sense that it is very hard to 247 1 tell if they turn left or right without a visual count, so I basically have to have a staff person out there for 2 like three days, urn,visually watching the truck as it leaves their driveway and goes and turns. Or, I have 3 to do a very intricate traffic tube counter system that we really don't have the analysis for currently for 4 that volume, uh, to calculate those turn movements. Um, but I think that it's realistic, like I was saying 5 before,that the majority[coughing-inaudible)are traveling south is going to go to 54 or 402, so - and in 6 my opinion I think triggering the pavement is fine. Let's go ahead and put that in the Improvements 7 Agreement, but I think that the triggers at the turn lanes, that is something that I basically can say that 8 they will meet and I can get counts and when they actually occur then they can pay for it. I think that's 9 something we can do too as an option. Urn - 10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Can I ask you a quick question? So, why are we asking them to 11 go all the way down to County Road 50? If we think they're going to go down County Road 15 to 54 which 12 is 402, why would we ask them to pave another additional two miles? 13 JANET LUNDQUIST: Because that's the next furthest connection that would connect over 14 to State Highway 60, um, and get to I-25. 15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So again, I guess my rationale when I ask this question is-What 16 is the rational nexus for this applicant to upgrade and pave two miles of the County Road south of County 17 Road 54? 18 JANET LUNDQUIST: Well, and that's the question at hand. If we can put something in a 19 haul route that says don't use the non-paved section, which is what I suggested earlier, we don't have to. 2 0 If we restrict their haul route or their movement that says either they turn north to go to {Highway}34 or 21 they turn left-or turn south and turn somewhere on {County Road}54, I think we're totally covered with 22 that, but if we have it as totally open we do need to address that there's the potential that they could 23 have impact to that roadway. So that's where that's coming from. 248 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, I would be willing to, urn, I think we need to just restrict 2 their haul route through their agreements with us, urn, to stay on the paved roads. And can I ask one 3 more question of Janet? I'm sorry. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 5 COMMISSIONER COZAD: What is the number that actually does trigger paving? 6 JANET LUNDQUIST: There's actually not an exact number. We usually use a range. When 7 we hit about 500 that's around a number that we start looking at it. 8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: So it needs paving now. 9 JANET LUNDQUIST: Well, no, not really, because right now that structural section had 10 just been re-graveled and re-worked and so it has a strong structural section there. In other areas of the 11 County if we have a poor geotech in that area it can't hold that amount of traffic. This happens to be a 12 really nice native material mixed with our normal gravel that it holds up very well. Um, so we typically 13 don't just pave when you hit the magic number; we look at multiple pieces of information. We look at 14 how much truck traffic is there? We look at the geotech of that area. We look at development that's in 15 the area, the Stop- Go nature of the roadway. Um,there's so many factors - 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. So, um, let me just make sure I have this correct. So, if we 17 even use the five percent number going south that triggers auxiliary turn lanes at the intersection of 18 County Road 54 and County Road 13? 19 JANET LUNDQUIST: Yes Ma'am. 2 0 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so what I would -what? 21 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Just one question. You said that would be at 2035 at full 2 2 buildout, not currently. 23 JANET LUNDQUIST: No, that would be their ultimate with what they're proposing that 2 4 they would trigger those auxiliary lanes at{County Road}54. 249 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: At ultimate. 2 JANET LUNDQUIST: At ultimate. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, when they have the 113 trips, if that's five percent- 4 JANET LUNDQUIST: Yes, and that's at five percent. But if they have anything over that 5 they could trigger it well before their ultimate. So again,that goes back to that trip distribution issue. 6 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yes. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so I'm going to suggest that we go back up to 1.A. So if we go 8 back up to 1.A and include in that language there an Improvements Agreement which includes haul routes 9 specifying haul routes that are, urn, on {County Road} 13 south to County Road 54, or {County Road} 13 10 north to Highway 34. I not for the-I'm not going to put in the part about paving the roads because we're 11 putting in a specified haul route. And then I think, um, that when it hits the triggers, they have to put in 12 the auxiliary lanes at {County Roads}54 and 13. 13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I agree with that. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And, do you want that-should we put that language in here in eight 15 somehow? 16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, I think so. I think what you just said - the specific haul 17 routes on County 13 south of 53. I think what you just said is-would - I think that covers it. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: (overspeak-inaudible}Okay. How about you develop some language 19 for that to make sure that that comes out looking good. Is everybody in agreement with that? Yeah, so 2 0 six and seven would be deleted. Is everybody in agreement with that? Okay. Um, back to that page. On 21 1.D, what are the requirements of CDOT? 22 JANET LUNDQUIST: Uh, the requirements for CDOT was the signalization at {County 23 Road}13 and U.S. 34 and then the extension of the existing turn lanes on U.S. 34. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so is it in here somewhere? 250 1 JANET LUNDQUIST: {overspeak - inaudible) - that require construction. We also have 2 some things concerning that, urn, that frontage road that would probably be a {papers shuffling - 3 inaudible}at the time of signalization on {County Road} 13 and {Highway}34. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so is there anything under, urn, is everything under 1.E? 5 JANET LUNDQUIST: All but construction requirements. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, and did they have something else? Did CDOT have something 7 else? 8 JANET LUNDQUIST: You know, urn, they were kind of vague towards what they wanted 9 to occur at the Frontage Road. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Well, that's wonderful. So how about - so in D we put the attempt - 11 the applicant shall attempt to address, I guess, requirements of CDOT and delete'concerns'. Are you okay 12 with that adding 'attempt'? 13 COMMISSIONERS: Yes. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Because - and the reason I'm saying attempt there is because 15 we add in all the stuff under 1.E, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 with regard to the auxiliary lanes and the traffic signal. 16 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah, it's already in there. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: They're already in there. 18 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Let's go back to the service road there, because there's an 20 existing business there, so is the likelihood from - and we heard in public comment their concern that 21 their access may be eliminated? 22 JANET LUNDQUIST: Well,CDOT hasn't identified if it will be eliminated. One of the things 23 they identified in it is that that too may be signalized when the Highway is signalized. They also identified 251 1 that they could do a realignment of the roadway and have it moved further south so that it has better 2 spacing from the intersection. But all of that is in CDOT's court. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No it's not. It's right here in this court. 4 JANET LUNDQUIST: Well it is in this court too. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So,so is everybody okay with: 'the applicant shall attempt to address' 6 and delete the word 'concerns'? 7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm okay. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,on 1.E then, um,we would delete 6 and 7-because we covered 10 those in the other? 11 COMMISSIONERS: Yes. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so anybody have any comments with regard to F? 13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Nope. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, with regards to G, what exactly is Larimer County thinking 15 that they need to do? Diana? Somebody? 16 DIANA AUNGST: Diana Aungst with Department of Planning Services. We've had multiple 17 meetings with the Larimer County concerning the improvements to what they referred to as Larimer 18 County Road 1, which is County Road 13. Um, and they do have a referral concerning improvements to 19 the road and so staff put that in as a general statement so that the applicant would know that Larimer 20 County does have some concerns about the road out there. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. I'm assuming you're going to take care of that on the Road 22 Agreements- Road Improvements Agreements. So I would suggest we delete it. Does anyone disagree? 23 COMMISSIONERS: No; I'm fine; we're good. 252 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: What's the Town of Windsor want? I read through their stuff and I 2 really couldn't figure it out. 3 DIANA AUNGST: On item H, I, J and K the applicant has submitted response letters for 4 the Town of Windsor, City of Greeley, Hill and Bush Ditch Company and Reorganized Farmers Ditch 5 Company, so it's staff's opinion that those four could be deleted with the Commissioners' approval. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, great. Does the Board agree with that- H, I,J, and K? 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Question on J. What were their- I don't have that referral. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I looked through it and I didn't see anything, so I don't know what 9 they want. 10 DIANA AUNGST: Right,so they Hill and Bush Ditch Company and the Reorganized Farmers 11 Ditch Company, um, that was information provided. Uh, they had concerns about water quality, the 12 contaminants of pollutions getting into the ditches, the drainage not being appropriately sized for 13 retention and so on. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So we've addressed that with drainage. That's what I said - I read 15 through their stuff. I don't know what else is in there. 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: You're confident we've addressed their concerns and other 17 areas, Diana? 18 DIANA AUNGST: I am okay with it. 19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'm sorry, but I heard Diana say that the applicant already 20 submitted information to address those four Conditions. So we asked them to address it and they've 21 already done it. 22 DIANA AUNGST: That's correct. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I just want to make sure. 253 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. What's L? What does the Northern Colorado Water 2 Conservancy District want? 3 DIANA AUNGST: Uh,they simply stated that in order for them to receive water from their 4 site that they would have to get into their subdistrict. And that's a pretty common referral agency 5 comment from that subdistrict. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, well they're going to have to go do that so I don't know that 7 we have to have that here. Do you think that we need - 8 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'm okay with it being there just because it says they shall 9 'attempt' - 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, fine. Okay, anybody go anything under M? 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Nope. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, how about the addition under 6? That the light poles are limited 13 to a maximum of 25 feet? 14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,and that the structures shall be painted-I think the must should 16 be 'should'. 17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Where are you? I'm sorry. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I'm at 11. Add a note that all structures should be painted an earth- 19 toned color. {various voices overspeaking-inaudible) 20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: You're looking at the applicant's? 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yeah, because that's where all the other changes are. 22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Got it. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Sorry. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: That's okay. 254 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Too many things to look at. That's fine. They've reduced the 2 height of the lighting. 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah,they've agreed to do that-50 to 25 is what I heard. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: The light poles are down to 25 feet,yes. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Hold on. Let me catch up to you. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: That's in 6 - M.6. 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yep. Do we need to talk about the type of lighting or are we 8 good on that? 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: There's another standard that talks about lighting and that it has to 10 be onto the property. It's our normal one. Okay, number 11 is add a note that all structures must be 11 painted earth-tone color. 12 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I think we're changing the 'should'. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I think the 'must' should be 'should'. 14 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I agree. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: There may be some structures that should not be painted earth-tone 16 color. Okay. Is everybody okay with that? 17 COMMISSIONERS: Yes. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Urn, I don't see any other changes on 2. Anybody have any 19 changes there? Two? 20 COMMISSIONERS: No. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: How about 3? These are all our usual ones. Four? 22 COMMISSIONERS: No. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Uh, 5 is the one about area to be disturbed grading permit must be 24 required, urn, and number 6 looks ok. Number 7 - 255 1 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No, uh, actually I have something written down on number 6. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, what do you got? 3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Um, well it says prior to operation accepted construction 4 drawings and construction of the off-site road improvements are required. Are these construction 5 drawings for the off-site road improvements -so all construction drawings? I just think- maybe it's clear 6 - maybe it's just my cold. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: (overspeak-inaudible}-sentence is written it's related to the off-site 8 roadway improvements. Okay? 9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay,that's fine then. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright. I think here is where we add our other Condition of 11 Approval -or I believe it's a Condition of Approval -the one that requires the Emergency Action Plan and 12 that they work with our Office of Emergency Management and the related Fire Districts. So, if you want 13 to go find that language and pull it up we'll need to add that one in. Is the Board okay with that? 14 COMMISSIONERS: Yep; Yep; Um hum. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. That takes care of that one. Okay, let's move on to 16 Development Standards. 17 JANET LUNDQUIST: Oop. I sent you guys an email of new language for the triggers. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Did you send it to Esther? 19 JANET LUNDQUIST: I sent it to Esther, Bruce and the Board. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so that's back at number 1. Okay, you know what, we'll come 21 back to that. Okay, so number, uh, so under Development Standards -the number of on-site employees 22 is 36; 75 full-time employees, 50 truck drivers, and 30 field construction. Okay, then is the hours of 23 operation for Gerrard Construction is 6:00 to 6:30, Monday through Friday; 7:00 to Noon on Saturdays. 2 4 Okay. Now to number 6 which is the hours of operations for Martin Marietta. In think it's very confusing 256 1 when you put in 'shall be 24 hours a day / seven days a week; however, Martin Marietta will operate 2 under the following restrictions.' I think the hours of operation for Martin Marietta shall be - 3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -shall be. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: - shall be the - 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -the following. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: - shall follow the- 7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -the following 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: -the following? Shall be the following? 9 COMMISSIONERS: Urn hum; yep. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so hours of operation for the asphalt plant. Does anyone have 11 any changes there? They are now one hour before sunrise, one hour after sunset, Monday through 12 Saturday,with exceptions for night operations if it's requested by cities,counties or CDOT. We could limit 13 that to cities in Weld County, Weld County or CDOT. Does anybody have any changes? 14 COMMISSIONERS: I didn't; No. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, how about the hours of operation for the ready mixed 16 concrete? 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So are we striking 24 hours a day/seven days a week? 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes we are. 19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 2 0 COMMISSIONER COZAD: The only change that I had was on B.2 and we talked about this 21 a little bit and it's the occasionally, um, language that it might - that they, you know, in essence never 22 operate before 3:00 a.m. Um, I just- I don't know if we just need something really more specific in there 23 and I meant to ask the applicant, urn,when he was up here, but I'm not sure how many times a year that 24 they do their continuous pours, but you know, maybe we- maybe there is a number that we put in there 257 1 and then if they go over that number they need to contact the Planning Department. Sort of like the 2 emergency road stuff that was in the previous one. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: My comment would be to that is I don't know how we enforce it. 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: But I don't know what occasionally means either. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I don't either. I don't know how to enforce that either. I just assume 6 - 7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Maybe we just take that whole last sentence out. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: That's where I'm at right now. 9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Is there something we could put in there though that if they 10 need to do something that goes beyond these hours that they contact the County? 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And what are they going to do with it? 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I don't know. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: They going to be required to contact us and if they don't then 14 they're in violation. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So they contact us. Then what? 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: They just notify us. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I think they start at daylight. 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, I think so too. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So the plant will begin operation at daylight hours. 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, I'm good with that. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Are you guys okay with that? 22 COMMISSIONERS FREEMAN/MORENO: Yep; Yep. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay so we'll need to change that language. So, the plant will - will 24 not begin operating until daylight, and the plant will not operate more than 16 hours a day. Okay? 258 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, they are doing 16 hours a day in the wintertime which 2 is unlikely. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: It says not more than 16 hours, so if they go with daylight hours - 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, I got it. Slow-sorry. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: That's okay, it's late. That's why I didn't make any bets with you. 6 Alright, hours of operation for aggregate and recycling. Is there any changes here? 7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Nope. 8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Um, under C.3 do we need to- under C.3 do we need to look 9 at actual hours will depend on the time the train arrives at the site? Is that specific enough in terms of- 10 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I think it is because it doesn't matter what time the train 11 arrives. They can't unload except from 6:00 to 8:00. 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: And we've made it clear? 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yes. Okay. Alright, anything on 7? Eight? Nine? I'm to the next 14 page. Speak up if you have anything for the next page. 15 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I don't have any. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright I'm on page four. Okay, so with regard to the noise, 17 um, I heard them say that at the - actually, with their attenuation that they actually will be at the 55 and 18 50 decibels. So we've got a Standard in here that says they get to go to the Industrial Zone. Um, I think 19 they've proven and that we have a Noise Plan in place so I think this on needs to change. 20 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: What number is that? 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: It's number 24. I don't have any language on me though. But, um, 22 do we have anywhere that they're required to have a Noise Plan? 23 DIANA AUNGST: That has not been included in the staff report. We can add it. 259 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so I think that the applicant did demonstrate or has shown in 2 the presentation that they are going to do noise attenuation and they would reach the 55 and 50 decibels 3 so I'd like that in here someplace. 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I agree with you. 5 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I agree. I think there was a couple of volumes on the edge 6 of 57 but it was still underneath the, um - 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I think the applicant - I think the applicant said on the noise 8 standard 55/50. That is what I heard. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: At the property boundary. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: At the property boundary. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So that's what I would like it to be. 12 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I'm good with that. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yep. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: What, um - Okay, so how would be change Development Standard 15 number 24 then? Is that what's allowed in the Agricultural zone or the Residential zone? 16 LAUREN LIGHT: That's Specified zone or Residential. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so how about we just change Industrial zone to Residential 18 zone? 19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah. That's what the - actually the mitigation -that's what 20 was asked for. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yep. Can we agree to that? 22 COMMISSIONERS: Yes. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright, um, I just need - I need to understand what - on the, 24 uh-one of the other things that was commented on that we asked about and it came out of public hearing. 260 1 I gotta go back and find it - back to Development Standard number 9: 'The landscaping and screening 2 shall be maintained.' Is there a required Screening and Landscaping Plan? 3 DIANA AUNGST: Um,staff is not requiring landscaping and screening plans. The applicant 4 did submit a very, urn, detailed landscape buffer and staff has been working with the applicant to ensure 5 that the screening is adequate. Urn, but no plan - no specific plan has been requested. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, well I asked the comment- and again this was based on the 7 public comments-was the wall and the fencing. And I agree that it doesn't necessarily need to be around 8 the whole entire facility but there are key locations where they need to do the screening and the 9 landscaping. So, I need some ideas where to add that in. 10 DIANA AUNGST: So, under M.5 we have 'Delineate the approved landscaping and 11 screening.' Urn, and that is a Condition of Approval, essentially, to be delineated on the USR map. Um, 12 although it hasn't been finalized yet, it is still in flux. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so urn, what I -would be have language there that talks about 14 including the - um, to include - delineate the approved landscaping/screening to include the, um, I don't 15 know what to say other than attractive wall. But to include the wall or fencing- I mean,what do we want 16 to add there? 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, I'm going to drag in another area here, sorry. So, we 18 talked about these quarterly meetings with the neighbors and so I'm trying to figure out, rather than try 19 to dictate to the applicant whether they want a wall,whether they want a fence- I think that ought to be 20 a decision with consultation with the surrounding community. And so I don't know how we- I'm thinking 21 aloud here which is always dangerous- but, um, I don't know how we put that into a Standard that, urn, I 22 don't know. Maybe we say in consultation the applicant shall work with a screening plan after 23 consultation through the community meetings that they've proposed in their- 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: How about something like this? 261 1 BRUCE BARKER: Typically, if you don't include it in as a Condition it's not going to happen. 2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That's why I wanted to mention it. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, how about something like this? So, if under M.5 - I don't know 4 if it goes under M.5 or not, but how about some language that goes something like this: That Martin 5 Marietta,at a minimum,would include decorative fencing in key areas as agreed upon-or with,as agreed 6 upon with the Community Work Group. 7 BRUCE BARKER: But that's a Condition that happens prior to the plat under that Number 8 1.M.5. 9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So just for the record - 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Would we add it in there? 11 BRUCE BARKER: I think what you do is you require them to -the landscaping/screening 12 shall include what you said. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so that's, um, would that be a new Condition? 14 BRUCE BARKER: No,it would be the Condition adding on as Diana said to delete,or excuse 15 me- 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Delineate. 17 BRUCE BARKER: Um, delineate the approval -the approved landscaping/screening. And 18 then you go in and you say landscaping/screening shall include these things which you delineated. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so 'Landscaping and screening shall include, at a minimum, 20 decorative fencing in key areas as agreed upon with - agreed upon - agreed with the Community Work 21 Group.' 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: (feedback - inaudible) neighborhood working group, 23 according to the applicant as proposed in their presentation. In their presentation they called it a 24 Community Neighborhood Working Group. 262 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: In their additional language after 38 it just says Community Work 2 Group. 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm fine as long as the applicant is understanding what we're 4 talking about. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, do we have the language? 6 ESTHER GESICK: The last piece-fencing and what? 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: - fencing in key areas as agreed upon with the - as agreed with the 8 Community Work Group. And I'm sure you'll need to fix my sentence structure there. Is the Board okay 9 with that? 10 COMMISSIONERS: Yep; Yes; Um hum. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. So number 32 addresses the lights have to be on the facility. 12 Um, okay, so before we get to their changes on page five that are in blue there, um, I don't know - I'm 13 thinking if 1.A of this is a Condition or a Development Standard, but it goes back to the property being 14 restored to the prior condition of the termination of the lease. I understand that it could be in the lease, 15 but I'd like to see it in the USR if this gets approved. 16 BRUCE BARKER: The only time that I remember that you did a Decommissioning Plan was 17 in the BP Wind Energy facility up north and it said, 'The applicant shall submit four copies of a 18 Decommissioning Plant to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval. It shall include 19 collateral in the amount sufficient to ensure removal of all wind turbines from the site upon cessation of 20 the wind generation operations.' What I would recommend is you include the first part of that, um, and 21 then a second sentence so it would say, 'The applicant - this would be a Condition of Approval - 'The 22 applicant shall submit four copies of a Decommissioning Plan to the Department of Planning Services,for 23 review and approval. The Decommissioning Plan shall include a detailed plan with time frames after 263 1 termination of operations for restoring the property to its condition which existed prior to 2 commencement of operations.' 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, and that would be a Condition of Approval? 4 BRUCE BARKER: Correct. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So- 6 BRUCE BARKER: Uh, you would make it, uh, it would be prior to - it would be under 7 number 1 - so I think it would be 1.N. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You think it has to be prior to recording the map? 9 BRUCE BARKER: It's providing the Decommissioning Plan, so it's just getting the Plan 10 submitted to the Department of Planning Services. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Why couldn't it just be prior to operation? 12 BRUCE BARKER: You could. I mean, it would be putting it back- 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So making it 6.B. 14 BRUCE BARKER: Uh, 6.6 would work too. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. So, the Emergency Operation, uh, Emergency Action Plan - is 16 that it's own Condition? 17 DIANA AUNGST: Yes. That also goes under, um, 6.B, so uh - 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So it would be a 6- so actually- 19 DIANA AUNGST: - C. 2 0 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. We can made the Emergency Action Plan 6.C. And do you have 21 that language? 2 2 DIANA AUNGST: I do. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: It's up there? 24 DIANA AUNGST: Yes. 264 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I guess I can read that from here. {laughter/comments/ 2 DIANA AUNGST: "The applicant shall develop an Emergency Action and Safety Plan with 3 the Office of Emergency Management and the Fire District. The Plan shall be reviewed on an annual basis 4 by the facility operator,the Fire District,and the Weld County Office of Emergency Management. Submit 5 evidence of acceptance to the Department of Planning Services." 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Is the Board okay with that? 7 COMMISSIONERS: Yes; Yep; Um hum. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, the last thing I have is um, before we get onto this other 9 language - I don't think it's in here - their comments with regard to the height of the facilities and there 10 was comments about reducing the height or possibly doing a façade. And, I guess I would like to give 11 them time to come back with some ideas on what to do. You know, having a big huge structure isn't 12 better- isn't any better that having, you know, the asphalt batch plant or whatever it was, at 110 feet. I 13 mean, I guess I'd like to see- give them some opportunity to do something there. I'm not sure what kind 14 of language we would put in. How does the rest of the Board feel? 15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm, uh, in favor of that. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You are? 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Um, hum. I don't have language for that. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So could we do something similar to like how we do the Road 19 Improvements Agreement where it comes back to the Board after there's an opportunity to go back and 2 0 review it? And again, maybe this is an opportunity where they work with their Community Work Group. 21 I don't know. 22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: That's kind of what I was thinking. I'm almost wondering if we 23 couldn't put that as, um - I don't think we need to do it prior to recording plat, but maybe just because 24 that will get them going getting it moving forward. But we could also do it prior to construction with 265 1 something that does come back before us for, you know, final approval or something. Just to get some 2 ideas on what they've come up with, but again, working with the community group within reason. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yeah. So- 4 BRUCE BARKER: I think, um, if you go back to the Improvements Agreement, you could 5 include that in an Improvements Agreement. Because it's improvements and road maintenance; it 6 doesn't- it's not all road related. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Um, an Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement. Good 8 idea. 9 BRUCE BARKER: Um, so Janet had proposed in her email to all of you some language to 10 deal with those conditions that she was proposing-6 and 7. She took out that you would put that in there 11 and then the second part of that would be the part dealing with that new part of the improvements 12 agreement that you want to have on the height of the buildings or the way they look- however you want 13 to say that. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. How about you help work on some language? 15 BRUCE BARKER: Okay. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright, now- 17 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Commissioner, I actually have one more Development Standard 18 that we talked about. It came up during the public testimony as well. And we did this on a Use by Special 19 Review just last week, where we added a Development Standard that says the Special Use Permit shall 20 not be transferrable to any successors in interest to the prescribed property and shall terminate 21 automatically upon conveyance or lease of the property to others for operation of the facility. So I'd like 22 to have some discussion about that. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: It's currently under a lease right now. 266 1 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Right, because they don't own the property I don't think 2 that's necessary. 3 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Okay. I just wanted to bring it up because I know we had talked 4 about that during the public testimony and we did do that on an application last week. 5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That was one of the concerns raised. 6 COMMISSIONER MORENO: What was that Commissioner? 7 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Well I agree. I though their attorney for Gerrard - I thought 8 Patrick Groom explained that very well that the lease was with Martin Marietta. If Martin Marietta would 9 leave then it would go away. So they the ground so Martin Marietta couldn't take and give it to somebody 10 else. 11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Well, I guess the reason why I'm bringing it up - I'm not saying 12 I'm for it or against it, I'm just saying we should discuss it. 13 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Um, you know, a specific example of what happened with 15 Lafarge is Martin Marietta came in and purchased all their facilities, so you know, in that kind of a case 16 where somebody else would come in and buy their gravel pits and their plants,that would be a successor. 17 So, you know, I just thought I would bring it up and if we decide we don't want to go that route, that's 18 fine with me. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: What do you guys want to do? 20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: How would you word that? How would you put that in there? 21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I just- I mean, the Condition to be consistent with what we did 22 last time, was what I just read into the record. And it talks about specifically that it would terminate 23 automatically upon conveyance or lease of the property, which they can't lease it. They could sub-lease 24 it I suppose. We don't have to add it, I just brought it up. 267 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,well let's all keep thinking about it and we'll get back to it. I'll 2 write a little note here. Okay, urn, how about we go to page five and go to the language in blue. The first 3 one would be an additional Development Standard requiring Martin Marietta to establish and operate a 4 Community Work Group and establishing the $100,000 landscaping fund managed by the Community 5 Work Group to fund landscaping for installation on all lots of adjacent owners with views of the facility. 6 Everybody okay with that? 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I am. I would like to add one more to that and that is in 8 keeping with what goes on over in Larimer County and that is they have quarterly meetings. And so I 9 don't know if we want to put quarterly meetings in there or some kind of regular meetings because 10 technically under this language they could be months and that it. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so how about- 12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I think we need to more directly involve the community. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, will establish and operate a Community Work Group that meets 14 at lease quarterly and will be comprised of a representative group of surrounding neighbors, Martin 15 Marietta officials, and third party member appointed by Weld County. 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, I have some concerns about that. 17 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I don't think we need a County person. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I don't think so either. 19 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah,take that part out. 2 0 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: How about delete the last part of that sentence? 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so- 22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: What's going to constitute the Group? I mean, is there a 23 certain number that should be put in there, or? 268 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No. They're just going to have to establish a work group. It says they 2 are going to establish it and it's going to be comprised of a representative group of surrounding neighbors 3 and Martin Marietta officials. 4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Sounds like they do that in Larimer County right now, based 5 on the public testimony. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And, then they also have to set up the fund that creates a $100,000 7 landscaping-$100,000 for landscaping. 8 BRUCE BARKER: Practically speaking through, how do you regulate that in your 9 Development Standard? I mean, we need to have proof that that's happened. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. How about we put a sentence in here that they submit a list of 11 the members of the Work-of the Group to the Department of Planning. 12 BRUCE BARKER: I mean that part, I think, is okay. It's the $100,000 that I think that's 13 more of a concern to make certain that they need to provide proof that in fact they've established that. 14 And the question is, how would they establish it? Is it through an escrow or is it through having a fund 15 that's kept by somebody? 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: What if it's collateral? 17 BRUCE BARKER: Um, I think the money is to be use for landscaping, so if it's collateral - I 18 mean whether it's cash or some other method - 19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, but right now when an applicant puts up collateral it 2 0 stays in - 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No, they need to put the money in an escrow account. 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Escrow account-that's true. 269 1 BRUCE BARKER: I think the other concern I've got with that is when the $100,000 runs 2 out who are they going to look to to take care of the landscaping that's supposed to be worked on by this 3 Community Work Group? 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think the landscaping is going to be on people's individual 5 private properties and they'll maintain it themselves. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: It's on a volunteer basis. They don't have to take it. 7 BRUCE BARKER: What I'm saying is that this Community Work Group as they propose is 8 going to be assisting or working through landscaping issues on individual properties. They have$100,000 9 to work with. When they get through the$100,000 what happens next? 10 COMMISSIONER COZAD: They're done. 11 BRUCE BARKER: Does the Work Group go away? Does it- 12 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No,just the $100,000 is spent on- I mean that's a lot of money 13 to spend on landscaping. So, once that's all done, then to me the $100,000 part is spent and it's done. 14 But they're going to continue to meet - 15 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: {overspeak-inaudible} 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: {overspeak-inaudible} - No, no. I think Bruce is bringing up 17 a good point and that is that we may need to divide these two out and make them separate. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, fine. So the first one is Martin Marietta will establish and 19 operate a Community Work Group that meets at least quarterly and will be comprised of representatives 2 0 -of a representative group of surrounding neighbors and Martin Marietta officials. And do you think they 21 should meet-you think they should send a list of who's in the Work Group to the Department of Planning? 22 BRUCE BARKER: I think that that'd be good. 270 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so we'll need to add that on there. Okay, so then that would 2 be one Development Standard. And then we would create another Development Standard that would 3 say Martin Marietta will set up a $100,000 landscape fund - in escrow? 4 BRUCE BARKER: Yes. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: - in escrow to be managed by the Community Work Group and to 6 fund landscaping for installation on the lots of adjacent landowners. 7 BRUCE BARKER: I'd also like to put a part in there that says Weld County is not obligated 8 to pay any additional amounts into that fund. I mean, the concern that I have is that once the $100,000 9 is gone who are they going to look to, to look for more money - they do this landscaping? I mean, that 10 used to happen when we'd set up subdivisions. We'd have parks and set up by the developer and the 11 developer is gone and who do they look to to take care of the park and they look to the County 12 Commissioners. 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,so under no circumstances is Weld County obligated to manage 14 or fund the landscaping fund. 15 BRUCE BARKER: Correct. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Everybody okay with that? 17 COMMISSIONERS: Yes; Um hum. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so the first one that establishing the Community Work Group 19 would be Development Standard number 33 and the next one setting up the fund is Development 20 Standard number 34. Okay, so you had other comments- 21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think that 391 think we've already gotten. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No. No, no, no, no. They need to be before these. The other ones 23 will get renumbered. Okay, they have one about Martin Marietta will establish a Noise Monitoring 24 Program. So, we already-we're putting in language with regard to a Noise Plan, right? Did we do that? 271 1 BRUCE BARKER: You didn't do that already. You need to go back to that one Condition 2 that talked about the- 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: - Residential 55/50. 4 BRUCE BARKER: Right. And then just say, uh, Martin Marietta shall submit a Noise 5 Mitigation Plan which shall include noise monitoring at the borders of the property to ensure compliance 6 with the Residential standard. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Okay, so if we do that then - so we wouldn't add any - it 8 wouldn't be a new Development Standard - we'd just be adding that to Development Standard number 9 24? 10 ESTHER GESICK: I'm sorry Madam Chair. I missed - 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so Development Standard number 24 - do you want to repeat 12 your language about they shall submit a Noise Plan Bruce? 13 BRUCE BARKER: Yes. The um, "The applicant shall submit a Noise Mitigation Plan to the 14 Department of Planning Services which shall include noise monitoring at the borders of the property to 15 ensure compliance with the standards set forth herein. 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I think staff has a comment, Madam Chair. 17 LAUREN LIGHT: It should be submitted to Environment Health so that our noise person 18 could review it. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: That's a good idea. 20 BRUCE BARKER: Yeah,that'd be better. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Instead of Planning - Environmental Health. Alright, with that then I 22 don't think we need the acoustical barrier language added in or the sound walls because that would all 23 be in the Plan, right? 24 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yes. 272 1 BRUCE BARKER: Correct. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, what is the part about Martin Marietta's asphalt plant will 3 operate with vertical liquid AC storage tanks? 4 COMMISSIONER COZAD: That has to do with odor. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so that would be a new Development Standard 35? 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I think you're down to 40 aren't you? 7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: She's moving them up. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I'm at 35. So,the part that reads, urn,the asphalt plant will operate 9 with vertical liquid AC storage tanks,carbon filters and emission capturing system. Can that next sentence 10 be added to that Development Standard as well? About the Nose Ranger- Nasal Ranger, sorry. 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I have a question for Phil. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Phil, do they allow non-governmental entity Nasal Rangers? 14 Is that something - because you have to go through a testing at the State Department of Public Health 15 right? 16 PHIL BREWER: The use of the Nasal Ranger and the certification for its use is available to 17 governmental entities and private entities. 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, so they can contract it. 19 PHIL BREWER: That is correct. 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, does that become a new Development Standard or can that be 22 added to the one we just read off? 23 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I think it can be added to it. 273 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so all of that would be new Development Standard number 35 2 and then we would renumber the rest. Okay, alright. 3 BRUCE BARKER: You need to look back to the Improvements Agreement language. That 4 would be Condition of Approval 1.A and, urn, Janet has provided the language dealing with those two I 5 think on the email that she sent to you. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 7 BRUCE BARKER: And I don't have any changes to that. I think she did a good job to it. 8 What I would add to the, urn,at the end of that would be, uh, "The Improvements and Road Maintenance 9 Agreement shall also include requirements and limitations on height and appearance of buildings on the 10 site as determined through the Community Work Group established by the applicant." 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I don't think it's determined by the Community Work Group. 12 BRUCE BARKER: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER COZAD: -with input from- 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I think it may be determining, you know, coordination with them or 15 consultation with the Community Work Group. 16 BRUCE BARKER: Okay. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Maybe it's consultation with the Community Work Group. 18 BRUCE BARKER: How about, uh, 'determining coordination with the Community Work 19 Group established by the applicant.' 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I think it's 'consultation' is the word. 21 BRUCE BARKER: Okay. 22 MIKE FREEMAN: Right, because they're still going to have to - because it might not work 23 what they- 2 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And it still has to come to us. 274 1 MIKE FREEMAN: Right. 2 BRUCE BARKER: Okay. So, it would say, urn, require - also include requirements and 3 limitations on height and appearance of buildings on the site coordinating with the Community Work 4 Group established by the applicant.' 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You just really don't want to use that word 'consultation' do you? 6 BRUCE BARKER: - consulting with the - yes, we can definitely use that. Consulting with 7 that group. Okay. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright, anything else? 9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Janet has something to add. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Just a moment. Anything else? 11 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'm just kind of struggling with requirements and limitation as a 12 part of the Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement and shall include 'requirements and 13 limitations'for the appearance of the buildings- I'm not sure what that means. 14 BRUCE BARKER: Um, the way I understood it was that what you wanted to do was have 15 some ability for the Community Work Group to be consulted with as to height and appearance with those 16 buildings. And the only thing I could think of would be that it would be-what they're coming up with are 17 requirements and limitations as to those things with respect to the buildings. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: How about we put'possible' before 'limitations'so it's'requirements 19 and possible limitations'. 20 BRUCE BARKER: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yeah,that would be better. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. You awake? 23 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I think so. 275 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Just checking. Okay. Alright. Commissioner Moreno, do you have 2 anything else? 3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: No. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Freeman? 5 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: No. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Conway? 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: No. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Cozad? 9 COMMISSIONER COZAD: No. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, staff? 11 JANET LUNDQUIST: Yeah, I just had - I missed on little statement at the bottom of that 12 second section, Esther, if where it says 'onto County Road 13' can you just say 'during a peak hour'? So 13 it's that last line. Yep, right there- 'during a peak hour' so we're not too restrictive. And then, um, in C- 14 uh,we have (paper shuffling-inaudible)County Road 54 for the railroad improvements. Lights and gates 15 are already existing there so I think we should just delete County Road 54. So, because we don't need to 16 do a diagnostic there - 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, what page are you on? 18 JANET LUNDQUIST: Uh, it's the same page, letter C and it will say County Road 13,County 19 Road 54, County Road 54,County Road 52 -just delete County Road 54. 2 0 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, is the Board okay with that? 21 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Yep. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: It's on page 3, 1.C. 23 JANET LUNDQUIST: One less (inaudible}diagnostic. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 276 1 DIANA AUNGST: Madam Chair. Could we get some clarification on A, on the 2 Improvements Agreement shall include requirements and possible limitations for the appearance of 3 buildings while consulting with the Community Work Group and - and the approval by the Board? 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Well, yeah. It's in the Improvements and Road Agreement so it's 5 going to come back to us. 6 DIANA AUNGST: Oh, okay. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, could you read your language again, Bruce. 8 BRUCE BARKER: Sure. "The Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement shall also 9 include requirements and possible limitations on height and appearance of buildings - 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,just a sec- limitations on height and appearance - 11 BRUCE BARKER: - of buildings on the site, consulting with the Community Work Group 12 established by the applicant." 13 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Do we say applicant or operator? 14 BRUCE BARKER: Um, in other places I think we use the word 'applicant' but it doesn't 15 matter. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,that's fine. Okay,just checking because I think we've used both. 17 BRUCE BARKER: You could use both, either one. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Esther do you have anything else? 19 ESTHER GESICK: I think we can - it's just the end of that sentence that used to be a row 2 0 up is now left-this right here-is left hanging. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: What does that say? 22 ESTHER GESICK: Is required for off-site improvements at this location. It used to be up 23 here. 24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: We should just move it up. 277 1 DIANA AUNGST: Yeah. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I don't think you were supposed to delete all that up there. We're 3 still requiring an Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement is required for off-site improvements 4 at this location. Road Maintenance, including dust control, damage and all that is still left in there. We 5 had to add in Janet's language. 6 BRUCE BARKER: Would you like me to read through that again? 7 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I guess we're done. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: It's ten o'clock (laughing). Alright we'll take a five minute break. 9 (Projection equipment shut down. Audio was not paused but there was no formal discussion from 10:00:38 10 until 10:08:44.} Alright, before we hit 10:00, which apparently is the magic number, uh, staff, did you 11 have any other comments? 12 JANET LUNDQUIST: Um,on the quick little break somebody pointed out we forgot County 13 Road 15 for a crossing,so we added that in here for C,assuming that you guys would want to include that. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so on 1.C we took out 54 but we added in County Road 15? 15 JANET LUNDQUIST: Or, County Road 15,excuse me. And then, Esther, I think cleaned up 16 the language for A. 17 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright, any other changes? 18 DIANA AUNGST: Um, well, recently there was a Code change to include a Mineral 19 Resource Statement that's similar to the Right to Farm Statement,and if it's the pleasure of the Board we 20 could add that in, I think, but it would be second to the last Development Standard, um,the Mineral Rights 21 Extraction. 22 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so it would be, um, so what was the old 38 it would come in 23 right after that. We would have our Weld County Right to Mineral Resource Development? 278 1 DIANA AUNGST: Uh, it's called the Right to Extract Mineral Resource Statement and it 2 was, um, recently approved by the Board as a new Code change. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, and that would be a new Development Standard that would 4 follow the older number 38. 5 DIANA AUNGST: Correct. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Does everybody agree with that? 7 COMMISSIONERS: Yep; Um hum; Yes. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Diana, do you have anything else? 9 DIANA AUNGST: That's all I have,thanks. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, at this time I'd like the applicant to come back up to the mic - 11 or representative to come back up to the microphone and, um, you heard the discussion that the Board 12 has been having here with staff. This is your opportunity to comment on that discussion. Would you like 13 me to go through the changes that we made to the Development Standards and the Conditions of 14 Approval? 15 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Madam Chair, I don't think we need to review the changes in that 16 way but I would like to ask if it would be possible for staff to print us off a copy of that so we could briefly 17 confer with the landowner to see. I think we have a pretty good idea from Martin Marietta's perspective, 18 but we have not received input from the landowner and feel that they ought to have an opportunity to 19 review these changes. Can we have 5 to 10 minutes to do that? 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Are you talking about the landowner or the landowner's 21 representative? 22 CAROLYNNE WHITE: The landowner's representative. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Maybe the landowner's representative would like to come up and 24 make comments. 279 1 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Yes. 2 PATRICK GROOM: Urn,thank you Madam Chair. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 4 PATRICK GROOM: We would like to look at a hard copy. There were a couple of provisions 5 that specifically affect the landowner that we want to make sure we're comfortable with. Um, we're not 6 anticipating any problems but want to make sure we're comfortable with that language. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Esther,were you able to get it printed off? 8 ESTHER GESICK: I will be. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,while we're waiting for that, uh, let me go back to the applicant 10 then, and their representative. Were there any of the changes that were made by the Board that you'd 11 like to comment on? 12 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Yes, Madam Chair. Urn,we have been tracking and, um, I would say 13 the vast majority of the changes the Board has discussed to both the Standards and the Conditions of 14 Approval are acceptable to Martin Marietta. There are four things that we'd like to ask you to consider 15 alternative language for and I'll go through them briefly what they are. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,just a moment. 17 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Number one. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Just a second. 19 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Okay. 20 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, are we putting up your language now? Is that what's going on 21 here? 22 CAROLYNNE WHITE: No, no. We have it written out- I've got notes on a piece of paper. 23 We haven't had a chance to edit your current draft. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, what are you doing at the computer? 280 1 PAM HORA: Do you want the sound graphic? 2 CAROLYNNE WHITE: When I get to the next one, yes. There is a graphic needed to 3 illustrate the second issue we want to raise. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, what's your first issue. 5 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Okay,so the first issue relates to the hours of operation for the ready 6 mixed concrete plant. 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. Can you tell me the Development Standard? 8 CAROLYNNE WHITE: I'm sorry, it's in the Standards, and it's number 6.B - Hours of 9 Operation for Ready Mixed Concrete. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 11 CAROLYNNE WHITE: What you proposed was just to strike the last sentence of sub- 12 number two-occasionally we need to operate, etcetera. Um,what we'd like to ask you to consider as an 13 alternative is the following: 1) to match the hours of operation to the asphalt plant (hour before 14 sunset/hour after sunrise). And then to have an allowance for up to a maximum of three times per month, 15 March through October only,that they could start operations if needed for those continuous pours up to 16 3:00 A.M. Let me say that again. You would allow, starting as early as 3:00 A.M., but no earlier, for a 17 maximum of three times per month in March through October, and that's because those are the most 18 heavy seasonal operation and it would not be possible to meet the needs for a continuous pour if they 19 did not start that early in the morning. For example, there are more examples of when that would be 2 0 required and we can explain them if you'd like. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Let me make sure I got this correct. So, instead of having the 22 B.2 that you have in there now, you're asking if we would say the number two from hours of operation 23 for the asphalt, which is: "The standard hours of operation for the ready mixed concrete plant will be 24 limited to one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset." Is that correct? That's the first portion? 281 1 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Yes. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, did you get that change, Diana? Somebody has to help make 3 the change because Esther's over here trying to print off stuff. So,you'll need to move so that Esther can 4 sit back down and get that done. 5 DIANA AUNGST: {overspeak - inaudible) I deleted the sentence: "Occasionally it may 6 need to operate earlier to accommodate daily business demands." That's been deleted. And added in: 7 "The standard hours of plant operation will be limited to one hour before sunrise to one hour after 8 sunset." 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure, and you can eliminate all that other language. 10 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Including number two,yeah, actual operating hours - 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So, basically we're taking out all the language in number 2 and we're 12 putting in the language that's in 6.A.2. 13 DIANA AUNGST:And also, "however, in no instance" comes out. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: All of it comes out for right now. Okay, and then we're still going to 15 have the plant will operate not more - do we still need that 'not operate more than 16 hours per day' - 16 does that still need to be in there. 17 CAROLYNNE WHITE: They're still amenable to that if you want to keep it in there. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright, so we would add, um, a new number 4, is that correct? So 19 we can get in your comments. First I have to ask the Board if you want to do this but, um,the comment 20 with regard to that you would be able to operate at least three times per month, March through October 21 - 22 CAROLYNNE WHITE: No more than three times per month, during the months of March 23 through October, they would permitted to start earlier than an hour before daylight but no earlier than 24 3:00 A.M. 282 1 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: And that would still be in 2 right? 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I think we should make it a new number 3. 3 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Okay, we can do that. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Or, it doesn't matter,4 works too. 5 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Madam Chair,just a question. I guess maybe it's just too late 6 in the night, but March through October but no more than three months - is that what I heard? 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No. No more than three times per month could they start earlier than 8 3:00 A.M. 9 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Okay. 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Could they start at 3:00 A.M., right? 11 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Right. They could start as early as 3:00 A.M., no more than three 12 times a month during the months of March through October. In December an hour before daylight. 13 Right? So, in March there could be three times when they start earlier than otherwise allowed, but even 14 so, it would not be any earlier than 3:00 A.M. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. What does the Board think about that? 16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I have a question. Is that through notification by Martin to 17 our Planning Department, are those going to be set days? How's that notification going to take place? 18 CAROLYNNE WHITE: It was intended to be upon demand so, if nobody needed it, they 19 wouldn't do it at all. 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right. 21 CAROLYNNE WHITE: And the maximum would be three times. I think if the County would 22 like notification, as with the asphalt, I think that Martin would be amenable to that if you would like. 23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah, I think we need to have some checks and balance here. 24 Simply putting three times a month -who's going to check on that? 283 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, so you want them to notify the Planning Department every 2 time they do it? 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Urn hum. It's three times a month, or maybe not at all, 4 depending on -what's she's saying is she wants up to three times a month and I think from a checks and 5 balances standpoint we got to have some way of,you know, doing that. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. 7 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I mean, unless {overspeak-inaudible) 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And so,so they operator would notify the Planning Department each 9 time that it starts earlier or whatever? 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah,that's three times a month, if needed. It's not that- 11 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I'm fine with that. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Moreno? 13 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Well, they're just going to notify us and they're going to go 14 ahead and do it, but they are only allowed to do it three times, right? 15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yeah. And my understanding,that's up to- 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: No more than three times. 17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: - and no more than three times. Maybe it's once, maybe it's 18 - 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So you're okay with it? 20 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yes. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: You're okay with it Julie? 22 COMMISSIONER COZAD: Sure. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Commissioner Cozad, sorry. 24 COMMISSIONER COZAD: That's okay. 284 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: As long as there's a notification process so everybody knows 2 what's going on. 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 4 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Are you ready for the next one? 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Yep. 6 CAROLYNNE WHITE: May I have the other slide, please? The one that was put up. And 7 while we're getting that up, this relates to Standard of Operation number, I think it's still number 24, 8 related to the maximum permissible noise levels, in which the proposed change for the Board says it will 9 operate at Residential noise levels which would be 55 and 50. And, um, I wanted to draw your attention 10 to this graphic only to demonstrate that while certain of the areas that I particularly highlighted in my 11 comments would like, in fact, meet that, particularly those that area adjacent to residential,there are, as 12 shown on this graphic, specific locations where even with the mitigation it would not meet the 55 and 50. 13 It certainly would meet the Industrial, but I understand what you are trying to do to protect the residential 14 and so we have an alternative proposal that we think would protect them equally well that I would like to 15 ask the Board to consider. And that is that the noise limit of residential as you'd specified -the 55 and 50 16 - apply as measured at the Residential property line for all of the adjacent lots which are residential. In 17 other words, if there's Industrial next to you,you can meet the Industrial standard. If we're talking about 18 the Residential lots, which are principally the ones where we are confident we can meet that standard 19 with the mitigation,then it would be the 55/50 as measured at the Residential property line. 2 0 BRUCE BARKER: Is that the standard though, Phil. That, don't you look-you measure it 21 at the site that property, not the adjacent property line? 22 PHIL BREWER: Phil Brewer again. It would be measured at or inside of the property line 23 of the complainant,yes. Not at the property line or inside of the property line of Martin Marietta. 285 1 BRUCE BARKER: Okay, so if the residences, as you propose is correct. So the adjacent 2 residences,their property line is correct stating it. Is that right? 3 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: How about you restate the language again? 4 CAROLYNNE WHITE: What we're proposing is-uh, let me see how the context-so I think 5 we need two sentences, perhaps? Uh, maybe it could be in one, but: "The facility shall adhere to the 6 maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone." We can leave all that first sentence, 7 but at the end of that sentence add: "with respect to the residential lots adjacent to the facility as 8 measured at the property line of the residential lots." And the reason we think it's important to specify 9 that in the Condition is that that's where we've taken these measurements and that's where we're 10 confident we can meet those numbers. So right after the word "Code", um, "at the property line of such 11 residential lot." I really meant that to be a continuation of the prior sentence but we can come back to 12 that. 13 PHIL BREWER: Maybe I need - Phil Brewer. Maybe I need for you, Bruce,to restate what 14 you asked me. 15 BRUCE BARKER: Well, I think what my question was is, is it proper to measure at the 16 adjacent residences at their property line or do you measure it, um, on the border. In other words, at the 17 border of the property such that that's the way you say it. I think what you're saying is that this is a proper 18 way to say it as it's written here. Is that correct? 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I think it just needs to be measured at the property line of the 20 adjacent residential lots. 21 BRUCE BARKER/PHIL BREWER- in unison: That is correct. 22 PHIL BREWER: On the property line of Martin Marietta. 23 CAROLYNNE WHITE: And for clarity's said I'd would like to add that in all other locations 24 the Industrial noise standard will apply. 286 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,we need to fix this sentence before we move on to that. So it's 2 very, urn, it's still Residential as delineated in Section 14-9-30 of the Weld County Code, and I think all of 3 that can be taken out and it's just: "as measured at the property line of the residential - adjacent 4 residential lots." Correct, Bruce? Does that look right? 5 BRUCE BARKER: I think that's correct. 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, and then - and then what would be put in in regard to the 7 Industrial standard? 8 CAROLYNNE WHITE: "In all other locations the Industrial standard shall apply - or the 9 Industrial -what do you call it? "The maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone." 10 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: What does the Board think of that? 11 BRUCE BARKER: I mean, do you go onto their property and measure it to see if it's 12 Industrial? I mean the fact of the matter is it's the edge of the property, whether it's the adjacent 13 property's property line or the site's property line,that's where you measure the noise. So, in the interior, 14 I mean, it could be higher I suppose, but it's the edge of the property where you're most concerned about 15 it being Residential level. 16 PHIL BREWER: Phil Brewer again. I agree with you, Bruce. Martin Marietta could be 17 producing a 100 decibels within their own property but if it's at Residential levels at the adjacent property 18 that is allowed. 19 BRUCE BARKER: So,the way it's written,that's exactly the way I think you want it. And, 20 it protects the adjacent property owners. 21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I would agree. 22 CAROLYNNE WHITE: That's correct and Madam Chair, if I may, remember that you did 23 include the requirement for the noise mitigation plan which would specify, among other things, the 24 precise locations of the noise monitors to be installed. And,our intention certainly is to install them where 287 1 we've designed the noise mitigation plan as we've shown you, which would put them in the locations 2 appropriate to measure this exact measurement as we're describing it in this proposed condition. 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Can I ask the applicant a question? How are you going to 4 share that data? Is that going to be shared - is that data that noise data going to be shared through the 5 Working Group-the Community Group? How do you envision - how does the applicant- because I think 6 it's great that you have noise monitors but you know the old adage -Trust but Verified. Um, you know, 7 how's that data going to be transparently transmitted? Help me understand that. 8 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Urn, it certainly could be shared with the Community Working 9 Group. I think that's what they had in mind. If you'd like to specify that, they'd be amenable to that. It 10 also would be available to the County upon request if you got a complaint you could request it, we could 11 show you the logs. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: They have to keep records. 13 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I understand that. I guess my concern is there's going to be 14 a lot of folks that say, well -and it came up constantly in public hearing was- How are we going to know? 15 What's the verification process? What's the transparency process? So, I just wanted an understanding 16 from the applicant and from the citizens here that that data is shared with them in a transparent way. 17 And, I don't know if we have to specify that or not. I don't want to get into the weeds on that, but I - 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I don't think we do. 19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I agree. 2 0 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Okay what else do you have? Or, is the Board acceptable this 21 change in language? 22 COMMISSIONERS: Yes;That's fine; Okay. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, what else do you have? 288 1 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Number 3. Um, and this has to do with the Condition that was 2 designed with effect for the triggers for traffic that are going to go in the Road Improvement Plan, which 3 I think- 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So 1.A? 5 CAROLYNNE WHITE: - I think it is now in, yes, I think you just did 1.A. 6 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: 1.A, um hum. 7 CAROLYNNE WHITE: And, in 1.A number 2,the first sentence of that where it says: "When 8 triggers are met," um, we would like to clarify when triggers are met by Martin Marietta's traffic. I think 9 there was some discussion about the fact that it's possible triggers may be met today, and if that's the 10 case when zero percent of Martin Marietta's trucks are driving down that road it's probably not fair to 11 require that Martin Marietta pay for the entire cost of this improvement. So, um, our request is that the 12 triggers be based on the traffic that Martin Marietta is contributing, if Martin Marietta is going to pay for 13 the thing. 14 COMMISSIONERS: Right; Um hum. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: So,it is in Martin Marietta's-or it should be in Martin Marietta's Road 16 Maintenance Agreement,so I think it's pretty clear that that's what's meant by when the triggers are met. 17 I don't think there needs to be any further clarification. I think it would be redundant. 18 CAROLYNNE WHITE: We're all clear on that and it's on the record, and if you write it that 19 way in the Improvements Agreement when it comes before you,then I think we probably can accept that. 20 Okay, and then the last one, and then I'm going to ask the landowner's representative if they have any 21 additional comments, could we look at the language here about the limitations on the buildings? Um, 22 could 'requirements and possible limitation,' maybe you mean 'limitations,' I don't know, um, on 'height 23 and appearance of buildings.' Our principal concern there is the question of height. I think that the 24 representatives of the neighborhood group have already testified that they would much prefer to see a 289 1 55-foot structure here. Urn, I think that Martin Marietta is very willing to explore opportunities for 2 improving the appearance of these structures and there may be a variety of things they can do and they're 3 happy to work through those and try to take them to the Working Group, but we're concerned with having 4 that in there, plus requiring this input from the Working Group, um,that the only input that we're going 5 to get is to reduce the height to 55. And, if we are not feasibly able to comply with that, then we 6 potentially be in violation and we're going to have that same debate all over again in this body, uh, when 7 we {coughing-inaudible}. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: If you can't come to any, um, conclusions or resolves with the 9 Working Group, the actual Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement comes back before the 10 Board for approval,so you'd have the opportunity then to address those concerns or issues with the Board 11 and it would -there'd be the opportunity to make changes to the Improvements Agreement. 12 CAROLYNNE WHITE: So, the intent, then, is for us to engage in the consultation with the 13 Working Group relative to the height and appearance prior to the Improvements Agreement coming back 14 before the Board. 15 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Absolutely. 16 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Not to incorporate this exact language into the Improvements 17 Agreement. 18 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: That' correct. 19 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Uh, I'm getting nods from the Martin Marietta team that they think 2 0 they can work with that. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 22 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Um, if I may I'd like to turn this over to the landowner and let them 23 - 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. Did you have anything else? 290 1 CAROLYNNE WHITE: There are no further proposed changes and if all of those proposed 2 changes were, urn, incorporated by the Board, then Marin Marietta would be amenable to these 3 Conditions of Approval if you choose to approve the application. 4 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright,thank you. 5 PATRICK GROOM: Thank you Commissioners. Urn, I'm concerned about the legal status 6 of this Community Working Group. And, the way it's proposed right now it's not going to be a separate 7 legal entity. We don't know how it's going to be structured; we don't know how decisions are going to be 8 made by that group; it's more just a adhoc group designed to provide opinions and direction to Martin 9 Marietta and the landowner. As a result of that, I think we need to clarify some language in the proposed 10 Resolution. So, for example, in 1.A - we turn our attention to 1.A - um, I would suggest that that be 11 modified to state: "The Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement shall include requirements and 12 possible height limitations and appearance of buildings on the site based on consultation by the applicant 13 with the Community Working Group established by the applicant." So,the applicant will consult with the 14 Community Working Group; the applicant will propose terms based on that consultation in the 15 Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement, and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to 16 approve them based on that. But I think that's the only mechanism that was in terms of getting a proposal 17 back to the Commissioners. The way it's drafted right now, um, I don't think that wording makes sense. 18 BRUCE BARKER: I think that's an improvement. 19 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: (overspeak-inaudible}made sense but- (laughing}ok. I think we're 20 both saying the same thing, so- 21 BRUCE BARKER: Yeah, I think it's an improvement. 22 COMMISSIONERS: Urn hum; I'm good with that; I'm good with it. 23 PATRICK GROOM: The other concern I had in, urn, M - 1.M, it states that, um, "The map 24 shall be amended to delineate the following:" and then "delineate the approved landscaping/screening. 291 1 Landscaping/screening shall include, at a minimum, decorative fencing in key areas as agreed with the 2 Community Working Group." Again, we don't know how this Community Work Group is going to be 3 structured or function, and it may be the case that they can't even agree on what they want and so it may 4 be practically impossible for Martin Marietta or the landowner to, um, agree with this Community Work 5 Group on where this should go. Um, so I think - I would suggest a change that: "Landscaping/screening 6 shall include, at a minimum, decorative fencing in key areas based upon the applicant's consultation with 7 the Community Work Group." But ultimately someone has to make this decision and I think the only 8 entity that's available to make that is the applicant or the landowner, based on that consultation. There 9 needs to be a requirement to consult, but there can't be an obligation to this group to agree to something 10 when it's really not a legal entity that can agree to anything. 11 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I agree that makes sense. 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Did you have anything else? 13 PATRICK GROOM: In M - I'm sorry- in 6.B, I think we just need to insert: "The applicant 14 shall submit evidence" at the beginning of that last sentence. 15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. Yep. 16 PATRICK GROOM: And then in 6.C we still have - it just says, um, Decommissioning Plan 17 language. I don't know if that language has been inserted yet. Oh, it has now. Good. 18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Esther's good. Esther is good even at 10:30. 19 PATRICK GROOM: Madam Chair, if I could have one moment on one remaining issue. 2 0 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Sure. Could you go back up to B so we could look at B real fast? I'm 21 sorry, 6.B, sorry. Okay. 22 PATRICK GROOM: Thank you Madam Chair. The only remaining change I would have is 23 in the Development Standards - number 38. I don't know if these were getting renumbered, but based 24 on the draft I have it doesn't have numbers. 292 1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: They've been renumbered. 2 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: That's fine. 3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: It's probably 35. 4 PATRICK GROOM: But the provision that's begins: "Martin Marietta will set up a$100,000 5 landscaping fund..." Um, I think we need to insert after "manage" - 6 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay, just a minute. That would be the new number 34, I believe. 7 Okay go ahead. 8 PATRICK GROOM: So that would now read: "Martin Marietta will set up a $100,000 9 landscaping fund in escrow to be managed by Martin Marietta and the Community Working Group." 10 Because again we have this same issue of if this Community Working Group can't make decisions on how 11 that's going to be spent - 12 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 13 PATRICK GROOM: -there needs to be some consultation with the applicant. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. I think we're good with that. 15 PATRICK GROOM: Those are the only changes I have. 16 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright. Okay I'll have the applicant's representative come back 17 up to the microphone. You heard all of the changes that were being made by the Board and yourselves 18 and the owner- landowner. Do you have any comments, questions, concerns, anything that you'd like to 19 discuss with regard to any of the Conditions of Approval or Development Standards? 2 0 CAROLYNNE WHITE: If the USR were to be approved with these changes, including all the 21 ones we just discussed,the applicant would be amenable to and be able to comply with those Conditions 22 and Standards. 23 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: And you would agree to abide by them? 24 CAROLYNNE WHITE: Yes. 293 1 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. Alright, thank you very much. With that I will bring it back to 2 the Board for discussion or motion. Who would like to start? 3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Madam Chair, if I may, I'll jump in here. This has been a long 4 day. It's been a tough day. I want to thank everybody for being here. Uh, I've been struggling all day with 5 this.There's been some great feedback on this whole process here. Uh, but at the end of the day I will be 6 making a motion, but if somebody else wants to make a comment before I make my motion - 7 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER MORENO: - I'll allow the other fellow Commissioners. 9 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Alright. 10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Go for it. 11 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Would you like to make comments? Would you like to make 12 comments right now? Alright, well I can start. Um, I'm going to - you know, I'm going to agree with 13 Commissioner Moreno. It has been a very long day. Um,we started this at 9:00 this morning and it's now 14 10:38. And so, first of all, before we get going we just like to thank everyone for coming. Um, everyone 15 in the audience, everyone who's a member of the public - whether you're a supporter or opponent, 16 whether you're a part of the applicant's representatives - I'd like to thank you all for coming. It is a very 17 important part of the process and I think at one point it was stated today that as you go through the 18 Comprehensive Plan - and I think this why sometimes we struggle -there's all sorts of policies and goals 19 in here that support, um, that could either support or not support the land use application. And I think, 20 you know, as we go through this and I think we took a really good effort, made a really good effort to 21 listen to the public and listen to everybody here about their concerns and their comments. And do you 22 know that the reality is that there is a State statute that requires us to go through a certain process and 23 we have to actually approve the land use application if the applicant has met the burden of proof for 24 those, essentially, five things that were listed and that have been stated a few times today. But, it's you 294 1 know, basically, boils down to,you know,compatibility with the existing and future surrounding land uses, 2 consistency with the area whether it's existing and future land use areas. And then our ability to mitigate 3 should be feel that there are negative impacts so that we can ensure adequate protection of the health, 4 welfare and safety of the surrounding area, um,which means a lot of area. So, I think as we went through 5 this-at lease for me-going through it and looking at the Comprehensive Plan and our Zoning Ordinances 6 and looking at all of the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, of which there's no less than 7 about forty or so Conditions of Approval and about 50, or actually 55 or so, Development Standards. I 8 think that's a lot to be putting on so that we could mitigate for the health,welfare and safety. And I think 9 going through and addressing the noise, the traffic, the um, pretty much everything, the drainage, you 10 know the list just goes all the way through here. Urn,the emergency action Plan, I mean, everything that 11 we continued to add on with regard, especially like to the noise standard and things and changes that we 12 made. Uh, I for one, am going to support it. And I would go through and just state that as I was going 13 through and trying to find Findings to support a motion of approval I would direct the Board and use, um, 14 in Section 23-2-230.B.1 - it talks about the proposal is consistent with Chapter 22 and other applicable 15 County provisions. Chapter 22 is essentially our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and I in our Comprehensive 16 Land Use Plan if you go into the Agricultural section of it, it speaks specifically, prior to even getting to the 17 Goals - it speaks specifically to the intent of the Agricultural Goals is to protect private property owners 18 to convert their Agricultural lands to other uses. Um, I know that many of us thinks that means,you know, 19 we have to have everything remain in Agriculture and the reality is that doesn't happen that way. And, 20 there was a lot of comments here about Right to Farm,and I actually was on the Board when we included 21 the Right to Farm Statement in our Comprehensive Plan and when we started including it as a note on the 22 plat. And the comment about that the Right to Farm Statement does not mean that it's an obligation to 23 farm is accurate. It was really put there so that people who move out into the country understand that 24 we still are an Agricultural county, that we're still the number one agricultural producing county in the 295 1 state and that they need to understand that,yes,the dairy farm is there- because at that time I owned a 2 dairy farm-that yes the dairy farm is there and there's going to be certain things that are going to impact 3 you, so when you move out to the country the first thing you shouldn't be trying to do is change the 4 country to look like the city. So, again, the Right to Farm Act is really not a, urn, obligation of the farmer 5 to continue farming, but it was written so that people who move out to the country have an understanding 6 that farming is going to occur and they just-you know, in some ways it sounds- it's just like having to tell 7 people the coffee is hot when you get it at McDonalds-there's farming that goes on, um, in Weld County 8 because of our agricultural production. That's also why we're adding on the statement with regard to the 9 minerals, urn, because again, as silly to me as it sounds, there are a lot of people who don't understand 10 there's a lot of oil and gas activity in our county. So, um,with that being said I would go through and going 11 through and looking at it, urn, in our Comprehensive Plan to support this application, if you look at Goal 12 A.7 it talks about County land use regulations should protect the individual property owners' right to 13 request a land use change and I believe that's essentially what's occurring here. Urn, and it goes on to say 14 that County land use regulations support commercial and industrial uses, urn, so again I think that's what 15 we're looking at here. There's also Goal A.8 which talks about ensuring the adequate services and facilities 16 are currently available or reasonably attainable to accommodate the requested new land use change. 17 And I think, um, and then there's also Goal A.9 which talks about reducing potential conflicts between 18 various land uses in the conversion of traditional agricultural lands to other lands. And I think as you go 19 through there and look at the corridor I think this was one of the comments that I made earlier was that, 20 urn, looking at the corridor we all drive that corridor and maybe - I don't drive it every day but I drive it 21 quite a bit on my way to Johnstown because that's where my daughter lives - um, you know there's a lot 22 of Commercial development, there's a lot of Industrial development, there's a lot of Residential 23 development and for those of you who ever listen to me talk about Residential development out in the 24 country, I'm usually a "No" on that, because I think it does conflict with Agricultural properties. But, um, 296 1 you know as we get through here,the thing that I was having a real difficulty with the Town of Johnstown 2 is they have already approved, without requiring mitigation essentially, they have approved a land use 3 that's going to put 28,000 vehicles at that intersection of Highway 34 and Road 13 and didn't bother to 4 mitigate it and think everybody else is supposed to be mitigating it. You know, I think for Johnstown to 5 come to us and say that they don't think we should approve this because it just doesn't fit with their plans 6 when they haven't even updated their Plan since 2006, I just don't understand that at all. But as you look 7 at that corridor, it is Light Industrial, it is Industrial, it is farming, it is Commercial, it is Residential and I 8 think the corridor is changing that way and will continue to change that way. I think with the mitigations 9 that are put in place with regard to the landscaping and the screening, um,yeah I think this will look good 10 at the entryway to Weld County {audience laughing). I would agree with the -with some of the folks in 11 the public that spoke about the entryway on Highway 85 because I drive that way almost every day and, 12 uh, there are some areas there that needed some cleaning up, but quite frankly, there's a wastewater 13 treatment facility that's occurring right at Weld County Road 2 between 2 and 6 on Highway 85 that 14 cleaned up the area substantially and it's a wastewater treatment facility. I know we had a lot of people 15 who have got up and said would you want to live next to this or would you want to live next to something 16 else. Urn, talked about that they didn't like oil and gas, they didn't like a lot of things. So, I just want 17 everybody to know that where I live in my backyard is the Northglenn Wastewater Treatment Facility, uh, 18 that's been there since 1989, uh, that came in right next to the dairy farm that I owned. Um, I also have 19 a rail line that goes through and currently there are four oil and gas facilities that are within close proximity 20 to where I live, not to mention the towers, urn,the radio towers that are just on the 35 acres to the south 21 of me, and not to mention Tri-State's huge transmission line that is just a half mile north of where I live, 22 or not to mention the high-pressure gas lines that run through my property that serve all the urban areas 23 in the front range. Urn, additionally, other Policies and Goals that I find that support this is, um, it's in the 24 Industrial Goals and it's Industrial Goal 1 which says you promote the location of industrial uses in urban 297 1 area, urn, in Intergovernmental Agreement Areas with Urban Growth Areas and Growth Management 2 Areas, in Regional Urban Areas, in Urban Development Nodes and along railroad infrastructure or where 3 adequate services are currently available or reasonably attainable. I'd also say that having the rail line in 4 this area, I mean, a lot of people associate rail lines with industrial uses already. I would say that in a lot 5 of our Planning and Intergovernmental Agreements, in fact we have an Intergovernmental Agreement in 6 place with the City of Greeley, that is all around the railroad and the development along it and most of it 7 is all slated to be Industrial type development. Also, if you look at Goal 1.3, urn, I think that supports the 8 plan where it talks about the transportation infrastructure and then there's also Goal 1.4 which talks about 9 all new Industrial development should pay its own way, and in this case, I think Martin Marietta has 10 demonstrated and we have solidified it within the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards 11 that it will pay for it's own way. Urn, I wish some of the other development in the corridor that's not 12 under our prevue would have paid for their way. Um, also there's other Goals within the Industrial 13 development that talk about compatibilities between Industrial uses, especially when they're all along 14 railroad lines and other uses. I think as you go through and look at it, it talks about whether or not it is 15 compatible with existing surrounding land uses and future land uses,those are a couple of things that we 16 have to-criteria that we have to look at and, again as I've already stated, if you look at the whole corridor 17 it's already industrialized, it's already commercialized, and it's already essentially urban development and 18 residential development and I think this does fit in with it. So, for those reasons I will be supporting the 19 application. Who would like to go next? 20 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I can go next. 21 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, first and foremost, I want to thank everybody here 23 who's waited this out. Urn, knowing you have had to go through two very, very long hearings, uh, and I 24 just first and foremost want to thank you. Thank you for participating in the process. I believe your 298 1 participation has made this better, and I'll highlight some of those as I go through my remarks. [feedback) 2 Sorry. I want to thank the applicant for their willingness to incorporate those things going above and 3 beyond in terms of what they might have to do in order to move this USR. Um,you know, our job up here 4 is to separate the emotion from the science and facts and, urn, this has been obviously one of the most 5 controversial USRs I've had in my almost seven years as a County Commissioner. I've taken a lot of time 6 on this. In fact, I was out driving [feedback)- I apologize - I was out driving. Yesterday I spent hours our 7 driving that corridor out there and looking at it and spent considerable amount of time prior to this reading 8 the materials, um,going through that process of seeing,you know, really where are we at. Um,you know, 9 there was a comment made earlier today that, 'Fear is sometimes greater that reality,' and I think that's 10 very true and I want to hit upon where your participation has really, I think, impacted this process and 11 hopefully made it better. I want to tell where I sit before I tell you where I stand. You know I recently 12 moved from west Greeley. I downsized - my wife and I downsized and bought a condo over near 10th 13 Street over here - can you hear me? - and 38th. It's about a mile, less than a mile from the 35th facility. 14 And you know I had my concerns, uh, like many of you have out there, uh, you know I'm getting really 15 close to the 35th site out there and what kind of impacts am I going to see? And, I've got to tell you. 16 We've been there for several months, I can overlook the pit from my second floor balcony, I go out there 17 every single night-it's one of my favorite quite times where I kind of down zone. I've never once smelled 18 any odor, I've never had any noise, uh, and I can barely make out the pit at night. The lighting is such that 19 if you didn't know that that pit was there,you wouldn't know it was there. And, it kind of hit home to me 20 a couple weeks ago, this has obviously been a controversial item in my family, obviously different 21 opinions, which is understandable. Uh, I think that was brought up earlier today in some of the public 22 testimony. Urn, my brother-in-law came from out of town and he use to visit our house out in west 23 Greeley, which was right off of Highway 34, and he made a comment to me as we were sitting out there 2 4 enjoying our iced tea and, uh, in the evening. And he made a comment to me that kind of hit home. He 299 1 said I can't believe how quiet your neighborhood is compared to the neighborhood that you used to live 2 in. See, back out in west Greeley by Highway 34 we could hear the traffic, and as we all know, the traffic 3 on Highway 34 has exponentially increased, and he made a point to me. I'd never noticed it because I 4 lived there and it was just part of the background noise in terms things, but he said I can't believe how 5 quiet your neighborhood is. And I mentioned to him,did you know that you have an asphalt plant literally 6 -see that-see those dim lights over there-that's an asphalt plant,and he goes, I can't believe it. He goes 7 I would never have realized that that facility could operate this close to a residential neighborhood. I'd 8 like to talk about Phil - I asked Phil over here-and I did do my investigation and I knew the answer to the 9 question when we had that public input that, um, since 2001 - correct me if I'm wrong, Phil, if I get the 10 numbers right - from 2001 to 2015 with this batch plant we've had zero complaints of noise and odor. 11 And I now live in that neighborhood and I've talked to neighbors that have lived out there many years 12 more than I have and, urn, I can tell you that I can verify that because (feedback]neighborhood and I see 13 it firsthand every single day. So, let me tell you why I think some of the things you accomplished here 14 tonight-and I want to give the opposition great credit. You took time,you engaged - and let me tell you 15 what we were able to accomplish because of your involvement tonight. We mitigated the hours of 16 operation, we mitigated the noise down -you know I asked for what are some of the mitigation things if 17 this project is going to go forward? I asked each and every one of you and asked the opposition group, 18 um,you know,what are things that you would like? So one of the things that was asked in the final public 19 comment period was we'd like a Residential noise standard. You now have that at 55/50. Um, we 20 addressed the traffic going south in terms of some of the triggers in terms of that. There were health 21 officials here that, urn, are very honorable folks that as they said, we have not dog in this fight. They 22 addressed a lot of the issues and concerns that you all legitimately had in terms of what kind of ambient 23 dust is going to be there, um, potential pollutants in the air that would impact organic farming, and the 24 testimony that was clearly there that, um, this will not have an impact on that. Urn, we even set up the 300 1 Community Working Group. I don't whose idea was that, I don't know if it was originally Martin Marietta's 2 or the citizens group, but now you're going to have quarterly meetings. You're going to have a fund for 3 landscaping and mitigation purposes. Urn, you're going to have an Emergency Plan that you all are going 4 to be able to review. Your Fire District is going to be involved in making sure that equipment is {feedback 5 -inaudible}those were very legitimate issues. So,at the end of the day, urn,you know we live in a modern 6 society. We like to drive on our roads, we like to build houses, we like to build our shopping centers, uh, 7 that is part of modern life and the offset of that is you've got to have aggregate. Uh,you know,this Board 8 has spent a tremendous amount of time dealing with I-25, you know, working on that issue with 9 Commissioner Kirkmeyer and I sitting on the Transportation entities in this region, uh, we've formed the 10 North I-25 Coalition to get that third lane done. Folks, it just doesn't happen without those materials and 11 we had expert after expert, people in the business saying that had-some were even customers to Martin, 12 or had any tie to Martin Marietta, and said look, aggregate is becoming a harder problem. We're a 13 growing region, we need this in order to grow like we all want in terms of Weld County, have nice homes, 14 have nice shopping centers, have nice highways. We're going to have to have this and, um, I know many 15 of you are going to be disappointed tonight, but I would go back to that - Fear is sometimes greater than 16 reality. And for those of you that said up here, how would you like to have one of these in your back yard. 17 Folks, in a few minutes I'm going to get in my car and I'm going to head down 35th and I'm going to turn 18 on 38th and I'm going to go out on my second floor balcony tonight and I understand your concerns - I 19 had those concerns - but I'm here to tell you that I think we've tried to mitigate this. Urn, I understand 20 that the only answer for some of you here tonight was 'Not in my backyard.' Unfortunately,the reality of 21 this is we've got to put this somewhere and it's got to be accessible to where this growth and where this 22 aggregate is being needed. And so, Madam Chair, I will be supporting whatever motion comes forward 23 in terms of that and I'm done. 24 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Okay,thank you. Who'd like to go next? 301 1 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Sure, urn, I also would like to thank everybody for coming 2 today. It has been an extremely long day, um,appreciate all of the input from the neighbors. I agree with 3 what Commissioner Conway said and what Commissioner Kirkmeyer said, um,I think there's a lot of things 4 that started out where they were and I think a lot of those things got better. I think we did look at ways 5 to mitigate things quite a bit, even though it's one of those things, you know, do you want that in your 6 backyard? You know it just depends on what your backyard is. In my backyard I've got the North Weld 7 Landfill a quarter mile away, I've got Tri-State substation just to the north, anywhere that we are out 8 there, there are things out there. I've got oil and well, um, oil and gas production as well as natural gas 9 pipelines going through my property as well. You know it's one of those things that I think that fear is 10 worse than the reality and I think, as Commissioner Conway said who lives close to one of these, I don't 11 really think that the- I don't think that it is nearly as bad as what it appears. I think at the end of the day, 12 urn, I think it's one of those things that it needs to be there, it's in the right place,this is an Industrial area, 13 it's going to continue to grow Commercial, it's going to continue to grow Industrial, it's going to continue 14 to have Agriculture. And so, for those reasons I think that - I think that we've done everything that we 15 can to make this make sense. I think we've mitigated everything that we possibly can. I think the applicant 16 has done a really good job at listening to the neighbors at trying to make sure that the things that were 17 really important like noise is down at the Residential level. The things that were asked, I think those were 18 all important and I think that what we did at the end of the day is we came to a place that makes some 19 sense and so for that reason I also will be supporting the application. 20 COMMISSIONER COZAD: I'll just make - turn on my mic - I'll just make a couple quick 21 comments. I agree also with the comments that have already been made so I won't rehash them. And, 22 you know, I think we've heard all of us say that we all put up with things, urn, in our neighborhoods -we 23 all do. The rail that's going to go to this site is actually right in my backyard-it goes right behind my house. 24 And, uh, there's a lot of trains on that rail line already and, you know, I know that there's going to be 302 1 more, but you know for me, um, as a new County Commissioner - actually I'm not supposed to say I'm 2 new anymore - but as a County Commissioner, um, one of my duties this year is to coordinate the 3 Department of Human Services, and so one of the things that's important to me is making sure that our 4 economy does keep going and that we have jobs for people, otherwise we're all going to be paying for 5 people to be on all kinds of programs through our Human Services Department and, uh,you know we're 6 struggling to find jobs even in this good economy for a lot of people. So, I think the jobs part of it is 7 important, but I think more importantly,the criteria that we have to look at to approve the application as 8 Commissioner Kirkmeyer said, the law actually says that we have to approve it if the burden of proof by 9 the applicant has been made, and I do agree with Commissioner Kirkmeyer. I actually had, um, gone 10 through, as Commissioner Conway said, and spent a great deal of time for about the last two weeks really 11 going through in detail the reports, the letters from everybody, and you know, frankly I've been getting 12 letters from people since about January and started having people talk to me and continually told 13 everybody,you know,there's a public process that has to happen and I can't talk to people about the case 14 outside of this public hearing today. But, I did spend a lot of time with several of the people that are on 15 the opposing side. Um,they came to a lot of my Coffees,they came to a lot of my office hours, and really 16 just wanted to go through what is the process, what is the procedure and,you know, what is the criteria 17 that you all look at? And we don't -you know,the thing is is until the very day that we're all here and all 18 the information is in and we have it all to look at,you know, we all don't know how it's going to go. And, 19 you know, for us again looking at the criteria, I went through and looked at what our Goals and Policies 20 were and how this does meet the criteria. I think Commissioner Kirkmeyer had a lot of the same ones 21 that I do, but um, just to state them again on the record: A.Goal 7 and A.Policy 7.1 which talks about 22 County land use regulations supporting Commercial and Industrial uses and part of that is directly related 23 to or dependent upon Agriculture. And I ask this question earlier today, you know, Agriculture is 24 dependent on this facility because they need - they need the products that build the roads so that they 303 1 can get their products to market, and they use the aggregates on their farms and in ditches and everything 2 else, so I think Agriculture is extremely dependent on aggregate products so I see the connection there. 3 I'm sorry, I'm losing my voice a little bit, but again I had at least eight or nine Goals and Policies out of our 4 Comprehensive Plan that actually supports development and some of the strongest ones have to do with, 5 urn,the location and the importance of railroad infrastructure and how that's important to Industrial uses. 6 And, you know, some of the other criteria, urn, talks about compatibility with surrounding land uses and 7 future land uses, uh, with Master Plans of surrounding communities and, again, I think the Conditions of 8 Approval and Development Standards make these more compatible than they would have been without 9 them and there's a lot of uses that are Uses by Right that could be on the properties that are zoned 10 Agricultural that would probably be more intensive than this use, so I think that there's some additional 11 protection for the neighbors that the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards have there. Um, 12 other than that I don't have anything else and, uh, oh I did actually have one other thing I wanted to add. 13 Uh, Commissioner Conway and the rest of the Commissioners we've been talking for several months 14 about planning on the Highway 34 Corridor and I think that's going to be extremely important going 15 forward. Um, we've had many conversations with the communities. Everybody sees the need for it. 16 We're going to be moving forward with that and so moving into the future I think we'll have better plans 17 on Highway 34 and working all together. I think the other thing I just wanted to mention too is I've gone 18 to Johnstown to their Town Board two or three times already this year and every time I've been there I've 19 talked to them about having a Coordinated Planning Agreement with Weld County. They are one of our 20 few communities that we do not have a Coordinated Planning Agreement with and I think it's really critical 21 because when these types of applications do come into the County,the first thing we do when we have a 22 Coordinated Planning Agreement is refer that back to the municipality. They can go work with the 23 applicant, and without that, um, we follow our criteria. So, I think, again, I'm going to continue to work 304 1 with Johnstown in getting that Coordinated Planning Agreement done so that we are coordinating better 2 into the future. So, and with that I am also going to be supporting the motion. 3 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve an 4 Amendment to the Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, USR15-0027 5 (formerly known as USR-1584),for any Use Permitted as a Use by Right,Accessory Use, or Use by Special 6 Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(construction business with the two shop buildings, 7 office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded 8 subdivision plat or part of a map or plan filed prior to the adoption of any regulation controlling 9 subdivisions, to include a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including asphalt and concrete batch 10 plants, materials processing, and transloading in an A (Agricultural) Zone District - Weld LV, LLC, and 11 Gerrard Investments, LLC, c/o Martin Marietta, with the recommended changes to the Conditions and 12 Development Standards. 13 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Second. 14 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: I have a motion made by Commissioner Moreno, seconded by 15 Commissioner Freeman to approve an Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special 16 Review Permit, USR15-0027, to include the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as 17 amended herein today and agreed upon by the applicant and also to incorporate the Findings of Fact as 18 stated by the Board of County Commissioners. Any discussion on the motion? Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I really want to-I think it's on,can you hear me? I really want 20 to encourage all of you that have been very involved in this process from the community to take advantage 21 of the Community Committee that's going to be formed. Um, I think that will open up a very productive 22 dialogue that will continue and I would encourage you to be engaged in that process and be part of that 23 as we go forward. I know many of you are going to be very disappointed here in a few minutes but there's 24 an opportunity really to engage with the applicant. We always talk about trying to get folks to work 305 1 together and I think the applicant has put out this Community Working Group, we've put terms and 2 conditions in here to meet on a quarterly basis. Talk about the landscaping fund talk about the building 3 designs, all of the things in there, please take advantage of what we've put into this USR today. Thank 4 you. 5 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor please say 6 Aye. 7 COMMISSIONERS: Aye; Aye; Aye; Aye. 8 CHAIR KIRKMEYER: Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Is there any other business 9 to come before the Board? Seeing no further business, uh, we are adjourned. 10 11 [End of discussion/action on Use by Special Review Permit, USR15-0027, for An Amendment to Site 12 Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, USR15-0027 (formerly known as USR-1584) 13 for any Use permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or 14 Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor 15 storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or part of a 16 map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions to include a Mineral 17 Resource Development Facility, including asphalt and concrete batch plants (materials processing) and 18 transloading in the A(Agricultural) Zone District-Weld LV, LLC, and Gerrard Investments, LLC, c/o Martin 19 Marietta, during 9:00 a.m. Public Hearing ending at 11:07 p.m.] 20 306 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF COLORADO) 4 ) ss 5 COUNTY OF WELD ) 6 7 I, Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board and Notary Public within and for the State 8 of Colorado, certify the foregoing transcript of the digitally recorded proceedings, In Re: An 9 Amendment to Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit, USR15-0027 10 (formerly known as USR-1584) for any Use permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use 11 by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two 12 shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an 13 approved or recorded subdivision plat or part of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any 14 regulations controlling subdivisions to include a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including 15 asphalt and concrete batch plants (materials processing) and transloading in the A (Agricultural) 16 Zone District-Weld LV, LLC, and Gerrard Investments, LLC, c/o Martin Marietta, before the Weld 17 County Board of County Commissioners, on August 12, 2015, and as further set forth on page 18 one. The transcription, dependent upon recording clarity, is true and accurate with special 19 exceptions(s) of any or all precise identification of speakers, and/or correct spelling or any 2 0 given/spoken proper name or acronym. 21 ll Dated this 26th day of October, 2015. ��2 2 xi ft Ce•�( " e° e 23 Esther E. Gesick, Notary 24 Weld County Clerk to the Board 25 ORIGINAL Q() ESTHER E. GESICK 26 NOTARY PUBLIC CERTIFIED COPY ( ) STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 19974016478 27 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 29, 2017 307 Hello