The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20152500.tiff MEMORANDUM IMt,I r, I/ Fr --I I TO: Diana Aungst, Planning Services DATE: 5/29/15,Updated 7/08/15 mei L , FROM: Wayne Howard, P.E., Development Engineer CO - N—Y SUBJECT: USR15-0027, Martin Marietta The Weld County Department of Planning Services-Engineering has reviewed this proposal. Staff comments made during this phase of the application process may not be all-inclusive, as other issues may arise during the remaining application process. COMMENTS: General Project Information/Location: Mineral resource development facilities including materials processing, asphalt & concrete batch plants, transloading, and any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or industrial zone districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) This project is east of and adjacent to CR 13 and is north of CR 56. Parcel number 095718300044. Access is from CR 13. Roads: County Road 13 is a paved roadway and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a arterial road, which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall verify and delineate on the plat the future and existing right-of-way and the documents creating the existing right-of- way. If the existing right of way cannot be verified it shall be dedicated. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. County Road 56 is a gravel road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local road, which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site map the future and existing right-of-way and the documents creating the existing right-of-way. If the existing right of way cannot be verified it shall be dedicated. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. The latest count on CR 13 taken on 11/6/13 was 689 vpd with 22% trucks No counts available on CR 56. Traffic: A traffic study was submitted by Gene Coppola with the application materials and indicated that there will be approximately 560 daily roundtrips in the first stage of the facility and possibly grow to 1130 daily round trips by 2035. Of the 560 daily roundtrips, approximately 490 will be trucks and 70 will be cars. The expected traffic routes are CR 13 to US 34 and CR 13 to CR 54 and distribution of traffic is estimated to be 95% north US 34 and 5% south. 532 (95%) vs. 28 (5%). There was no information in the traffic study concerning the train related traffic and safety issues. I would like to have additional information of speed of trains and number and duration of road closures as the trains deliver products to the site from US 85. Access: An Access Permit is required. For new accesses and/or change of use of an existing access, the fee and photos are required (Access permit instructions and application can be found at http://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/PublicWorks/Permits/Applications.html.) Chapter 6, Sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria, offer access design guidance. (This document can be found at http://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/Pu blicW orks/Engi neeringand RightofW ay/EngineeringCriteriaand P olicies.html) Existing access points with change of use or new access points may or may not be granted. Questions pertaining to access permits or access design shall be directed to the Public Works Department. An Access Permit application was submitted with the application materials. Public Works will review the application and provide an access permit and permit number if approved. Questions concerning access requirements can be directed to Public Works access permit division. Entrance gates (if applicable) must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from edge of roadway to allow a truck with trailer or RV to pull completely off of the roadway and open the gate. In no case shall any vehicle(s)stopped to open a gate be allowed to create a safety issue for roadway users. When feasible, there shall be no net increase in the number of accesses to a public road. Contact Public Works to discuss your access. Tracking Control: Tracking control is required to prevent tracking from the site onto the County Roadway. Minimal standards are listed below. Temporary Tracking Control shall be used during construction unless permanent tracking control is installed ahead of construction activities. More than 10 round large truck trips/day or more than 50 round passenger vehicles trips/day: Access onto paved roads requires either a tracking control devise and 100ft of asphalt OR 300ft of asphalt. *Recycled concrete is not allowed in County ROW **Tracking control devices can be double cattle guards or other specialized device *** Tracking control for unmaintained public ROW is required just prior to entering publically maintained roadways. ****Surface improvements less than 300 ft may be allowed if site constraints would prohibit meeting condition. Other PW Permits: A Right-of-Way Use Permit is required for any work in the Weld County Right-of-Way. Contact Weld County Public Works at 970-304-6496 ext. 3764. A Transport Permit is required for any oversize and/or over weight vehicles. Contact Weld County Public Works at 970-304-6496 ext. 3764. Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement: An Improvements Agreement between the Applicant and the County will be required for this project. It will detail the approved haul route(s), outline when offsite improvements will be triggered, and include a maintenance agreement for the haul routes. Improvements/Road Maintenance Agreement: An example agreement is available at: http://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/Plan n i ngZon i ng/Land UseApplicationsAssistance/ApplicationAssist ance.html o An Improvements Agreement is required for sites with required offsite improvements. Collateral is required to ensure the improvements are made. o Road Maintenance is typically included as a section of the Improvements Agreement when the County feels that the site activities may impact the County roadways. Possible mitigations included in the road maintenance agreement may include but are not limited to: dust control, specified haul routes, damage repairs, and future improvement triggers. Drainage Study: Detention or Water Quality: Storm Drainage Guidance and related documents (COC, WQCV Calc., WCECC, etc.) for the information described below can be found on the County Website at http://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/PlanningZoninq/Engineerinq.html. Please contact Department of Planning Services/Development Review Engineering for questions or assistance 970-353-6100. The applicant has submitted a Final Drainage Report for the project. The report may need updated with the site layout changes and must be signed and stamped include a Certificate of Compliance stamped and signed by the P.E. The applicants will be required to maintain historic drainage flows and run-off amounts on the property. Grading Permit A Weld County Grading Permit will be required if disturbing more than 1 acre. Contact the Planning Department for more information. A Construction Stormwater Permit is also required with the State for disturbing more than 1 acre. Contact: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, Rik Gay, 303- 692-3575. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. An Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement is required for offsite improvements at this location. Road maintenance including dust control, damage repair, specified haul routes and future traffic triggers for improvements will be included. (Department of Public Works) B. A Final Drainage Report and Certification of Compliance stamped and signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado is required. (Planning-Engineering) C. The traffic study should be updated to address the comments from CDOT, Larimer, and PW. The study should include information pertaining to the additional train traffic and discuss local traffic impacts that may be created by additional train traffic. D. The applicant shall address the traffic requirements of CDOT and Larimer County. E. The map shall be amended to delineate the following: 1. Show and label the approved access(es), turning radii, and access permit number(s) on the map. (Department of Public Works) 2. Show and label the entrance gate set back a minimum of 100ft from edge of shoulder. (Planning- Engineering) 3. Show and label all off-site auxiliary lane improvements. Prior to Construction: A. If more than one (1)acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County Grading Permit will be required. (Planning-Engineering) Prior to Operation: A. Accepted construction drawings and construction of the offsite roadway improvements are required prior to operation. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (NOTES ON THE SITE MAP) 1. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II, of the Weld County Code. (Planning-Engineering) 2. There shall be no tracking of dirt or debris from the site onto publically maintained roads. The applicant is responsible for mitigation of any offsite tracking and maintaining onsite tracking control devices. (Planning and Engineering) 3. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On-site parking shall be utilized. (Department of Public Works) 4. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained on the site. (Planning-Engineering) 5. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features. (Planning- Engineering) MEMORANDUM IMt,I r, I/ Fr --I I TO: Diana Aungst, Planning Services DATE: 5/29/15 mei L , FROM: Wayne Howard, P.E., Development Engineer CO - N—Y SUBJECT: USR15-0027, Martin Marietta The Weld County Department of Planning Services-Engineering has reviewed this proposal. Staff comments made during this phase of the application process may not be all-inclusive, as other issues may arise during the remaining application process. COMMENTS: General Project Information/Location: Mineral resource development facilities including materials processing, asphalt & concrete batch plants, transloading, and any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or industrial zone districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) This project is east of and adjacent to CR 13 and is north of CR 56. Parcel number 095718300044. Access is from CR 13. Roads: County Road 13 is a paved roadway and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a arterial road, which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall verify and delineate on the plat the future and existing right-of-way and the documents creating the existing right-of- way. If the existing right of way cannot be verified it shall be dedicated. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. County Road 56 is a gravel road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local road, which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site map the future and existing right-of-way and the documents creating the existing right-of-way. If the existing right of way cannot be verified it shall be dedicated. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. The latest count on CR 13 taken on 11/6/13 was 689 vpd with 22% trucks No counts available on CR 56. Traffic: A traffic study was submitted by Gene Coppola with the application materials and indicated that there will be approximately 560 daily roundtrips in the first stage of the facility and possibly grow to 1130 daily round trips by 2035. Of the 560 daily roundtrips, approximately 490 will be trucks and 70 will be cars. The expected traffic routes are CR 13 to US 34 and CR 13 to CR 54 and distribution of traffic is estimated to be 95% north US 34 and 5% south. 532 (95%) vs. 28 (5%). There was no information in the traffic study concerning the train related traffic and safety issues. I would like to have additional information of speed of trains and number and duration of road closures as the trains deliver products to the site from US 85. Access: An Access Permit is required. For new accesses and/or change of use of an existing access, the fee and photos are required (Access permit instructions and application can be found at http://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/PublicWorks/Permits/Applications.html.) Chapter 6, Sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria, offer access design guidance. (This document can be found at http://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/Pu blicW orks/Engi neeringand RightofW ay/EngineeringCriteriaand P olicies.html) Existing access points with change of use or new access points may or may not be granted. Questions pertaining to access permits or access design shall be directed to the Public Works Department. An Access Permit application was submitted with the application materials. Public Works will review the application and provide an access permit and permit number if approved. Questions concerning access requirements can be directed to Public Works access permit division. Entrance gates (if applicable) must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from edge of roadway to allow a truck with trailer or RV to pull completely off of the roadway and open the gate. In no case shall any vehicle(s)stopped to open a gate be allowed to create a safety issue for roadway users. When feasible, there shall be no net increase in the number of accesses to a public road. Contact Public Works to discuss your access. Tracking Control: Tracking control is required to prevent tracking from the site onto the County Roadway. Minimal standards are listed below. Temporary Tracking Control shall be used during construction unless permanent tracking control is installed ahead of construction activities. More than 10 round large truck trips/day or more than 50 round passenger vehicles trips/day: I Access onto paved roads requires either a tracking control devise and 100ft of asphalt OR 300ft of asphalt. *Recycled concrete is not allowed in County ROW **Tracking control devices can be double cattle guards or other specialized device *** Tracking control for unmaintained public ROW is required just prior to entering publically maintained roadways. ****Surface improvements less than 300 ft may be allowed if site constraints would prohibit meeting condition. Other PW Permits: A Right-of-Way Use Permit is required for any work in the Weld County Right-of-Way. Contact Weld County Public Works at 970-304-6496 ext. 3764. A Transport Permit is required for any oversize and/or over weight vehicles. Contact Weld County Public Works at 970-304-6496 ext. 3764. Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement: An Improvements Agreement between the Applicant and the County will be required for this project. It will detail the approved haul route(s), outline when offsite improvements will be triggered, and include a maintenance agreement for the haul routes. Improvements/Road Maintenance Agreement: An example agreement is available at: http://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/Plan n i ngZon i ng/Land UseApplicationsAssistance/ApplicationAssist ance.html o An Improvements Agreement is required for sites with required offsite improvements. Collateral is required to ensure the improvements are made. o Road Maintenance is typically included as a section of the Improvements Agreement when the County feels that the site activities may impact the County roadways. Possible mitigations included in the road maintenance agreement may include but are not limited to: dust control, specified haul routes, damage repairs, and future improvement triggers. Geologic hazard Area: This area IS NOT in a Geologic Hazard Area. Floodplain: This area IS NOT in a Floodplain. Drainage Study: Detention or Water Quality: Storm Drainage Guidance and related documents (COC, WQCV Calc., WCECC, etc.) for the information described below can be found on the County Website at http://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/PlanninqZoninq/Engineerinq.html. Please contact Department of Planning Services/Development Review Engineering for questions or assistance 970-353-6100. A drainage report shall be completed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer and adhere to the drainage related sections of the Weld County Code. The drainage report must include a Certificate of Compliance stamped and signed by the P.E. The Certificate of Compliance can be found on the County website http://www.co.weld.co.us/departments/planningzoning/engineering.html. The applicant has submitted a Final Drainage Report for the project. The report must be signed and stamped include a Certificate of Compliance stamped and signed by the P.E. This site is not in a defined Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) area which is a more urbanized area with state mandated, higher water quality requirements The applicants will be required to maintain historic drainage flows and run-off amounts on the property. Grading Permit A Weld County Grading Permit will be required if disturbing more than 1 acre. Contact the Planning Department for more information. A Construction Stormwater Permit is also required with the State for disturbing more than 1 acre. Contact: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, Rik Gay, 303- 692-3575. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. An Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement is required for offsite improvements at this location. Road maintenance including dust control, damage repair, specified haul routes and future traffic triggers for improvements will be included. (Department of Public Works) B. A Final Drainage Report and Certification of Compliance stamped and signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado is required. (Planning-Engineering) C. The traffic study should be updated to include information relating to speed of trains and number and duration of road closures as the trains deliver products to the site from US 85. D. The map shall be amended to delineate the following: 1. County Road 56 is a gravel road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local road, which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the map the future and existing right-of-way. If the existing right of way cannot be verified it shall be dedicated. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Planning-Engineering) 2. County Road 13 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a arterial road, which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the map the future and existing right-of-way. If the existing right of way cannot be verified it shall be dedicated. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Planning-Engineering) 3. Show and label the approved access(es)and access permit number(s) on the map. (Department of Public Works) 4. Show and label the approved tracking control device on the map. (Planning-Engineering) 5. Show the accepted water quality feature or stormwater pond on the map and label as "water quality feature/Stormwater Detention, no-build or storage area , volume= ") (Planning- Engineering) 6. Show and label the accepted drainage features, drainage flow arrows, access turning radii (60ft), parking and traffic circulation on the map. (Planning-Engineering) 7. Show and label the entrance gate set back a minimum of 100ft from edge of shoulder. (Planning- Engineering) Prior to Construction: A. The approved access and tracking control shall be constructed prior to on-site construction. (Planning-Engineering) B. If more than one (1) acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County Grading Permit will be required. (Planning-Engineering) Prior to Operation: A. Accepted construction drawings and construction of the offsite roadway improvements are required prior to operation. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (NOTES ON THE SITE MAP) 1. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II, of the Weld County Code. (Planning-Engineering) 2. There shall be no tracking of dirt or debris from the site onto publically maintained roads. The applicant is responsible for mitigation of any offsite tracking and maintaining onsite tracking control devices. (Planning and Engineering) 3. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On-site parking shall be utilized. (Department of Public Works) 4. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained on the site. (Planning-Engineering) 5. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features. (Planning- Engineering) MEMORANDUM - r TO: Dianna Aungst, Planning Services DATE: July 6, 2015 N 2 c p U N T YJ/ FROM: Janet Lundquist, Public Works SUBJECT: USR15-0027 Traffic Impact Analysis Weld County Public Works has received a Traffic Study for the Martin Marietta site prepared and stamped by Eugene Coppola on March 27, 2015. After reviewing the submitted traffic study I have prepared the following comments: Comments: 1. No parking or staging of commercial vehicles on the county road is allowed. Use on-site parking area. 2. The applicant has proposed approximately 1,120 trips per day in the short term and 2,260 trips per day in the long term for the facility. CR 13 is a paved roadway the most recent traffic count was taken in November 2013. The AADT was 689 vpd with 22% trucks. 3. County Road 13 is a paved roadway and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a arterial road, which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full build out. The applicant shall verify and delineate on the plat the future and existing right-of-way and the documents creating the existing right-of-way. If the existing right of way cannot be verified it shall be dedicated. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. Requirements: 1. Due to the increased traffic volumes at the facility entrance the triggers for a southbound left deceleration lane and a northbound right acceleration lane is required. 2. The Traffic Study states that the trip distribution is 95% of traffic traveling north on CR 13 and 5% of traffic traveling south on CR 13. Weld County, Larimer County and CDOT all agree that this trip distribution appears to be skewed. A more realistic trip distribution would be 75% of traffic traveling north on CR 13 and 25% of traffic traveling south on CR 13. Based upon the realistic trip distribution the following improvements will be required: a. A southbound right deceleration lane into the facility. b. The upgrade of CR 13 south from CR 50 to CR 54 to pavement. c. Auxiliary lanes at the intersection of CR 54 & CR 13 3. A stop sign will be required to be installed at the facility accesses onto CR 13. The access will have 60' radius to accommodate the larger trucks entering and exiting the site. 4. Traffic from this facility cannot use CR 56 between CR 13 and CR 15 which is a gravel local roadway. 5. Traffic from this facility cannot use CR 50 between CR 13 and SH 60 which is a gravel local roadway. 6. Show and label the approved access permit number AP15-00223 on the map. Page 1 of 2 C:\Users\tjuanicorena\AppData\Local\Microsoft\windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\8ITECQ2T\Traffic Review USR15-0027 .docx 7. The applicants can utilize the existing access point on CR 13 located approximately 2655 ft south of US 34 for their industrial access. The new access point located 2770 ft south of US 34 shall be gated at the edge of ROW and will be utilized for Emergency use only. 8. A signal will be required at the intersection of CR 13 and US 34. The US 34 Access Control Plan (ACP) shows that a signal can be installed at this location in the interim condition. Ultimately, a systems analysis will need to be done and an interchange built as per the US 34 ACP. CDOT, Larimer County and Weld County will not participate in the costs of design or construction of any signal. 9. All auxiliary lanes on US 34 will need to be brought up to standard for length, taper, and storage. It would appear that the right acceleration lane would require that the railroad crossing be widened. 10. The Traffic Impact Study does not address the traffic on the frontage road. The road's proximity to mainline US 34 may be an issue depending on the volume of traffic using the intersection of WCR 13 and the frontage road. Based on that volume, additional signalization may be warranted, or as per the US 34 ACP, the frontage road realigned to allow for greater distance between mainline and the frontage road intersections. 11. Any railroad signalization required on CR 13, CR 54, CR 17, CR 52, and US 34 is the responsibility of Martin Marietta and the appropriate railroad company. Due to the increase of rail traffic and the potential conflicts at these crossings the county is requiring their installation prior to operation of the facility. If the appropriate railroad company disagrees with this condition they can produce a traffic study showing that the increase rail traffic and roadway traffic does not decrease the safety at these locations and the county will reevaluate each location individually. Page 2 of 2 C:\Users\tjuanicorena\AppData\Local\Microsoft\windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\8ITECQ2T\Traffic Review USR15-0027 .docx 1861 MEMORANDUM TO: Diana Aungst, Planning Services U� Ei \ FROM: Lauren Light, Environmental Health N Y � SUBJECT: USR15-0027 Martin Marietta DATE: 7/29/2015 Environmental Health Services has reviewed this proposal for a site specific development plan and a special review permit for a mineral resource development facilities materials processing, asphalt & concrete batch plants, transloading, and any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. There will be up to 71 full time employees located at the facility. There will be an additional 45 truck drivers and 25 field employees. The applicant is proposing to provide water to the facility from Little Thompson Water District. There are several existing septic systems located on site (SP-0701064-commercial office and shop for 30 employees for Gerrad Excavating, SP-1000036-minor repair permit to connect office trailer to existing septic for Gerrad Excavating and SE-0000094-permit for a 2 bedroom residence). The applicant will be installing several commercial systems and utilizing portable toilets for the seasonal asphalt batch plant. Waste Handling: Reviewed by Heather Barbare WCDPHE A waste handling plan was submitted which indicates disposal methods for used oil, batteries, tires, antifreeze and filters. The plan indicates that construction and demolition waste (defined by the EPA) will not be created. Bag house fines are circulated back into the asphalt mix and production so that no waste is generated. The plan indicates that bag house fines do not escape from the collection system and are not generated in quantities that cannot be managed by placing back into the asphalt mix and production. The wash plant discharge from the portable wash plant will enter a 12- foot diameter/60-foot tall thickener tank. The clean water from the thickener tank will be diverted into a 30-foot diameter/20-foot tall water tank, which will recycle back to the wash plant. The sand from the thickener tank will be discharged into a multi-bin wash out bay. These sands will be properly disposed off-site by either selling the product externally, transporting the material to another Martin Marietta site for use, or disposed of in a landfill. There will be fuel storage on site which will be stored in multiple tanks. There may be three tanks: a 2,000 gallon double-walled tank, a 10,000 gallon double walled tank, and a 25,000 gallon tank that will be contained within a concrete walled containment area. The two double-walled tanks will sit on a concrete pad. The tanks will require registration with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety. An SPCC plan will be developed, certified, and on-site within 6 months of the facility being constructed. A draft SPCC template was provided. Section 8.5.3 of the Regulations pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1), applies to the asphalt recycling facility. The recycling facility does not need an operations plan or to meet other State recycling facility requirements, as long the following requirements are adhered to: (B) Concrete and asphalt operations do not need an operations plan when the material is managed like a commodity by meeting the following conditions: (1) material is managed and separated into commodity specific piles processed for reuse; (2) material is managed in active piles separated by material type or use within the past year; and (3) Incoming loads shall have all non-concrete, non-asphalt and nonrebar material removed from concrete and asphalt materials within thirty (30) calendar days and non-concrete, non-asphalt and nonrebar material shall not exceed 10% of the total material onsite by weight or volume. Air emissions: reviewed by Phil Brewer WCDPHE The facility will be appropriately controlled for the emissions of air pollutants (criteria and HAP's) by the language written into the "Construction Permits" that will be issued for the concrete and asphalt operations by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division (the "Division"). The permits will be written for the control of emissions of particulates (PM, PM10, PM2.5) and criteria pollutants (CO, NOx, SOx, and VOC). Some of these pollutants will be emitted at rates greater than 1 ton/year. The permits will be written for the control of emissions of HAPs, specifically formaldehyde and Hexane (both of which will be emitted at levels > 250 lbs/year). The permits will be written specifically for the control of fugitive particulate emissions caused by truck activity. The "Fugitive Emissions Control Plan" is written into every permit issued for concrete, asphalt and aggregate plant operations. Reference is made to grinding concrete and asphalt. This activity potentially is accompanied by the generation of fugitive particulate emissions. This activity must be conducted with appropriately AIR-permitted grinding or pulverizing equipment with utilization of water spray for control of fugitive particulate emissions from passing off- site. The pulverizing equipment may be either permanently located on site, or portable equipment---the equipment items may require permits or APEN's issued by the Division. 2 Air Emissions Assessment by Stewart Environmental Consultants, LLC 4.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS MMM is planning the operation of a hot mix asphalt plant, a concrete ready mix plant and asphalt recycling in Weld County, Colorado to the southeast of the intersection of US Highway 34 and Weld County Road 13. The asphalt plant has a maximum production rate of 450,000 tpy, the ready mix plant has a maximum production rate of 325,000 yd3/yr, and approximately 90,000 tpy of asphalt will be recycled. The facility wide emissions from the Highway 34 Facility are presented in Table 6 and Table 7 of this report. Stewart conducted an assessment of the public health impacts associated with the reported HAP emissions from the asphalt plant and asphalt recycling. The HAP modeling analysis was conducted using the modeling results from the AERSCREEN model. Stewart's analysis reports emissions for the following HAPs: benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, hexane, toluene, and xylene. The HAP modeling was conducted for two receptors near the Highway 34 Facility where people are known to live and/or congregate. The locations are the Highway 34 Facility boundary and the nearest home within the Indianhead Estates neighborhood (south of U.S. Highway 34 and west of Weld County Road 15). The HAP modeling analysis prepared by Stewart considered both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) health effects of the pollutant of interest. For the acute effects analysis, Stewart estimated the maximum 1- hour concentration of each HAP and for the chronic effects analysis Stewart estimated the maximum annual average concentrations for each HAP. As shown in Table 10 the HAP emissions included benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, hexane, toluene, and xylenes. The HAP values are well below both the EPA Safe Concentration Threshold and Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) for the State of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). California has instituted the most stringent emission policies in the country, and the Highway 34 Facility complies with those levels. Our conclusion is that this facility will not negatively impact the surrounding environment or affect human health as it will meet all environmental standards. Noise — Reviewed by Phil Brewer WCDPHE Industrial Area means an area where manufacturing, processing or fabrication of any commodity, storage and warehousing, wholesale sales of equipment, materials and supplies, repair, servicing and rental of vehicles and other commodities and other similar activities are conducted. Sec. 14-9-40. Maximum permissible noise levels. A. Sound levels shall be measured as provided for in Section 14-9-50 below. B. Sound levels are hereby established for each type of property during specific hours of the day. Any sound level which exceeds the level set for a type of property at any time of day is prohibited. 3 Land Use Maximum Noise 7:00 a.m. —9:00 p.m. Maximum Noise 9:00 p.m. —7:00 a.m. Residential Property or Commercial Area 55 dB 50 dB Industrial Area or Construction Activities 80 dB 75dB Nonspecified Areas 55 dB 50 dB C. Between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., the noise levels set forth above may be exceeded by up to ten (10) decibels for up to fifteen (15) minutes in a one-hour period. (AM and PM may have been reversed in the Code inadvertently) State Regulations stipulate: In the hours between 7:00 a.m. and the next 7:00 p.m., the noise levels set forth above may be exceeded by up to ten (10) decibels for up to fifteen (15) minutes in any one-hour period. Paul Burge, INCE Bd. Cert., AECOM — noise study 4.0 Proposed Noise Mitigation Elements The proposed noise control elements recommended to be constructed as part of the project include the following (and as conceptually indicated in Figure 1): • Berms to break line-of-sight between sound sources and receptors R1A, R1 B and R2. • Noise walls to break line-of-sight between sound sources and receptors R3, R4A, R4B, and R5. • Acoustical enclosures/silencers to provide at least 20 dBA of noise reduction at asphalt plant. • Acoustical enclosures/silencers to provide at least 10 dBA of noise reduction at ready- mix plant. • Noise wall to provide at least 15 dB noise reduction for truck noise at R5. Detailed locations and heights for noise walls and berms and details and specifications for noise control elements for the asphalt and ready-mix plants would be defined during final design, but may include such features as stack and intake silencers, burner enclosures, conveyor and chute enclosures and lagging, acoustically absorptive enclosure pens and administrative/operational controls. 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon this analysis it is concluded that the proposed Highway 34 proposed operations would not exceed the maximum allowable "Industrial" noise limits during the day or at night. In addition, with recommended noise control elements as listed in Section 4.0, it is predicted that the plant operations would not exceed the "residential" noise limits at nearby residences for daytime operations, but may exceed those limits for periods during on-demand nighttime operations at some receiver locations. Noise is evaluated at/on the property of the complaining party. Noise will be measured, as an example, at the property of a complainant who lives in Indianhead subdivision perhaps '% or % mile away from the MMM east or north property line. 4 Applegate Group, Inc., Water impact Conclusions regarding potential water resources impacts from Martin Marietta's proposed Highway 34 development. Due to the presence of drain tiles underneath the property which discharge to Koenig Reservoir, best management practices (BMPs) for the storage of potential contaminants (including petroleum, oil & lubricants) need to be followed. Such BMPs include secondary containment on all fuels storage, as well as an active Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. ODOR — Reviewed by Phil Brewer, WCDPHE Martin Marietta —We will comply with the federal, state, and local odor regulations. Occasionally, odors from heated materials may emanate from an asphalt plant, but they pose no danger either to plant personnel or to the community in which the plant operates. However, Martin Marietta already plans to take steps to minimize odor generation through plant design and a vertical orientation of the liquid AC tanks. Additionally, Martin Marietta trains and certifies staff to operate and maintain equipment that measures odors. This ensures full compliance with all rules and regulations. WCPDHE - Odor is evaluated across the property line of the source generating odor. That property line may be separating the odor generating property from a receptor such as a private parcel, a home, public right-of-way, park, school, or health facility. For example: Odor generated at the proposed plant will be evaluated anywhere across a property line of the MMM operation. The evaluation of odor and the use of the "Nasal Ranger" could be as close as a few feet to the odor generator or source. Odor must comply with Regulation No. 2. Odor is only a violation if it is passing across property lines. If odor is remaining on the MMM property it is not a violation. Odor is a violation if it is greater than 7:1 dilution for areas that are residential or commercial. When the source is a manufacturing process the source is not in violation of the > 7:1 concentration if the source demonstrates that it is utilizing the best practical treatment, maintenance, and control currently available in order to maintain the lowest possible emission of odorous gases. If odor is > 7:1, a representative from the Environmental Health Division will conduct a comprehensive analysis of the industrial processes and determine if the plant is properly conducting operations according to approved operations and maintenance plans. Health impacts, Scott Phillips, M.D. The entire report is available online, the information below is a brief overview from the report. 5 Are the emissions from the proposed asphalt plant going to be harmful? CDPHE will set emission limits for the asphalt plant to be protective of human health and environment. The amount or level permitted to be released at this plant would not pose a health risk to employees or residents. Will asphalt plant employees be at a higher risk of health effects? Human studies have found no clinical evidence that asphalt plant production has contributed to illness or cancer. Studies by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have verified that emissions from asphalt facilities do not present an environmental or public health hazard. Additionally, the asphalt plant at the Highway 34 Development will be required to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) stringent workplace safety and health standards. Plant employees will be trained, will wear personal protective equipment and will be routinely monitored to ensure workplace exposures do not harm their health. Facility workers would be closest to potential sources of emissions, but these would be are at low enough concentrations that OSHA would not require asphalt plant employees to wear respirators. It is Martin Marietta's practice to monitor their asphalt plant employees for soluble benzene and total suspended particulates, which are total and soluble airborne particles or aerosols. It has been Martin Marietta's experience that results of such monitoring at similar plants owned by Martin Marietta are well below acceptable levels as determined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). OSHA will also require the Highway 34 Development to create Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to communicate potential workplace hazards and appropriate precautions to take to reduce potential health impacts. MSDS risks and precautions are not applicable to nearby communities, as residents would not be exposed to the same concentrations of compounds as plant workers. Since people will live near the plant, are they at a higher risk for health effects? Plant emissions dissipate and disperse rapidly once they are released from the stack. Since the most concentrated levels of compounds are found in the stack—and these are released within regulatory limits—no health effects to the community are expected as a result of plant operations. Could exposure to this plant cause cancer? No medical studies have been identified that link residential exposure to asphalt fumes with the development of cancer. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, health studies of asphalt plant workers also have shown no measurable increase in cancer. The increases in cancer rates were seen in asphalt roofers and asphalt mastic pavers, who worked with different asphalt materials and compounds. Are there special risks to people with respiratory or immune system problems? No. As permitted, these releases do not pose a health hazard and therefore do not 6 impose special risks to susceptible populations. Air pollution can aggravate asthma, but does not appear to cause asthma. Environmental Health recommends the following requirement be met prior to allowing the plat to be recorded: All development standards associated with USR-1584 for Gerrad Excavating shall be included on the plat. Environmental Health recommends that the following Development Standards be part of any approval: 1. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. 2. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S. 3. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the accepted Waste Handling Plan, at all times. The facility shall operate in accordance with Chapter 14, Article 1 of the Weld County Code. 4. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions should be controlled on this site. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the accepted dust abatement plan, at all times. Uses on the property should comply with the Colorado Air Quality Commission's air quality regulations. 5. Adequate drinking, handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility, at all times. For employees or contractors on site for less than 2 consecutive hours a day portable toilets and bottled water are acceptable. Records of maintenance and proper disposal for portable toilets shall be retained on a quarterly basis and available for review by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. Portable toilets shall be serviced by a cleaner licensed in Weld County and shall contain hand sanitizers. 6. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes, as needed. The facility shall utilize the public water supply. 7. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be handled in a safe manner in accordance with product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). All chemicals must be stored securely, on an impervious surface, and in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. 8. A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan, prepared in accordance with the applicable provisions of 40 CFR, Part 112, shall be available on site. 9. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as delineated in Section 14-9-30 of the Weld County Code. 10. The facility shall comply with all provisions of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Oil and Public Safety Underground and Above Ground Tank Regulations, as applicable. 11. Any washing areas shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 12. Process wastewater (such as floor drain and laboratory wastes) shall be captured in a watertight vault/container and hauled off for proper disposal. Records of installation, maintenance, and proper disposal shall be retained. 13.The facility shall comply with the Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) permit requirements as stipulated by the Air Pollution Control Division, of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 14.Material being recycled shall be separated by material type or use. Incoming loads shall have all non-concrete, non-asphalt and non-rebar material removed from concrete and asphalt materials within thirty (30) calendar days. Non- concrete, non-asphalt and non-rebar material shall not exceed 10% of the total material onsite by weight or volume 15.Odors detected off site shall not exceed the level of seven-to-one dilution threshold, as measured pursuant to Regulation 2 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Regulations. 16.The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code. 8 it Department of Planning Services 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 COUNTY (970) 353-6100 Weld County Referral Date: June 4, 2015 Applicant: Weld LV LLC &Gerrard Investments LLC, do Martin Marietta Project: : A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facilities including materials processing, asphalt & concrete batch plants, transloading, and any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. Case Number: USR15-0027 Parcel Number: 095718300044-R3549705 Legal: PART SW4 SECTION 18,T5N, R67W of the 6`h P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Parcel Number: 095718000009-R0515201 Legal: PART SW4 & PT SE4 SECTION 18, T5N, R67W LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-2803 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. After reviewing the application and documents submitted the Building Department has the following comments: Our records indicate that a permit was not submitted for the existing fuel station on the property. Please contact the building department to address this structure. Building and electrical permits will be required, per Section 29-3-10 of the Weld County Code, for any new permanent structures and equipment, additions, or renovation to any existing structures. A building permit application and a complete Code Analysis must be submitted, with two complete sets of engineered plans for all systems/trades for each new building. MSDS sheets for all materials stored shall be submitted with building permit applications. Buildings and structures shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2012 International Building Code; 2012 International Mechanical Code; 2012 International Plumbing Code: 2012 International Fuel Gas Code; 2006 International Energy Conservation Code; 2014 National Electrical Code; 2009 ANSI 117.1 Accessibility Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. Proof of Fire District Notification is required at time of submittal. All building permit requirements can be found on the Weld County web-site. Jose Gonzalez Department of Building Inspection Diana Aungst From: Hice-Idler, Gloria [gloria.hice-idler@state.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:13 PM To: Diana Aungst Subject: USR 15-0027/Martin Marietta Diana, Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review the proposed Martin Marietta development plan. Here are my comments in no particular order: 1. Based upon the traffic on US 34 and the proposed traffic to this site, a traffic signal will likely be needed to regulate traffic. The US 34 Access Control Plan (ACP) shows that a signal can be installed at this location in the interim condition. Ultimately, a systems analysis will need to be done and an interchange built as per the US 34 ACP. 2. CDOT would not participate in the costs of design or construction of any signal. 3. The Traffic Impact Study does not address the traffic on the frontage road. The road's proximity to mainline US 34 may be an issue depending on the volume of traffic using the intersection of WCR 13 and the frontage road. Based on that volume, additional signalization may be warranted, or as per the US 34 ACP, the frontage road realigned to allow for greater distance between mainline and the frontage road intersections. 4. Because of the railroad tracks on the county road and US 34, coordination between both crossings and any signal on US 34 will need to be completed and approved by the appropriate railroad company. I believe that would require signals and gates be constructed on WCR 13. 5. All auxiliary lanes on US 34 will need to be brought up to standard for length, taper, and storage. It would appear that the right acceleration lane would require that the railroad crossing be widened. Assuming that the intersection was signalized, CDOT would consider a waiver for the length of that particular auxiliary lane. 6. The T1S gives a 95-5 directional split with 95% of the total traffic coming to US 34. While that will ensure that we mitigate traffic on US 34, I think that number might incorrect. If you have any other questions, please contact me. Gloria Hice-Idler Region 4 Permits Manager Region 4 Permits Unit - Traffic P 970.350.2148 I C 970.381 .2475 I F 970.350.2198 1420 2nd Street, Greeley, CO 80631 gloria.hice-idler@state.co.us I www.coloradodot.info I www.cotrip.org 1 Submit by Email Weld County Referral GCliN -Y i April 29, 2015 The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant: Weld LV LLC &Gerrard Investments LLC, Case Number: USR15-0027 do Martin Marietta Please Reply By: May 27, 2015 Planner: Diana Aungst Project:A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facilities including materials processing, asphalt&concrete batch plants, transloading, and any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage)provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A (Agricultural)Zone District. Location: East of and adjacent to CR 13 and approximately 1 mile south of US HWY 34 Parcel Number: 095718300044-R3549705 Legal: PART SW4 SECTION 18, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Parcel Number: 095718000009-R0515201 Legal: PART SW4 & PT SE4 SECTION 18, T5N, R67W LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-2803 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. nWe have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan because: We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. See attached letter. Jesse Molinar 5/06/15 Signature Date Agency Front Range Fire Rescue Authority Weld County Planning Dept. 1555 N 17th Ave,Greeley,CO.60631 (970)353-6100 ext.3540 (970)304-6498 fax 1,O.1 Front Range Fire Rescue Authority P.O. Box 130 - Milliken, Co 80543 ;Talk 100 Telep Avenue - Johnstown, CO 80534 .�� Phone: 970-587-0339 411,«,c Fax: 970-587- 0324 REFERRAL COMMENTS Requesting Entity: Weld County Project Name: Martin Marietta/Gerrard Investments Project Type: USR15-0027 We have reviewed the proposal/plans and find the following: I have been in contact and had several meetings with the applicants' representative. We have discussed access, emergency access, needed water supply and have submitted to a third party reviewer for the application. We want to ensure that all fire codes and safety standards are met and followed. Thank you, Jesse Molinar Jr. Fire Marshal Front Range Fire Rescue Authority jmolinar@frfr.co le r ix v NZ $ shy FRONT RANGE FIRE RESCUE W W VAC FRFR.CO krSCUE May 29, 2015 Weld County Planning Diana Aungst and Janet Lundquist, The F.R.F.R.A. is requiring Martin Marietta to have a secondary emergency access point into the proposed property. Although the preferred, Martin Marietta has stated that an emergency access onto WCR 56 is not feasible. Placing the secondary emergency access onto WCR 13 south of the primary entrance (as indicated on the map) is acceptable to the fire department. Thank you, Jesse Molinar Fire Marshal Front Range Fire Rescue Authority Station 7 Station 2 700 Telep Avenue 707 5. Irene Ave Johnstown, CO 80534 Milliken, CO 80543 9705874477 Fax: 9705870324 970587.4464 Submit by Email Weld County Referral ..,166,,,.; L'OVN - April 29, 2015 The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant: Weld LV LLC &Gerrard Investments LLC, Case Number. USR15-0027 do Martin Marietta Please Reply By: May 27,2015 Planner: Diana Aungst Project:A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facilities Including materials processing, asphalt&concrete batch plants,transloading, and any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(construction business with two shop buildings,office buildings, and outdoor storage)provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A (Agricultural)Zone District. Location: East of and adjacent to CR 13 and approximately 1 mile south of US HWY 34 Parcel Number. 095718300044-R3549705 Legal: PART SW4 SECTION 18,T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. Parcel Number.095718000009-R0515201 Legal: PART SW4&PT SE4 SECTION 18,T5N, R67W LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-2803 of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. nWe have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan because: We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. /piSee attached letter. Signature A�— Date 5/ BIZ-Oi c r Agency es ; -A� r c- 17 Weld County Planning Dept 1555 N 17th Ave,Greeley,CO.80631 (970)353-6100 ext.3540 (970)304-6498 fax :in of � \ Greeley rado Via Email May 27, 2015 Ms. Diana Aungst, Weld County Planner Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17th Ave Greeley, Colorado 80631 Subject: Use by Special Review (USR15-0027)—Martin Marietta Materials Dear Ms. Aungst and Members of the Weld County Planning Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this significant regional development proposal. The development you have referred to the City is proposed in a sensitive location with various competing interests. It is important to consider — and, ideally, master plan — this area in a collaborative manner due to the proximity of this site to three municipalities, an established unincorporated neighborhood, large swaths of productive agricultural land, and major regional transportation systems. In 2008, the City of Greeley and the Town of Windsor entered into an amended intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that identified a defined Cooperative Planning, Land Use and Utility Area (CLUA) as a means to attempt to identify and support a land use pattern for the US Highway 34 corridor that would be consistent with the jurisdictions' visions and infrastructure planned and existing in the area. (See enclosure.) The CLUA consists of the Principal Employment Corridor and Secondary Corridor Area. The Principal Employment Corridor is along the US Highway 34 corridor at a width of one-half mile on each side and envisions uses such as community separators, business parks, and select industrial uses. Heavy industry and outdoor storage, particularly directly along the highway, are discouraged unless they are incidental and completely screened. The Principal Employment Corridor is supported by the Secondary Corridor Area, an area from a half-mile to mile from the highway, which is envisioned as more neighborhood-oriented like residences, retail, restaurants, neighborhood commercial, and institutions. The proposed facility for Martin Marietta is located within this Secondary Corridor Area. The proposed use, therefore, is incompatible with this particular vision that the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley have developed for this area. Community Development-Planning Division • 1100 10th Street,Ste.202,Greeley,CO 80631 • (970)350-9780 Fax(970)350-9800 A City Achieving Community Excellence More generally, the proposed batch plant and associated transload facility is an intensive industrial use unanticipated considering the nature of this corridor. The impacts related to it would seem to require significant mitigation and appropriate buffering. Broadly speaking, a master regional plan for the area, with a collaboration of Weld County, neighboring landowners, nearby towns, and Greeley/Windsor could more comprehensively address issues of traffic, compatibility, and the character of entryway corridors. We urge careful consideration for the proposed use and its regional impact, particularly concerning future land use patterns for the area and along Highway 34. You are aware of the decades of discussion about preserving the unique identities of the Northern Colorado communities, with community buffers that allow cities and towns to maintain their character and thereby contributing to a larger regional economy. With the proposed scale and location, this proposal may frustrate that vision, or at least contribute to the beginnings of a land use pattern with significant impacts to the gateway into the City of Greeley and Town of Windsor. While a regional, collaborative vision for this area is preferred, should the proposed Use by Special Review be approved, the City of Greeley would respectfully request that the following items be addressed in any conditions of approval: 1) Earthen berms and substantial landscape buffers should be incorporated into plans to screen views of industrial uses from U.S. 34, and from neighboring residential uses. 2) Light sources should be concealed or shielded so as to minimize uplight, spill-light, glare and unnecessary diffusion on neighboring properties. We thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal, and welcome any additional discussion you would like to initiate with us and the Town of Windsor. Thank you for your careful consideration. Sincerely, Brad Mueller, Community Development Director Enclosure: Windsor-Greeley Intergovernmental Agreement (First Amendment, dated 5/23/2008) Pc: Scott Ballstadt, Director Windsor Planning Department 2 CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO RESOLUTION 31 , 2008 RESOLUTION OF THE GREELEY CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE JULY 21,2004 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE TOWN OF WINDSOR AND TILE CITY OF GREELEY CONCERNING COOPERATIVE PLANNING,ANNEXATION,LAND USE AND UTILITY SERVICES WHEREAS,on July 21, 2004,the City of Greeley and Town of Windsor(the"parties")entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement to participate in joint cooperation planning efforts relative to annexation, land used and the provision of utility services within the U.S. Highway 34 and Colorado Highway 257 Corridors therein referred to as Principal and Secondary Corridors; and WHEREAS,subsequent to the adoption of that Intergovernmental Agreement and upon further analysis and consideration,the parties agree that the previous designation of Colorado Highway 257 Corridor as a Principal and Secondary Corridor is no longer necessary or appropriate; and WHEREAS,upon further review the parties also agree that the Intergovernmental Agreement and should be amended to allow development proposals along the U.S. Highway 34 Corridor to be governed relative to design and site improvements under standards in place for the jurisdiction within which the use is located; and, WHEREAS,the parties further desire to set forth mutually agreed upon municipal growth boundaries in the area located immediately south of State Highway 392 in the vicinity of Weld County Rd 23 in order to facilitate long range planning of infrastructure and to offer guidance to land development to property owners within and adjacent to that area. NOW,THEREFORE, BE H'RESOLVED BY THE GREELEY CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to the July 21, 2004 Intergovernmental Agreement by and between the City of Greeley and the Town of Windsor attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage, as provided by the Greeley City Charter. PASSED AND ADOPTED, SIGNED, APPROVED AND IN EFFECT THIS 6th day of ,2008. sly_` F k ' ) l� r GREELEY, COLORADO rh:, rA%a�\! f By: i, r ,�� k !� Mayor IszatiM'ry v 1 `" tit 1111111 11111 111111 11111 111111 III 1111111 III IVIED IIII 3556256 05123/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 1 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF GREELEY AND TOWN OF WINDSOR THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is made this b'' day of ,2008,by and between THE CITY OF GREELEY,Colorado,a home rule municipality (" reeley") and THE TOWN OF WINDSOR, Colorado, a home rule municipality ("Windsor") establishing the terms and conditions for land use site and building standards and utility services with a Cooperative Planning, Land Use and Utility Area. The parties hereto,when referring to both,may also be referred to hereinafter as the municipalities or the parties. WHEREAS, Greeley and Windsor entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement in June 2001, for the purpose of preparing a development plan for US Hwy 34 between WCR 13 (county line) and SH 257, and along SH 257 between the corporate limits of each community; and WHEREAS, the Development Plan was completed and has been accepted by the Greeley City Council and Windsor Town Board; and WHEREAS,the implementation of the plan requires cooperation and coordination between the municipalities for the provision of various municipal services such as utilities,planning/land use, transportation, parks/recreation/open space and public safety; and WHEREAS, the adopted Plan envisions future intergovernmental agreements which will outline the specific procedures to provide the necessary services to implement the Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the municipalities desire an agreement for planning, land use and utility services; and WHEREAS,the parties approved an Agreement dated August 9, 2004 regarding the terms and conditions for such planning, land use and utility purposes, and WHEREAS, certain amendments to that Agreement are now deemed to be in the best interests of the citizens of Greeley and Windsor to further this cooperative community planning process. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PROMISES HEREAFTER SET FORTH, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Cooperative Land Use, Annexation and Utility Area. The Cooperative Planning, Land Use and Utility Area("CLUA"))consisting of a Principal employment corridor area and a secondary corridor area is hereby amended and described as follows: 1111111111111111111111111111III 1111111 III 11111 IIII IIII 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 2 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder (a) Principal Employment Corridor. Principal Employment Corridor includes all land depicted on Exhibit A and described on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and is generally described as that area one-half mile north and south of US Hwy 34 between SH 257 and WCR 13 (County Line Road). The distances are measured from the right-of-way lines of the affected roads and highways on the same side as the area stated above. (b) Secondary Corridor Area. There is hereby established a Secondary Corridor Area which includes all lands depicted on Exhibit A and described on Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and is generally described as that area extended one-half mile from the principal employment corridor areas,outer boundaries north and south of US Hwy 34. 2. CLUA Land Uses. Within the CLUA,the parties agree that the land uses are prioritized as follows: (a) The Principal Employment Corridor is primarily for employment, industrial park and other uses as defined, conditioned and limited by Section I. A of Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (b) The Secondary Corridor Area is primarily for residential, neighborhood, commercial and their related uses as defined, conditioned and limited by Section I. B. of Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Land Use, Site and Building Standards for CI,UA. Road Improvements and Maintenance Master Costs. (a) The land use,site and building standards for both areas of the CLUA are described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Access to Weld County Road 17 (WCR 17) shall be in accordance with locations agreed to by the parties on Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Access to US Hwy 34 shall be as approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation. (b) The parties agree that they shall equally share the costs of any and all general improvements to WCR 17 north of US Hwy 34 to WCR 60. The party intending to make general improvements on the above stated roadway shall give the other party 180 days notice prior to the commencement of construction of the general improvements to the roadway. The party receiving notice of said improvements and/or maintenance shall provide comment as to the nature and timing of general improvement along with its prospective cost to that party. The parties agree that the jurisdiction which has annexed the affected road shall perform general improvements 2 TIED 11111 11111111111 111111 III 1111111 III IIIII OHO 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 3 of 19 R 96.00 0 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder in accordance with its ordinances, rules and regulations; and further that each party shall pay its one-half of the total cost of the general improvements within thirty(30) days after invoice of the same, subject to annual appropriation. The parties agree that each party shall use its best efforts to budget and/or appropriate sufficient sums to defray the costs of its expense for construction of the general improvements of the road stated herein. Any roadway improvements that are deemed to be in addition to customary and general road maintenance such as, but not limited to, the addition of medians, traffic control devices and like improvements must first be agreed to in writing by both parties prior to their installation. (c) The parties agree that the parties shall equally share the costs of any and all maintenance for WCR 17 north of US Hwy 34 to WCR 60. Windsor shall perform the annual maintenance and Greeley shall pay Windsor one-half(%2) of the cost of such annual maintenance. The parties agree that they shall meet and agree as to the nature, extent and maximum cost for annual maintenance of the road on or before July 1 of each year to provide sufficient time to budget necessary funds for the succeeding calendar year. (d) The parties agree that the intersection of WCR 17 and US Hwy 34 may require an improved road interchange in the future,and as such,the parties agree to negotiate in good faith with each other and CDOT to determine the land areas to be reserved/dedicated;the nature and type of interchange improvement; and any and all costs for construction for the same. 4. Required Notice for Development. . For both areas within the CLUA each party shall notify the other of all intended development, redevelopment, or variances, within said area no later than four (4) weeks prior to the initial official consideration of the land use matter by the municipality reviewing the intended development. All notifications shall be provided to the other party in writing and shall include a brief written description of the development proposal and accompanying vicinity, any development maps and graphics for review and comment by the receiving party. The receiving party shall renew the documentation provided and shall respond in writing to the other party with its comments regarding the proposed development. Each party agrees that it shall use its best efforts to make and receive comments through timely communications. The parties expressly agree that all such information, documentation and communication is a courtesy exchange of information and any negligent oversight of any referral or project for comment shall not require the delay of hearings or decisions on any land use or related case by the approval authority of either Greeley or Windsor. However, when making a land use decision, the approval authority of the affected municipality hereby agrees that it may not approve any land use in contravention to those uses stated in Exhibit B, without the prior written consent of the other party. Each party shall provide the other party, in writing, a single point of contact for the transmission of all communications and documentations contemplated and described in this paragraph. 3 1111111 11111 111111 IIIII iillli III 1111111 III iilll illl IIII 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 4 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder 5. Annexation (a) Greeley shall have exclusive authority to exercise its annexation powers and, subject to paragraphs 4 and 5,to provide all urban services within the CLUA for those areas identified as the "Greeley Annexation Area" on Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (b) Windsor shall have exclusive authority to exercise its annexation powers and subject to paragraphs 4 and 5 to provide all urban services within the CLUA for those areas identified as the "Windsor Annexation Area" on Exhibit C. (c) Both parties specifically agree that upon the receipt or preparation by either party of any documents proposing annexation within the CLUA,copies of all such documents shall be submitted to the other party for review and comment at least thirty (30) days prior to initial action thereon. (d) The parties specifically agree that in the event either of them has extended and/or agreed to any financial or other incentives in connection with a proposed annexation within the CLUA,that the contents and specifics of such financial or other incentives shall be submitted to the other party. (e) The parties specifically agree that Greeley retains and Windsor shall honor any and all contract rights of first refusal for the purchase of water upon any properties within the Principal or Secondary Areas which are subject to such rights under the Greeley Loveland Irrigation Company(GLIC) Shareholders Agreement, regardless of whether or not those properties are annexed by Windsor. A map generally depicting the land area subject to the GLIC Shareholders Agreements is shown on Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (f) Any property annexed by Windsor which ultimately is developed for commercial purposes and which commercial business is partially or wholly located upon a property currently or formerly subject to a GLIC Shareholders Agreement shall be subject to sales and food tax revenue sharing between Greeley and Windsor. Windsor shall remit to Greeley, on a monthly basis, 40% of the gross sales and food tax revenue received by Windsor from all sources upon property stated in this subparagraph(f). The parties specifically agree that this revenue sharing agreement is authorized pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 29-20-I05(2)(b)and is perpetual in nature and survives any termination of this Agreement, with said land area subject to the GLIC Shareholders Agreements shown on said Exhibit D. 4 IUD 11111 11111111111111111 III 1111111 III 11111 IIII IIII 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 5 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder (g) The terms of this Agreement shall not be construed as to require Windsor or Greeley to annex property in their respective annexation and growth boundaries. (h) If either Greeley or Windsor is presented a petition for annexation of land located in the agreed upon annexation and growth boundary of the other municipality,they each shall direct the petitioner to the community within which the land is planned for annexation and service in accordance with this Agreement. Only upon the written denial of the proposed annexation petition by the community within which the petitioning land is identified for annexation may the other municipality consider any such annexation, and then only upon the written amendment of this Agreement. (i) Windsor shall submit a petition to the North Front Range Regional Planning Council to exclude the Properties from Greeley's 208 Waste Water Planning Area ("208 Planning Area") and include the Properties in Windsor's 208 Planning Area. 6. Water Service within the Cooperative Land Use, Annexation and Utility Area. (a) Water service for Windsor properties within the CLUA shall be provided by Windsor in accordance with the existing Windsor-Greeley Intergovernmental Agreement for Treated Water Service (dated January 4, 1996), as amended from time to time by the parties. (b) To provide all potable water service to the CLUA, a sufficiently-sized transmission line carrying Zone 4 pressure will be required upstream of a Windsor master meter from Greeley's Zone 4 pump station to the west along US Hwy 34. The cost of the transmission main upstream of the Windsor master meter shall be borne by the municipality or private entity requiring the service in accordance with the annexing municipality's determination. It is anticipated that the annexing municipality will require one or more developers to construct the transmission main upstream of the Windsor master meter. Such municipality may thereafter choose to afford such developer or developers an opportunity to enter into a reimbursement agreement providing for reimbursement when subsequent properties develop and benefit from the main. It is also likely that certain of such properties will not be located in the municipality that caused the main to be constructed in the first instance. Both parties agree that if reimbursement is requested and approved by the municipality constructing the main, the other municipality will enforce the terms of any such reimbursement agreement for properties developing in that municipality and benefiting from the main. 5 1111111 11111 115100 111111 III 1111111 III 11111 11111111 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 6 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder 7. Sewer Service within the Cooperative Land Use Annexation and Utility Areas. (a) General. Pursuant to the terms of this intergovernmental agreement,Greeley agrees to deliver sewage originating within the CLUA to the Windsor sewer system for treatment and Windsor agrees to provide treatment for such sewage. Greeley shall maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the wastewater collection lines which are within its city limits. For purposes of Colorado water law, Windsor agrees that Greeley shall maintain dominion and control of water in sewage, originating within Greeley's city limits, and delivered by Greeley to the Windsor system for treatment such that Greeley may fully consume (by any means, such as its own municipal use, reuse, successive use, exchange, substitute supply, or by sale or lease to other entities) any re-useable effluent resulting from such treatment. Greeley agrees that a portion of water in sewage delivered to the Windsor system for treatment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement may be consumed prior to discharge due to treatment or evaporation and that Windsor does not guarantee that any specific percentage of the water in sewage delivered by Greeley will be discharged after treatment of Greeley's water rights throughout Windsor's system. The amount of re-useable effluent resulting from treatment shall be calculated in accordance with applicable decrees. (b) Points of Delivery. Sewage transmitted through Greeley's system delivered by Greeley to the Windsor system shall be delivered by Greeley to a terminal manhole(s) at or close to Greeley's city limits. The point(s) of delivery shall be mutually established and agreed upon in writing by both municipalities. Sewage metering station(s) will be established in the terminal manhole to assist in tracking the amount of sewage delivered to Windsor. (c) Payment of Plant Investment Fee and Measurement of Discharge. Greeley agrees to pay Windsor a plant investment fee (PIF) reflecting Greeley's acquisition of capacity in Windsor's wastewater treatment facility. The PIF for additional capacity shall be annually established,based on the then current PIF in effect for Windsor residents. The plant investment fee shall not include any surcharge or additional payment for any lift stations required for Greeley to deliver sewage to Windsor because Greeley is responsible for such costs. As an example of the initial PIF calculation, currently the Windsor PIF is $2,600 per residential tap and the average residential winter water use,which is equivalent to sewer use, is 204 gallons per day per tap. Consequently, the current residential PIF is $12.75 per gallon per day. 6 111111 11111 111111 11111 NU I I 11111111 11111 1111 1111 3556256 05123/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 7 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recordsr Plant investment fees due from Greeley to Windsor shall be purchased in blocks of 100,000 gallons per day capacity, or other quantities as mutually agreed. Windsor shall regularly monitor the amount of wastewater received from Greeley at the points of delivery. Whenever the 30-day average flow from Greeley exceeds the capacity previously purchased by Greeley,Greeley shall purchase additional capacity within 90 days at the then current PIF. (d) Treatment Capacity. At such time as the existing Windsor wastewater treatment plant is using eighty percent (80%) of its capacity, or Windsor determines that the existing plant will soon be at or over eighty percent (80%) of its capacity, Windsor shall define the plant capacity that can be issued before the existing plant is using ninety percent (90%) of its capacity. The additional capacity shall be allocated seventy percent (70%) to Windsor and thirty percent (30%) to Greeley, unless the municipalities agree otherwise in writing. When the existing plant is using ninety percent(90%) of its capacity, or at any time that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment or other agency responsible for the discharge permit for the existing plant directs Windsor that additional sewer taps shall not be issued,Greeley agrees not to issue additional taps. Both municipalities agree to cooperate to anticipate the need to treat sewage produced within the CLUA and to plan for any expansion of the Windsor system to accommodate growth of demand within the CLUA. Windsor agrees to expand the Windsor system as necessary to accommodate growth of demand within the CLUA. Windsor shall make reasonable efforts to provide treatment capacity for Greeley's sewage, including expanding the existing plant when at ninety percent (90%) capacity and/or building a plant capable of meeting future discharge limits. Should Windsor fail to begin construction of such capacity when at ninety percent(90%)capacity,Greeley shall have the right to make alternative arrangements for any and all sewage treatment contemplated under this Agreement. Such option shall be in addition to any other remedy available under this Agreement. (e) Monthly User Fees. Charges for sewage treatment shall be paid by Greeley to Windsor. The rates for sewage treatment shall be consistent with rates charged to Windsor resident customers and calculated per hundred (100) cubic feet of wastewater discharge as measured at the flowmeter(s). The service rates shall be reviewed by Windsor annually and shall reflect Windsor's actual costs of Greeley's wastewater treatment and conveyance. Greeley shall use its best efforts to enforce its environmental standards,restrictions and limitations on all waste water discharge treated by Windsor. (f) Treatment of Other Sewage. Greeley and Windsor agree that it may be feasible and cost-effective for Windsor to treat sewage originating within portions of the City of Greeley that are outside the CLUA; however, nothing 7 1111111 11111 11111111111 111111 I I 11111111 I I 11111111111111 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 8 of 19 R 96.00 0 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder in this agreement shall commit Windsor to treat such sewage and Greeley agrees that it will not deliver any sewage originating outside the CLUA to the Windsor system for treatment without the express written consent of Windsor that it will accept and treat such sewage. (g) Billings. Windsor will submit one invoice to Greeley monthly. Invoices shall be paid within thirty(30) days of receipt, after which time interest penalties shall begin to accrue at the rate of one percent per month,or fraction thereof, during the period in which the invoice remains unpaid. (h) Industrial Pretreatment. Greeley shall cooperate with Windsor to enforce Windsor's EPA-approved industrial pretreatment program to protect the Windsor's system from undesirable sewage discharge. (i) Discharge Permit. It is understood and agreed that Windsor shall be solely responsible for obtaining and complying with any discharge or other permit required for the operation of its sewage treatment plant,or any modifications thereto. 8. Release,Hold Harmless,Indemnification. Both Windsor and Greeley are public entities, as that term is defined pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Colo.Rev. Stat. § 24- 10-101, et seq. The parties to this Agreement have the benefits and responsibilities enumerated in the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. Each party shall defend any and all claims for injuries or damages pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements and limitations of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act occurring as a result of negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the parties, their officers,agents,employees and assignees. In addition, Greeley shall be responsible for any and all liability for injuries or damages caused by any negligent acts or omissions of Greeley,its officers, employees, agents, and assignees performing functions or activities upon the property of Windsor. Greeley shall provide adequate workmen's compensation insurance for all of its employees, agents and assigns engaged in activities and functions upon the property of Windsor or Greeley. Windsor shall be responsible for any and all liability for injuries or damages caused by any negligent acts or omissions of Windsor, its officers, employees, agents, and assignees performing functions or activities upon the property of Greeley. Windsor shall provide adequate workmen's compensation insurance for all of its officers,employees,agents and assignees engaged in activities and functions upon the property of Greeley. Each party shall furnish the other party current certificates of insurance stating that the coverages outlined above are in full force and effect. 9. No Public Utilities Commission Control. Greeley, its employees and elected or appointed officials, agree neither to assert nor support any statement, policy, petition, rule making, or legislative attempt to place the Windsor's sewage treatment services system under the authority or jurisdiction of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission by virtue of this intergovernmental agreement or otherwise. 8 ALIEN 11111111111111111 III 1111111 III HI 1111 IIII 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO '9 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder 10. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the terms and the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement,are strictly reserved to the undersigned parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right or cause of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the undersigned parties that no person and/or entity,other than the undersigned parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed any more than an incidental beneficiary only. 11. Non-Compliance. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, if either party fails to comply with the provisions of this Agreement,the other party, after providing written notification to the noncomplying party and upon the failure of the noncomplying party to achieve compliance within a reasonable time after such notice under the circumstances,or ninety(90)days, whichever is less, may refuse to provide and/or disconnect the water and sewer services stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Agreement. Additionally, that party may maintain an action in a court of competent jurisdiction in Weld County for specific performance, injunctive, or other relief against the non-complying party. In the event of such litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to payment by the defaulting party, of its actual attorney=s fees and costs incurred. 12. Additions and Modifications. The parties hereto agree that they shall cooperate with one another and Weld County in making such additions and modifications to this Intergovernmental Agreement as may be necessary to effectuate its purposes. 13. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of twenty (20)years from its effective date. Thereafter, it shall be automatically renewed for successive five (5)year terms unless at least five(5)years prior to the scheduled expiration,either party notifies the other party of its decision that the Agreement shall not be renewed. As noted in Paragraph 5(f),the revenue sharing agreement contained therein is perpetual in nature and survives any termination of this Agreement. 14. Colorado Laws. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado with venue in Weld County. 15. Waiver. A waiver of a breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or another provision of this Agreement. 9 1111111 IIIII 11111111111111111 III 1111111111 111111 III 1111 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 10 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder r 16. Notices. All notices or other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when personally delivered, or after the lapse of ten business days following mailing by certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: , TO GREELEY: City of Greeley 1000 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 ATTN: City Manager TO WINDSOR: Town of Windsor 301 Walnut Street Windsor, Colorado 80550 ATTN: Town Manager 17. Effect of Invalidity. If any portion of this Agreement is finally held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction as to either party or as to both parties,the parties agree to take such action(s)as may be necessary to achieve to the greatest degree possible the intent of the entirety of this Agreement. If any portion of any other paragraph of this Agreement is finally held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction as to either party or as to both parties, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the other paragraphs of this Agreement, except that any corresponding right or obligation of the other party shall be deemed invalid. 18. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended in writing only by the mutual agreement of the governing bodies of the parties hereto. 19. Reliance by the Parties. Windsor and Greeley understand that each is relying upon all of the promises made by the other in this Agreement,and each agrees(i)not to assert to any court or other body the invalidity or unenforceability of any portion of this Agreement;(ii)to promptly notify the other party of any legal action which might affect this Agreement; (iii)to allow the other party to participate in such legal action as the other party deems appropriate; and (iv) to defend this Agreement in such legal action. 10 IIIIII IIII! 111111 11111 11111 III 1111111 III 111111 III IIII 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 11 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder IN WITNESS WHEREOF,,the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement the day and year first written above. CITY OF GREELEY TOWN OF WINDSOR rYCIP By:� eY/ 4. a5 ` ayor ��1ndSpr 00 S. , , �, -►� �r yVIN1S� . 5 ,, ►. * o ATTEST: f /y . . . By: IL >h is MC-•ty C e - Town Cle " APPROVED AS TO SITS ANCE: By: A ��►.� By: ity a_%ttT/ To pager APP'. ED AS TO GAL ORM: c - By:• By: City At :r Town Attorney AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: By: Director of m ce 11 Exhibit A - Cooperative Land Use Annexation and Utility Areas (CLUA) N 4a m- >, —�nty'Road fib 10 re GS E I Ih 11- 1- W t SI \\\\- a t El eaw !Ti- Z ,Fa,Phan Park or Count Road 66-1?' I1 - —, SRaiimad _ I - County Road 64'3/4 I Frfp I I I a_ w Windsor 3 z i a _ il t .a,A 1 U F - ' I — _i 27 A Loveland I Y y, ,{� \\, •‘-',\-\\,. ...-:-..` V,,,,..rf*� - ./ �InS.F.ls, P,,.(cc Silo?. \ ' �\ � xx � \ Greeley I Johnstown \ ,,,,\,„„.\, � �o , \,,.s_ 41, -ig i ' A 2 J N ;Slzfe'rwy402 f County Road 4 . 'd / ��y 9)U dl - --�1. e1II`[r�`lI( I PO 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I i 1 0 O5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Miles Primary Cooperative Land Use Annexation and Utility Area 7/74 Secondary Cooperative Land Use Annexation and Utility Area Q County Line Rail City Limits „.1 , I r, r >Ina ec; r Parcels Street Centerlines 12 I111111VIIIIIIIIIVIII111111III1111111III111111III1111 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 12 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & RecorCe: 11111111111111111111111111111 III 1111111 111 111111111 IIII 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 13 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder Exhibit "B" US HWY 34 LAND USE, SITE AND • BUILDING STANDARDS The following land use and development standards are blended elements of the City of Greeley and Town of Windsor Development Codes and provide Overlay Development Standards for a portion of that area known as the"Strategic Employment Development Corridor(SEDC)"as described in the City of Greeley 2020 Comprehensive Plan west of State Hwy 257 (SH 257) as illustrated on the attached Exhibit A and hereinafter referred to as "Greeley/Windsor Employment Corridor (G/WEC)." I. LAND USE A. PRINCIPAL EMPLOYMENT CORRIDOR 1. Physical Area Defined: The boundary of the principal G/WEC is '/2 mile north and south of the US Hwy 34 west of SH 257 and east of WCR 13 (County Line Road); 2. Allowed Land Uses: As described in the Comprehensive Planning documents for Greeley and Windsor the US Hwy 34 travel corridor is the preferred location for a mix of regional employment and community separator types of land uses. The principal land uses allowed in this corridor shall relate to principal employment functions, such as professional business park uses (e.g. "FIRE: Finance, Insurance,Real Estate"),light industrial and select medium industrial uses and special regional destination uses. Outside storage is not permitted in this area unless fully screened from all rights-of-way and adjacent non-industrially zoned lands,and where incidental clearly subordinate to the principal land use. The following land uses are considered principal uses in this corridor; further subject to the zoning district standards and review processes in the governing jurisdiction. * adult schools, e.g. college or university facility, trade or business school * amusement park * arena or auditorium * assembly * beverage processing * driving range * fabrication * farming * financial institution 13 1111111 11111111111111111 III HIE III 111111 III III' 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO . • 14 of 19 R 96.00 0 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder * food processing (fully-enclosed facilities with no adverse environmental impacts) * golf course * greenhouse or nursery * hospital * kennels and animal care facilities * mail center * manufacturing (fully enclosed, light manufacturing activities) * medical supply * office * open space * publishing firms * quasi-public facilities (museum, fire & police, zoo, aquarium) * radio station * research/development lab * sports arena * stable * studios * television station * testing lab * theme park * transportation facilities (light rail stations and public transportation depots are permitted. Truck terminals and truck stops are prohibited) * veterinary clinics * warehouse * wholesale goods Other accessory and supportive land uses,such as restaurants,are allowed only if incidental to the principal land use and located within an established employment, business or industrial park setting. Retail operations representing"destination commercial"uses may be allowed on a case by case basis following the development referral process as described in this Exhibit and when mutually agreed upon by Greeley and Windsor in writing. B. SECONDARY CORRIDOR AREA 1. Physical Area Defined: The boundary of the secondary G/WEC area begins %2 mile back of the Principal Employment Corridor boundaries north and south of the US Hwy 34. 14 1111111 11111 11111111111 111111 III 1111111 III HIED IIII 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 15 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder 2. Allowed Land Uses: Allowed land uses are those permitted within the annexing jurisdiction and may include residential,retail,restaurant,neighborhood commercial and other institutional uses as may be defined by the annexing jurisdiction. II. SITE DESIGN A. BUILDING ORIENTATION: All portions of buildings facing a right-of-way shall be designed and oriented to offer a "front door" level of design to the traveling public (criteria for architectural treatments defined in Section III, below). • B. BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACK: All buildings and other structures, such as parking lots,shall be setback at least 100' from US Hwy 34. Setbacks from other rights-of-way shall be in accord with the jurisdiction within which the site is located. C. LANDSCAPING: Landscaping and buffering shall be designed and approved in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the jurisdiction within which the site is located and shall be designed in such a way as to present a coordinated entryway treatment along US Hwy 34 and WCR 17. D. FENCING Fencing used as part of a landscape treatment shall be designed and approved in accordance with the fencing requirements associated with landscaping of the jurisdiction within which the site is located and shall be designed in such a way as to present a coordinated entryway treatment along US Hwy 34 and WCR 17. No chain link fencing shall be permitted within the principal corridor area. Any proposals for chain link fencing within the secondary corridor area(1)shall meet all any chain link fencing requirements of the jurisdiction within which the site is located, and (2) must be approved by the municipalities. E. VEHICULAR ACCCESS: Site access will be provided in limited locations from adjacent arterial roadways and provide inter-connectivity between internal and adjacent land uses. F. PARKING, LOADING, STORAGE: The location and design of parking, loading and storage operations shall be designed and approved in accordance with the parking, loading and storage requirements of the jurisdiction within which the site is located. 15 1111111 11111 111111 11111 111111 III 110111111 111111 111 1111 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO • 16 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder III. BUILDING DESIGN A. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STANDARDS: The design of all buildings and structures in the Principal Employment Corridor shall be designed and approved in accordance with the corridor architectural requirements of the jurisdiction within which the site is located. B. BUILDING HEIGHT: The heights of all buildings and other structures shall be designed and approved in accordance with the height requirements of the jurisdiction within which the site is located. C. SIGNS: Allowed signage shall be limited to wall or monument signs and shall be designed and approved in accordance with the sign regulations of the jurisdiction within which the site is located. Pole signs are prohibited. IV. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & REFERRAL SYSTEM The Overlay Character Zone standards for the G/WEC shall be administered by the jurisdiction within which the site is located. Greeley and Windsor shall employ a Development Referral System wherein any project proposed for a land use action including development, redevelopment, subdivision or variance is automatically referred to the other jurisdiction for review and comment in a manner as established herein 16 Exhibit C - Growth Management, Annexation and Cooperative Planning Area ,a r county-Roee 6e vz I �_ j I' i if ,, C....-6-0.- rjj smmmwv�sz ��S 8tete M Yi392 C T rat- , :t.Ta � W 19r i f n a _ ,_, /J E o 05 v �.. tip. 1 J _ - manatr P Dr - f---Cmmry Rnan 66...Y : -4-�RaJryatl Lr I =WindsorI _ t�j {I jiJ— _----- I--._.- ' -"-- - - Ifs,1 to . l) I I L 4 FT i , ;Ail J1fK A ' y �YY d0 IIL/oveland y r ? ` . y A Greeley Johnstown ' ��\ 1 I �� / I U� ,� a I , 25 _ o v ^1— p L, - State HwV 401G Oo my Ro tl 54 - J7In 6 ‘ � /1r. a U d 1 ® - �� I II _ I � r ! 1 Il ,____._. 1 � 1 -� E 0 92 , r r i r r r I r r r i r r r I r r r I r r r I r r , 1 r r r I aa y 0 05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 —7j m ts —C- Cooperative Planning Area Rail --s o N • "\ Greeley Annexation Area Street Centerline O 0 '- Windsor Annexation Area J Parcels C _gam N�- D. City Limits co Q County Line 17 o AEI IIIII 111111111 III' III 1111111111 111111 Fill 3556256 05/23/2008 02:46P Weld County, CO 18 of 19 R 96.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk& Recorder 7 Iv v I . 1 P / SZpeoa.Huno�� 1 iii„,,,,,6 z�'.c Z , w, ‘..,, .:, —L— — �� _ � �� r -m_ _�.- _ 1� '_J J �3 nd n ro � I -'4 r r - 'c5 3 0 p! o o � -� yn ++bbfi"" oo £ZPON Nnos—a � - �� 3( . .. w — _ +1 CJ 13 1 [lir- "�"��I Cuss _ / �� _ wug p o a Li Li Li Bs �y— � ct m 1 f I I �r I IL I ` �� '' t- IIs_ ftL-PeoN AunoO iT L__ E. I \ p •� II ‘‘ I c s ° cr y p O £ c > ' - C/1 a =:).s . ,G'"\_J L G 0 y w 3 s I tLo aA nog o t �. Er, o CC J ca% I / U a N II T Imo. -` rl q �_ -`'''It-- .2-2 St PPoa.A nu of w ti V C5 +al O J I 20 P o } ; _ CD -- :i[ -!- iiPeo /mom i� r s 1 � = ° m f 4 o h Na j I y-- -- — /(yuO -- P__a�_it .= tWooam- u °_Pm unno.,S-_CLPPoa(4uno �..� d lila r—r L P oa.ti I=.�-_,� �.... 3_, `--. -r I R;unoo aawue- i >8 ' - I w a°° ?i 1 1/` . .C,- m --1 "�Y e'" — T ter__ e v -_—� -_._ I I. w I I _ 3 1 n I. I I t-N�{.ry T G o c 1 1 IV Is' .he:Peoa Nuno0 N.II- I w .� i I a- ___ _ .., a I a N I o a I_ a It ..______ r IIj I_ I. J f Pito U CQ ��__U � S:l __Ill 7 _I J. £.Papa swio°ai d e 1 ICI w anywalled G, I I _ I c V / - I I- — i gF z p I • !In l pa ri __ I } I_ ---9 Peoa./P o9_—___—__l /ei f , I s, c�m c+ _ :gig ° y L., ill F 1 JII I I �de�eRa r >•£ZJS7£]I^mPaa6elumj �e + _ so“224r 9 2'-8 ` g u M wao. � 3- Pa 5e1 md,aN — I z _ � 1 m o:— AUiI 7,1J L_ n ` _ �b !4 gJ _ 'V 1 .6 661 Tw 3_ ., @ _ �� I O � 0. I S u: 08• 3 c c i WCR60 • a; - 4 f- 2, s iie - - -Uy �U - = = -> 120' FUTURE ROW 0 P2 nom(-3 0 -a a �+ �a0 ao -O_ s-v0 ENO X00 O t>D O ENO • eta M Cr) _-N �-O CO INNIM to T FULL ACCESS N— , r � a -M r 0 u) FULL ACCESS b n m RIGHT-IN!_ CRT-MI RIGHT-OUT--* r"RfrAiT-0Ur I` C b o PPEENdNG STRAFE STUDYO" AND APPROVAL BY MIN b o RIGHT-N/_.4 _RIGH�NI RIGHT-OUT—� HT-OUT o ___________-- m O N CI MI:.'a KO ueeie,a,ax:•n' ..V.xo«r�mnu,s=P:va•n:;eaz -— US HWY 34 ri;$cfl,;1 Exhibit E ;-4- Weld County Road 17 • Town of Windsor GIs raatte'.r 6-7-2004 Access Design ExhibitE.dwq PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version ..:.•:;'-a.:-.:.:-. 7.. • 19 L REFERRAL for USR15-0027 MMM Highway 34 Development From: Hill and Brush Ditch Company Jim Croissant, President 26442 Weld County 15 Johnstown, CO 80534 May 20, 2015 Dear Commissioners: Hill and Brush Ditch Company (HBDC) was established in the late 1800 and has varies decreed water rights from the Big Thompson River. The ditch services irrigation needs of farmers in Weld counties and located approximately 0.75 miles south of the proposed MMM "Highway 34 Development. Historically, HBDC receives discharge water from Koeing Reservoir and several farms north of the ditch that are in close proximity to the proposed development. HBDC has maintained the quality of the water in their ditch by limiting stormwater runoff from residential, commercial and industrial developments into the ditch. The greatest concerns for the HBDC from the proposed Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development are water quality issues. Generally, historic stormwater runoff from the proposed development site has been minimal because of soil types, good ground cover vegetation, such as grass, alfalfa, or other agriculture crops and distance the water travels to the ditch. 1. Water Quality Issue: Historically, runoff and ground water movement from the site drained into Koeing Reservoir, which is use for irrigation and recreational uses such as fishing and hunting, and into two irrigation ditches south of WCR 56 which ends up in the HBDC ditch. HBDC requests that the County require the applicant to address this issue and adjust their calculations regarding minimal historic stormwater runoff of the proposed development site. 2. Water Quality Issue: The enormity of this site and various activities conducted onsite will generate highly contaminated runoff, i.e. oils, grease, sediment, salts, emission particles, silica and other products. Most of these will be in excess of those typically found in stormwater. The detention pond is not adequately designed to address these issues both from a sizing and retention time period. HBDC requests that the County require the applicant to address this issue. 3. Water Quality Issue: The proposed channels, some that are 10 wide at the bottoms to drain water on-site and off-site will actually increase the flow rate and volume causing erosion, sediment and water quality issues off-site. Drainage from the site to off-site especially from Basin Area 3 would overwhelm farm irrigation ditches adjacent and to the south of the site. HBDC requests that the County require that an agreement be entered into between the applicant and surrounding HBDC land-owners on how the applicant will maintain water quality before leaving the detention pond and maintenance of lateral ditches after the POA for removal of increase sediment. 4. Water Quality Issue: Historically, runoff and ground water movement from the site drained into Koeing Reservoir, which is use for irrigation and recreational uses such as fishing and hunting, and into two irrigation ditches south of WCR 56. This water is used to irrigate crops and field water livestock. Ground water via under ground drains in the site will still move water to the reservoir, however, by channeling the runoff in Basin Area 3 and Basin 1 and 2,more runoff will be directed into farm irrigation ditches south of the proposed development. The volume and flow rate will increase and the water quality will be impacted. 5. Water Quality Issue: In the Final Drainage Report, Historic Runoff calculations were calculated for"Basin A" which includes 567 acres. These calculations did not take into considerations that the Greeley-Loveland Irrigation Ditch, the Reorganized Farmers Ditch and a RFDC lateral that encompasses most of the site intercept stormwater drainage from "Basin A". Thus, historic drainage calculations should only be calculated for the proposed development site of 131 acres. Historic stormwater drainage from the proposed development would be minimal based on soil type and vegetation cover. The concern is that with this development there will be a substantial increase in imperious area, which will result in additional volume of stormwater generated from this site. The additional water flowing into laterals beyond historic levels will result in increased erosion, increased volume with sediment and impacts on water quality for farmers. HBDC requests that the County require the applicant to address this issue and adjust their calculations regarding minimal historic stormwater runoff of the site. In addition, require the applicant to pipe stormwater that is above the historic volume to the Big Thompson River. Jim Croissant, President Hill and Brush Ditch Company TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07 OPPOSING MARTIN MARIETTA'S APPLICATION FOR USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (WELD COUNTY CASE NUMBER: USR 15-0027) WHEREAS, Martin Marietta submitted a use by special review application to Weld County on or about March 24, 2015, proposing to construct a plant site approximately 11/2 mile south of U.S. Highway 34 on Weld County Road 13 and Larimer County 1; and WHEREAS, the proposed uses include an asphalt plant, cement batch plant, aggregate processing facility, asphalt storage, cement storage, fuel storage and construction of a rail spur and bridge around the property; and WHEREAS,Weld County referred the matter to the Town of Johnstown(the "Town") for review and recommendation; and WHEREAS,the Town has adopted the"Johnstown Area Comprehensive Plan,"a copy of which may be viewed at www.towno fjohnstown.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/192 ("Comprehensive Plan"); and WHEREAS,the proposed facility is within the Growth Management Area contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan, an area into which urban development and annexation is anticipated to occur in the future; and WHEREAS,the Town designated the area that is the subject of the proposed facility for low-density, single-family residential homes; and WHEREAS,the proposed uses, being industrial in operation and impact, are inconsistent with the residential development and thus inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,in addition to contemplated residential development, the proposed facility abuts the existing Indianhead residential subdivision and is in close proximity to anticipated residential development within the current Town boundaries; and WHEREAS,the proposed facility would negatively impact the nearby Indianhead residential subdivision by exposing the homes to continuous industrial operations, forcing them to coexist with large, otherwise unplanned, industrial development and creating potential losses of property value, quiet enjoyment and quality of life; and WHEREAS, on a broader scale, the Town envisions growth along the U.S. Highway 34 corridor to include commercial, residential and mixed use development, consistent and harmonious with the current development; and WHEREAS, the proposed facility is not only inconsistent with the Town's vision of the growth along the U.S. Highway 34,but has considerable potential to lead to an expanded and unplanned heavy industrial presence along the U.S. Highway 34 corridor; and WHEREAS, the applicant forecasts a significant increase in the generation of traffic along U.S. Highway 34 and County Road 13 arising from its operations, with the potential to negatively impact residents of the area and drivers along the roadways; and WHEREAS,the primary access to the proposed facility is along County Road 13 and the intersection of County Road 13 at U.S. Highway 34 is not adequate to handle the increase in traffic flow without improvements, including a traffic signal; and WHEREAS, the proposed uses also include an increase in the use of the railroad line across County Road 17, which presently has only a rural crossing that may not be adequate to address safety and delay concerns arising from the increased traffic; and WHEREAS, after careful review and consideration, the Town finds that the proposed uses, if permitted,would create undesirable, offensive and harmfiil consequences, inconsistent with the Town's long-range planning and inconsistent with the best growth and development along the U.S. Highway 34 corridor; and WHEREAS, construction of the proposed facility is not in the best interests of the Town or the citizens of the Town and surrounding areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO,THAT: 1. The Town Council strongly opposes Martin Marietta's use by special review application for construction of the Martin Marietta Project. 2. The Town Council respectfully requests that Weld County deny Martin Marietta's use by special review application. PASSED, SIGNED,APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 2015. of JOFyj,, i o ATTESTL.\ TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO ai S ..L • •.* By: ""eg-/E2-td—1 a > "teele, Town Cleric Mark Romanowski, Mayor f ? LARIMER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins,Colorado 80522-1190 (970)498-7010 FAX(970)498-7006 COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE June 16, 2015 Weld County Commissioners 1150 O Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 RE: Martin Marietta Mineral Resource Development Facility (Case# USRl5-0027) Fellow Commissioners, The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners has received numerous phone calls and letters from concerned citizens relating to an application in Weld County that is south of Highway 34, along the eastern side of N County Road 1 (County Line Road). The written comments received are attached for your consideration. According to the referral received by our Planning Department,this proposal is to consider a proposed Mineral Resource Development Facility(Case#USR15-0027)for Martin Marietta. Based upon the attached letters, and discussions with our staff,the proposed use represents a significant change to the area with regards to traffic, noise, dust and odors,to mention a few. While this area of our County is comprised of a variety of agricultural, rural residential and non-residential uses,compatibility of land uses should still be at the heart of consideration when making a determination of the appropriateness of the proposed use and the mitigation of potential impacts. We understand that decisions on land use such as this are difficult, especially in areas experiencing significant growth,and would therefore respectfully ask that you consider the concerns raised by property owners in the attached letters. Thank you, we trust that your decision will take into consideration the property owners concerns as raised in the attached letters. Respectfully, / j -Le der III Chair District I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Lew Gaiter III Steve Johnson Tom Donnelly District 1 District 2 District 3 698/2015 co.larimer.caus Mail-RE:Weld County Referral-USR15-0027 Lh21it;Fti tlH NIY Matthew Lafferty <laffermn@co.larimer.co.us> C.o,v.alffp,TO em ii 10' RE: Weld County Referral - USR15-0027 2 messages Anita Corner, Waste-Not Recycling <acomer@waste-not.com> Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:09 PM To: mlafferty@larimer.org Cc: tdonnelly@larimer.org, Dave Kisker<dave.kisker@gmail.com>, John Cummings <jxcummings@gmail.com>, Barb And Denny Moe <barbarajmoe@hotmail.com> Dear Matt, I haw left a message for Tracy but understand that she is out of the office for a couple days. Meanwhile, I wanted to send you my specific concerns related to the referral Larimer County received from Weld County regarding the USR request by Martin Marietta Materials http://www.co.weld.co.us/Departments/PlanningZoning/ CurrentPlanningCases/index.html#USR15-0027. My first concern is related to traffic. Based upon the application, MMM states that there will be 1120 trip per day with a peak hour of 78 trucks leaving the facility. (We did verify with the traffic engineer that this is the actual number of trucks not a number based upon a multiplier.) This increased number of trucks exiting LCR-1/WCR-13 onto Hwy 34 would be significant making the turn from the frontage road onto the county line road nearly impossible to timely and safely accomplish. They also state that they expect to double this traffic count in the future. Initially they do not plan to upgrade the road system but rather just reduce the speed limit on the county line road. They also state in the application that the Kelim frontage road is irrelevant so they are not taking into consideration any need to accommodate traffic from the homes or businesses in Kelim. Obviously I find this disregard insulting, unacceptable and the indication of the type of neighbor they intend to be conceming. As you are aware, I operate a small truck fleet and currently use LCR-1/WCR-13 to access Hwy 34 for all west bound trips. There isn't a turn lane to enter Hwy 34 from LCR-3 and Johnstown does not want trucks to use Ronald Reagan Boulevard. Our only other option would be to head south on County Line Road or LCR-3 all the way to CR-18 then back to 1-25. That would be substantially out of our way if we were heading north. Additional LCR-3 is not paved, has a small one lane bridge and is closed due to flooding whenever there is more than a few inches of rain (as it is today). Entering onto CR-18 is also not safely accommodated with existing infrastructure. Essentially, should this USR be approved without serious traffic considerations, it would make it nearly impossible for those of us in unincorporated Kelim to safely and efficiently function. There are other businesses in town including another trucking company as well as a number of other businesses and homes that will be negatively impacted should our road access by impaired. The expected 117 railcar trains being delivered to the site three times per week would also negatively impact the roadways. All motorists who travel on Hwy 34 between Greeley and Loveland would also suffer from additional congestion. My second concem is for the health and safety of my neighbors, family, employees and local wildlife. Not only would it become unsafe to travel to and from the area, the increased truck congestion would significantly impact the air quality. As stated by multiple federal agencies diesel fumes are toxic and are known carcinogens. Due to the extreme concentration of heavy duty trucks all of us in the area, especially my neighbors along county line road, would be exposed to unacceptable levels of exhaust fumes from the trucks exiting or waiting to get on to Hwy 34. In addition to the pollution from the melting bitumen to make asphalt and the dust particles created from crushing rocks and concrete I believe this would be a serious health risk. I've known the Moe family who live across the road from the proposed facility for over 30 years and they have lived in Larimer county as long. I am also requesting that Larimer County seek to address the health concerns for their constituents. Clearly they are able to write letters to Weld County on their own behalf but I believe the health and safety of its' citizens is a primary role for all governmental agencies. It is unprecedented that an industrial operation, such as is proposed, to be allowed to move in next to long-time and well-established neighborhoods. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all parties to eliminate, mitigate or deny detrimental operations that can cause such great harm. https://mail.g oog le.corn'mail/ut0nui=2&ile49b37c17fb&Hem.=pt&q=asphalt&qs=true&searctFg uery&1h=14d7886N17e5780&siM=14d7886bf17e57802sim1=14d... 1/2 6!8/2015 co.larimer.co.us Mail-RE:Weld County Referral-USR15-0027 I will continue to reach out to Tracy but due to the fact that the referral deadline is next week, I wanted to make sure that the above concerns were brought to your attention. I appreciate your time and effort in returning the referral to Weld County to address the above concerns. Thank you so much, Anita Comer Anita Comer acomen@waste-not.com (970)669-9912 Matthew Lafferty <laffermn@co.larimer.co.us> Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:51 AM To: "Anita Corner, Waste-Not Recycling" <acomer@waste-not.com> Thanks Anita. I will look at them and talk to you further in the next couple of days. Matt [Quoted text hidden] I nya://rroi l.g cog Ie.coMmai l/u/0/?ui=2&i k=49b37c17tb&tievw pt&q=asphalt&q s=true&searcl-wq uery&th=14d7886bf17e5780&sind=14d7886bf17e5780&si ml=14d... 2/2 618/2015 co.larirner.co.us Mail-mlafferty©larimer.org kl iU !N(l' Matthew Lafferty <laffermn@co.larimer.co.us> CCt.u1Ofib TO b CLIiiJ;( mlafferty@Iarimer.org 1 message Barbara Moe <barbarajmoe@hotmail.com> Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:34 AM To: "mlafferty@larimer.org" <mlafferty@larimer.org> mailto:mlafferty@larimer.org Dear Matt: My husband and I have been residents of Larimer County for almost thirty years and we lore the country life our area allows. We live on the county line with WCR 13 being across the street. Now that Martin Marietta is proposing a mammoth asphalt plant that will run 24/7/365 days per year and gear their diesel trucks up and down as they pass my home going back and forth to Highway 34, I am forced to ask you to send a negative referral to Weld County. Weld county will make a lot of money off this honid proposal. Larimer County will have a tremendous amount of expense and the traffic, which is already very congested, will be unbearable. Highway 34 is an important road because so many visitors to our state travel it. This crazy and destructive idea will make our beautiful area the armpit of Colorado. I haw recently retired from working with Special Ed students at Windsor High School. I want to enjoy my home and love to work outside. We have constantly improved our property and tried to do things to improve our beautiful valley. We spend so many hours outside and the times and cancer causing pollution that this plant would spew would totally ruin our retirement that we haw waited so long for. We have bee hives, poultry, beautiful German Shepherd dogs and a beloved cat that would be at risk every day of the year. My husband is getting ready to retire after working in Ft. Collins for over thirty-five years and now we are faced with this blatantly unfair fight. The American Cancer Society webpage gives a lot of information about exposure to diesel and asphalt plant operations and it would be extremely detrimental to our healath. Martin Marietta told us that our site scored very low on their suitability scale, but it is more financially feasible for them. Who cares about them becoming zillionaires on the misfortunes of their neighbors, who have all been here for a long time. We have a lovely community that does NOT WANT INDUSTRIAL. They have also told us so many untrue things that make it sound so safe and wonderful. They even said our property value would go up!!! It would be the biggest injustice I have ever faced in my whole life. This asphalt plant is totally incompatible with our neighborhood. If you haw any doubts, drive out here and see. Industrial use would bastardize the rich history of farms dating back to before the Civil War. We are a community of three hospitals, many restaurants, many subdivisions and Centerra is three miles away. There is biking, running, and so much outdoor activity that would all be gone because of the odor. Please be the advocate of the people. Send a negative referral from Larimer County. Sincerely Barb Moe 970-663-0411 https://mail.g oog le.corNmaillWOf?ui=2&ilr49b37c171b&uen=pt&q=asphalt&qs=true&seard=g very&th=14d9b2921ea276e6&cirri=14d9b2921ea276e6 1/1 011/2015 co.larirrer.co.us Mail-RE:Proposed Asphalt Plant at Hvo,34 and wCR13 c Il Matthew Lafferty <laffermn@co.larimer.co.us> ro. @,trrr,TI E,Cfti evict. RE: Proposed Asphalt Plant at Hwy 34 and WCR13 1 message Russ Roberson <Russ@drgonyon.com> Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:06 PM To: "daungst@weldgov.com" <daungst@weldgov.com>, "mfreeman@weldgov.com" <mfreeman@weldgov.com>, "jcozad@weldgov.com" <jcozad@weldgov.com>, "bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com" <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.corn>, "sconway@weldgov.com" <sconway@weldgov.com>, "smoreno@weldgov.com" <smoreno@weldgov.corn>, "tdonnelly@larimer.org" <tdonnelly@larimer.org>, "mlaerty@larimer.org" <mlafferty@larimer.org> Cc: Denis Gonyon <drgonyon@drgonyon.com>, "clr34na@gmail.com" <clr34na@gmail.corn> Good afternoon. As the administrator for Dr. Gonyon's various business entities, I would like to reiterate the concerns he outlines below regarding odor, traffic and general negative impact on the surrounding homes and businesses. I recognize the fact that this area is growing wry quickly and there is a need to have construction materials in a location that is convenient and cost effective. However, it is my opinion that the proposed location of this plant will haw an extremely detrimental effect on the surrounding community and could significantly impede further development in the area. If I were building a house or developing a commercial property today there is no way I would consider our current location if there was an asphalt plant within a mile. Additionally, there is an operational plant of this nature located within a few miles of this proposed site just south of Harmony Road along I-25. I drive by it daily and find it to be a visual eyesore and I would hate to haw the same view for our clients as they enter/exit our building. As you may be aware, there has recently been news in Fort Collins regarding residential complaints about an asphalt plant located near their neighborhood which is also operated by Martin Marietta. Nothing I've read about this sounds wry good for the residents and I would hate to see a plant like this located so close to the businesses I'm responsible to manage. I would strongly urge you to consider the negative impact of this plant and ask that you take the necessary steps to prevent the rezoning that would allow its construction. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Russ Roberson Practice Administrator Gonyon Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery, PC 25/34 Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery Institute, LLC 25/34 Medical Professional Offices, LLC 4450 Union Street, Suite 100 Johnstown, CO 80534 970-624-7979 main 970-624-7980 fax www.drgonyon.com https://mail.google.com'Heil/u/0/7ui=28ile=49b37c1M8tieAFpt&search=inbox&th=14ddr82do6f91d45&sirri=14ddt82d06191d55 1/3 6/18/2015 Re:Martin Marietta Deeelapment on LCR1--the referral-laferrm©co.larimer.co.us-co.lariner.co.us Mall On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Daw Kisker<dave.kiskerCdl_gmail.conl> wrote: Good morning, Terry, Sorry for the intrusion on this fine Colorado day, but I needed to check in with you and ask for your assistance with some urgency. There's probably no reason for you to remember our meeting, but some weeks ago (March?), I and a couple of my neighbors come to Tom Donelly's coffee in Loveland, and had a chance to briefly present our concerns about the two projects that are being proposed at the corner of LCR1 and US-34, a large asphalt plant and aggregate processing operation by Martin-Marietta, and a proposed rezoning/transloading operation by McWhinney and Envirotech. You and I spent another half hour or so after the coffee time broke up discussing these topics. At that time, the application had not been submitted, but it was expected, and so we wanted to alert Mr. Donelly and you to the need to respond to the request for referrals from Weld County. Last week, one of our other neighbors, Anita Comer, met again with Mr. Donelly. Anita is a Larimer County resident and business owner in Kelim (Waste-not Recycling), and will also be very badly affected by these proposals, especially due to the traffic, but also the pollutants. She was referred to Matt Lafferty who is apparently handling the referral, and to Tracy Shambo who is helping to evaluate the enormous traffic impact. Other Larimer County residents will also be impacted, including the organic farm that sells their products to the nationally known "Motherlove Herbal Company", potentially even losing their organic certification due to the asphalt by-product dust that will be spread around the area. The problem is that today is the deadline for the submission, and we are not sure whether or not the referral is going to happen. There appears to be some doubt as to whether or not the referral will make a difference since "Weld County will do what it wants to do anyway". However, I can assure you that it WILL make a difference, and we definitely need your help. Martin Marietta has essentially denied their impact on the Kelim businesses, so it definitely is a Larimer County issue as well. So, my request is simple: If there is any way that you can help to make sure that this referral gets into Weld County in a timely manner, and that it articulates the concerns of Mr. Donelly's Larimer County constituents, we would greatly appreciate it. It might also be possible to obtain a short extension tom Weld County if needed. The Weld County Planner on this case is Diana Aungst, who can be reached at 970-353-6100. ext. 3524, or by email at: daunast(cftweldgov.com. Thank you so much for your time, and if I can provide any further information, please let me know. Regards, Dave Kisker datatmdhiri :chars ulFB,%3Cspan%20style%3D%22color%3A%20rgb(34%2C%2034%2C%2034)%36%20font-fanny%3,A%20arial%2C%20sans-ser11%36... 1/1 Submit by Email Weld County Referral ._ ., ;i' : C Al I . COVN"ct: April 29,2015 The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant:Weld LV LLC &Gerrard Investments LLC, Case Number: USR15-0027 do Martin Marietta Please Reply By: May 27, 2015 Planner: Diana Aungst Project:A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facilities including materials processing, asphalt&concrete batch plants,transloading, and any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A (Agricultural)Zone District. Location: East of and adjacent to CR 13 and approximately 1 mile south of US HWY 34 Parcel Number: 095718300044-R3549705 Legal: PART SW4 SECTION 18,T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. Parcel Number: 095718000009-R0515201 Legal: PART SW4&PT SE4 SECTION 18, T5N, R67W LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-2803 of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional Information, please call the Department of Planning Services. nWe have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan because: We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. R.. See attached letter. 7� (` Signature �Q C4 51477 ��ci Date U1-Li I S�/L'IJ Agency 17 t ' �(`Ll:� LM/ �f 5rrZi'r t_ I F�i1 Weld County Planning Dept. 1555 N 17th Ave,Greeley,CO.80631 (970)353-6100 ext.3540 (970)304-6498 fax LARIMER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COUNTY Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970)498-5700 COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE FAX(970)498.7986 June 16, 2015 Ms. Diana Aungst Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 FAX: 970-304-6498 RE: Martin Marietta Mineral Resource Development Facility #USR 15-0027 Dear Mrs. Aungst, The Larimer County Engineering Department has reviewed the information sent to us as a referral regarding the above referenced application. We primarily reviewed the application for impacts to County Line Road since we share ownership of the road with Weld County. It should be noted that although we share ownership of County Line Road, all access permitting and road maintenance is currently under the jurisdiction of Weld County. We have the following comments regarding potential impacts to County Line Road: • Weld County and Larimer County both classify this section of County Line Road as an Arterial Roadway. This section of road is also classified as a Strategic Roadway in the Weld County Transportation Plan, meaning it is considered one of the more important Arterial Roads in their system. Arterial Roadways in Weld County require a 140 foot right-of-way (70 foot half right-of- way). We recommend that Weld County requires the applicant to dedicate any necessary right-of- way along their site frontage to satisfy the 70 foot half right-of-way requirement. • According to the traffic study, a majority (95-100%) of the expected daily site trips (up to 2,260 per day) will go north from the access point. Given this, County Line Road from the site access north to State Highway 34 will have structural impacts as a result of the significant increase in truck traffic associated with this request. The structural integrity of the asphalt road surface should be closely analyzed to determine what surface improvements will be needed for the road to functionally support the number of heavy truck trips expected by this application. We suggest that Weld County requires the applicant to make all necessary paving improvements to maintain adequate level of service and safety standards.The acceptable Level of Service standard for arterial roads and intersections within unincorporated rural areas of Larimer County is LOS C. • According to the traffic study and the Weld County turn lane criteria, a southbound left turn deceleration lane and a northbound right turn acceleration lane are warranted at the site access point off of County Line Road. We suggest that the applicant be required to construct both site access auxiliary lanes prior to commencing the hauling operations. • The intersection of County line Road and State Highway 34 is under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation. According to the traffic study, a signal, compared to stop control, at the US 34 and County Line Road would reduce delays and be an improved scenario. We suggest that the applicant is required to make all necessary auxiliary lane and signal improvements to accommodate the increased trips and maintain CDOT's minimum level of service and safety standards prior to commencing the hauling operations. • The applicant should be required to monitor the tracking of material onto the County Road and Highway. Anti- tracking devices or vehicle washing systems should be required as part of the application to ensure this does not become an issue. • The bridge to the south of the site spanning the main channel of the Little Thompson River was improved in 2009. The configuration and structural integrity of the bridge and adjacent road sections are sufficient for the expected volumes of truck traffic. We are not providing comments on site related impacts such as drainage, fugitive dust,environmental factors, compatibility, etc since our Department does not have authority on these issues for applications outside of Larimer County. However, this application does pose a substantial change to the County citizens and homeowners in this area. The County asks that Weld County continue to do public outreach to these citizens and commit to making an effort to coordinate with citizens to mitigate their concerns where applicable and reasonable. Larimer County is available to discuss with Weld County and CDOT strategies to ensure that the capacity and safety of County Line Road is maintained as the site achieves full build out. We suggest that Weld County requires the applicant to make all necessary paving and intersection improvements to the off-site road system to maintain a minimum level of service and safety standard prior to the issuance of access permits or commencement of the use. Sincerely, --/Aavv Traci Shambo Larimer County Senior Civil Engineer cc: Matt Lafferty, Larimer County Planning Department Mark Peterson,Larimer County Engineering Department LARIMER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COUNTY Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970)498-5700 COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE FAX (970) 498-7986 July 1, 2015 Ms . Diana Aungst Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 FAX: 970-304-6498 RE: Martin Marietta Mineral Resource Development Facility #USR I5-0027 Dear Mrs. Aungst, The Larimer County Engineering Department reviewed the information sent to us as a referral regarding the above referenced application and made comments dated June 16, 2015. We would like to amend those comments to include the comment below: • The traffic study states that a majority (95-100%) of the expected daily site trips (up to 2,260 per day) will go north from the access point. Given that this is a regional distribution center, we would expect a higher trip distribution to the south. Since it is very difficult to restrict trips on mainline public roads, we ask that the traffic study is modified to consider the potential for a higher trip distribution to the south. We would like, as a minimum, for the study to evaluate the adequacy of the pavement section of County Line Road to E CR 18/Weld CR 54 and to evaluate the adequacy of the intersection of County Line Road with E CR 18/Weld CR 54. We ask that Weld County requires the applicant to mitigate for any deficiencies that exist, or will be created by a higher trip distribution to the south. As stated in our previous letter, we suggest that Weld County requires the applicant to make all necessary paving and intersection improvements to the off-site road system to mitigate for their impacts and maintain a minimum level of service and safety standard prior to the issuance of access permits or commencement of the use. Sincerely, �h, r� itio✓ly tiU Traci Shambo Larimer County Senior Civil Engineer cc: Matt Lafferty, Larimer County Planning Department Mark Peterson, Larimer County Engineering Department Submit by Email Weld County Referral 2,n.1? • O " Y -• MAY 0 2015 VJeI6 Co�!nry 1'�tinliInc LIapsnment GREELEY OFFICE April 29, 2015 The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant: Weld LV LLC & Gerrard Investments LLC, Case Number: USR15-0027 do Martin Marietta Please Reply By: May 27, 2015 Planner: Diana Aungst Project:A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facilities including materials processing, asphalt&concrete batch plants, transloading, and any use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (construction business with two shop buildings, office buildings, and outdoor storage) provided that the property is not a lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A (Agricultural)Zone District. Location: East of and adjacent to CR 13 and approximately 1 mile south of US HWY 34 Parcel Number: 095718300044-R3549705 Legal: PART SW4 SECTION 18,T5N, R67W of the 6th PM.,Weld County, Colorado. Parcel Number: 095718000009-R0515201 Legal: PART SW4 & PT SE4 SECTION 18,T5N, R67W LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-2803 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. nWe have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan because: See Note Below We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. See attached letter. Signature / {' I r}4) Date May 1, 2015 Agency Northern Colorado later Conservancy District These lands will need to be included within the boundaries of the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District before any water service can be provided by the Little Thompson Water District. Weld County Planning Dept 1555 N 17th Ave,Greeley, CO.80631 (970)353-6100 ext 3540 (970)304-6498 fax Submit by Email IMPWeld County Referral I. ►jI 1 0 J N Ap-. 29.2715 —^e Weld Cou-:v Deoanme-1 of Plan-ng Se-v:es has reoe wood t-e 1c owing i:e-n fo•-e•:iew. Ap_',oant:'Nelc _`v LLC&Ge•rae nvest—ents L_C, Case Nu—per. JSR-5-0027 Co Ma-t- Ma rieta Please Reply By: May 27.2C-5 Pla--e-Dana Au-gs: Proer-A Site Soecif c.De•:eloomer'la-a-d Use ry Seer a Rev ev,Permit'or a Vine-al Resource Develc p—ent°a_1:ies inducing ma:erals process-g.asphalt.&ro Crete bat- pla-•s,translcadi-g, anc a-y use permit:ec as a Lse_y Rig-:,an Arcessor;Use.ore Lse ry Soec.a Rev ew i-the Commercial c- ndcs:na Ze-e D s:ricts iconstructon busi-ess wit-two shop c'u.ild-gs.c9_e be Id-gs, anc c.tcoo-stc-age i provide::-at the p-ope s no:a lot an ao_•oved o-rerotec subcry son pla: or lots pat of a map o-pan f led c-or to acop:ic-of any reg-.la:ie-s comp ing subcivsons -:-e A jAghcu IG ral Zc-e D strict. Leca:ic-:Eas:of a-d ad,ace-t:o CR 13 a-d app-oximately ' —e scut-of LS FAN'34 Pa-re Nu-xr. 0957'B3C0044-R354'3705 egal.PAR-S'Y.'C SEC-ON 18.--5N.ROTA'o':he 6:- P.`.1..l9eL_ Can-y,Colorado. Pace Nuncer:C557-BCC77CS-R75152C' Legal. PART 5W4 8'T SEt SEC'ON 10.T5\.ROT. LCT B REC EXEM'-RE-2533 c^:-e_5t- 'M.,Weld Cou-:y Colorado. -^e appl ra:o- s suom t•.ec to you for -evew a-b -erommencaton. Any comme-:s c' recc-nme-c atic- you cc-sc er ree•:ant tc :h s recuest veuld oe apc•ec ated Please -eply by :-e above I s:ec cate so :he: we may give LII oonside•at on to your re ro ne-dada. Any response no: rece vec refore c-0^:-5 cate Tay be ceemec tc be a oosit'e-esoonse to t-e Depa•lne-t of Plann 'o Sev ces f you have a-y fu-t-er c'uestons regard-9 the appl ra:io-. please ca I t^e 'an-e- assocated wt- :he recuest. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information,please call the Department of Planning Services. nWe na':c re✓nerved the reuses:and find that does dccs not cornpy writcur Comprehensive Pan because. We nave rem6 rimed the Roues:and find no cG^C:c'ts h'i:h oJ•interests r See attached.tedcr. Sgna:c-e ._--C..mm-gs Date May ld.212'b Agency kacmanaeo-ar..-ors Jten Co^cane _ REFERRAL for USR15-0027 MMM Highway 34 Development From: Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company P.O. Box 211 Windsor, Colorado 80550-211 Jim Croissant, President John Cummings, Vice President May 14, 2015 Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company (RFDC or Farmers)was established in 1861 and has varies decreed water rights from the Big Thompson River. The ditch services irrigation needs of both conventional and organic farmers in both Larimer and Weld counties. RFDC has maintained the quality of their water by limiting stormwater runoff into the ditch from residential, commercial and industrial developments. The RDFC main ditch (concrete) is located on the north side of the Martin Marietta Materials "Highway 34 Development" site. It has a 70 ft easement. There are four(4) lateral ditches that originate from the main ditch that are impacted by the proposed development (see map) and the associate farms/agriculture ground that those laterals serve. Lateral#1: delivers water along eastside of Weld County Road 13 and parallels the west edge of the proposed development and takes water to farm ground south of the proposed development. Lateral #2: delivers water along the north edge of the proposed development to farm ground at the development site, delivers water to farm ground on the south side of the proposed development or empties into Lateral #1. Lateral#3: delivers water along the eastside of the proposed development to farm ground on the south side of the development. Lateral #4: delivers water to Koeing Reservoir for farm ground south of the proposed development. The following are concerns the RFDC has pertaining to the Martin Marietta Materials Highway 34 Development: 1. It appears that the calculations in the"Final Drainage Report" for the impervious area at the site are underestimated. The site represents approximately 131 acres with only about 37 acres that will not be considered impervious. This represent 71% not the 46% represented in Table 6. MMM claims that Basin Area 3 will remain primarily undeveloped, however, the worst-case scenario is that this area will be used for some aspect of the development. Immediate development in this area, i.e. spur railroad system and access roads will have an impact on runoff and the water quality if allowed to run freely off-site. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to consider this area when calculating the runoff into the detention pond and not allowed it to free flow off site as described in their plan but channel it to the detention pond. 2. In the Final Drainage Report, Table 6, sub-area l g and l f are missing from the table. 3. In the Final Drainage Report, Historic Runoff calculations were calculated for"Basin A" which includes 567 acres. These calculations did not take into considerations that the Greeley- Loveland Irrigation Ditch, the Reorganized Farmers Ditch and a RFDC lateral that encompasses most of the site intercept stormwater drainage from "Basin A". Thus, historic drainage calculations should only be calculated for the proposed development site of 131 acres. Historic stormwater drainage from the proposed development would be minimal based on soil type and vegetation cover. The concern is that with this development there will be a substantial increase in imperious area, which will result in additional volume of stormwater generated from this site. The additional water flowing into laterals beyond historic levels will result in increased erosion, increased volume with sediment and a decrease in water quality for farmers. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to address this issue and adjust their calculations regarding minimal historic stormwater runoff of the site. In addition, require the applicant to pipe stormwater that is above the historic volume to the Big Thompson River. 4. Based on the design sketch and observations at other similar developments, they have under estimated the number of acres that would have an imperious calculation of 90% or more. Again they have not considered the ramification of Basin Area 3 and their miscalculations. As an example, in the most recent storm event, May 09, 2015, the proposed development received about 4 inches of rain, which is equivalent to approximately 21 ac-ft of water on Basin 1 and 2 (62.14 acres). This would be approximately twice the proposed storage volume in the proposed detention pond and over flow volumes would potential cause water quality and sediment issues for farmers south of the proposed development. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to consider the two worst case storms that have occurred recently on the proposed development site, 2013 and 2015, approximately 4-6 inches over a very short time span when calculating the runoff into the detention pond and not allowed it to free flow off site as described in their plan. 5. The Final Drainage Report does not addressed ground water or farm irrigation water that takes place from April to November. Generally, the water table in the site area is within 4-6 feet of the ground surface. During irrigation season the water table can be closer to the ground surface and in some cases,water that moves through under ground drains comes to the surfaces. The amount of irrigation water used on farms directly adjacent to the site is over 1,400 acre-feet of water during the growing season. The concern is that this water source could be impacted from different contaminates from the proposed development. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to address how they will protect ground water and irrigation water from the proposed development pollutants. This may require installation of impermeable geotextile membrane under the proposed development and a retention pond instead of a detention pond. 6. Water Quality Issue: The enormity of this site and various activities conducted onsite will generate highly contaminated runoff, i.e. oils, grease, sediment, salts, emission particles, silica and other products. Most of these will be in excess of those typically found in stormwater. The detention pond is not adequately designed to address these issues both from a sizing and retention time period. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to address this issue. 7. Water Quality Issue: The construction of a railroad spur that transverse the entire site(into Basin 3) has not been considered as a significant affect on the water quality of runoff. The spur will be built with more than 8,000 new creosote railroad ties. Each of these ties will "bleed" creosote onto the ground surface and leach into ground water affecting the water quality of runoff. Again, there has been no consideration on controlling contaminated runoff from the newly constructed railroad, the rail cars, or contaminates that leak from train engines. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to address how they will protect ground water and irrigation water from the proposed development pollutants. This may require installation of impermeable geotextile membrane under the proposed development. 8. Water Quality Issue: The proposed channels, some that are 10 wide at the bottoms to drain water on-site and off-site will actually increase the flow rate and volume causing erosion, sediment and water quality issues off-site. Drainage from the site to off-site especially from Basin Area 3 would overwhelm farm irrigation ditches adjacent and to the south of the site. RFDC requests that the County require that an agreement be entered into between the applicant and surrounding RFDC land-owners on how the applicant will maintain water quality before leaving the detention pond and maintenance of lateral ditches after the POA for removal of increase sediment. 9. Water Quality Issue: Historically, runoff and ground water movement from the site drained into Koeing Reservoir, which is use for irrigation and recreational uses such as fishing and hunting, and into two irrigation ditches south of WCR 56. This water is used to irrigate crops and field water livestock. Ground water via under ground drains in the site will still move water to the reservoir, however, by channeling the runoff in Basin Area 3 and Basin 1 and 2, more runoff will be directed into to farm irrigation ditches south of the proposed development. The volume and flow rate will increase and the water quality will be impacted. 10. Water Quality Issue: The detention pond should be equipped with a release control value that will prevent water release for up to three (3) days following a storm event until an onsite analysis of the water quality can be preformed to determine if contaminates from the proposed development are reduced or eliminated. Thus the current design of the pond is not large enough to retain water for this period from Basin Area's 1 and 2, let alone channeling Basin Area 3 to the detention pond site. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to install a release control value on the detention pond that will prevent water release for up to three(3) days following a storm event until an onsite analysis of the water quality can be preformed to determine if contaminates are reduced or eliminated. 11. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant not to build or install any structures, fences, or other obstructions within 35 ft of the center of the RDFC main ditch and lateral ditches so maintenance can be preformed. 12. RFDC requests that the County require the applicant to agree that all earth moving and landscaping shall be accomplished so that all return flow and waste water from irrigation will return to the historic point of discharge. For example, historic flows for Basin 3 discharges into Koeing Reservoir and at a point east of the POA described in the Final Drainage Report. 13. The site design for the proposed development indicates that the rail spur will be in close proximity to RFDC main concrete ditch at the northeast corner of the site. Most of the ditch in this area is relatively new, completely redone within the last 4 years. RFDC concerns are that the repeated vibrations from the train running pass the ditch will cause structural damage, ditch failure and interruption of water delivery. The applicant indicates that at least 3 unit trains will transverse the spur each week. Studies have shown that trains running past structures can actually make the earth around them move. Over time, rumbling vibrations from the passing trains can affect the structural integrity of the structure. RDFC requests that the County require the applicant to address this issue by conducting engineered tests or modeling the affects of the train vibrations would have on the structural integrity of RDFC concrete-ditch. If there are potential issues, require the applicant to mitigate the problem. 14. RFDC notifies the applicant and County that there may be subsurface waters that arise in the areas of this development and that there are periods of time when, due to water flowing within the ditch system and otherwise, that portions of the proposed development site receives significant amounts of subsurface water that is very near to the surface, or resides on the surface. Due to this problem, the utility of certain portions of the site for construction of structures could potentially be unavailable. RFDC has no plans to alter its operation, to resolve this surface and subsurface water issue. 15. The land for the proposed development and surrounding agriculture lands are considered "prime farm land" under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act 1981, 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement and Weld County Comprehensive Plan. RDFC respects land owner rights, however, being a agriculture ditch company we do not see that this proposed development which reflects Weld County "industrial zoning" is compatible with surround agriculture uses and would not meet Weld County policy and goal for agriculture benefit. Map of RFDC Main Ditch and Laterals is below. John Cummings, Vice President Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company 970-333-7234 I xcu Ill nll ll gs(q,gala il.co nl REORGANIZED FARMERS DITCH COMPANY 05/11/2015 REFERRAL FOR USR15-0027 MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS Red lines depict main ditch and laterals MARIIA AIARII.I IA V IA I I.RIAI L.HKiH\A Al ;1 Ill.V I.IOI'AII.Al \\I.LI)COLSIY RO:AI) H VN11AII HI \\I11VlCIIHI.,AAI AVUlRVASIOAI)IAH AI ( RIIL II.AI.A WI { l<,ASDILVII. 4— _ . ,- - G - INDIA .AD SUBDIVISION .,y r IIWVY-34 r I�,l00 PL IDLAI - _.hir _ ,.. 'd, Rim_ AI VIA Ail DllCll ^ �� . ) I 04 ) i z 1 FO i '' r ONEMILE — I .AT J. y T AK I V MARIETTA 2' ., SITE I. ?,� 4. I A I ACRES A t- I tP ' 1 t ' \\ v7. I a t\ j ' `...,4( sr, TOWN OF- � WINDSOR125" COLORADO Via Email May 27, 2015 Ms. Diana Aungst, Weld County Planner Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17th Ave Greeley, Colorado 80631 Subject: Use by Special Review (USR15-0027)— Martin Marietta Materials Dear Ms. Aungst, and Members of the Weld County Planning Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. The proposed development is located outside of the Town's Growth Management Area (GMA) and Community Influence Area (CIA). However, the property is located within a sensitive location with various competing interests. It is important to consider — and, ideally, master plan - - this area in a collaborative manner due to the proximity of this site to three municipalities, an established unincorporated neighborhood, large swaths of productive agricultural land, and major regional transportation systems. In 2008, the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley entered into an amended intergovernmental agreement (IGA), that identified a defined Cooperative Planning, Land Use and Utility Area (CLUA) as a means to attempt to identify and support a land use pattern for the US Highway 34 corridor that would be consistent with the jurisdictions' visions and infrastructure planned and existing in the area. The CLUA outlines permitted uses and site design characteristics within the Principal Employment Corridor and Secondary Corridor Area. The proposed facility for Martin Marietta is located within this Secondary Corridor Area. The proposed use is incompatible with this particular vision that the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley have developed for this area. The proposed batch plant is an intensive industrial use unsuited for the nature of this corridor, and its impacts likely cannot be fully mitigated. Furthermore, approval of this Use by Special Review, as proposed, would likely establish a sprawling and overly-intense land use pattern for future development of the corridor. We urge careful consideration for the proposed uses and its regional impact, particularly concerning future land use patterns for the area and along Highway 34. You are aware of the decades of discussion about preserving the unique identities of the Northern Colorado communities, with community buffers that allow cities and towns to maintain their character and thereby contributing to a larger regional economy. With the proposed scale and location, this proposal may frustrate that vision, or at least contribute to the beginnings of a land use pattern with significant impacts to the gateway into the City of Greeley and Town of Windsor. Should the proposed Use by Special Review be approved, the Town of Windsor would respectfully request that the following items be addressed in any conditions of approval: 301 Walnut Street • Windsor, Colorado • 80550 • phone 970-674-2400 •fax 970-674-2456 www.windsorgov.com Page 2 1. Earth berms and substantial landscape buffers should be incorporated into plans to screen views of industrial uses from U.S. 34 and from neighboring residential uses. 2. Light sources shall be concealed or shielded so as to minimize uplight, spill-light, glare and unnecessary diffusion on neighboring properties. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal and welcome any additional discussion you would like to initiate with us and the City of Greeley. Sincerely, coi j ' /Josh Olhava Associate Planner pc: Gale Schick, Chairman, Windsor Planning Commission Windsor Planning Commission Kelly Arnold, Town Manager, Town of Windsor Scott Ballstadt, Director, Town of Windsor Planning Department Tom Parko, Director, Weld County Planning Services Brad Mueller, Director, City of Greeley Community Development John Franklin, Director, Town of Johnstown Planning and Zoning Hello