LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

 Minutes of August 22, 2018

The Larimer County Planning Commission convened on Wednesday, August 22, 2018, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Chairman Jensen stated that the purpose of the meeting is to complete the hearing from August 15, 2018, for the Laporte Pit Special Review, File #17-ZONE2113.  Commissioners Choate, Johnson, Lucas, Miller and Wallace were present. Commissioner Jensen presided as Chairman.  Commissioners Caraway, Dougherty and Gerrard were absent.  County Staff present were Todd Blomstrom, Community Planning, Infrastructure and Resources Director, Lesli Ellis, Community Development Director, Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Carol Kuhn, Principal Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Clint Jones, Engineering Department, Lea Schneider, Health Department, and Debby Johnson, Recording Secretary. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY (CONTINUED):

Heather Kyseth stated her concern was for the health and safety of her 8-year old son.

Daniella Coltrane stated she is a 12- year resident of Laporte and is concerned about the open space, the noise and the extra traffic.

Teri Tracy stated her concern for the extra traffic and air quality.

John Gross questioned the applicants’ statistics regarding trips per day in and out of the plant.

Robert Havis stated he has a PHD in Civil Engineering and is questioning the air quality and potential flooding in neighborhoods up stream.

Commissioner Choate asked Mr. Havis to explain his email regarding the air screen.

Mr. Havis replied that it is a conservative air pollution model and LRM used a conservative assumption and explained in detail the air pollution model results.

Kathleen Dewitt stated that LRM is not compatible for the neighborhood and is concerned about health concerns and extra traffic.

Paula Brobst stated her concerns for the harmony of neighborhood and noise levels and requested the Commissioners deny this application.

Quinn Robinson stated his concern with how this is going to affect his quality of life and that the businesses in downtown are opposed to this use.

Peter Waack stated his concern for the Laporte Area Plan and if the applicant meets the criteria of the Laporte area plan and the Land Use Code.

Jayme Patrick stated her concern with the Laporte Area Plan.

Ruth Wallick stated her concern with the ground water levels.

Erica Daniell stated that the entire town is sending the message “not in our town center” and she is concerned that the Laporte Area Plan is not being taking into consideration. She pointed out the that existing businesses in downtown will suffer.

Janet Chapman provided an example why the Batch Plant is not allowed by the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Cameron Nelson stated his concern with air quality.

Amy Greenwell stated her concern with the health of her son, the air quality, and the actual number of years they will be in operation.

Mark Morgan stated he is a neighbor along the property line and is in support of the applicant.

Suzanne Cordery stated her concern for the air quality and particular matter.

Cordella Stone reminded the Planning Commission that LAPAC denied this application.  She stated her concern for local businesses.

Nancy Grice stated she supports the No Laporte Gravel Corp.

Piers Daniell stated his concern with the location of the plant and its proximity to downtown and school.

Janis Smith is concerned with property values, noise and extra traffic.

David Hollerbach stated his concern with the location and the school rush hour traffic.

Jack Wisbon stated his concern with the school population and decreasing numbers do to the appeal of new families coming to Laporte.  He is also concerned with traffic during school rush hour.

Deborah Shulman stated her concern for her community, heavy traffic, and road damage.  She asked who would pay for repairs.

Derek Day is concerned about the Laporte Area Plan, air quality and if this fits the character of Laporte.

Alicia Ernest stated her concern for the air quality and that her quality of life will change.

Cindi Lee stated she borders the applicants’ property and is in favor of the applicant.

Rosa Jones stated her concern for air quality, heavy traffic, and noise pollution.

Courtland Kelly stated her concern for the extra traffic and her safety when riding her bike.

Reid Hayhow stated his concern with the character of Laporte with the dust, air quality and noise pollution.

Debbie Hayhow stated her concern with air quality and the health of the residents.

Anita Kear stated her concern with the ground water and her crawlspace flooding.

Milt Lesser mentioned the Land Use Codes 4.5.3.B, and the applicant’s need to meet all six of the criteria and this does not.

Bob Shively stated that he is a business owner near the gravel pit and this is not good for community.

Steve Benoit stated he is opposed to the gravel pit.

R. Nathan stated that we don’t economically need this gravel pit.

Mary Boyts stated that this is not in keeping with the Laporte Area Plan.

Craig Greenwell stated he had 2 words “Flint Michigan” and their water quality and he is concerned with air screening and the air particles.  He suggested that the applicant needs air modeling.

Commissioner Wallace asked what kind of modeling was being suggested.

Mr. Greenwell stated air modeling and the benefits.

Terry Waters stated that the Timberline Pit listened to the residents regarding ground water and noise levels and is concerned that Loveland Ready Mix is not listening to local residents.

Deanna Berchick stated her concern for the health of the students at the school.

Chairman Jensen closed Public Comment.

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Bruvoort addressed the mis-statements of Mr. Barth, Attorney for The No Laporte Gravel Corp.  He stated the following corrections and clarifications in his presentation:

  1. LRM would process imported ‘waste concrete’”

–  Recycling concrete consists of returning LRM’s own excess on-site generated concrete to the site –

•  Not imported

•  Reduce disposal volumes

•  Allows reuse of product in another form

  1. “None of the abutting properties are zoned ‘Industrial’”

Approval criterion 4.5.3.A cites “existing and allowed uses”

·  Timberline is an allowed use

·  Morgan Timber Products shown as industrial use in LaPorte Area Plan, p. 11

·  Together, these uses comprise 38% of perimeter

Several other commercial uses exist near the property

  1. “Gravel mining & batch plant have the potential to cause …”

–  Speculative statements

–  Studies prepared by applicant and accepted/approved by County and State directly address potential impacts

  1. “LRM plans to continue using the batch plant in perpetuity”

–  Only presented as an idea at Sketch Plan

–  Clearly not a part of the application for Use by Special Review, application evolved over 1.5 years

  1. “The final ‘standard’ on air quality is the LaPorte Area Plan’s Visions and Goals’”

–  Area Plan is a planning document, not a regulatory document

–  Visions and goals represent citizens’ perspectives, and are not standards

–  A goal stipulating that “air quality will be maintained or improved” is impossible to achieve for almost any proposed land use

  1. “LRM’s plan will ‘eliminate open space’”

–  O-Open zoning does NOT require open space land use

–  LRM’s reclamation will create 65% open space

  1. “LAPAC determined that LRM’s plan is not compatible”

–  Review criterion 4.5.3.B requires LAPAC to assess consistency with Plan, not compatibility

–  We offered a consistency-based presentation – no technical discussion

–  Consistency with Plan has been demonstrated

–  LaPorte Area Plan, p. 41:

                        “State legislation requires the County to identify and designate ‘commercial mineral deposits.’ The County then is prohibited from approving any use of land which would preclude extraction in these commercial                                         mineral resource areas.”

–  Larimer County LUC, 8.13.1:

                        “Under the commercial mineral resources plan adopted by county commissioners, neither the commissioners nor the board of adjustment can, by official action or inaction, permit the use of any land that would                                            preclude the extraction of a commercial mineral deposit.”

–  Colorado State House Bill 1529:

                        “No board of county commissioners… can permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit.”

  1. “Mining is not a temporary use”

–  “Temporary” was used in the context of the LaPorte Area Plan, not the Land Use Code

–  P. 41: “Mining, however, is a temporary, interim use of land with a defined beginning and end…the reclamation process should return the land to a beneficial use compatible with those shown on the Future Land Use Map.”

  1. “The batch plant is not an allowable ‘accessory use’”

–  Land Use Code, Section 4.3.7.E.1

                        “On-site processing of mined materials is considered accessory to the mining activity but must be included in the special review application and reviewed simultaneously with the mining special review application.”

–  Applicable case law:

•  Zahn v. Board of Adjustment, 45 N.J. Super. 516, 133 A. 2d 358.

•  Sheridan v. Keen, 524 P.2d 1390 (Colo App. 228)

 

10.   “LRM is unable to produce concrete with materials solely mined on site because cement is required”

On-site processing of mined materials is considered accessory to the mining activity but must be included in the special review application and reviewed simultaneously with the mining special review application.”

–  The word “solely” is not in this statement

–  The opposition would require the applicant to make concrete without cement

–  There are road impact advantages to on-site batching

 

11.   “LRM’s noise study showed that the project cannot maintain residential noise limits of 55 dBA”

–  False assertion without citation

–  Noise study clearly shows compliance with residential limits for construction activities and for mining activities

–  Note: “construction activities mean any and all activity incidental to the erection, demolition, assembling, alteration, installation or equipping of buildings, structures, roads or appurtenances thereof, including land clearing, grading, excavating, and filling”

 

12.   “LaPorte Area Plan requires open space for the property, LRM is proposing commercial development entirely not found in LaPorte Area Plan” (translation of oral argument)

–  LRM not proposing commercial development

–  LRM aiming to be consistent with Future Land Use Map (p. 41 requires this)

–  LaPorte Area Plan, p. 42 – 3 future uses: commercial, medium & low density residential

Commissioner Lucas asked if they would clarify on slide #12 regarding material hauled from site.

Mr. Bruvoort clarified that it is finished concrete product.

Commissioner Jensen asked if the hours of operation were extended could the applicant maintain that 10 year projection or are you asking for both.

Mr. Bruvoort replied that it would be both.   We are asking for 7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. for mining and 5:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. for batching.  We can’t control the market and asking for 20% factor would be prudent.

Commissioner Choate stated he couldn’t recall which runs most of the time the batch plant or the gravel mining.

Mr.  Fancher replied the gravel mining will run 2-3 days a week and the batch plant would hopefully run everyday.

Commissioner Wallace asked if they would consider enclosing the batch plant and if the applicant would consider a condition of approval.

Mr. Fancher replied yes.

Commissioner Jensen asked if they would consider enclosing the cement unloading area as a condition of approval.

Mr. Fancher replied yes.

Mr. Bruvoort clarified the conditions.

Commissioner Johnson asked what the vesting period in Larimer County is.

Mr. Helmick replied 3 years unless they ask for additional time.

Commissioner Wallace asked that you basically left the reclamation time to the state could you clarify that time line.

Mr. Bruvoort replied that we can write that language to what the State requirements are.

Commissioner Jensen asked if the state reclamation time line is 5 years.

Mr. Fancher replied yes.

Mr. Niccoli addressed in detail the misperceptions and questions on the air quality study model, noise levels and traffic impact in his presentation:

•  “Air study did not include cumulative impacts”

–  Adding background by definition is a cumulative impact

–  Modeling is done conservatively (assumes equal probability of plume movement in any direction)

–  New sources are uncertain in timing and location, thus speculative

–  Specific modeling would consider wind direction and predictions would be lower than screening level model

•  “Screening level model not appropriate for a gravel pit”

–  Only true if air modeling is required, it is not for this project

–  Screening model verified permitting process that no further, more detailed modeling needed (that’s the purpose of a screening model)

•  “It’s about hertz, decibels do not count”

–  Analysis set for human range of hearing (20 Hz to 20,000 Hz)

–  Decibels are a measure of “intensity” and are used throughout the range

–  Hertz (Hz) are a measure of frequency or pitch

–  Decibels are used to quantify even low frequencies

•  Impact groundwater, e.g. Tilley prop.

–  They are upgradient

–  Monitoring to date shows 4’-5’ to gw except adjacent to ditches

–  Not allowed to continue monitoring

•  Continue our own monitoring adjacent to Tilley property

•  Install French drain in preparation of dewatering activity for mitigation potential

•  Organic Farm Comment, “Cover the ditch”

•  We have no dominion over the ditch

–  Agreements to cross the ditch

–  Weed control by the ditch company

–  Ditch travels through areas of uncontrolled discharge

•  There is no discharge to the ditch

–  Control runoff from process areas

–  Topography is away from the ditch

–  Industrial site is away from the ditch

No use of magnesium chloride on site

•  Organic Farm Comment con’d

•  Farm is a significant distance from the proposed Knox Pit

•  No organic farm has lost its certification due to proximity of a gravel mine and batch plant

•  LRM met with Poudre School District early on

•  No concerns at the time

•  Committed to meeting again as operations draw closer

•  As allowed by code and supported by case law, batching is accessory to aggregate mining.  Offsite batching results in:

•  More traffic

•  Gravel trucks on the road

•  Farther haul and more pollution

•  Generation of more noise

Commissioner Choate asked about a more detail explanation of the air permit being issued.

Mr. Niccoli replied that the emission rates generated meet all the standards.

Commissioner Jensen clarified if the mining operation is a wet mining.

Mr. Niccoli replied yes and said you have water in the particulates and this naturally reduces dust.

Commissioner Miller asked if the dust measurements taken come from the batch plant.

Mr. Niccoli clarified that the emission rates and dust rates come from the EPA data.

Commissioner Jensen asked for a clarification of the plan now.

Mr. Niccoli replied that the building will remain but the batch plant will be removed.

Commissioner Miller asked if you are putting in a drain to move the water away from the residential areas.

Mr. Niccoli replied that we put in a drain that will mimic the natural flow.

Commissioner Miller stated his concern for the flooding of basements and septic systems.  He asked if LRM will only be using the existing water that is there.

Mr. Niccoli replied that there will be some benefit to having the drains and there will be monitoring of the ground water levels.

Commissioner Jensen asked if there was a rise of 2 feet in water level how quick of a response would there be and what would that response be.

Mr. Niccoli replied that we put the ground level model in place so we can respond immediately.

Commissioner Jensen asked how LRM would handle a flood in a neighboring basement or crawlspace and the need to replace a furnace or water heater.

Mr. Niccoli replied that we will always verify the data and let’s work on this together.

Commissioner Choate asked if you considered the property that you own about a mile to the east for the batch plant.

Ms. Fancher replied that they looked at all the impacts to several properties and this property had the least impact to neighbors.

Mr. Fancher replied that we are not zoned in either location to have a stand alone batch plant.

Commissioner Choate asked if you would consider a Conservation Easement for the reclamation plan.

Ms. Fancher replied yes.

Commissioner Jensen asked if you would consider not allowing west bound exit and only allow west bound entrance into your plant.

Mr. Fancher replied yes.

Commissioner Wallace asked if you would consider the Bypass access.

Mr. Fancher replied if they build the access and allow us to use it.

Commissioner Miller asked about the Loveland Ready Mix operation and if they have had any problems with children, schools, traffic, and neighbors.

Mr. Fancher replied no.

Ms. Fancher stated that she has met with the principal of the school and they don’t have any problems.

Commissioner Miller asked how many of their field truck are propane.

Mr. Fancher replied 28 of 36 trucks run on natural gas.

Commissioner Miller asked about 5:00 a.m. hours and if there are any problems with school traffic or bicyclist.

Mr. Fancher replied no problems.

Commissioner Jensen asked if the noisiest part of the plant is the batch plant.

Mr. Niccoli replied the crusher.

Commissioner Jensen asked if there is a need to berm around the area of the crusher.

Ms. Fancher replied that they can lengthen the berm to the east and they have stalk piles that will cut down on the noise and a berm to the south.

Commissioner Johnson asked what other equipment would cause noise and what will you do to minimize that noise.

Mr. Fancher replied that reducing noise on equipment mostly comes from trucks backing up and we have switched to white noise.

Ms. Fancher in closing talked about section 4.5.4 – compatible issue.

Mr. Fancher stated that we understand that change is hard and they will do their best to make this a compatible site.

Chairman Jensen closed the rebuttal part of the hearing.

Commissioner Lucas asked Mr. Helmick about mining in the Laporte Area Plan.

Mr. Helmick replied that mining is a use recognized by the Laporte Area Plan but the test of being compatible is a big concern.

Commissioner Lucas asked about the noise study and is questioning the 150 decibels.

Mr. Helmick replied that the 150 decibels is beyond the pale.  A train is between 95 – 100 decibels.  The Larimer County Noise Ordinance is modeled after the state noise statue, 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. not to exceed 55 decibels and 7:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. is 50 decibels.  Construction noise can go as high as 80 decibels.

Commissioner Lucas asked do we have a base line decibel for the road traffic on County Road 54G.

Ms. Schneider replied that on County Road 54G we had decibels between 53 and 69.

Commissioner Choate asked about the auxiliary turn lanes and is this a requirement.

Mr. Helmick replied that they are required to build a right turn in lane and a center lane auxiliary lane to the east.  They are going beyond that and will widen the shoulder on the North side of 54G.

Commissioner Choate asked if that requires the acquisition of an additional right of way.

Ms. Fancher replied that there is no additional right of way other than on our property and that we would sign that over to the County.

Mr. Helmick stated that with respect to the concept of open space in the reclamation plan staff would rather see Open Space than a Conservation Easement.

Commissioner Wallace stated that it would be nice to have an agreement in place with the applicant, Larimer County and the Laporte Area Plan regarding Open Space.

Mr. Lafferty stated that this should be a condition of approval.

Commissioner Miller stated that Mr. Barth asserted very strongly that this gravel pit is not in compliance with the Laporte Area Planning and Larimer County Master Plan can someone explain this.

Mr. Helmick explained in detail non-conforming and conforming use and how this Special Review does meet the requirement.

Mr. Lafferty addressed the Planning Commission regarding the LAPAC Plan, Zoning and Code in detail.

Commissioner Jensen asked for clarification for the Use by Right in the O-Open zoning.

Mr. Helmick replied that there are many Use by Right and a slide show was presented with all the uses.

Commissioner Johnson asked about the batching process and the Larimer County Code in the O-Open zoning.

Mr. Helmick replied that for 40+ years both the batch processing and concrete plants are accessory uses in the mining process.

Commissioner Jensen asked for some clarification on Commercial and Industrial Zoning and asked about previous mining pits.

Mr. Helmick explained in detail regarding the different zoning and previous applications and their hours of operation.

Commissioner Wallace asked about the 54G Bypass and traffic issues.

Mr. Helmick replied that this is a policy decision that needs to be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Wallace asked if there is a way to ask the Laporte Area Planning what they would rather do.

Mr. Lafferty stated that this decision needs to rest with the Board of County Commissioners.

Mr. Helmick replied that the traffic study meets the requirements with the County.

Commissioner Johnson asked if we requested a change in access if this would change the application and the process.

Mr. Helmick replied that you can impose it as a condition, but that this would then need to be tabled so we can look at it further.

Mr. Lafferty stated that we would need CDOT to clarify if they would allow this change in access and then we would table this for that specific reason for 40 days.

Commissioner Wallace stated that she would like the Commissioners to consider this as a condition.

Mr. Helmick stated that he does not have any answer from CDOT but if this is the route that the Planning Commission wants to go then they could write a recommended condition.

Commissioner Jensen questioned condition #12 and asked if the applicant is not completed in 10 years does the applicant have the option to extend the time frame.

Mr. Helmick replied that they have an option to ask and it would be evaluated at that time.

Mr. Lafferty gave the wording for the new condition.

Mr. Helmick stated the hours of operations could change if they enclose the batch plant.

Ms. Schneider agreed but would like to see some numbers

Mr. Helmick stated the applicant requested some additional language on condition #38 and they would need to look into this further.

Commissioner Jensen asked if there is a standard.

Mr. Helmick replied no.

Commissioners Wallace and Jensen questioned the conditions and asked for a clarification.

Commissioner Jensen closed discussion.

Commissioner Wallace reviewed the conditions.

 

Commissioner Wallace moved that the planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Laporte Pit Special Review, File #17-ZONE2113, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Laporte Pit Special Review File #17-ZONE2113 except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Stroh Pit Special Review.

 

3.   Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of County Commissioners

 

4.   The applicant shall provide a Development Agreement for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners no later than 90 days from the approved Findings and Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. 

 

5.   In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the County, the County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event the County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

6.   County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

 

7.   The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the property.  Those owners of the property or any portion of the property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

8.   The applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF) within 120 days of the recordation of the Findings and Resolution approving the Special Review. 

 

9.   Mining operation hours shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 am – 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, with one hour for startup and shutdown. Concrete batching and hauling hours shall be limited to the hours of 5:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, with one hour for shutdown. Concrete batching and hauling may occur additionally on Saturday from 8:00 am -­ noon.  Maintenance and repair may occur from 8:00 am to 2:00 pm on Saturday.

 

10.   The Applicant will solicit the approval of the Community Development Division when proposing to operate outside of normal approved hours.

 

11.    All improvements shall be constructed and approved prior to any hauling from the site. 

 

12.   All mining shall be completed no later than 12 years from the first material hauled from the site. Applicant shall provide written notice of this event to the County. All reclamation shall be conducted concurrent with phased mining in accordance with Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Requirements. Applicant shall provide annual reclamation summaries to Larimer County after reclamation activities commence. 

 

13.   Full berms shall be constructed around all pit sites as the first phase of operation, except as agreed to by adjoining properties.  A grass or other cover shall be immediately established and maintained throughout their life.  Additional berms may also be required along the access road if noise becomes an issue from haul trucks entering and existing the processing plant area.

 

14.   The applicant must have a construction permit issued by the Air Pollution Control Division prior to starting construction of the berms.

 

15.   The applicant shall implement a public information website and provide quarterly briefing to the surrounding community of LaPorte.  An advisement of the meetings shall be provided to the County.  The website shall provide contact information for residents to report complaints or ask questions. The applicant must develop a plan to respond to citizen complaints.

 

16.   The applicant shall develop a noise monitoring plan, to include when and how noise and baselines will be reviewed and established, how results are reported and what the response to noise complaints will be.  This plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any mining activity.  The applicant shall hire a sound consultant in the first two weeks of processing activity to measure sound levels and provide additional conditions for sound mitigation as needed. The study shall be submitted to the county for review to determine if the operation is in compliance with the noise ordinance and the original sound study.

 

17.   There shall always be water trucks on site and used to mitigate dust.  In hot, dry and windy conditions, over 20 mph sustained, water shall be applied regularly. Stripping and mining shall not be permitted in 35 mile per hour winds as indicated on the Air Pollution Control Division’s construction permit. The operation must adhere to all the controls required by the state issued construction permit.

 

18.   The conveyors on site shall be electrical and connected to the grid and be routinely maintained to mitigate noise.

 

19.   Noise suppression measures and water bars shall be located at all conveyor transfer points.

 

20.   All internal excavating and construction equipment owned by the applicant must have white noise backup beepers installed.

 

21.   The access road shall be paved prior to any material being hauled off site.

 

22.   The internal dirt access road proposed around the processing plant for incoming Loveland Ready Mix trucks shall be watered to reduce dust.

 

23.   Speed limit signs shall be posted along the access road and other internal haul roads for noise and dust mitigation. Traffic signs for one-way traffic around the processing plant shall also be installed to mitigate noise from customer vehicles.

 

24.   Emergency maintenance shall be allowed at any time.  Normal maintenance may not occur in the quarry area unless during normal working hours. 

 

25.   The Larimer County Environmental Health Department has the right to enforce the county noise ordinance.

 

26.   The controls required by the Air Pollution Control Division’s air construction permit and will require additional controls and dust/emissions are found to be in violation.

 

27.   No parking, loading, or unloading of any vehicles will be allowed within the County right-of-way.

 

28.   Trucks shall not back onto or use the County Road for a turnaround.

 

29.   The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the County roadway.          

 

30.   The design and construction of the County Road 54G improvement will need completed prior to the use commencing or within a limited amount of time after the Special Review approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

31.   The Applicant shall agree to work with any adjacent gravel pits so that they may attempt to consolidate access.       

 

32.   Truck traffic will be restricted from traveling west on County Road 54G except for local deliveries and Overland Trail from Highway 287.

 

33.   The Engineering Department reserves the right to further comment on traffic and access issues if the projected traffic impact, access location, or haul route changes.

 

34.   A drainage agreement for the maintenance of the retention ponds post-reclamation will need to be submitted. The agreement will need to include maintenance responsibilities of the perimeter drain if it were to fail in the future.

 

35.   Secondary access to the site will need to be a gated emergency only access.

 

36.   Ditch crossings will need to be designed by a Professional Engineer and be approved by Larimer County and the Ditch Company prior to operation of the pit.

 

37.   Groundwater monitoring for water level and quality shall be completed by a third party. Results shall be posted publicly upon receipt to the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety’s website (assuming they can upload themselves or at least show that results were sent to DRMS for posting?) as required per DRMS’s mining permit. A link to the DRMS website with results shall be made available on the LRM website so that it is easily accessible and convenient for public review.

 

38.   Septic systems exist to the northwest, east and south of the mine property. These systems shall be evaluated (by an engineer/pumper?) prior to starting to determine that they operating sufficiently. If septic systems are to malfunction as a result of mounded water (based on monitoring well readings?) during the life of the mine, LRM will have to cover costs to repair/replace the septic system as needed per the Health Department’s current On-site Wastewater Treatment System regulations, or connect the property to public sewer if available and within 400 feet of the property.

 

39.   Reclamation design shall ensure that in the created new low lying areas, water saturation/standing water shall be less than 72 hours to prevent mosquitos from laying eggs which could mature to the adult stage. Controlling mosquitoes is an important practice to prevent spread of the West Nile Virus.

 

40.   Batch plant enclosed including bag house and cement off loading.

 

41.   Those undeveloped areas further restrict future developments.

 

42.   The applicant shall collaborate with County Staff, CDOT, property owners, and The Timberline Project to seek access for the LRM site across the adjacent property and onto Highway 287.

 

Commissioner Choate seconded the Motion

 

Commissioners’ Lucas, Miller, Wallace, Johnson, Choate and Chairman Jensen voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:  Carol Kuhn reminded the Planning Commission that the Work Session date has been moved to September 5, 2018, and the next Planning Commission hearing is September 19, 2018.

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:34 p.m.

 

 

These minutes constitute the Resolution of the Larimer County Planning Commission for the recommendations contained herein which are hereby certified to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.

 

 

_______________________________                             ______________________________

Jeff Jensen, Chairman                                                                              Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E XHIBIT A

 

 

Legal Description: BEG AT SW COR 28-8-69, TH N 00 26' 58" E ALG W LN 1400.00 FT TPOB; TH N 00 26' 58" E 100.00 FT; TH S 89 33' 02" E 100.00 FT; TH S 00 26' 58" W 100.00 FT; TH N 89 33' 02" W 100.00 FT TPOB (SPLIT FR 98280-00-014)

 

Legal Description: PAR IN 28-8-69 DESC AS: BEG SW COR SEC 28; TH N 00 26' 58" E 415.01 FT; TH S 89 49' 10" E 420.62 FT; TH ALG ARC 300.00 RAD CUR TO L 71.25 FT, L/C BEARS N 83 22' 37" E 71.08 FT; TH N 76 34' 23" E 201.20 FT; TH ALG ARC NON TAN CUR RAD 1000.00 DIST 158.08 FT

 

Legal Description: BEG AT SW COR 28-8-69, TH N 00 26' 58" E ALG W LN 100.00 FT TPOB; TH N 00 26' 58" E 100.00 FT; TH S 89 33' 02" E 100.00 FT; TH S 00 26' 58" W 100.00 FT; TH N 89 33' 02" W 100.00 FT TPOB (SPLIT FR 98283-00-001)