|
Page L of 1W K ;bn.VV U :�v.VW 1 yr,.VV %.,Car- VI-tlCn
<br /> mill �'1:' NA M>r'�t�F���'�'t'��'I�!�'�'t'��1���1 �f�
<br /> Welch noted that the property owner has applied to CDOT for the new access permit,which is still tinder review,at this
<br /> time. Additionally, improvements to U.S.40, if needed, will be determined upon completion of the review for the new
<br /> access permit. Further, an updated response was provided on October 18,2006, indicating the construction of auxiliary
<br /> lanes will not be required at this time and that CDOT will require that the access be paved to the CDOT right-of-\vay
<br /> line.
<br /> b.)Jefferson Conservation District
<br /> A response was received on October 2, 2006, from Edward M. Spence, District Conservationist, who cited concerns with
<br /> potential impacts to water quality in Clear Creek and Johnson Gulch,due to the applicant's request.
<br /> c.)Owest Corporation
<br /> A response was received on September'_'7, 2006, from 1-I. Kent Welch, ROW Manager. \oho stated that he has no
<br /> comments or concerns with this request.
<br /> d.)Floyd Hill Property Owner' .Association
<br /> A response was received on October 5, 2006, from Jim White, President, who provided comments and concerns,with
<br /> respect to this request.
<br /> e.)Clear Creek County Site Development Department
<br /> A response was received on September 20. 2006 from Tim Vogel,Site Development Director, who stated that the
<br /> allowed uses within the Industrial (1)zoning district can cause detrimental impacts to Clear Creek through sedimentation,
<br /> accelerated erosion,and other potential contaminant loading that would affect water quality. Fuels,oils, petroleum
<br /> products.and materials for an asphalt/cement batch plant would be some of the harmful byproducts that could directly
<br /> load into Clear Creek Under the Industrial (1)zoning district. Best Management Practices will be required to lessen this
<br /> effect. An engineered Grading and Drainage flan and a Best Management Plan wil! he required prior to the issuance of
<br /> any other Land Use Permits.
<br /> f.)Clear Creek County Environmental Health Department
<br /> A response was received on October 4, 2006, from Chris Etcheson, Environmental Health Specialist,who stated that he
<br /> has no comments or concerns with this request.
<br /> g.)Clear Creek County Road and Bridge Department
<br /> A response was received on October 9, 2006, ft-oln Tim Allen, Public Works Director, who stated that he had no
<br /> comments or concerns with this request.
<br /> h.)Clear Creek County Sheriff S Office
<br /> A response was received on September 19, 2006 troll Don Krueger, Sheriff, who stated that he has no comments or
<br /> concerns with this request.
<br /> i.)Clear Creek County County Lands
<br /> A response was received on October 6, 2006, fiom Lisa Vogel,County Lands and Special Projects Director. Ms. Vogel
<br /> provided comments,with respect to historic access to adjacent County Lands and the need for property corners to be
<br /> surveyed and marked, in order to ensure that no activities and/or equipment related to the proposed uses encroach upon
<br /> County Lands.
<br /> J.)Clear Creek Count Community Development
<br /> A response was received on October 6, 2006, from Bert Weaver,Community Development Director, who provided
<br /> comments oil air quality,easements,and access to the County's proposed reservoir site.
<br /> k.)Clear Creek County Open Space Commission
<br /> A response was received on October 6. 2006. from Frank Young,Chairman,who stated that the Open Space Commission
<br /> desires a right-of-way easement for the Greenway trail and corridor as outlined in the Greenway Master Plan. The
<br /> property owner has offered an easement on the Northern portion of the subject property. such offer being subject to
<br /> approval of the Rezoning request. Although the Open Space Commission would prelc a r n easement on the Southern
<br /> potion of the subject property, they would accept an easement on the Northern portion ofthe property.The Open Space
<br /> Commission and the property owner would prefer that the easement be specified in the zoning approval.
<br /> I.) Saddleback Metropolitan District
<br /> A response was received on October 6, 2006, from Richard H. Cassens, Manager, indicating no comments o•concerns.
<br /> m.) Save Open Lands, Vistas, and Environment(SOLVE)
<br /> A response was received on October 18, 2006, from Etta Satter, CO-Chair,who stated that they are in opposition to the
<br /> proposed rezoning.(file to air quality. visual impact,and traffic innpact concerns. and concerns that batch plant facility is
<br /> not in conformance with the Clem-Cl-eeh Connor Alaster Plan 2030.
<br /> n.) U.S.. Army Corps of I m,ineers
<br /> A response was received un October 20, 2006, from'Terry ,McKee,Chief, Denver Regulatory Office, who stated that if
<br /> any work associated with this project requires the placement of dredged or fill material,and any excavation associated
<br /> with it dredged or till project,either temporary or permanent, in a stream bed or wetland, their office should be notified
<br /> by a proponent of the project for Department of the Army permits or changes in permit requirements pursuant to Section
<br /> 404 of the Clean Water Act.
<br /> o.)Xcel Energy
<br /> A response was received on November 10, 2006, from Mark Adams of Xcel Energy, Designer, who stated that he has no
<br /> objecting comments and is comfortable with his past working relationship with the Frei Organization.
<br /> November 22, 2006 Page 2 of 8
<br />
|