HomeMy WebLinkAbout781187.tiff BEST-WAY PAVING
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
January 17, 1978
sup 341
-781181
ZONE 294 : 77: 12 BEST-WAY PAVING COMPANY, change from E to A,
part of the Northeast quarter of Section 2 , Township 5,
Range 66 West . Location is Northwest of the intersection
of 35th Avenue and 4th Street on Northwest perimeter of Greeley.
CARLSON: Now, before we get into this, I do know that
we are going to have a lot of discussion on these points and
we would appreciate it very much if everybody would try to
hold their comments to five minutes because if we have one
hundred of you at 5 minutes, we' ll be here until midnight
tonight . So, try to keep your points brief and to the point
and we' ll go on from there. Do we have representation here
for Best-Way? State your name and your proposal , please.
ROBERT MATHIAS : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert
Mathias. I am a geologist employed by the firm of R.V. Lord
and Associates. Our firm has been employed to provide the
technical data necessary to put this application together. I
see that the Planning Board has copies. If anyone needs an
extra copy of this, I have some extras here. What I would like
to do is briefly introduce where our project is, show a few
slides of the area, and then get into a discussion or at least
continue my presentation by explaining the setting, the request
thaltBest-Way has made of the county and a discussion of the
impacts. During my presentation, the Planning Commission should
feel free to interrupt me with questions. I would prefer that
no questions come from the floor at this point. This is es •
-
sentially the same drawing that you have on the first sheet or
two of the set that we have prepared. This side is essentially
1
the center of the drawing. This site lies essentially at the
northwest corner of the city of Greeley. Thirty fifth Avenue
runs north and south on the east edge of the site; 4th Street
runs east and west at the south edge of the site. Best-way
Paving Company has had a operating gravel pit at the site
since about 1965. The drawing that I have in front of me
here (can you two see?) is essentially the same map we are
dealing with total size of 75 acres. The present use of
the site is for the area in ground here is the existing
gravel pit and at the north edge of the site is the shop,
maintenance facilities, asphalt plant, and office and scale
house of Best-Way Paving Company. As I pointed out , 35th
Avenue bounds the site on the east and 4th Street on the south
and the north edge of the site is bounded by the Greeley #3
irrigation ditch. The site is bound to the west by Johnson
Subdivision. The majority of lots abounding our site on the west
are currently occupied residences. What Best-Way is requesting
is that the southern half of the site, which is essentially
that part in green, be re-zoned from Estate-Residential to
Agricultural . The area shown in yellow and brown here is
essentially that portion of the site which is currently zoned
Agricultural and Best-Way has been there by nature of their
presence as a non-conforming use within the Agricultural
zoning. So, essentially, what Best-Way is requesting is a
re-zoning of the area in green ; this isn' t precisely it .
There is a line sketched very accurately across here, but
essentially, the area in green from Estate-Residential to
2
Agricultural and a Special Use Permit on that same parcel.
The area shown at the southeast corner of the site as excluded
is an 11 acre parcel which was retained by Orman Ruyle when
he sold the rest of the site to Best-Way. At this point ,
I would like to show you a few slides of the site. We' ll
use this as a screen so that the Commission not need to
move their seats. First slide please. The first slide here
is a view of Best-Way ' s site, essentially, from their entrance
out at 35th Avenue. What you see in the foreground is their
office and scale house, which was built in 1973; the shop,
which was built for maintenance purposes, which was built
in 1976 . Next slide, please. This is a little more closeup
shot of the maintenance building which again, was built in
1976. This is the tower to the asphalt plant and the green
apparatus here in the back is part of the asphalt plant . This
was built in 1971. Next slide, please. This is another shot
of the asphalt plant . The white tower that can be seen from
the area is over here. This is essentially the actually
workings of the asphalt plant . These features that I 've been
showing you so far as you can see in the background are all
down in the existing pit . Gravel has been removed from the
areas in which this equipment and these buildings that I have
shown you are, or more or less have been, located. You can
see the existing edge of the gravel pit in the background.
This is essentially the crushing facility and stockpile area.
Next slide, please. This 'is a closeup view of the crusher,
again with the stockpiles in the background. Again, we are
down in the existing pit. Next slide, please. This 'is a
view from the entrance of Best-Way looking toward the northwest
3
across the relatively flat agricultural land below and to the
north of the site which is essentially on the physiographic
floodplain of the Poudre River. Next , please. This is
starting to swing north. This is looking north on 35th
Avenue toward the river. You can see Friendly Village Mobile
Home Park on the right side of the screen. Next please.
Continuing to pan to the east , again this is from the entrance
of Best-Way, Friendly Village Mobile Home Park, and you can
start to see the agricultural land across the street to the
east . Next. This is standing about the mid-point of the
eastern boundary of Best-Way' s property looking into the
site . You can see the white shop building in the far right
side of the screen and you can see the tower of the asphalt
plant. The emissions from the tower that you can see there,
by the way, are almost entirely steam. This picture is taken
from the intersection of 4th Street and 35th Avenue looking
essentially to the northeast across the agricultural land and that
area behind the church. Next please. This- is looking from about
the same point but back towards the site. You can see the
houses built on that 11 acre excluded area in the southeast
corner of Best-Way' s site . This is looking at , essentially,
the same 11 acres from the west . We are standing on 4th Street
looking back generally to the east or northeast . You can see
the site in the corner. Thank you. The site essentially is the
corner of the property line is well towards the camera from the
trees, but you can see that at the present it is used for
agricultural purposes. Next , please. This is another picture •
looking onto the site. This is essentially looking to the
northeast . You can see the houses in Johnson' s Subdivision,
4
which is back up against Best-Way' s property. Next, please.
This is essentially from the southwest corner of the property,
looking back northeast into the site. Again, you can see
the very uppermost portions of the asphalt plant . You can' t
see the gravel operation itself and the visions you get here is that
of agricultural land. Next, please. This is standing about
the entrance to the eastern most entrance to Johnson Subdivision,
looking over one undeveloped residential lot here back towards
the site which is covered with cornstalks. Next , please.
This is taken looking southward from about the mid-point of
the south edge of Best-Way' s site, looking into the city.
The city subdivision is on the south of the site. Turning around
180 degrees looking toward the site again , we see corn land
and the asphalt plant . I might point out at this point that
as you look very carefully at this slide , you can see that
theonly aspect of the operation that is visible is the white
tower to the asphalt plant and the uppermost portion of the
heating units of the asphalt plant itself. The stockpiles that
I showed you in earlier slides are still there. They are well
hidden by the site topography. The buildings that I showed
you earlier are also obscured because of the topography of
the site. At this point, there was a considerable amount of
equipment parked in the operations area; that too, is hidden
from view. O. K. That is. . . concludes the slide presentation.
Again, those slides were taken at the entrance as looking north
across the agricultural area, Friendly Village Mobile Home Park,
church site, agricultural land here, and the city subdivision
on the south side of the street and Johnson ' s Subdivision on the
west . As I indicated, the present use for the site is a mixed
5
use of the overall site. That is, there is an existing pit
here of which I have shown you slides. The area colored here
in yellow is area that has been planted to wheat in the past
and has been allowed to lie fallow since. The area that is
colored green is actively cultivated and for at least the
last ten years has been planted to corn. The farming actually
takes place partly on the 11 acres. We have not shown that ,
but everywhere outside the trees and outside the corral that
occurs here is a farm in conjunction with Best-Way ' s site.
The area of the old pit , or I should say, the existing pit,
consists of approximately 16 acres. As I said, Best-Way
has been on the site since about 1965 and has been operating
intermittently during that time period. Let me discuss here
for a few minutes the details of the mining plant . My point
is not to really involve you in any of the gravel operations,
but more to show you, or at least discuss with you the kind of
operation that we are proposing at the site . If you take a
close look at the sheet labeled "Mining Plan" , you' ll see on
that plan a number of discrete boundaries within the site.
Those, essentially, represent phased areas. As we take the
drillhole data that we have from the site and look at historic
production rates by Best-Way, we come up with a range of
(end of tape) . Again, when one takes the historic production
rates of gravel and asphalt from the Best-Way operation, we
take those figures as they are, weighting the most recent couple of
years and divide that into the total gravel resource available
on this site. Without any increase in business, we would
project the life of this operation on this entire site, excluding
6
the 11 acres on the corner here, to be somewhere in the range
of 25 to 26 years. If, however., we build in a growth rate
of 5% per year, which in our opinion, seems reasonable, we
trim the expected life of that operation down to somewhere
in the order of 15 to 16 years . So, essentially, what we
are talking about is a range then from. . .of 15 to 25 years
for the operation. To look at the operating aspects of this
from the most optimistic standpoint is that of 15 years. If
you compare that against the number of phase areas that I 've
shown on the Mining Plan, we see 15 phase areas. Simply dividing
that out comes to one phase area per year. Well, obviously,
that 15 year figure programs in 5% growth rate so the
production again would be greater per year than initially.
But to just follow my logic through here for 1 year per
phase. What Best-Way proposes to do is to start or at least
expand their operation to the west into phase area 1 , which
is right here. This is part of the ground which is currently
zoned Agricultural and it comes in under the non-conforming
use and so Best-Way essentially, has the right to do that .
Any pattern of future county actions, unless a cease and
desist order or something along those lines is issued. What
Best-Way is proposing is to expand their operation initially
into this area. The way that operation would go, and in fact ,
part of it has already occurred, is to work this area in smaller
areas a few hundred feet wide and the initial event that would
occur here is stripping of the overburden. For the first area
here, the overburden will be used to build berms and I ' ll get
into that aspect of it later. The effect of this will be to
7
pick up the overburden, pull out the gravel , and put the overburden
back in that same area. The way Best-Way proposes to operate is to
strip the minimum area of overburden that they will be operating
in that season. We estimate based again on production rates
and past experience from the site that the stripping operation
itself will require 2 to 3 weeks in duration. And we see this is oc-
curring 2 or 3 weeks every six months or so. Again, this is
something that is a little difficult to predict accurately
because of the fluctuating demand for gravel, but we would
estimate that stripping would occur 2 to 3 weeks every six
months. Now it is the stripping operation which generates
the most dust and is the most visible . The equipment used
for the stripping operation would be the big paddle-wheel
belly-scrapers that you have seen on the road construction
jobs . Essentially, that equipment is visible as the upper
part of the overburden is stripped. As they get down to strip-
ping 5 feet in depth, obviously, the equipment is 5 feet down
in the ground. The overburden at this site ranges from 5 to
20 feet with an average of somewhere in the 10 to 15 foot
range . In many areas, by the time the overburden is stripped,
the stripping equipment itself will be gone from view. As you
remember, I pointed out as we were standing here, you couldn ' t
see the existing pit operation. That would be essentially
true after the overburden is stripped. After the overburden
is removed from the site the gravel will be loaded by front
or will be removed by front-end loaders driving up to the
bottom of the face, filling up, and backing off. There will .
be no gravel removal equipment up on the surface where it
could be seen. To see it, you have to be in the pit looking
8
at it or at the edge, looking into the pit . So essentially,
what we are proposing is that Best-Way extend their pit to
the west and again, depending on the fluctuation in market
demand, we expect that that area will take one or two years
to develop. After that , we move in to phase 2 area which is
over here adjacent to 4th Street . I beg your--pardon, 735th
Avenue. With phase area 1 we would essentially pick up the
overburden, build the berms, make a wind-block berm here
and then the rest of the overburden would go back in here.
So, essentially, by the time this area is mined it will also
have been reclaimed immediately. There will be a small amount
of material short. The first overburden that comes out of
area 2 as it is stripped, and again , we will be doing these
in the larger phase areas in essentially sub-areas. The
first part of the overburden that comes from here will be
placed in the remainder of this and then the gravel will be
removed. After the gravel has been removed from here , the
overburden from this area will be placed back in the previous
hole. So, essentially, what we will have is a big conveyor
belt kind of thing. I 'm not talking about equipment , but
rather, concept , for rather than stockpiling overburden and
putting it back, we' ll be picking it up from covering the gravel
and putting it back in previously mined area. This obviously,
has two advantages. One is it speeds up reclamation very
drastically, and the second is that Best-Way only has to
handle this material once. O. K. So we have stripped it .
We have pulled out the- gravel from down in the pit. I showed
you the locations of the stockpiles. The crusher is
9
sitting right there. There is no reason to move the crusher
because the stockpiles. . . there is a stockpile that feeds into
the crusher; the crusher feeds back into the stockpile, the
material from this stockpile is picked up by another front-
loader and taken to the asphalt plant . From the asphalt plant ,
again you saw the big tower and I 'm sure you' ve seen it in
the area, that' s a storage tower for the hot mix, that is
stored, trucks drive under it, fill up, weigh out right here
and then drive out the entrance. As mining continues
around the site, it would be illogical to move any of this
processing equipment because it is far more economical to
haul gravel over with a big front-end loader and put it in
the crusher and start this cycle than it is to try moving
this equipment . So, essentially, what Best-Way is proposing
to do is leave this area as is. The only difference from what
they are operating now is it adds, . . . as they expand the pit
area at later phases. Instead of having the stockpile area
on the north side of the crusher, it would be moved over to
here on the south side. The reason for this is to minimize the
noise . Essentially, we are talking about a fairly good size
pile of gravel. That provides a very effective noise shield
as the pit opens up to the north; I 'm sorry, as the pit opens
up to the south. By placing the stockpiles to the south side
of the crusher, most of the noise will be deflected into the
uninhabited areas on the north side of the site . As you can
see from the mine finding, you can follow the phases through.
We' ll essentially operate across this way and then from here, •
we' ll go back up to 14 and then to 15. Now, tied in very
10
intimately with the Mining Plan is the Reclamation Plan of which
I have a drawing here. The Reclamation Plan has been designed
to fit hand in glove with the mining operation. As you remember,
a few moments ago I said that it doesn' t make any sense to
double handle the overburden materials. It makes more sense
to put it in its final place. Again, that will accelerate
the reclamation program from an operational standpoint . What
you see before you here is essentially the site of 14. 1 acre
pond and agricultural land. What doesn' t show up immediately
from a distance is the topography of the site . Essentially,
what we have are 3 to 1 slopes around the perimeter. of the ;Site
on all sides except along the north side along the ditch. The
perimeter slopes will vary from 0 at the north end of the site
and 0 here to a maximum of approximately 40 feet . That 40 foot
figure comes in because there is somewhere between 35 and 45
feet of gravel on this site. Obviously, as you remove that
material , put the overburden back down, and you drop the ele-
vation of the overall site about that much. What we have done
with the site is put those slopes around the edge which, by
the way, have a slope of about 3 to 1. To conceptualize that
slope, a 4-12 pitch on a house roof is essentially a 3 to 1 slope.
So, we are talking about leaving a site with that kind of
perimeter slope with a fairly gently, well , essentially, a
fairly flat slope that slopes everywhere into the pond so
that surface runoff is directed to the pond. As we wind in
reclaiming specific areas of the site , it will be turned back
into agricultural production just as soon as 'possible to ob-
viously maximize the productivity from those portions of the
site . The pond. . .we have designed this operation here so
11
that the pond comes in as late in the operation as possible.
That is due to two things--one is, obviously the longer. . .
during the operation the water is there, the more hazard
there is to the operation. Another aspect of that is , if
the pond is built earlier and we need to mine gravel around
the edge of it, we have to pump down the pond and that is
senseless. The third aspect to why we would like to drain
the pond as late as possible, is obviously there will be
evaporated loss from the pond. We like to put that off as
long as possible. The way this site configuration has come about
is a compromise between extracting the maximum resource from
the site and having a highly desirable developable site when we
are done with the mining. The way we have planned this, putting
the slopes in where we have and locating the pond where we have
is to enable at some time in the future, again in the range of
15 to 25 years, at this point, we don' t know which, to enable
some kind of development to occur at that site if that is
being proper at that time. It is envisioned at this point
that the site access would be the same. This area could lend
itself to a double laned street down the center, a road around
the pond and with lots, again a double or single laned street here
with lots devoted to residential, light business use, whatever
appears appropriate at that point in time. An alternative,
obviously, would be park and open space, but at that point in
time that may be the most necessary type of development in this
corner of town, but at this point that is a little hard to
predict. So, essentially, what we have come up with is a
12
reclamation plan that is a compromise from extracting the
maximum resource from the site, yet leaving a highly desirable
site behind. We have done water table studies of the site and
the site configuration that we are proposing will leave the
ground surface approximately 3 feet above the water table.
So that obviously it can be used for agriculture, it can be
used for development , and we simply won ' t be leaving a
quagmire. The reason the pond is there is that by the time
you take the original water table into consideration, essentially
pick up the overburden, pull out the gravel and put it back
down, we are short of material. And so essentially, the hole
that we have created because of shortage of material , putting
the land surface back in above the water table leaves us a hole
in the center, and that is our pond. We have designed in here
very, very gentle side slopes around the pond, the actual water
depth would be somewhere between 12 and 15 feet, but the side
slopes around the pond are as the county and state regulations
require, 5 to 1 slopes--the type of thing that nobody can really
fall into. It is not like falling off a cut bank into a pond.
By the way, these 5 to 1 side slopes we have designed down well,
well , below the water surface as we are required to by regulations,
so that even once somebody is in the water, it is not the
situation where you are stepping off a shelf or bank below the
water level. Again, the goal of the reclamation plan is to
return this to productive use as soon as possible after it has
been mined and to leave the site with some development potential
of some sort after the site has been completely mined. Again,
just on the surface, so far into the future that we can only
speculate about the ultimate land use of the site, and I have
13
given some examples of possibilities. As part of the reclamation
plan you can see, it ' s essentially drawn on here, are the perimeter
of the site. What Best-Way had proposed initially was to create
berms using mounds of earth from the stripping operation around
the site to vegetate those berms with trees and shrubs to
create a visual and a sound barrier. What we had envisioned
was a very highly densely vegetated berm which would be built
early enough so that by the time there was mining in this area
the berm would essentially shield the neighborhood from the
visual impact of the operation . We had proposed this berm along
35th Avenue, along 4th Street and along the entire west edge
of the property. Essentially, we came up with our preliminary
plans, we have had two informal public meetings to which the
neighbors in the area essentially surrounding the site in a
radius of 500 feet were invited. As an outcome of the first such
public meeting, the people who live along this portion of the
west edge of the site asked us to eliminate the berm from that
area. Their reasoning was that at present when the corn is
up on the site, their view of the city is blocked. During the
winter when the corn is down they can see the city. If we were
to (or at least the city lights) put a berm there we would
totally and permanently interrupt their view. So we eliminated
that portion of the berm. When you are out in their backyard
with them you can sympathize with them because visibility from
that point is such that you really can ' t see the operation. In
fact , the public meeting that we held up here in Greeley last
Wednesday night and which I think is partly responsible for the •
size of the audience today, we were questioned at great length as
to what types of trees, what size of trees, what density of
14
planting, what types of shrubs, what kind of grasses. Essentially,
the feeling that we got out of that meeting was that the neighbors
would much prefer some type of privacy fence, possibly in con-
junction with the berm than they would strictly vegetated berm. ,
So, then, obviously, one of the neighborhood concerns was
visibility of the site. Subsequent to that meeting we have
had lengthy discussions with Best-Way and decided that what
we should do is essentially listen to what the neighborhood
has to say and they feel that essentially the berm that we
will plant won' t be big enough by the time the operation gets
close to their house to shield it . So, Best-Way has proposed
is that instead of building just a berm along the west edge;
I 'm sorry, south edge, shown in dark green here. What Best-
Way proposes at this point is to build that berm and instead of
bringing in a lot of trees to plant on that berm, to build a
privacy fence. That privacy fence and berm would run from the
western property line clear over onto the road property along
this edge . ' This will be a six foot high, natural wood, privacy
fence. Again , we have the cooperation of Mr• and Mrs. Ruyle
to do that . It would make no sense to terminate that fence
at the property line because of the possibility for visibility.
We would do the same combination of berm and privacy fence along
this portion of the western edge of the property, essentially,
the north half of the western edge of the property . Again ,
a combination of a 4 or 5 foot berm with a solid wooden privacy
fence on top. Again, in responding to the concerns ofthe
neighbors on the west , what we would propose to do is simply
construct a chain link fence here. Again, construction of a
15
privacy fence or a berm would defeat or irritate the majority
of those neighbors more than moving them out, but at the
same time, we have got the safety aspect of the operation,
and so to insure that we are not invaded by trespassers,
namely children, from the area, we have proposed to link
these two privacy fences with a chain link fence. The
same would be true on the eastern edge of the site along
4th Street . The berm is partially constructed here and
again Best-Way would propose to put on top of this berm or
adjacent to it in some way, a chain link fence in some manner
so that we again don ' t have to worry about kids or other
trespassers on the site. Again, this fence will' extend to
link up with the corral at the Ruyle 11 acres here. That is
one of the concerns that has been raised by the majority of
neighbors in the area, and I think that we can pretty much,
by making this compromise, pretty much take care of the
visibility situation. Again, we' ll continue to plant this
berm on the eastern edge of the property which is largely
already constructed with as dense vegetation as we can do
that still be successful to seal the site from visibility,
and then with the combination of berms and fences we should
be able to completely shield the neighborhood from visibility.
Obviously, the earthen berm itself will be shrubs and grasses
on it and some trees, but certainly not to the extent that we
had initially proposed when we had not really seriously con-
sidered the privacy fence. Another concern that was raised
by the neighborhood was our proposal to have a secondary site
access. As you remember, the primary site access is over
here. That is where it is now. Again , the scale house is right
16
here; it is most logical to exit the site from their main
entrance. In fact , that will become more desirable as
35th Avenue along the site is reconstructed and their entrance
improves and is made more attractive to the vehicles that will be
coming in and out. Somewhere, and I haven ' t found it in the
regulations again, I was given a very distinct impression that ,
we needed a secondary access to the site. I have been talking
to a lot of planning staff members, both with the county and city
and since the city is not here, I ' ll say that the city staff
said they want a secondary access. I don ' t know where it
came from. I can' t pinpoint it in the regulations this
morning, but we have proposed that for right down here at
the corner of our property. Since I can ' t find it in the
regulations and it appears that we are not required to have
that , what we would like to do is just totally and. permanently
scrap that secondary access . We have no desire whatsoever to
use the thing, partly because again, I point out the scale house
is up here. Everything that leaves the site has to go across
the scale because that ' s how Best-Way collects its money. And
the only reason for a secondary access is because of an emer-
gency situation such as when a storm sewer was built along
35th here. To be able to use this as a secondary access, it
would be first necessary to bridge or otherwise cover the
concrete lined irrigation ditches down here. That would severely
interrupt the flow of irrigation water which is being used on the
rest of the site, not to mention that the corn would have to be
trafficked upon. So, we would like to strike the proposed sec- .
ondary access completely from our plan and leave our access
strictly to the entrance, unless of course, some emergency
17
access is necessary. A third concern that was raised by the
neighbors in our public meetings were the aspects of noise and
dust pollution. As I have already discussed in the mining
operation, the only dust generating phase would be the actual
overburden stripping. As we remove the overburden which
essentially, is silt , sand, and what most people would call
dirt, after we remove that we get down to the coarse gravel .
The coarse gravel simply does not contain enough fine materials
to blow. From that aspect , plus the aspect that the gravel is
generally fairly damp, dust generation essentially is nil.
The crusher itself is regulated by OSHA, the Colorado Air Quality
Control Division, a whole bunch of other people like that , so
we have got those regulations to live with, plus the fact that the
crushing operation simply does not generate much dust when we
have as small a percentage of firing as is the case with this
pit. A mitigating aspect of, the dust pollution from this site
is the fact that the majority of the site is presently farm.
After the farm, excuse me, after the corn is picked in the
Fall--after the stalks dry out , the entire site is disced,
and essentially what remains is loose dirt on the surface .
This is a common practice in the general area here. Obviously,
that allows somewhere on the order of 40 acres. It leaves
40 acres that are highly susceptible to wind erosion in
the Fall , Winter and Spring of the year. By generally
lowering the entire site, obviously, we would make it a
little more difficult for this soil to be picked up. Then,
we' ll be turning it back into farm land immediately after
mining, so there will still be dirt that could blow. We' ll
be reducing the overall amount of farm land. Of course,
18
obviously, we have a 14 acre pond, we have side slopes that
will be vegetated with native grasses and shrubs to prevent
erosion, and that vegetation obviously will occur as shortly
after those slopes are finally created as possible. And so,
essentially, we are reducing the overall area that can generate
fugitive dust . And so, we feel that that impact greatly
mitigates any dust that would be generated by the stripping
process. And again, we see the stripping process to require
two to three weeks every six months during the extraction
operation. The noise aspect of this can be largely taken
care of, we believe, by the arrangement with the stockpiles.
As I have shown you, as we get a little more operating room
in here, the stockpiles will be moved to the south side of the
crusher. Essentially, we ' ll have a 35 degree slope on those
stockpiles , which should bounce the noise generally to the
north. It obviously, won ' t completely eliminate it , but I
think you' ll find that there are an awful lot of people in
the neighborhood who were not even aware that there was a
crusher and mining operation occurring here until they received
the county' s letter in the mail a few weeks ago. Many of the
neighbors, when they have felt a little friendlier, have
indicated that they simply could not hear the crusher except
on very few occasions. So, what we' re proposing to do is to
minimize even less of those occasions by placing stockpiles
on the south side, to essentially shield the thing. Again, I
showed you pictures of the pit . You can see the high cutwall in
the back. Essentially, that kind of cutwall will migrate to
the south, as the operation continues. That itself will provide
19
most of the noise protection that is necessary to minimize
impact in the neighborhood. The fourth concern was safety.
As I pointed out, we had initially proposed a heavily veg-
etated berm around the perimeters. We have decided instead,
to put this fence, which would essentially serve as a
perimeter security for the entire site except for the north
edge . Here we have a very large irrigation ditch. We feel
that it would be essentially senseless to add security when
that irrigation ditch provides it as well as it does on the
r
north side . In addition, Best-Way has agreed to phase their
stripping operation so that there will never be a really huge
cutface on the site. Again, the overburden itself varies
from 5 to 20 or 25 feet with an average of 10 to 15. That
material will hold a vertical slope for quite awhile . Best-
Way has agreed to bench that back so that we don ' t have a 15
or 20 foot vertical cutface. The gravel itself maintains a
2 to 1 or about a 35 degree slope naturally. We feel that by
the time Best-Way benches back the overburden and they circle the
site on three sides with essentially a security fence, that
we have minimized the hazard to trespassers, which in this case,
would be generally children. The fifth concern raised by the
neighbors in the informal public meetings which we initiated was
the aspect of impact,particularly adverse impact on property
values. The neighbors obviously would like a guarantee that
nothing that is done on this site would decrease their property
value . The only thing that Best-Way can guarantee is that if
they do a poor job of mining and a poor job of reclamation--
only if they doa_=poor job, then they can guarantee that property
values will decline. The property value aspect is one which
20
I ' m sure you' ve heard before. It ' s very closely related to
the appearance of an area. Best-Way has put itself on the
record of agreeing to minimize to the greatest extent possible
the visual impact of the site. They ' ve agreed to a very
expensive privacy fence on the south and on the west . The
neighbors along here feel that there won' t be visual impact .
Best-Way has proposed the berm and the vegetation on this side
to reduce the visual impact . A poorly-- designed gravel operation
certainly can be a nuisance and can be ,unsightly. That is why
Best-Way Paving Company hired Lord Associates to design as
pleasing as possible, a mining plan and a reclamation plan.
Again, as I said, the mining and reclamation plans go hand
in hand, for those operations go hand in hand. We won ' t have
a 75 acre pit torn up with great big stockpiles around it.
I ' ve pointed out where the stockpile situation will be. I 've
pointed out how we will reclaim the site sequentially, with
each successive area being reclaimed as soon as possible after
mining. I have pointed out how we will turn the land into
productive use again as soon as possible after mining. We
feel that the way we have designed this will optimize the
aesthetics in the neighborhood. As I said, the neighbors
would like a guarantee that we won' t decrease their property
values. I think if you take a good look at the current opera-
tions at Best-Way, you will see that they have gone out of
their way to enhance the appearance of their existing operation
and Best-Way has put themselves on record as proposing to do
essentially the same thing; that is to maintain an aesthetician
appearance as is humanly possible . One of the aspects to the
21
property value situation, obviously, is •that of what the
realtors are going to say. Some of the people who objected
at our public meeting the other night , to our operation on ,
the basis of lowering property values said, "Well , the realtor
told me when he sold my house to me that this area was going
to be developed Estate-Residential. " Best-Way Paving has
been operating on this site for 12 years. That is longer than
the majority of the houses in the area have been in existence .
Best-Way Paving Company obviously has nothing to do with what
realtors say to people who buy houses around the property.
To those who are property owners who had that story told to
them prior to the purchase of their houses, all Best-Way can
do is say, "We' re sorry. We didn' t have anything to do with
that . " Again, Best-Way certainly cannot guarantee that
property values will not decrease, but we propose what we feel
is the most aesthetically designed and visually pleasing an
operation as possible given the situation that we have. Again,
we have seriously listened to the concerns of the neighborhood.
We have incorporated the changes that it would incur. We
have most, completely addressed those concerns. In conclusion,
I ' d like to say that in addition to the fact that Best-Way
has obviously been here on this site a long time, we feel
that development of this gravel resource is highly justified
from the natural resource conservation standpoint . On this
site we have a very unusual gravel occurrence. The gravel
thickness varies from 35 to 45 feet. Th1sis much greater
than can be found in most other areas of Colorado front range.
When mining has been completed at the site, we will leave
essentially a 14 acre pond. That 14 acre pond is less than 1/5
of the overall site. Another site of 75 acres in area, which
was mined, would probably leave about a 74 acre pond. With
the type of site that we have here, -we' re leaving a site that
can be reclaimed. The future water loss due to evaporation
will be minimized as much as possible by the small size of
the pond. You' re all aware of House Bill 1529 that was passed
a few years ago. The tenor of the language in that law was
that gravel resources in the state of Colorado should be de-
veloped prior to their being covered by residential or other
type of development . We feel that this gives us a strong
standpoint from which to request a re-zoning of the property
to Agricultural to allow open cut mining, as well as to issue
a Special Use Permit . That ' s the end of my presentation and
I would like to handle questions from the Planning Commission
here. I am not interested in getting into a debate with the
neighbors in the area. As I indicated, we have had two public
meetings. The last one lasted four hours. I ' ve been through
most of their questions. I think I ' ve answered most of the
neighbors' questions to the best of our ability. So, I 'm not
terribly interested in turning the forum here into a debate.
I would also be interested after the Commission is done asking
questions if when the neighbors or the audience here raise questions
or make statements, I would appreciate if we could get them to
point out where they live relative to our operation . Are there
any questions that I can answer?
FRANK SUCKLA: I ' d like to ask a question. In this reclaimed .
area that will go back into farm land, how much lower will that
be than the surrounding area?
23
ROBERT MATHIAS : Well , that will vary from a cut of 0 at the
north edge to in a maximum somewhere on the order of 45 feet
down the center of the site. These. areas around here will be .
35 to 40 feet lower--the flat areas down here.
FRANK SUCKLA: In other words, it will slope to that degree
to get down 45 feet.
ROBERT MATHIAS : Essentially, the slope will be around the
perimeters. So, essentially what you would see if you' re on
the site itself is you' d see a 3 to 1 slope with shrubs and
trees and whatever on it . The bottom will be flat. There
would be a pond in the center and the flat area will be sur-
rounded with this 3 to 1 slope . But the overall surface would
be somewhere on the order of 35 to 45 feet below the existing
present grade and below the outside perimeter.
FRANK SUCKLA: What I was getting at is if that is ever
reclaimed and used for development , wouldn ' t that be much
lower than its surrounding area? Or would you take out your
perimeter there to get rid of that excess dirt on the edges?
ROBERT MATHIAS: Well, taking out the perimeter berm is certainly
a possibility. It would seem to me that that ' s kind of a
moot question. That would obviously be determined on what
the final land use of that site would be. All I can say is
that I come from Boulder and the most highly desirable areas
in town are the slopes. That is certainly a different situa-
tion from Greeley. One can come up with all sorts of development
24
schemes for this site, with houses or buildings perched on
the slopes or built back into the slopes. But again , that
appears to be a moot question , you know, when you consider
the overall time frame. Does that answer your question?
BEN NIX: I don' t think you explained how close you
would be excavating to 35th Avenue and also 4th Street .
ROBERT MATHIAS: O. K. Thirty-fifth Avenue here, essentially,
if you drive past the site now you can see the start of a
berm. It doesn' t look very good because it is just dirt
without anything growing on it. Essentially, the 3 to 1
slope would start on the other side of that berm. How close you
want to say we excavate, at the top we' d be right next to the
berm. As we get down again, we got a 3 to 1 slope, so as you
get deeper you' ll be farther and farther away from this berm.
I guess along this side we' d have a 20 to 25 foot cut total
depth, right down at this corner and you take that over a 3 to
1 slope, you' re looking at 75 feet from 10 feet inside the
property line, or a total of 85 feet . Up here, where we have,
I would guess overall, a 40 foot cut , the stripping equipment
would be operating immediately behind the berm and fence . As
that gets deeper, obviously that equipment moves farther and
farther away from the property line and the street . This
particular area contains a 30 foot wide easement for the
Bureau of Reclamation power line. We have to stay 10 feet
inside that easement . So, you take the street , 30 feet ,
10 feet and then you start the 3 to 1 slope . So initially,
the stripping equipment would be in that case, and you' ve
25
got the easement , and then the 10 feet--it would be essentially
40 feet inside the property line. The gravel extraction--
again, you put in the 3 to 1 slope, ethat ' s where we start
hitting the gravel, that ' s how close we' ll be to the property
line.
PERCY HIATT: Let ' s explore this a little bit further,
while we' re talking about that . In your deed, it has a
covenant on the west side for the first hundred feet that
it will not be used for anything other than residential
purposes.
ROBERT MATHIAS: Obviously, something like that is highly
subject to interpretation. We would like to interpret it--
Best-Way would like to interpret that as a final land use.
Depending on how you would like to look at that , the mining
of gravel, or in that particular situation, because of the
size of the cut, most of the material that will be removed from
here is overburden. The overburden removal is exactly the
same process as that which occurs on subdivisions for resi-
dential development. We' re using the same equipment . We ' re
doing essentially the same thing. We' re moving the dirt
around. Obviously, that is somewhat subject to an inter-
pretation of that covenant . We prefer to view that as
re-grading the site prior to that residential development
which would essentially occur in the future at the time
that the site is fully mined out.
PERCY HIATT: You confused the hell out of me !
26
ROBERT MATHIAS : The covenant to which -you are referring says
that this land shall be used for--you know, the 100 feet along
there shall be used for residential development. We' re saying
that ' s great ! We' d like to re-grade it before we do it . And
if the re-grading involves the extraction and removal of
gravel, that ' s dollars in the bank. Yes, Sir.
JERRY KIEFER: You stated that Best-Way has been on the site,
but from my understanding, Best-Way has been on the northern
property , and that the southern property. . . I note here in the
documents that we have here, I 'm trying to check here. . .we
have a document dated in ' 72, I believe, which seems to be a
contract, but that document of public records seems to be
dated of March of 1977. Now, am I to understand that Best-
Way owned this property to the south, or let ' s say or had the
deed only since March of 1977?
ROBERT MATHIAS: That ' s right . I think Carl can probably
address that a little better than I have, but Best-Way has
had an arrangement and an agreement with Orman Ruyle to
purchase that site for the entire duration of time that they
have been there. The deed itself went through many, many
revisions and was finally concluded and recorded in March,
or whenever it was, of 1977.
JERRY KIEFER: Does that mean then, that that was the
first time it was a public record that it belonged to Best-Way?
ROBERT MATHIAS : I believe so. Is that the case? O.K.
27
As I said, Best-Way has actually been on the site, producing
gravel from the site for 12 years. The site itself has been
used intermittently for gravel production and other pavement 1
operations for somewhere, I think on the order of 30 years
before now, which would be somewhere on the order of 18 years
before Best-Way moved onto that site.
JERRY KIEFER: Has it been of public knowledge that the
whole bit of property, or that area is of a mineral deposit?
ROBERT MATHIAS: I have no idea. We have been working on the
project ourselves for a year and a half. Anybody who ventures
onto the site can obviously see the size of the cut space .
Those same people are trespassers, however. I have no idea
how widespread public knowledge is, or has been of the gravel
resources here, prior to our submittal of the application
before you today.
CHUCK CARLSON: Any further questions? If not , thank you
for your presentation . Let ' s have the staff ' s comments before
we go on .
CHUCK CUNLIFFE: The following comments are in regard to Case
Number Z-294 : 77: 12 and Special Use Permit Number 347 :77 :21 in the
name of Best-Way Paving Company, etal request to change the zone
from E (Estates) to A (Agricultural) , a Special Use Permit for
open pit mining for a gravel pit. Legal description is part
of the Northeast quarter of Section 2, Township 5 North, Range
66 West. The Department of Planning Service staff recommends
28
that this request be tabled for the following reasons:
1) It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Service
staff that the plan, as requested in the application for
buffering the existing residential uses from the proposed
gravel operation is inadequate . The Department of Planning
Service staff recommends that the application be tabled
until the applicant presents a detailed plan for adequately
buffering the two land uses. It is recommended the plan
include such combination of berming, landscaping, solid
fencing
, and/or setback. The details of the buffering plan
should be identified on the plans and in the Development
Standards on the plans. 2) It is the opinion of the Department ,
of Planning Services staff that the applicant should develop
a safety improvements plan in conjunction with the buffering
plan. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning SErvices
staff that fencing of the areas to be exc 'ated mitts 6 foot
chain linh fence should be required as part of the safety improvements
plan. 3) The applicant needs to submit evidence that he has
liability insurance covereage of not less than $100, 000.
4) The applicant needs to clarify the proposed use_ and the
status of the proposed access onto 4th Street . These items
should be identified as Development Standards on the plans .
5) As requested by the County Engineer, the applicant needs
to indicate a method of controlling the drainage between the
proposed 4 foot berm and 35th Avenue and between the 4 foot
berm and 4th Street . I might indicate to the Planning Com-
mission members that item number 3, the applicant has provided
r
evidence that he does have the required insurance coverage
for liability. Also, number 4, he has indicated that they
are no longer requiring the access on 4th Street , or proposing
29
that access.
CHUCK CARLSON: I noticed that as- I was back in the packet
that the county would prefer only one entrance access on its ,
own 35th Avenue.
CHUCK CUNLIFFE: That is correct .
CHUCK CARLSON: Prior to today, evidently you hadn ' t been
presented with all these facts and figures that he ' s just
been talking to us about?
CHUCK CUNLIFFE: No, the staff did talk with, I believe, ,
Mr. Connell, the attorney for Best-Way, yesterday on the
telephone and they have indicated some changes that we
were unaware of at the time they submitted the application.
CHUCK CARLSON: O.K. Any questions of staff?
JERRY KIEFER: I do. Let me refer back here a second.
Oh, some reference was made, I believe, to the need or the
necessity to use the mineral deposit prior to development .
I wonder if any comment could be made on that .
GARY FORTNER: Do you want a legal opinion, or a planning
opinion?
JERRY KIEFER: Maybe both, I don ' t know.
GARY FORTNER : Want to start with a legal opinion?
KAY NORTON: Effective January 1, 1973, a law was passed
in the State of Colorado, commonly known as House Bill 1529, which
provides that no local government , city or county, shall by
zoning, re-zoning, or any other action or inaction allow a
permanent type of development overground known to contain a
commercial mineral deposit. Commercial mineral deposit is
defined rather loosely in the act as anything which is com-
mercial or may be commercial. Subsequent to that law,
Weld County did develop a mineral extraction plan and adopted
maps which indicate what areas of Weld County are considered
to be commercial and mineable. I 'm not sure whether or not
this area is shown on these maps, or not . However, there is
an exception in that law, which is still in effect , which
stated that any area which was zoned as of July 1, 1973,
for some type of residential or other type of permanent
development, is exempted from that law, which means in
this case, part of this site--the part which is sought to
be re-zoned, was zoned E (Estate) sometime, I believe, in the
early ' 60' s. Therefore, residential development could proceed
over it at this time, the way that Weld County interprets that
statute. Now, the law does not require the converse--that is,
it does not require that if you have a zoned area that the
minerals must be extracted prior to any development . I think
what the applicant is saying is that the policy of the state
is made clear that commercial and mineral deposits are to be
extracted where possible and that , therefore, that should be
persuasive in allowing this re-zoning and development.
JERRY KIEFER: Thank you.
31
CHUCK CARLSON: Now, let ' s have the planning side.
GARY FORTNER: O. K. I think our primary concern is whether
or not the operation can take place in that area without any
significant negative impacts on the surrounding uses. I think
with our position and the statutes and the terms in the way the
county attorney' s office interprets those statutes, there is not
necessarily anything that says there is a necessity to re-zone
that land, so that the resources can be extracted. So, I
think our primary concern at the time, and the major reason why
we are asking for this to be tabled is so that we can see if
there is a plan that can be formulated by the applicant to .
protect the surrounding residential areas from impact .
KAY NORTON: This is required in the Special Use Permit
process.
CHUCK CARLSON: This is true. O. K. Thank you for your
opinions. Any further questions of the staff? If not , we
will open this up to comments from the audience. I would
just prefer you to come get in the line if you want to and
state your name and your comment, please. You can move that
stand back up next to that mike so that we can hear. We
need your name and address.
ROBERT MATHIAS: My name is Robert Mathias. I think you have
heard from me. Just briefly, the major comments provided by
the staff, I feel we have addressed. 1) The buffer - We have
revised our plan to take that into account . 2) Safety - We
32
have recommended fencing around the perimeter. 3) The liability
insurance question - Before my presentation I gave the certificate
of liability insurance coverage to the Planning staff. 4) Access -
On to 4th Street we have removed that part of our proposal. The
drainage question on 35th - Best-Way has been trying to work
with the Weld County Engineering Department to work out a
drainage configuration that would be acceptable to everybody
involved. Obviously, that road is presently under construction
and now is the time when that should be worked out. We feel
that this is an item in which Best-Way has sufficient interest
because of their immediate presence to that drainage situation,
that this is an area that can be best worked out as a compromise
between the Engineering staff and Best-Way. Item 6 was the
interpretation of House Bill 1529. We agree with the Assistant
County Attorney here that the language in that law and the tenor
in that law is to promote the use of an extraction of economic
resources. When Weld County put out their mineral resource
study, they were not probably aware of the potential resource ,
on that site. We have drilled that extensively and there is
no doubt that that is a highly economic resource . The last
aspect of this is the land use conflict . As I pointed out ,
a poorly designed and poorly conducted operation certainly
could be in conflict . We do not feel that that applies to
us because of the care that has gone into both the operations
and reclamation design and the history the Best-Way Paving
Company has had over the past number of years in maintaining
a well-run operation. f
VICKI REED: 415 35th Avenue Court . I have three points
33
which I would like to address, and I ' ll be very brief . The
first one is that yesterday the Weld County Department of
Planning Services received a copy of a petition from property
owners within 500 feet of the land for which Best-Way is
seeking the re-zoning and the Special Use Permit for the
gravel pit. I have the original of the petition here.
KAY NORTON: Let the record show that the speaker has
submitted a petition to the Chairman .
VICKI REED: ' The petition reads: We the undersigned,
owners of property within 500 feet of the property described
as Part Northeast 4 Section 2, Township 5 , North Range 66
West , ask that the request from Best-Way Paving Company etal
for a change of zone E (Estate) to A (Agricultural) district
and a Special Use Permit for a gravel pit on the same property--
I won' t go into it--be denied. You will notice that 167
property owners signed the petition asking you to deny
Best-Way' s request . That 167 is slightly over 80% of the
property owners within 500 feet of the land. In light of
such strong opposition to Best-Way' s request , I can' t imagine
you can go ahead and proceed to grant it . My second point--
Thank you, Kay, you clarified--was the grandfather clause in the
Colorado revised statutes of 1973 Title 34, Part 3. The
grandfather clause is Section 31-1-305 .) . This is simply a
copy of that law.
KAY NORTON: Let the record show that it has been submitted
to the Chair.
34
VICKI REED: And as Kay said, it reads : It ' s underlined
on the last page of your copy there. "Nothing in this Section
shall be construed to prohibit a use of zoned land permissible
under the zoning governing such land in July 1 , 1973. " The
intent of the law was to preserve mineral deposits . Had the
legislature though, intended to jeopardize existing properties,
existing developments, they would not have included such
grandfather clause at the end. Consequently, because of that ,
this land which was zoned Estate in May ' 61 may be developed '
for estates and not be in violation of that statute. Further,
in Garrett vs. the City of Littleton, which was heard in the
Colorado Supreme Court in 1972 the court said, "We have held
that in order to obtain re-zoning to permit a use which the
applicant seeks, he must prove that it is not possible to use
and develop the property for any other use enumerated in the
existing zoning. " I have additional citations if you wish. And
my last point : I don' t want you to think that what I 'm going
to say is any indication that a gravel pit near a residential '
area is anything but unthinkable. However, I want to draw
your attention to the vague and indefinite wording which was
used in the Lord and Associates report. I will not , of course,
go through the report page by page, but here are some examples
of the wording that I am talking about . Page 4 of the report -
"Other sites are not necessarily unsuitable, but in some cases,
less suitable than the site under consideration. " Page 19 -
"In summary, it is most highly probable that the duration of
the mining operation at the site will be 15 to 16 years. " '
Page 39 - "Because the reclamation operation is so intimately
combined with the mining operation, and because the duration
35
of the mining in a given phase area is dependent upon the
demands for paving at that point , it is difficult to design
a high degree of confidence to the time estimate. " Page 29 -
"Any stockpiles of overburden at the site, which must be
constructed, will be reseeded as soon as possible to minimize
dust generation . And lastly, on page 20 the report makes
reference to the "new windless condition of the operations area". '
O. K. I wasn' t deceived by the obscure nebulous and at times,
even misleading wording and I hope you' re not . Thank you. ,
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you.
LINDA VASENIUS: I live at 509 36th Avenue--within 500 feet
of the proposed gravel pit . It occurred to me that maybe my
neighbor who lived 501 feet might be concerned also. So,
we have circulated more petitions and I submit these for
your information. There are 54 more signatures .
KAY NORTON: Let the record show that those have also been
submitted to the Chair.
LINDA VASENIUS : I also would like to call to your attention,
as I am sure that you are probably aware of the health hazards
connected with gravel pit operations. We are looking at a mining
operation in our residential community. So I have taken my time
to do some research to find out what the probable health hazards
will be to us, and I am just appalled that anybody would allow, ,
or even think to allow, such an operation into a fine city like
ours, that close to our community. First of all, dust . They
36 .
have found in Montgomery County, Maryland, that it is not
the dust that we see in the air : it ' s the invisible particles
that we breathe that are the most hazardous. They have found
that there are certain types of crushed rock that produce
asbestos dust . Not only is this linked to lung cancer, but
it is also very hazardous to anyone suffering from any kind
of respiratory ailment . I have documented all my evidence with
reports that I have found. I also would like to point out
that pollution is another concern. We know that there will ,
be runoff of water and there has been a problem, as you probably
remember, in 1974 in Denver, where they had to close down gravel
pit operations because it was polluting the streams for
6 miles in each direction. Noise pollution is a problem.
Right on our street, on 4th Street, we have a big sign that
says only so many decibels of noise will be allowed in this
area. I ' d like to know if this operation will comply . I was
really amazed in my research to find how minimal the standards
are for the amount of noise . Do you realize that the noise
produced by traffic on a busy corner--if a person is subjected
to that over a long enough period of time, they can lose their
hearing, 100% of their hearing? And it doesn' t even take that
much noise to damage a person' s hearing. Dr. Miller of the
Central Institute for the Deaf in St . Louis estimates that a
constant noise level of 70 decibels may be sufficient to retard
the development of speech and reading among children. It also
causes hypertension, peptic ulcers, and an abnormal lowering
of vascular tones to be submitted to any kind of noise over a
prolonged period of time. Many people are subjected to noise
at work, and many people will be subjected to noise now, if
37
this comes about in our own neighborhood. For these reasons,
and the .other reasons that you' ve heard today, I am very
strongly opposed to a mining operation near my nice quiet
home.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Linda.
KAY NORTON: The applicant is submitting her statement
to the Chair. ,
HARRY ASHLEY: Gary, do we have these petitions here, or
are they new ones? ,
GARY FORTNER: These are new and additional ones. The first
one that was submitted is in your packets.
KAY NORTON: A copy of it is in the packet and the original
was submitted today.
HARRY ASHLEY: The second one was not?
GARY FORTNER: The second was not.
KENT JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is
Kent Jackson. I live at 502 37th Avenue Court within 500
feet directly south of the proposed site. We submitted a
letter, (inaudible) 9 residents who live in that immediate
area, to you on January 9th, outlining two general categories of
concern that we have regarding the proposed site, and I ' ll not
38
re-read that to you. I think that you Undoubtedly have it
before you and have had a chance to look at it . But I do
want to make the point that in spite of (inaudible) we did
ti
appreciate the opportunity to have public meetings, but
in spite of those public meetings, at least those of us who
signed this particular letter--I certainly can ' t speak for
the others who were in attendance, I came away convinced that
in no manner, way, shape or form, that the proposed plan
answered any of those concerns that we expressed to you. Those
concerns did relate to what we view as the reversal of the
previous commitment regarding the land use for this particular
proposed area and secondly, those considerations as they relate
to posing dangers to the health, safety and welfare of our
families. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, 'Kent.
ROBERT FOOSE: I 'm Robert Foose and I live at 431 37th Avenue
Court and Kent answered my question with the part about being
told what it was going to be used for when we bought our house.
I won' t go into that , but I will go into the part of his plan.
Part of his plan saying he will do this, and he will do that ,
but there is no law says that he has to do this , and that he
has to do that. If he wanted to, tomorrow he could start
mining right here along 4th Street and then once that ' s
in operation we have no recourse . We got recourse now,
so we want to stop him now. We don' t want to have to fight
a big sand pit here with people with his lawyers because
we can' t afford the lawyers. So, what we ' re interested in,
39
is not letting him do it at all , because his proposal is fine
and dandy, but that it doesn' t mean he has to stick up to it--
not by law.
KAY NORTON: Mr. Foose, if I could comment on that , the
applicant will have to get a mining permit from the State
Mined Land Reclamation Board which will spell out exactly
where and when he can mine, so that there would be a state
agency that would have control.
ROBERT FOOSE: You would have control over that?
KAY NORTON: Yes.
CHUCK CARLSON: Not only that, but our Planning Services
in the Planning Department here in Weld County will watch
and look after all these things as proposed and they will
be taken care of in order that they are projected and if not
they will be red tagged.
ROBERT FOOSE: All right. Thank you.
ORMAN RUYLE : I ' m Orman Ruyle. My wife and I own the
corner property, this 62 to 112 acres. We have had dealings
with Carl Hill and it has always been on the up and up . I
see no reason for not granting information for the rezoning
of his property . I think that down through the years the grand-
children of some of these people will probably see another
Glenmere on that property. As far as the health conditions
40
are concerned, I ' ve owned that since 1942 . I had a heart
problem, but it wasn ' t caused from the dust from that property .
I think you' ll get more dust from the blowing of the present
land, as it is right now, than you' ll ever get from the
gravel pit. In fact , we get more dust off of Johnson' s
Addition over there on the gravel streets than we get out of
the gravel pit . The noise factor - there' s more noise on
4th Street and 35th Avenue than there is in a gravel pit . I 'm
in favor of granting the rezoning.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you.
THERESA SARTZ: My name is Theresa Sartz. I live at
114 38th Avenue in Johnson Subdivision. Prior to that ,
I lived on 524 35th Avenue Court. At the time we moved, we
fully knew the operation of the gravel pit . It was there
before we were. Never have I had any problem with dust . We ' ve
never had any problem with noise. We' ve never had any trouble.
The things you see in the air are steam. I would like to point
out also that prior to this meeting a letter was given to the
Planning Commission from my neighbor, Dr. Longwell . This was
given to you. He is not able to be here. He is teaching at
the university this afternoon. But you have had a chance to
explore his letter. Another thing I would like to point out--
the petitions that were signed by the people before this .
This was signed as my knowledge, the explanations were given
to the neighbors prior to the second meeting given by Best-
Way Paving. And also, notices were put in mail boxes, which
I understand, is not a legal method of distribution. And
41
the Best-Way Paving is also on the outside of the city limits.
It is not in our city. It is on the outside. There is not
any noise that I 'm concerned with. I hang my clothes out. I ,
don' t come in with my ears pounding. I feel terrific living
there. And knowing the good faith and the good ownership
of the neighbors around us, of Carl Hill at the Best-Way
Paving, I am truly in favor of this development to go ahead
as was outlined today. He has given us the protection of the
plan that was outlined. He has come over and talked with us. ,
He has done many, many things that were absolutely unnecessary,
and I feel he is being very fair in our behalf . Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Theresa.
VICKI .REED : I ' d just like to clarify one point on the
petition . Many of the signatures were obtained prior to the
second meeting on Wednesday of last week. However, it has
been interesting to note that following that second meeting we
had people call us asking us to come so that they could sign
the petition. We had nobody call asking to• take their name
off the petition . Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Vicki. .
RUTH SENS : My name is Ruth Sens. My husband and I own
property at 421 37th Avenue Court . We live within 500 feet of
the proposed site. When my husband and I bought our house, we
were fully aware of the operation here. We were also fully aware
that it was zoned Estates here. We have attended, I was not
42
aware of the first meeting that Best-Way proposed. We did
attend the second meeting and came away opposed to this
operation totally. We do not want any kind of gravel operation
within this site. It isn' t consistent with quiet living and
it isn' t consistent with a safe neighborhood and it isn ' t
consistent with what we had in mind when we settled in that
area knowing that was zoned Estates. One other point I would
like to make is that these proposed berms along this side
and this side, will be seeded with seedlings, according to
their plan. I can' t see how a seedling spaced however far
apart that you have to space them for them to grow, will
block this from my view, and I would like to stand as opposed
to this operation totally. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you.
RANDY KRENZEL: Mr. Chairman, my name is Randy Krenzel.
I live at 508 37th Avenue Court here in Greeley. I ' ve got
one thing. I 'm opposed to the rezoning of the property for
gravel . I 'm not opposed to Carl Hill ' s expansion, making
money, making an aspiring business and everything like that .
I am opposed to him coming south towards our property. I ' ve
got a question, though. Do you think right off the bat , here,
that agriculture can be done on a 3 to 1 slope , done safely
and everything else? Also, the pond at the bottom of this
45 foot drop. Do you think the City of Greeley can handle
another Bittersweet? Thank you very much.
THOMAS HELLERICH: Mr. Chairman, my name is Thomas E. Hellerich.
43
I 'm an attorney here in town. I ' m here representing Mr. Ray
Larson . Mr. Larson owns approximately 4 to 6 lots in this area;
particularly 4 of them are right to. the west , but I think you
can see, there are 1 , 2, 3, 4--there are actually 6 lots to
the west edge of the Best-Way Paving Company property. I have
some preliminary questions, too. In reviewing the application,
the maps that I saw, it seems to me that Best-Way doesn' t own
all of the mineral rights first of all . I believe the statement
- was made there that they owned jointly with some other company.
Secondly, I have some problems, as indicated here, Best-Way
doesn' t own this property. Gilsabind Convidar owns this
property here. My question is: Are they part of this application
or not? Are they?
CHUCK CUNLIFFE: Yes, they are . Their name does appear on
the application form.
THOMAS HELLERICH: O. K. Secondly, is there any arrangement or
any contract that exists that allows Best-Way to continue to
trans-cross that property in the event that Gilsabind would
say, "No, we don ' t want you to anymore . " I haven' t seen any
document of that nature.
KAY NORTON: It ' s possible that there might be an easement
by necessity since I believe that Best-Way sold the property to
that entity.
THOMAS HELLERICH: You know of no legal document , though. Is
that right?
44
KAY NORTON: No, none appears in our records.
CARLSON: There has got to be a road there anyway for
the ditch company irregardless of whether they want to close
it or not .
THOMAS HELLERICH: Well, would they have the right to use it,
though? That ' s my next question, even though there is one .
CHUCK CARLSON: Don ' t ask me.
(Thomas Hellerich' s comments were inaudible. )
KAY NORTON: I think the applicant would be the best person
to answer.
THOMAS HELLERICH: I think the other people who have spoken today
have expressed a lot of the desires of not just themselves, but
the other residents who live in this area concerning the health
problems, the dust problems and the noise problems. I think
Mrs. Reed has expressed quite well the question that I have,
as well as to the need for this, firs of all. The application
form sets forth by Lords that there is no way they can develop
a gravel lot under the present zoning. Well that ' s right !
That ' s not the question that has to be answered. The question
is, can they use ;,he property under the present zoning? The
answer is yes they can . There is plenty of uses that they can
make of that property. That ' s not the need that has to be
shown for a change in the zoning. Whether we ' re going down
zoning, or just changing the zoning. That ' s not the question.
They haven' t even answered or approached answering the question
45
whether or not the change in zoning is needed. The statements
made in the presentation that the tenants , or I should say, the
other people that reside out there haven ' t known about the
mining operation, I think that ' s drastically understated. I
don ' t know if Mr. Larson contacted any one of you individuals
as such, but over the past years he has made several contacts
with the county asking them why this operation is going on .
The situation was more of tolerance rather than pursuing it
because they were always advised by Carl Hill as well that
this was a tapering off process. What you' re doing here ,
if you grant it , you' re expanding a non-conforming use.
You should not be doing that . That ' s the only way that is
is existing now. They didn' t even own the property until
March of ' 77. So you' re expanding a non-conforming use, which
should not be done. Another comment I ' d like to make concerning
the covenants, as they' re called, which you have mentioned as
well . I agree there may be some interpretation, but I don' t
think there ' s that much interpretation left into what that
contract says. I ' d like to also bring out to the Planning
Commission that there' s another contract in existence that
has never been presented to you as of yet. That contract is
recorded September 17, 1969, under Reception Number 1536858.
That was a contract between Mr. Ruyle, who owned this property that ' s
contained in this contract, plus the property that he just ex-
plained he' s owned for the past 42 years. That contract has the
same covenants and covers this entire parcel--not 100 feet--the
entire parcel. If there provides that there should be no
nuisance created on the property, which has certainly got to
be. But the main thing is, it ' s to be used for residential
46
property and nothing else. That ' s whatAMr. Ruyle had agreed
to back then, before Best-Way even came into the picture.
So it ' s by contract, by covenant this operation should not
even be commenced. Just some other general comments. I think
they 've been commented on as well already. The report given
is extremely vague and I think totally inadequate concerning
the dust problems. There have been no studies done, no test ,
nothing shown. What kind of dust is going to be created and
how that dust is going to be controlled. Secondly, I think
it ' s totally inadequate as to the water. What ' s going to
happen to the water? Where' s the water going to come from?
They say this crushing operation is going to be wet . How
much water is it going to take? This is going to be an
expanded operation. In the past , it' s been an intermittent
operation--not a full-time thing that they ' re predicting
now. That ' s another reason that maybe the dust was lower
back then . And the noise was lower back then because it
wasn' t operated like they' re proposing to do it now. There' s
no support information in there as to what the water supply
is going to be for their crushing operation. I think it is
totally inadequate. I think the drainage problems have been
expressed as well already. House Bill 1529, I think a lot
of people have spoken to that and I think that is a correct
interpretation of that statute. I don' t think it is required
under that statute to rezone. I think you can proceed with
the prior zoning--the E zoning, and proceed to develop it and
that is the use that is available to Mr. Hill and whoever the
owners are of the property at this time. The reports that have
been submitted from various agencies, from the Colorado
47
Geological Survey Department of Natural Resources. They
suggested the removal of gravel. But the proposal is to
go clear down to the very bottom--in other words not leave
any kind of bedding. Their recommendation there is to have a one
or two foot thick layers of gravel for water that ' s going to
be there from now on. Nothing is incorporated into their
proposal as suggested here by the Department of Natural
Resources. Also, the other reports expressed about the
excavating right next to the street its recommended that
there be a setback of at least 100 feet--a buffer zone.
The proposal today says, I don' t know where the berms are,
I don ' t know, he never gave us--your question was never
answered as to where the berms will be. Are they going to
be 5 feet in, 10 feet in? But we know right where the berm
stops, that ' s where the excavating is going to start . Is
that going to be 100 feet, is it going to be 5 feet , or
10 feet, or what? We don ' t have that answer. Nothing' s
been presented on that . I think just to summarize briefly,
I think the case law that you had cited to you is correct
as well and I think it is controlling the situation. There
has to be a need for the rezoning, and I don ' t think that ' s
been shown here. I think the case law is controlling for
you as well, even if there would be one--a plan submitted
that is inadequate . I would request that you deny the
application. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Tom. •
48
ROBERT FOOSE: I ' ve got one more quetion . I 'm Robert
Foose again . I live at 431 37th Avenue Court . I know
Mr. Mathias here dealt a little bit on property devaluation . ,
Well, I ' ve checked into this, and I ' ve checked with three
realtors all of whom have no opportunity to sell any of the
homes around here, so they wouldn't be biased on their opinions.
Every one of them said, "Definitely, you' d lose value on your
home, no matter what kind of mining operation you have--no
matter what they do with it" which I 'm awfully skeptical of
that anyway, and I want to let that be known. Another point
is, I ' ve checked with loan officers who definitely say you
cannot loan money on a house with the same value as another
house exactly like it if it ' s within 500 feet of any industrial
complex, which this would be--an industrial complex. My
third point is, how would you like a gravel pit dug right
across your street? That ' s our opinion. Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Robert . ,
RAY LARSON: My name is Ray Larson. I live at 120 40th
Avenue. There is only one question that I have that really
concerns me, and they keep bringing it up--this pond. How
in God' s world are they going to get water in that pond?
I have put down protests all over that whole entire area--
Johnson Acres, Larson Subdivision. I talked to R and R
Plumbing, or R and R Drilling this morning and they have
drilled test holes out even on this property in question
right here, Best-Way Paving property--over 100 and 150 feet
and no water; not enough for even a domestic well. And
49
they' re telling me they' re going to go down 25 feet and have
sub-water come up? No, sir ! Then , they think they ' re going
to run irrigation water in there to supply water to that pond. ,
It will never hold it in that gravel . Impossible ! So when
we get done with this operation we ' re going to have a big hole,
because they ' re not going to take thousands and thousands
of dollars and time to fill that hole back up to its present
state. That ' s for sure ! I 'm really against this and I hope
you will consider it thoroughly before you make a decision.
r
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Ray.
MARIANA REED: I 'm Mariana Reed and I live at 415 35th Avenue
Court . I have a question which may not even be pertinenent to
this hearing, but I am very curious about who Gilsabind Convidar
is. Who are they?
CHUCK CARLSON: As far as I know, they ' re a name. r
MARIANA REED: What is their interest in this entire project?
KAY NORTON: They' re a Colorado corporation which owns
part of the property is the information that we have.
CHUCK CARLSON: We have thousands of names thrown at us
during the day, so we' re not dealing in names. Any further
comment?
KEITH TANNER: I 'm Keith Tanner from 3726 West 5th Street
50
and I feel like a father to all of thesd other .people_because I
arrived in Greeley in 1923. I know the territory pretty well,
I think. I started farming where West High is now. I know
what the wind erosion can do. I know what the hail storms
can do. I know what flood damage can happen in this country .
I have seen it . Consequently, I 'm going to make my comments
short. I think probably that we all realize that this is one
mistake we definitely cannot let happen to us.
CHUCK CARLSON: Any further comments? If not, do you have
any questions Board that need to be brought up? If not , I 've
got a couple of comments . Right at the very present time I
don' t think I can adequately say yes or no because I ' ve been
handed a book and it takes me a day to read a book anyway.
I ' ve got all kinds of stuff here that I need to go through
and look at . I do know that there needs to be some serious
consideration on this point and I don' t think that a guy can
from the hips say yes or no right away. I think it needs to
be studied and checked out and looked into very dearly and with
a lot of thought . As far as I know, well I know that what I
have, I . . . this is the most information I got . All I knew was
that they were coming up to be discussed today. It ' s a point
that we don ' t get a whole lot of information before we come and
sit down in this seat and start hearing what you people have
to say. So, it is a rather tough. . . it is rather on the tough
side to say yes or no, when it gets into a deep thorough study of
in a situation such as this. So, at this time I ' d like to ask
the Commission which way you' d like to go. What ' s your motion?
51
JERRY KIEFER: Mr. Chairman, I definitely agree with you
and I would recommend that we table this, but I would
also at least ask your opinion as to whether we might in
addition to the points in here that the staff recommends that
we have clarified, that we also somehow have the. . .perhaps it
is clarified within the packet , but have the pollution, the
noise and/or dust somehow clarified. Is this possible? Or
has it been done adequately?
CHUCK CARLSON: We have in the county, have plans and very
point blank dust abatement rules that we need to be followed
up. Right?
GARY FORTNER: That ' s all in the regulations of the State
Health Department . They would be the appropriate agency to
respond to that.
KAY NORTON: . . .And an environmental impact .
JERRY KIEFER: So, would this probably not be appropriate
here then, if it is dealt with adequately?
CHUCK CARLSON: Oh, it will be dealt with.
KAY NORTON: You could ask for further information to be
given by the staff members at the next . . . to continue the
hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting and to take .
further information of those specific source if you like.
52
CHUCK CARLSON: I think that would be -a good idea.
JERRY KIEFER: Well, then I would like to. . .yes, as we hear
it again. Well , I think that would be a good idea.
KAY NORTON : Then, you' re asking that the applicant provide
further information on those specific points?
CHUCK CARLSON: Yes, I think that this needs to be dealt
with and I think the applicant needs to get together with the
Planning Commission and go over some of these things that were
brought up today, so that we will be fully aware of what their
presentation is, along with everything else.
BEN NIX: Gary, I think too, that some research. . .
further research should be given as to the point of actual
need, in view of the ramifications involved in this application.
I think we need further research.
JERRY KIEFER: Right, I agree.
CHUCK CARLSON: The actual need, number one, to change it
from E to A. Right?
JERRY KIEFER: Right .
CHUCK CARLSON: And from there on. O. K.
BEN NIX: With those comments, I ' ll second the motion.
53
CHUCK CARLSON: It has been moved and 'seconded that we do table
this until further information alas been received by the Commission.
GARY FORTNER: Mr. Chairman, you might want to stipulate
that you are continuing the hearing to the next Planning
Commission meeting so that you can receive further evidence
at that time.
CHUCK CARLSON: I was going to ask you when you think you
can handle it again.
GARY FORTNER: O. K. I think it is going to be dependent
upon the applicant to provide further information concerning
dust abatement procedures, noise that can be anticipated from
the operation and to show further proof in terms of the need
for the operation if that ' s what the Commission desires.
CHUCK CARLSON: In other words , the next meeting would be
on February 7th, the first Tuesday of February. Just so
everybody knows when it is. The table motion receives no
discussion, so Shirley, could you poll the Commission, please?
SHIRLEY PHILLIPS : Mr. Carlson Yes
Mr. Nix Yes
Mr. Ashley Yes
Mr. Suckla Yes
Mr. Kiefer Yes
Mr. Hiatt Yes
Mrs. White Yes
54
CHUCK CARLSON: Just a point of information. In reading
Reader' s Digest, the June issue ; we were talking about decibels
and the sound bothering you, causing you to go deaf. Most
tractors today run at 82 decibels is considered a quite cab.
Decibels on some of our things that we ' ve already O.K. ' d
and worked with run around 50 at night and 55 in the daytime.
Being fully aquainted with, or aware of the word decibels , why
whenever it runs across your eye, you look at it and see .
This one article said that we think traffic noise is loud.
It says that if you' re sleeping with your husband and he ' s
snoring, snoring decibels run as high as 96 . 1 . So, if you
think trucks are noisy, put a lid over your husband' s mouth,
or over your wife' s mouth when you go to bed. Thank you.
55
Hello