HomeMy WebLinkAbout781188.tiff BEST-WAY PAVING
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
February 7, 1978
5,93LIl
18118$
Zone 294 : 77: 12 BEST-WAY PAVING COMPANY, Change from E to A Part
of the Northeast of Section 2 , Township 5 , Range 6(3 West .
Northwest of the intersection on 35th Avenue and 4th Street on
Northwest perimeter of Greeley .
CHUCK CARLSON: Staff, I think we need to take some comments
from these people . Are they here to comment today? Please
state your name and. . .
ROBERT MATHIAS : Thank you, Mr. Chairman . My name is Robert
Mathias. I work with R. V. Lord and Associates, a consulting
firm in Boulder. We' ve been retained by Best-Way to do
the technical work in mining and reclamation design . At the
last meeting approximately three weeks ago we presented in
detail a discussion of the mining plan and the proposed
reclamation for the site. At that time, we, or I should say,
the Commission raised a number of questions concerning more
details regarding that operation. Subsequent to that , we have
written an additional report which was submitted to the Planning
staff. Mr. Chairman , have the members of the Planning Commission
received that supplemental report?
CHUCK CARLSON: I think everybody received it .
ROBERT MATHIAS : I thought what , I would do is outline very
briefly the contents of that report , and make myself available
for any questions from the Commission. Mr. Chairman, I have a
drawing. It ' s approximately 6 feet long. Would you have any
objection if I taped it up on the wall behind you there?
56
('IIIJ(;IC CAltlON : I clon ' I, know. We iii ('(1 h) 0 i I ;;onoliow,
T guess.
ROBERT MATHIAS : I can ' t see any other place. I ' ve got tape
and no tacks and I haven' t really got any other place that I can
think of that it would stick.
CHUCK CARLSON: You better talk to the Commissioners . This
is theirs.
ROBERT MATHIAS : To recap very briefly. . . O. K. . . to recap very
briefly the methods of operation proposed by Best-Way, we have
generated this sketch that we have hung on the wall here. With
the exception of the distance between the loader at the base of
the slope there and to the stockpile which we ' ve telescoped into a
short distance there that drawing is basically at scale. That
measurement there, as you can see, is 1, 000 feet . We ' ve taken
the mapping that we have of the area and combined with that
the proposed operations scheme. So , the house at the left side
is approximately to scale with the rest of it . You can see
4th Street there. Essentially what we ' re doing is looking
west at a north-south cross-section through the proposed gravel
pit . The house on the left , I think, is Edwards Subdivision,
4th Street , the Bureau of Reclamation and power line easement ,
a berm. On top of the berm, if you look very hard, you can
see a 6 foot high wooden privacy fence. You can see an indi-
vidual standing on the right side of the berm, or on the north
side. Again , that individual is 6 feet high drawn to scale.
O. K. Now, we get down into the actual mining operation. You
57
can see the yellow paddle-wheel scraper there kind ol suspended
in space . The surface through the line that that, scraper is
sitting on is essentially the existing surface of the site
which is presently under cultivation or at least is during
farming season . As you can see, the. . . as the scraper removes
overburden soil , it will get deeper and deeper into the. . .
into the pit . So, essentially it will be exposed to view,
or exposed at the surface . For the most part, it will be
partially, or almost completely concealed by the berm at the
left side there plus the 6 foot fence . The 4 foot berm plus
the 6 foot fence makes a 10 foot high barrier. The equipment
is approximately that high. So what we did was put the yellow
colored scraper in there to show you essentially the. . .where
the stripping operation starts and right below the words
"Original Grade" you can see a front view of that same type
of equipment . Depth-wise, thi .t piece of equipment that ' s
colored grey there is about as deep as the overburden stripping
operation will go. That piece of equipment at the surface would
have started out approximately where the person is shown on the
right side of the berm and then as additional overburden is removed
that would drop down into the pit below the original surface. You
can see at the base of this slope a front-end loader. This
particular piece of equipment is shown with tracks on it . The
one on the right side there next to the stockpile is a rubber
tired vehicle. The rubber tired , vehicle is what Best-Way
currently has. I couldn' t find enough figures in magazines
to make two of those . But you can see. . . the one that 's shown
at the base of the slope there shows essentially how the gravel
extraction itself will operate. The paddle-wheel scrapers will
58
remove overburden at I.he su r fawc' h) about ! he depth I ha I we
have shown there, and then all additional mining operations
are conducted down in the pit at the bottom. That front-end
loader that is shown at the base of the slope simply drives
up to the base of the slope, loads his bucket and heads over
and dump it on to the stockpile. Again , we ' ve telescoped
the distance . That stockpile will remain approximately 1 , 000
feet from the base of the slope. This drawing is a view
of a phase very nearly at the end of the mining operation ,
somewhere on the order of phase 14 out of 15 phases. So
actually most of the mining operation will be conducted considerably
closer to the stockpile, considerably more toward the north end
of the site. We ' ve shown the extreme case here, where mining
is occurring as close to the south property line or to 4th Street
as it will ever occur. Again, the thing, the reason that we
are showing this is to show schematically at least , the type
of mining operation we have. We ' re not maintaining equipment
constantly at the surface. The scraper will work at the sur-
face for a period of approximately 2 weeks every 6 months .
The scraper after that is no longer necessary to the mining
operation at all . Additional work will be conducted down in
the ,)it itself using a front-end loader. Again , the 1 , 000 foot
distance there has been visually telescoped and the stockpile
would end up you know, considerably on the right side of the
room here. And adjacent to the stockpile would be the gravel
crusher and the asphalt plalit , the scale house and that kind
of thing. So again, we ' ve exaggerated this here to at least
put it on the. . . for. . . so you can see it without having to
have a 20 foot long drawing. As I ' ve indicated, at the left
of that drawing, underneath that tree, is shown a wooden
privacy I ence. Bo L-Way Paving Company Inc IrroI o ed Lo con-
struct a wooden privacy fence along Lhe south edge of the
property all along 4th Street , even on to the excluded parcel
owned by Orman Ruyle. He has agreed to construction of that
fence to help shield the operation visually from the neighbors to
the south. Along the West property line of the site, and I
guess at this point I should probably pull out some of the
other drawings that we have already presented. Essentially,
this one--that view is a cross-section taken through here
with the stockpile and crusher down here and the slope into
the pit at the south edge here . What Best-Way is proposing
to do is to put a berm and privacy fence all along 4th Street
here, a chain link fence to about the break in the west
property line here, and the reason being for the lack of wood
fence here is because the neighbors along here , the Longwells,
and I can' t remember the names of the others , unfortunately,
have requested no visual visibility obscuring construction
here. And so, we' ve eliminated the berm and recommended a
chain link fence here, or proposed a chain link fence here .
Down here, the 4 foot high berm with a wooden privacy fence
would be constructed. Along the eastern portion of the site
along 35th Avenue the fence would extend--again, we have a
4 foot high berm with a chain link fence--would extend from
approximately this point up to their entrance . This would. . .
this berm would be a little bit different from the other one
because it would be very heavily vegetated with trees dense
enough that by the time the mining operation extends over into
here the berm and vegetation complex would essentially obscure,
at least visually, the operation from the road. The main reason
60
for writing the, or at least the major contributions provided
by this supplemental report, was a discussion of the noise and
air pollution aspects of the operation . We spent a few days
out on the site subsequent to the last Board meeting with the
noise meter---the type that is standardly used in noise sur-
veys by both city and county and state health departments.
Essentially, what we did with this was to measure the noise
output by various aspects of the operation as it is now and
as we would expect it to continue in the future. From the
results of the noise studies we have provided you with a
couple of additional maps which I ' ll get right now. The
first map that I ' d like to show you is the Pit Noise and
Ambient Conditions. What we ' ve done is made a number of
point noise measurements whereby one of our engineers walked
all over the site with the noise meter and a map recording noise
levels at various locations on the site. From those various
points, we generated contours of the existing pit noise and
this includes the front-end loader, the crusher, the gravel
plant and the asphalt plant, plus miscellaneous equipment working
in the pit, trucks under maintenance and that kind of thing.
And so that' s what this map is generated from. For residential
areas state law prohibits noises in excess of 55 decibels. From
the pit , this heavy line is labeled 50 decibels. This is pit
noise. This line down here is 45 decibels. Halfway between
this line and the dark shading you can ' t tell whether the noise
you are hearing is from the pit or background noise from traffic
in a residential area. Down in the area that we have stippled
here in purple, the noise levels rise toward the street , so
essentially we have a low noise level here with noise levels
61
increasing; toward the street . The area that we have colored
purp] e here represents areas where the noise heard is street
noise, residential noise, airplanes , the wind, birds. From
here on no noise can be heard from the pit itself . The work
we did there very clearly documents that . So, essentially. . .
well, then , the same is true on the west side. The points are
a lot . . . I ' m sorry, east side. It is a little harder to inter-
pret the data we got along here because the configuration fits
a little different and the traffic is a little more sporadic.
But we also identify a band at the west at the east edge of the
pit where you could no longer hear pit noise, but instead, the
only noise was traffic noise. Well, if you consider the results
of this map for a little bit essentially what this work points
out is that along the south edge of the property in the resi-
dential area there is simply no way of hearing pit noise down
here . At this point , as you' re walking south on the property,
at this point , you lose pit noise and pick up traffic noise so
the houses to the south here won' t hear pit noise . And by pit
noise, again , I mean the front-end loader, mining the gravel,
the crusher, the asphalt plant , and the things that are located
and will remain located up here. So, again, the noise being
generated by here will not be heard off-site. The other aspect
of noise from the operations that we looked at in detail were those
of the stripping operation . Again, the paddle-wheel scraper
that does the stripping will work approximately 2 weeks every
6 months. They ' ll strip just enough ground and uncover enough
gravel so that that can be mined and when that stripped area
begins to be, you know, essentially they ' ve mined most of that,
then they will go strip another area. This map represents what
( 2
we have determined the limits of the :;et lin, • nOi ;a, wi I I hv .
And again , what, we did was , we look onr noise motor ,Intl
actually stood out on the site and had scrapers operating
back and forth in front of us . And we did this at various
distances and various directions from the machines and in
fact , with this diagram and with the other one, what we have
shown you are maximum values. We were trying to be as con-
servative as we possibly could. We expect that the actual
values will be less than what we have shown here, but again,
we have shown maximum values of noise generation . The area
inside the stippled pattern here are areas where the scraper
noise and the noise generated from the scraping operation
will not be heard off-site. Traffic noise, wind noise,
airplanes, that kind of noise generation will obscure scraper
noise. In the area shown here in purple the scraper noise
will compete with traffic noise, standing across here . And
again , we' re dealing in receptors off-site--somebody standing
in the back yard or across the street . Scrapers operating
in this purple band would be able to be heard across ' the street ,
and again, we' re dealing particularly with the first row of
houses along the street . Scrapers operating in this purple band
would be heard in quiet periods of traffic. When traffic is
active the scraper would not be heard. When the scraper is
outside of the purple band closer to the property perimeters
the scraper would be heard and when there is scraping in these
areas--the outer edge--we recommend that additional muffling be
done . Again, these noise levels were from the scraper operating
right up on the surface. As that scraper, well , as he removes
the first foot of overburden he drops into the ground a foot .
63
A:: he reuiov(':; 5 fecal , lie ' :; down into the ,round 5 feel . The
noise levels that we' ve shown here are with that scraper
operating on the surface, so again , this is the worst case,
and again Best-Way proposes to muffle scraper noise, you know,
outside this purple band so that they won ' t exceed the state
noise levels or be objectionable by being heard over traffic .
So we feel that the work we ' ve done substantiates the general-
izations that we made oarlier, that . . . that the operations won ' t
adversely affect the neighborhood from a noise standpoint .
If you take a look at the diagram back up on the wall for a
minute, you see the front-end loader operating at the base
of the slope. Again , this is shown at essentially only one
point in time where the mining operation is right at the south
edge of the property. We measured noise levels in exactly that
kind of configuration and by the time you get out at the
property line you simply cannot hear that piece of equipment
over background noise. And that ' s independent of whether you
are standing at the street , as we' ve shown there, or whether
the loader is working back in the existing pit where it is
now obviously. We had that . . . the loader that they are using
presently actively working and we measured noise levels up
on top and back a distance which would correspond to standing
up on the berm, under the power lines, on the street , and in
somebody' s front yard. And it is simply not possible to hear
that piece of equipment outside of our property using the kind
of configuration that Best-Way has proposed. The other aspect
of the environmental situation that has concerned area residents
is the dust generation. We looked at the numbers as closely
as possible using emission factors commonly used by the U. S.
64
Environmental Protection Agency and the Colorado Department of
lionILh . I should point out that. there is no really good data
concerning dust emission from various sources and the numbers
that we used in this report are the best ones that we could
lay our hands on after talking with E.P.A. and the Department
of Health. They, at this point in time, have simply not done
enough measurements of operations from. . .which includes road
construction , residential over-line grading, mining and those
kinds of things, to really have a good handle on the amount of
dust generated from operations. Using the numbers that are
available , however, we' re getting so much dust generated from
the site in its current agricultural use where the land is
allowed to lay bare fully half the year as we would from a
full-blown gravel mining operation here. We looked at the
ambient air quality standards promulgated, well, legislated
by Congress and enforced by the E.P. A. It would take approx-
imately two million ton per year coal mine to generate enough
dust to exceed those standards by itself . When you compare that
with the 70, 000 tons of gravel production we ' re talking about
per year, obviously, we don ' t rank very highly there . But
beyond that in our earlier report we indicated we expected
dust generation to be maintained at its present level if
not decrease. The numbers that we have gone through here
essentially substantiate that conclusion . A year and a half
ago when we started our design studies we had detailed dis-
cussions with both the E.P. A. and the Colorado Department of
Health. They indicated that they felt the dust generation
from the site would be absolutely no problem and that ' s why
we don ' t have site specific high volume particulate sampler
65
data available from this site . We considered it , decided it -
wasn ' t worth money or effort and discarded the idea. Again ,
the dust from the site is currently generated from fugitive
dust from wind erosion of bare soil at the site. During the
mining operation or as the site is reclaimed the surface of
the site would be dropped essentially to correspond with the
brown surface there. As you can see, that ' s considerably
lower than the existing surface and therefore, that much more
difficult to erode. We are decreasing the total acreage devoted
to agriculture, partly by the side slopes of the pit and partly
by the 14 acre pond in the center. So, we expect as an end
result that dust generation from the site actually will decrease.
During the operation, of course , the highest amount of dust
will be generated during the stripping operation, which as we ' ve
already indicated, will occur approximately for 2 weeks every
6 months. That ' s an average. Obviously, we can ' t exactly predict
that and wouldn ' t attempt to. So we feel that the air pollution
aspects of the operation again are certainly within acceptable
limits even to the neighborhood. The reclamation plan that
we' ve proposed is a little difficult to visualize, but we' ve
tried to do it in two manners. On that diagram up there again ,
you can see a green colored line at a slope down into the pit .
That green colored line represents the 3 to 1 slope that Best-
Way is proposing to leave as the pit perimeters. To maintain
that , obviously, you can see that they ' re shown there mining the
maximum amount of gravel that can be removed from that site.
Again, the diagram there shows the tail-end of the mining phase
at the south edge. We would have to build that slope back, which
Best-Way has agreed to do, and this would be done with overburden
66
to result, in a 3 to 1 slope . A 3 to I slope is similar to a
412 pitch on a house, so if that slope seems familiar , it ' s
because you see it on nearly every house you drive past . We ' re
not talking about cliffs around the edge, but merely a very
gentle slope that can be very easily traversed by foot . Also,
to show this site diagrammatically , we had one of our graphics
people come up with a very quick sketch which I ' ll show you
now. It ' s a little smaller scale. Essentially, what we' re
doing is looking at the site from the north back over towards
the river and actually what we are doing is looking uphill .
This is 4th Street , 35th Avenue . This is the 11 acre excluded
area owned by Orman Ruyle . Johnson Subdivision is right over
here. I think this is Edwards Subdivision in the city. What
we have shown are the perimeter slopes here again at that 3
to 1 grade. We fully expect to vegetate these slopes with the
combination of grasses and trees. The varieties that we
specified in our reports recommended by the Soil Conservation
Service and selected for their low maintenance. We plant the
things that thrive in this area, essentially no maintenance.
So, we' ve got a site surrounded by a slope which tapers out
at the edges. At a maximum here, we ' d be looking at somewhere
on the order of 40 feet . If you were to measure from the street
down to the bottom of the slope, I would guess maybe 35 -feet .
Then, it tapers. . . it grades very gradually down into the pond
and this is very, very flat down here--somewhere on the order
of to 2o--very easily formable , but yet not flat . We have
shown about a 15 acre pond here roughly in the configuration
that is shown in the drawings. The plant site, down here;
this should have been extended down . . .out into here a little
67
bit farther. The area around the pond, which represents
somewhere on the order of 50 acres , I believe , or 40 acres ,
will actually be reclaimed and farmed as the operation . While
they ' re mining up here, we' ll be farming back here . That ' s
how we phased this thing. We' re currently mining over here.
Before they even get over here to mine, this will be reclaimed
to a state suitable for agricultural purposes. So, by no
means, we are talking about leaving a big ugly hole . You can
see from the slope there, which is actually at scale, 3 to 1
is certainly not an unusable slope. I could show you picture
after picture of homes in Boulder built on slopes far steeper
than that . Inverness Business Park in South Denver just built
into the hillsides and so by no means are we planning on using. . .
leaving an unsuitable site with cliffs around the perimeters or
unusable ground on the bottom. We ' ve not shown any development
plans for this because we don ' t have any . We' re talking about
a time period 15 to 25 years in the future. Any drawings of
that site would be purely academic. That concludes my
portion of the presentation. I ' d like to call on Tom Connell
to discuss a couple of other matters. Tom.
TOM CONNELL: Members of the Planning Commission, Planning
Staff . My name is Tom Connell, Attorney at Law, representing
Best-Way Paving Company. I would just like to briefly address
the change of zone request that we have filed with the Com-
mission. It is the position of Best-Way that the initial Estate
zoning that is on the 45 acres that is the subject of our
petition, was in the first instance, faulty zoning. The
zoning at the time that this particular zoning was created
68
w,c,; done hy a I' I : iin i nl; Cuunu i i uii who worked d very I on+; and
hard to put the initial zoning; into effect in the various
areas of the county. However, they were without professional
staff , without technical staff, and realistically without
any ability to treat a given parcel unless that parcel came
before the Commission individually. Areas were zoned pretty
much in mass. A square mile, possibly a mile and a half ,
two miles, at a given time. Here again without the availability
of the professional staff that exists today or that existed
in later years to assist them. At the time that this zoning
was. . the time this property was zoned Estate, the existing
gravel pit that is being operated now was present on that
site. There was another existing gravel pit almost directly
to the east . I believe less than a quarter of a mile , something
of that nature. There is an existing site, the Lowell Paul
Gravel Pit that is to the west of us and it is our feeling that
had the Commission had the staff available at that time and had
the considerations that for example it would today, that it
would have been obvious that there were extensive gravel de-
posits in that area that did need to be protected. I think
that we can see that in other instances of zoning of that type
we have lost large areas of substantial , high grade gravel
deposits. Cascade Park is situated on such a deposit . Country
Club Estates is situated on such a deposit . Numerous others
in the westerly portions of Greeley are situated on high grade
valuable deposits. Unfortunately, here again, the staff was
not available . The technological assistance was not available
at that time and the Commission could do no more than to attempt
to protect agricultural ground, determine what appeared to be
69
the growth areas of thc' community . In the insl ;iiiI :appsI ic•:aI ion ,
we would submit, that the mining or this gravel is absolutely
essential . The deposit is a unique one in that the site
itself , by utilization of this site , we will disturb probably
, possibly a little more than that , of the amount of square
footage or square mile area that we would disturb in the average ,
should we say, river bottom site or average site in the agricul -
tural community. It ' s a good deep deposit . The other thing
is that it is a unique site in that in most instances where
we have good gravel we have a fairly high water table such as
in the river bottom areas or in the flood-plain areas. In
most instances , when these areas are mined out , you have one
thing left--you have a lake with a little piece of grass around
the edge and very little ability to utilize that property for
anything else. We feel that the area that Best-Way is occupying
can be utilized for its natural resource , that resource pro-
tected. In doing that , we have a consideration of energy
savings in lengths of haul . We have a consideration of water
savings; we have the consideration of minimal removal of prime
agricultural land. We feel that the plans that have been
proposed by Best-Way are such that realistically the neighbor-
hood will not know that it ' s there. Other than the fact that
they do know it ' s there, it will not be visible to them from
any position outside of the pit . The 4 foot berm with a 6 foot
fence on top of it gives almost a 10 foot barrier. The manner
in which it will be put up will be aesthetically pleasing. The
manner in which the land is reclaimed, upon final reclamation,
it is our feeling, will in fact enhance the entire neighborhood.
It certainly will not detract . I would like to just read a
70
couple of short sentences from an article that appeared this
month in "Colorado Business Magazine" and comments are being
made by John Rold who is Director of Colorado ' s Geological
Survey and is a state geologist . He states, "An example where
this was done . . . " Well , they are looking at sequential land
use . "An example where this was done," states Rold, "not planned,
but achieved, is the Cherry Creek Shopping area. It was first
used for grazing, then as a source for sand and gravel for much of
Denver ' s construction industry. Eventually it became the city' s
trash dump. Today, it is a shopping center in an adjacent
park. " In that instance , it occurred totally, or almost
totally, without planning. In this instance we are looking
to the preservation of a very valuable resource in this county--
sand and gravel deposits--and the sequential use in a well
planned manner from the very beginning which will insure,
I think, to the community, to the public, the availability
of the deposit , and still the availability of a very com-
patible aesthetically pleasing piece of property. I would
point out that just very briefly, the extraction plan the
county has adopted and the purposes set forth in that extraction
plan, which I 'm sure you' re all familiar with. I won ' t quote
in detail, but in glancing through that extraction plan I think
it becomes obvious that this is exactly what the county an-
ticipated. And developing that plan and the purpose for
developing that plan was the preservation of such deposits as
we have here, the reclamation subsequent good use of the land,
the limitation on depriving ourselves of any more prime agri-
cultural land than is necessary, the preservation of water in
the development of these resources. I think that we are very
71
effectively attempting to do this with this piece of property.
I would point out that a large portion of the existing sub-
division to the west has been built during the period of time
that the existing operation has been in existence and it
does not appear that this operation has had a great deal of
effect upon the sale of that property. We will have a min-
imal residual water or lake unit in this which will here
again minimize evaporation and preserve that resource as
much as possible . We thank you for your kind consideration
of our proposal .
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Tom. All right , Staff , I ' d
like to have some comments from you and you make comments
as well as. . .on what you want to hear as far as work. .
CHUCK CUNLIFFE: First of all, I ' ll read the motion that
was made at the last Planning Commission meeting which took
place on Juanuary 17, 1978 . "Be it therefore resolved to
table the recommendation pending a detailed study for
adequately buffering the two land uses, development of a
safety improvements plan , submission of evidence that liability
coverage has been obtained of not less than $100, 000, clarifi-
cation of the proposed use of the access on to 4th Street ,
the method of controlling the drainage between the proposed
4 foot berm and 35th Avenue and between the 4 foot berm and
4th Street . Also, pending receipt of further information by
the applicant regarding the clarification of noise, air pol-
lution and dust abatement from the operation and further proof
for the need of the change of zone in view of the ramifications
79
involved. " These common Ls arc in reference Lo Lhe case number
Z-294 : 77 : 12 and Special Use Permit number 347 : 77 : 21 . The
Best-Way Paving Company etal request is a change of zone from
E (Estates) to A (Agricultural ) and a Special Use Permit for
open cut mining for a gravel pit . The legal description is
Part of the Northeast - of Section 2, Township 5 North , Range
66 West . The location is northwest of the intersection of
35th Avenue and 4th Street. The Department of Planning
Services staff recommends that this request be tabled for the
following reasons. Since the Planning Commission meeting on
January 17th, 1978, the applicant submitted material on the
morning of February 1st , 1978, with additional information
being submitted on the afternoon of February 6th, 1978,
addressing the concerns posed by the staff and additional
concerns of the Planning Commission members . Referrals con-
taining the submitted materials were sent to the Weld County
Health Department , the County Engineering Department and the
Soil Conservation Service for their review and comments. On
the afternoon of February 6th, the staff had received written
comments from only the Health Department with verbal comments
from the Engineering Department . It is the opinion of the
Department of the Planning Services staff that the time re-
maining between February 6th and today ' s scheduled Planning
Commission Bearing was not adequate time to prepare final
comments and recommendations for these applications. In
addition, final Development Standards for the project have
yet to be drafted. Therefore, the Department of Planning
Services staff recommends these applications be tabled until
the Planning Commission Hearing meeting scheduled for February
73
21 , 1978, to provide time for the staff to adequately review
the application materials and formulate final recommendations
to the Planning Commission .
CHUCK CARLSON: O.K. Now, we have these issues that were
entered into our motion from last time.
KAY NORTON: Would you like to have a copy of that before
you?
CHUCK CARLSON: Yes. I would like to have a copy of that .
And that ' s what we are to take . . . O. K.
UNIDENTIFIABLE: ( Inaudible)
CARLSON: Yes , it is. We are now open for comments
from the people in the audience. Comments will be restricted
somewhat , but not very much. We don ' t want to get into a
whole bunch of family arguments and everything else , so
keep your comments brief and to the point and we are now
open for' comments.
TOM IIELLERICII: Mr. Chairman , Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Commission . My name is Tom Hellerich. I 'm an attorney here
in town and .I 'm here on behalf of Mr. Ray Larson . I would
like to speak just in some general terms and restrict my com-
ments to the items that were to be reviewed today and to some
of the comments that have been made today on behalf of Best-
Way Paving. I ' ve had a chance to review the supplemental
74
report I. submitted by I,O1'(h; . I think a I most , I he i Leni:; I.Ii;► I
were covered therein are inconclusive, and I think it ' s totally
vacant of any address to the question that the Commission
wanted spoken to and that was the need for the change of
zoning. There is nothing in that supplemental report speaking
to the need. I ' d like to say I disagree with Mr. Connell as
well. He stated that he believes that the zoning at that time
was faulty. I disagree totally with that . I think that ' s a
great attempt at boot strapping and I don ' t blame him for that,
but I think that ' s exactly what it is and that ' s what it amounts
to . He ' s recited there were developments in the City of Greeley
on where there are mineral deposits now. I don ' t see that we
have suffered any great degree in the City of Greeley because
of that . He' s also stated that this is a unique site. Perhaps
this is the only place in Weld County that there is any gravel
to be obtained. I disagree with that and I think people . . .the
Commission are well aware of the other gravel sites that are
in existence in Weld County. This does not need to be developed.
The existing operation . . . he' s commented that people don ' t even
know it ' s there, that this new operation they won ' t be able to
tell it ' s there. I ' d just like to diverse a moment on that
issue itself. You' ve heard us comment before at the last hearing,
particularly on behalf of Mr. Larson , but he has made numerous
complaints to the County concerning the operation that was in
existence then. Each time, nothing was done , and he was advised,
just hold on . Things are winding down . They ' re going to close
this operation out . This was a non-conforming use. To state
that the people weren' t aware of it is grossly wrong because
Mr. Larson himself had made numerous complaints about this
operation , about the problems they were having of being a
7r
nui ;;anc e in i Lsc' I I•-- i.he noise , elc. Su , I don ' t I pink that
we can say that the people won ' t be aware of it _ The only
fact that they ' ll be aware of it is because they know that it
is in existence . I disagree with that totally. Going on ,
I reviewed before coming over here this morning some of the
purposes as set forth in the Resolution--the Code Book--the
green booklet that we have. Why do we have zoning and why
is it particularly important in this application here. Some
of the purposes set forth in the booklet was : 1 ) To preserve
property values. 2) To make reservation of ground for all
uses for the expansion of the city into these areas because
we know the town is going to grow. 3) To promote stability
for lending institutions by protecting the value of these
properties so that they know how much they can loan on these
properties. 4) To preserve the loss of light and air by the
neighboring developments . In other words, what ' s your neighbor
going to be doing 2 years from now based upon what I did right
now? In the prior hearing we had numerous comments made by the
various neighbors in the area concerning these area. We ' ve
heard them discuss with you a decreased value of their property
because . . . if this application is granted. We ' ve also heard
these neighbors state to you that they relied upon the zoning
as it existed then . When they went out there and purchased
this property it was their understanding that that would be
left at E and there would not be any commercial development
of this kind of nature. I think these are all major concerns
that these neighbors have. We ' ve also expressed to you in
particular what was discussed further today, their concerns
about the air pollution , the dust , the noise pollution, the
76
health It:tv:t rds anti the surety ety requirements that :;hart 1 (1 he lid
out out there . These answers have not been given Lo the Com-
mission . I ' d like next to just speak to some general serious
considerations I think the Planning Commission has to take in
reviewing this. A few of these, in particular, are the County
Engineer ' s report of January 12, ' 78, concerning the drainage
along 35th Avenue and 4th Avenue. I think there ' s a serious
problem with this--that ' s the area between the berm and the
street itself . I ' ve seen nothing in the additional report
as to what is going to be done about this. If I recall cor-
rectly, the most that was said about that is that they don ' t
have any control over that . I find nothing in negotiations
with the County Engineer or anyone else as to work out some
type of arrangements for drainage here. Those questions haven' t
been answered. The report of the geologist in the Department of
Natural Resources of December 12th of ' 77, where he expressed
there were several items not covered by the Lords report . I
find nothing has been done about these things in the supplemental
report either, submitted by Lords. In particular, I ' d like
to express to you once again as we did at the prior hearing the
contract that I advised you of that was dated July 8, 1963,
recorded September 17, 1969, here in Weld County. As a part
of that contract, the individual who was containing that
property was Mr. Orman Ruyle, the owner of the property prior
to conveying it to Best-Way Paving Company. That contract pro-
vided a restrictive covenant on behalf of Mr. Ruyle on property
that he owned besides the property conveying that there would
be no use of that property made other than residential for
single family dwellings . It also provided there were not to
77
be any nuJ:;ancPs constructed Upon the property and l think
that is exactly what this gravel pit is going to be. [ think
that seriously has to be considered by the Commission .
KAY NORTON: Mr. Hellerich, are you suggesting that
private covenants between two private parties are going to
be enforced by the county, or should be?
TOM HELLERICH: That ' s not what I 'm saying. I 'm saying
it ' s a serious consideration even if the county would approve
it . There can be legal action brought to enforce that covenant .
KAY NORTON: As I understand it , there is considerable
controversy over what those covenants actually say and to
what part of the property they apply and I believe that this
is a matter between the parties to the covenant and not a
matter for the Planning Commission to consider since the
Planning Commission is not a party to the covenants , it is
not capable of enforcing them.
TOM HELLERICH: O. K. I assume the Planning Commission wants
all of the facts on the table and I think they are entitled to
know all of the facts as they are in existence . And I think
they need to be aware of the contract that exists and I think
it ' s for the betterment of the whole community that they know
that these facts exist . As far as the meaning of the covenants,
as far as their enforceability, I agree that the Planning Com-
mission cannot determine those things . I 'm not saying that
they can . But they do need to be aware of the fact that they
78
do exist and that ' s the l)urposo of my common ( :i1. lhis Limo .
KAY NORTON: Would you agree that Mr. Ruyle would be
the person who would have to enforce those covenants?
TOM HELLERICH: It can be either party to that contract .
KAY NORTON: Mr. Chairman, it ' s up to you whether you
want this to be gone into .
CHUCK CARLSON: I think it ' s gone into. I don ' t think we
need it really.
TOM HELLERICH: I ' m sorry. I didn ' t hear your comment .
CHUCK CARLSON: I don ' t think we need to go into the cov-
enants part of it because we don ' t have anything to do with
that as far as your covenants are concerned.
TOM HELLERICH: O. K. Just in closing on that area, the
covenants that I 'm talking about , I think the Commission is
aware of because they are almost identical to the covenants
that as contained in the deed that was submitted to the Com-
mission along with this application from Mr. Ruyle to Best-Way
Paving. I think if you take a look at those particular cov-
enants you' ll see what type of covenants I am talking about .
The next item I would like to cover is, and we expressed this
opinion at the prior hearing, was the. . . the essence of this
application is an expansion of what is a non-conforming use.
79
And I don ' t think the Commissi „n ;;houlcl he cloin lhi type
of thing. I think a review of the zoning regulations concerning
non-conforming use specifically states that an extension ,
Paragraph 7. 5, "A non-conforming use shall not be extended. "
I think that ' s exactly what we' re trying to do in this situation .
CHUCK CARLSON: I think you' re arguing points that we ' re not,
that aren ' t even relevant to what we ' re supposed to be listening
to as far as our part of it is concerned. If you want to argue
like that with the Commissioners, that ' s fine. But as far as
I 'm concerned, I 'm not . . . you know. . . I don ' t think we have
anything that we. . .
KAY NORTON: Mr. Chairman, I ' d also point out that this
is not what we consider a non-conforming use because a non-
conforming use is a use that although it was legal at the
time it was started, has been rendered illegal or not allowed
in the district in which it ' s located at the time of the im-
position of those regulations. This is what we consider to be
a pre-existing use for the lack of a better term for it . It
was allowed as use by right in the Agricultural Zone, where , right ,
we ' re just talking about the Agriculturally Zoned property
here. It was allowed as the use by right at one time . Now,
it ' s allowed with a Special Use Permit . It does not require
another zone. It is not absolutely banned in the Agricultural
Zone and our research has indicated that that is not exactly
the same animal as a non-conforming use .
80
TOM 11EI,LI;R1C11: IL may no L be exac L l y in Lorms , bu L i Lli i_nk
we have to look beyond the face of the Lhing itself and see
what exactly the application is trying to do. I think. . .
KAY NORTON: Well , as far as . . .
TOM HELLERICH: . . . This is in a fact is what it ' s doing in a
round about way.
KAY NORTON: Well . . .
CARLSON : I would prefer that you keep your points
brief and not get into the argumentive side that we don ' t have
anything that we can make any decision on . You know what I
mean?
TOM HELLERICH: These are thing that . . .
CHUCK CARLSON: If I was a judge why it would be a different
story.
TOM HELLERICH: Well , I think you' re going to be the initial
judge if we want to look at it that way, too, because . . .
CHUCK CARLSON: No , I ' m just a. . . we ' re just a references
body, not a judge and jury.
TOM HELLERICH: A recommendation. . . that I understand, but
an initial determination will be made by the Planning Commission .
I think these are things that have to be considered when that
decision is rendered. That ' s the purpose of my noting these
81
-a- - -- ilflir -- - - - --- - --- i - -.--...M...--.
at this Lime. lii particular, I ' d like to address the question
or need itself . I know we have discussed that be fore and I
think the zoning regulations clearly state that there has to be
a detailed and substantial evidence of the need submitted
and I don ' t think that has been presented in this case either.
In 8. 3 they cite several things in there that they don ' t con-
sider sufficient as being need to justify a change in zoning.
Particularly, the first one is the area of no other practical
use. That ' s not true in this situation at all . Secondly,
perhaps applying to this case and maybe this is what really
the applicants are after is the highest and best use of
property and of the land. We ' ve already cited to you the
case law in particular, the Supreme Court in Garret vs . City
of Littleton where they stated that the showing or the need
that has to be shown by the applicants for a re-change , or a
change of zoning is that the applicant cannot possibly use or devel-
op the property for any other use enumerated in the existing
zoning. This property can be used. The existing zoning allows
farming; the existing zoning allows development of residential
single family dwelling. That property can be used. There is
no need to change the zoning as it exists now. Certainly, the
applicants claim that this is the highest and best use is not
sufficient evidence of need, and I would cite you to the recent
Supreme Court case that came doom January 31st of 1977--the
Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County vs. Mountain
Air Ranch. This is exactly what they said. "If you can use the
property as it exists now, that is the present existing zoning,
there ' s not justification for changing zoning. " The highest and
best use is not the criteria that has to be used.
82
1 (.Fink that. (lurl. iOil , the necci Iui' the chane cal ii,uiu ,
is (.he crucial issue that has to he answered by the Commissioners
here and I don ' t think there is that justification presented to
you, certainly not at this Lime . Thank you .
VICKI REED: I know we' re all getting tired, so I ' ll be
short . It looks like I ' ve got a lot of junk, but I don ' t . I
know you don ' t want to rehash what we went through in January.
CHUCK CARLSON: State your name, please.
VICKI• REED: Oh, I 'm sorry, Vicki Reed. Do you want my
address? I ' m sorry. 415 35th Avenue Court . I 'm sorry. In
January we did give you a petition that had 167 signatures on
it . As a result of the hearing in January, 2 more people
signed our petition . That comes to a total of 169 people who
are owners of property within 500 feet . O. K. Basically , I do
want to support Tom' s point about the Colorado Supreme Court
precedent on the need to prove that they can ' t use the land
under its existing zoning. And I submit that the Colorado
statutes don ' t even support their point that they need, or
they want to rezone . I don ' t think they have proven that
there is a need for rezone and I submit that they can ' t prove
that they can ' t use the land as it ' s presently zoned. I do
want to review for a minute the mining plan that was presented
by Gilsabind Convidar and Best-Way. I have an ugly map. The
map shows the tenth phase of the mining operation . You' ll
notice I didn ' t say tenth year because Best-Way has said that
they can ' t predict the years. So this is the tenth phase of the
83
mining operation . ll. ' s on Page 2;i of the original plan
submitted. And there ' s a c:har•1. there showing each oI' the
phases. My map is not green. It ' s not green because I saw
no reason to have a green map because Lord and Associates
has said that it ' s not going to be a green area even when
it ' s reclaimed. So their green is a little misleading on their
other map . In the tenth phase here , there is going to be 40,
or excuse me, 24 . 7 acres or over z of the 45 acres that we ' re
talking about right now that ' s going to be in what is classified
as a major disturbance area. The black identifies the major
disturbance area. That ' s over half of the 45 acres that
we' re talking about. Major disturbance is defined as that
area of mining operation that includes excavations, overburden
spoils, and topsoil stockpiles. The plant site up here, the
16 . 1 acres, is said to be in a moderate disturbance area the
entire time. That ' s the brown . Moderate disturbance is
defined as a result of backfilling of an open cut stabilization
of waste dumps, etc. In the tenth phase that we ' re talking
about here, 2 . 9 acres are going to be in what is classified
as a minor disturbance area. That ' s indicated by the little
purple over here . I just want to re-emphasize that in the
tenth phase of this mining operation, if this mining operation
is allowed, over 50% of the 45 acres are going to be in major
disturbance. And they say we won ' t know it ' s around? We ' ll know.
Thirdly, I ' d like to refer to another point made in your motion
in January. That ' s the point about the noise. At the Master ' s
Degree level , I have a minor in Audiology . Audiology is the
study of sound, hearing and hearing losses. It ' s not my major
area of study and to discuss the subject of noise pollution
84
is. . . it ' s a very , very complicated area to get into , but I
hope my training helps me out a little bit here. Lord and
Associates revision discusses their noise studies . They
used the A scale on a Sound Level Meter to do their studies.
The A scale is one of three available scales to use when
you do a noise level study. There is also the B scale and the
C scale. The A scale , which was used in their studies, emphasizes
what we call medium to high pitched sounds. It ' s the high pitch--
oh, by the way, the A scale, while it ' s emphasizing and picking
up on the loudness level of medium to high pitches, it ' s
eliminating, or de-emphasizing low pitched sounds . So, it
doesn ' t really measure the intensity or the loudness of
low pitched sounds . The high pitches , when they are excessively
loud are the ones that really cause your hearing losses and
your damages. However , it ' s the low pitches that cause physical
problems like cardiovascular problems and cause emotional
problems. Research has shown that in areas where there
are consistent low pitched sounds, there is a higher incidence
of rape, a higher incidence of murder, and a higher incidence
of child abuse and wife beating. Now, that ' s where the. . . low
sounds don ' t have to be loud to cause the reaction . They only have
to be consistent . Machinery noise , like scrapers , like crushers,
make low pitched sounds. Those are the ones that people find
irritable to their emotional stability. Because of the concern
with the problems associated with low pitched sounds, the B
scale should have been used for the noise studies, since the
B scale measures both the low, medium and high pitches . In
other words, your B scale, not your A scale, is the scale that
measures the range of pitches within the human hearing spectrum,
85
the pitches that hunianbeings cn hear. The C scale, the third
one wasn ' t appropriate to be used because it measures the
intensity of sounds--the pitches the human ear can ' t even
pick up; like the dog can hear pitches that humans can ' t hear.
O. K. Further, although not indicated on your maps that you
received today on the noise studies, there was construction of
a storm sewer going on on 4th Street while the noise studies
were taking place. There ' s a statement to that effect in the
revision in passing, there' s a statement in your revisions that
you got today, but it ' s not indicated on your map . And I
suggest that because of the construction noise on 4th Street
from the storm sewer, the validity of the measurements is
questioned. The first map there shows the noise levels of the
pit operation . It is reported that the equipment in operation
at the time included a front-end loader and a crusher . I find
it interesting that the crusher was operating, since it ' s my
understanding that in all the years Best-Way has been operating,
the Health Department was unaware of a rock crushing operation
at the site . It appears that there is some confusion about
the status of a permit to operate that crusher. Consequently ,
there are no records in this county regarding emissions from
that operation . The second map that you have there describes
the noise patterns generated by the scraper. It indicates
that the scraper, as the scraper (End of tape) . . .O. K. ?
The point is . They made their measurements with one scraper
operating and yet the report says that they' re going to be
adding another scraper if the gravel pit goes through. I
therefore :suspect that the noise level generated by the
scraper--by the two scrapers--will double , as a result . Six
86
decibels results in a doubling of perceived intensity . Hut
there wi l 1 be an increase whether it ' s a double or not .
CHUCK CARLSON: if you studied noise, you know better than
to make a statement .
VICKI REED: O. K. Lastly, I 'm concerned about the training
of the personnel that did the studies , On Thursday afternoon ,
January 26th, at the corner of 4th Street and 35th Avenue
Court , I had a conversation with an employee from Lord and
Associates. He told me that he was a geologist and that he
was taking noise level readings . I would like to read a
letter from Dr. Raymond Hall who is Chairperson of the Department
of Communication Disorders and Director of Audiology at the
University of Northern Colorado. "Dear Miss Reed: After your
conversation with me regarding the conduct of sound level
readings for analysis of industrial or environmental noise,
one concern continues to arise in my mind. That is, the
qualifications of those who conduct such analyses. Environmental
noise analysis with accompanying octave band analysis, and
most importantly, the interpretation of the findings necessitates
intensive training in either industrial environmental acoustics
or physiological acoustics. Even with that extensive training
in the interpretation of noise samples--Lhat is, their potential
damage to the peripheral auditory mechanism or their psychological
repercussions , must have transpired prior to the valid conduct
of any noise analysis. Any individual who possesses less
training should not attempt to conduct a noise survey or analysis
if validity and reliability of the analysis is important for the
87
protection of persons or their environment . Noise is so
potentially damaging to people, but on the other hand, so
difficult to measure and interpret . All analyses of it must
be conducted by extremely well trained professionals, especially
in this age of steadily increasing environmental noise. " I
just have one more point to make and that ' s to reiterate what
Tom said. The revision that Lord and Associates has done
really did not address all the issues in the motion ,
particularly the issue of the drainage between the berms and
the streets and that ' s one of the major concerns that the Soil
Conservation has had in conversations with them. Over 80%
of the property owners within 500 feet have said they don ' t
want a gravel pit in their residential area. A goodly number
of the residents and property owners outside 500 feet have
said they don ' t want a gravel pit . We talk about noise. We
talk about drainage. We talk about berms. We talk about
fences . We talk about dust , etc. But the whole point is,
WE DON' T WANT A GRAVEL PIT. If the pit was gold plated, tied
in a red ribbon and handed to us on a silver platter, we
wouldn' t want it ! We don' t want a gravel pit--this gravel
pit, or any gravel pit , in our quiet residential area. And
that ' s what it boils down to. We can talk about law. We
can talk about dust . The point is, the people out there don ' t
want it in our neighborhood. Thank you .
CHUCK CARLSON : You gold plate it and silver line it and
75 of your people will leave you!
TARA FRANK: My name is Tara Frank, and I live at
88
d0G :3(;I h l\vVnnO COWrI . f .jriI h,iVV ' kV() po i ll I ' (I I i k(' h)
bring Hip I o(I;(y . The First one h:i:; been mentioned be l 0 r(' . I
feel that the approval of the request submitted by Best-Way
Lo rezone the 45 acres in question and the approval of the
request for the Special Use Permit to allow the development of
a gravel pit would run in direct opposition to Weld County ' s
Comprehensive Plan as I understand it . I do not believe that
Weld County or the City of Greeley should set such a precedent
allowing for the deviation from the plan by allowing this
mining operation to develop in an area bounded by the city and
on two sides by areas of highly developed residential properties.
Number 2 , we had some discussion on the hazards of the air
pollution . And we have done some studies. I 'm going to just
read a few things that we found and I ' ll give you the references
that I found them from. ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA states that
asphalt , whose chemical composition is too complex and variable
to be determined precisely, is obtained from the distillation
of petroleum or from natural deposits. For the most part ,
asphalts consist of hydro-carbons and have combined with
nitrogen , sulphur and oxygen. Nitrous oxides and sulphur
dioxides result from this chemical process. According to
the Annual Progress Report of the State Air Pollution Program
1977, Page 65 , oxides of nitrogen are the most difficult to
control . High temperatures are necessary for its formation--
approximately 2500 degrees Fahreinheit . Direct emissions
originate from power plants or any other high temperature
combustion process that takes place in the presence of nitrogen
and oxygen . Page 31 - "In many cities, sulphur dioxide pol-
lution is a major portion of the air quality problem. A
89
s i n i I' i c,ru I. source r•cee for• sulphur dioxide is petroleum r(. f i n i n4, .
In most cases , the higher the sulphur content of the starting
material , the higher Lhe emissions or sulphuric oxide into
the atmosphere. " The study indicates that aI1 particulate
standards will be violated in the Greeley study area by the
year 1985. IL was projected that ambient particulate levels
would gradually increase over present levels until at least
1985. The primary man-induced source contributors have
been identified as dust from unpaved roads and other dust-causing
industrial functions. On fine dust particles, which are those
with diameters of 5 microns or less, there is a tendency for
sulphur dioxide molecules and carcinogenic hydro-carbons to
accumulate. " This is from the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA again .
These are carried by even very light winds for many miles .
The area we are talking about, the wind blows from the north
at quite a substantial velocity at times . They also have
mentioned that farming will continue. They have said that
more dust comes from farming than from the gravel pit itself .
We will have both. These are some things that I think maybe
need to be investigated a little further. And I would like
to go on record as being opposed to the rezoning and the
approval of the Special Use Permit for these reasons and for those
we have presented and those we will present . Thank you.
DR. LARRY WIKHOLM:My name is Dr . Larry Wikholm and I live at
104 38th Avenue. That ' s in Johnson ' s Subdivision , and I , like
Tara, would like to go on record as being opposed to the re-
zoning of this property in question . I wish to address myself
basically to two points . First , I 'm sure was covered during
90
the first meeting aL which I ' m sorry I was not here . That
has to do with the idea of rezoning a major portion of land
for industrial uses that is directly abutting the residential
community and this residential community is what we are
talking about South of 4th Street and then West in the
Johnson Subdivision . Basically, this would be contrary to
the established Comprehensive Plan for Weld County, as Tara
stated, in fact , would not allow the natural buffering system
that is usually done with zoning of industrial sites in which
there is commercial followed by multi-family residential
housing and then finally followed by our one residential
units. But secondly, as a physician , I would like to address
myself and say that I am concerned about the health hazards ,
or potential health hazards, of allowing this specific type
of industrial development in our community. Basically, we
all know about our dry climate. We all know about the general
prevailing winds. And we all know about the subject of
potentially hazardous dust . As Tara pointed out , this dust
is doubly hazardous because of the asphalt production plant which
is already present on the premises . The use of the aromatic
hydro-carbons that she mentioned and the emission during the
asphalt production of quantities of asbestos into the air make
for an extremely hazardous situation . As she pointed out ,
these hydro-carbons and asbestos will coat these dust particles
and at a certain size will provide an inhalant which is
extremely damaging to bronchial tissues in the lungs. Chronic
exposure to asbestos has been proven to be a major factor in
the development of certain types of lung cancers, in certain
types of other tumors within the chest cavity. This is well
91
documented in the medical literature and can be substantiated
without question . Secondly, organizations such as the American
Lung Association , the American Thoracic Society, and the expert--
the Word Health Organization Expert Committee on the air
quality criteria have all attempted to study the relationship
of certain air pollutants to the general community health.
Admittedly, these studies are complex. Their results must be
very carefully considered when you attempt to extrapolate them
into a community such as Greeley or indeed into the adjacent
neighborhood and the surrounding areas surrounding this in-
dustrial site . But suffice it to say that these studies have
attempted as best they can , dealing with this complex subject
matter, to show a dose response relationship. That is, an
amount of pollutant versus a response to the members of the
people at risk. They ' ve done this for pollutants such as
dust , hydro-carbons, asbestos , black smoke , and notably,
sulphur dioxide, all of which will be present , without
question , to some degree, in an industry such as is described
here and in an operation that is substantially larger than
the present operation that ' s present on the site. This
pollution , if you will , is going to have at least two types
of effects, depending on its density and its dose, as we
talked about , and depending on its duration , or chronicity
of exposure Lo the citizens in Lhe area. Number I , there
will be an exacerbation of symptoms in certain people with
existing lung disease or pre-existing lung disease. This
can occur in both young and old. Such diseases as chronic
bronchitis, emphysema, bronchial asthma and other allergic
conditions will be affected. If the exposure dose is high
92
enough iL witl result in respiratory distress . This can be
sufficient enough to cause hospitalization and death in certain
cases. This has been well documented in the literature and
there are a number of studies that show this. Second term
effect is a long term effect which will result in increases
in respiratory morbidity and mortality in persons with
previously no known lung disease. These studies have well
been documented also. This is talking about new disease in
long term exposure, and 15 to 25 years, as mentioned by Best-
Way Paving, is certainly long term exposure. This may be
seen in higher incidents of certain respiratory diseases,
such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, as we mentioned
above, but basically, it may also result in higher instances
of lung cancer as we talked about with the asbestos. Generally
speaking, such studies in polluted environments , such as
London, England; Denora, Pennsylvania; New York City; Osaka,
Japan ; have documented clear cut increase in respiratory
mortality in these communities when compared with other com-
munities matched for population size. Basically, I ' d like
to ask the Planning Commission to weigh carefully this data
and if necessary we can supply them with copies of the data
so they can determine for themselves what potential environmental
impact on operation of the size and of this type that Best-Way
proposes will have on not only the local residents of the
immediate surrounding area, but the City of Greeley itself.
Thank you for your time.
GARY FORTNER: Mr. Chairman , I ' d like to request that that
data be submitted.
93
FRANK SUCKLA : Mr. Chairman , I ' d like Lo ;wk a qiiol icon .
LARRY WIKHOLM : Yes , Sir.
FRANK SUCKLA: I understand that asbestos is located in
different particular areas. Have you any proof that asbestos
is in this particular area in this gravel pit?
LARRY WIKHOLM: I have no proof. No, Sir. I do have proof
that asbestos is emitted in asphalt paving operations. Yes,
Sir.
FRANK SUCKLA: Well , as I understand, asbestos is a par-
ticular mineral that ' s a long fibrous type of rock and I
was just wondering if that type of a mineral exists in this
area.
LARRY WIKHOLM: I have no proof of that , Sir.
FRANK SUCKLA: Thank you.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Frank.
KAREN WIKHOLM : My name is Karen Wikholm. I ' m Chairman
of the Parent Teacher Group at Shawsheen Elementary School
which is the elementary school in close vicinity of the
proposed rezoning site. On Wednesday, February 1st , 1978,
the Parent Teacher Group of Shawsheen Elementary School held
a special public meeting to discuss the proposed rezoning
91
or the 15 acre t)arce I north ol 4th 5L i•ert. , west of 35th Avenue,
for the purpose of expansion of gravel pit operations by Best,-
Way Paving. The property owners and parents present at the
meeting unanimously passed the following motion : As a group
of concerned parents and property owners meeting under the
auspices of the Parent Teacher Group and residing in residential
areas adjacent to the land designated as the site of the
proposed gravel pit are directly opposed to the proposed
zone change and to issuance of a special permit for such
an operation . Thank you.
ROBERT FOOSE: My name is Robert Foose and the last time
I was here, I brought up the question of property values and
I could see that just me saying it didn' t put no effect on
anybody, so I went out to find some realtors that would come
here. Well , that is impossible. There isn ' t a realtor in
Greeley that would risk his reputation to come here to be
against any certain people . So, I did find a few though that
would tell me how to go about it . I can ' t name them. I ' m
sorry, they would just deny it if you went to them, so . . .They
did say that under their impression of 80% of the people that
live in that area that do not want the gravel pit there now
would have never moved there from the day 1 . So, if you use
them terms, you' re cutting out 80% of the people that buy
homes of that calibre and that price range . And if you cut
out 80% of the shopping population that leaves 20% and they
can pretty well bicker as to however they please as far as
price on homes, especially after something like this is done .
But I will say one thing. Everyone of them wanted to know when
95
my house was goirw I or sale, so Lhat. Lhey could l i st. i L . Thank
you.
ESTIIER HEMPEL: My name is Esther Hempel . I live at 419 38th
Avenue . In addition to the 54 petitions that we presented
before , property holders outside the 500 feet area, I now
have a total of 85 additional people--bringing it to a total
of 139 who do not wish the area to be rezoned.
CHUCK CARLSON: . . .Got one more.
KEITH TANNER: I 'm Keith Tanner of 3726 West 5th Street and
I would like to talk on a subject that I didn ' t agree with
my community on and that ' s the subject of erosion. I ' ve
farmed in this locality and I know what can be done here as far
as wind and flood waters are concerned. The map that we have
that has been shown here demonstrates very fully what probably
will happen. The drainage water from the west and the south
comes very much this direction and we know that there has been
extensive amount of effort put forth of putting a drain system
in there to take care of this. But , if you drive north on
35th Avenue and look at the borrow pit on the west side you
will see what erosion can do over pits that ' s not near as deep
as this one . We know that we went through a very dry cycle
the last few years compared to other times that I have noticed
here in the period from 1923 and we 've had flood waters on
4th Street that people have had to get out and clean the drains
so the water could get away. Whether what we' re doing now is
going to take care of it or not, it ' s hard to tell . If there ' s
96
any amount of trash, I know that it will not take care of it
and in that case, when we have big floods like we have had, can
rose right down over that . Another period that I would like
to remind to you--anybody that has worked with grading and
road equipment , you' re bound to have dirt and dust and
because we do have a cup there, if I had a cup of dust in
my hand and I would blow into it , it would blow out right over
you, and to me , that ' s just the very typical thing that will
be built there to carry the dust all over the City of Greeley.
I 'm very concerned that this does not happen . I don ' t know
how it happened that the gravel pit got to be there in the
first place. The only thing that I could think of , they
thought Number 3 ditch was was the river bottom because
they are so far from where we generally ordinarily get our
gravel . My dad helped build the receiving basins on the
upper end of the Greeley Water Works, and I went with him
as a small boy. And I remember he stressed to me that you
never get the river bed too big and I think we' ve all ex-
perienced in flood times that we do need more room in the
river. You never have enough when a flood comes . I 'm sin-
cerely hoping that this does not happen to our community and
I don ' t understand why it even come up. It seems like it ' s so
simple and so easy to understand that we don ' t need this
here in our locality because of the young families that ' s in
this neighborhood--a good neighborhood--and the young children
that are growing up that ' ll probably. . . some of them will
probably be here in generations hereafter and we have nothing
definite on when this is going to be completed or how it ' s
going to be completed. I don ' t know who ' s going to watch over
97
it and see that it is done from the proposals that we' ve been
given. Thank you.
CARLSON: Beings this is your second time, let ' s keep
it brief.
VICKI REED : I just want to respond to your question about
the asbestos. We don' t have any proof whether there is , or
whether there isn ' t because of the confusion about the operation
of the crusher and the Health Department and whether they should
be, or shouldn ' t be , and whether there is a permit or no permit ,
or what the confusion is. So, there is really no proof .
CARLSON: O. K.
MARGARET RUHL: May I have a moment to speak? Some of them
had several topics I ' d like to say something to. I wonder if
anyone . . .
CARLSON: State your name please.
MARGARET RUHL: Margaret Ruhl . I wonder if anyone has taken any
consideration how much pollution and problems we would have if
we had all of that in housing and apartments ; how much dust ,
and they talk about noise--with that many families, how much
noise would we have? Also, talking about the drainage I think
it would be a good idea to have the berm around the place. For
about 20 or 25 years we ' ve been flooded out every year. In the
Spring we' ve had bad rains and it floods over our field as
98
a wce I I as going clear clown to Carl ' s and he ' s never complained
to us anyhow the city , but I know it ' s washed through his fields ,
and washed our corner house and our property out , so I think
sometime it might be a good idea because this berm and all would
take care of it and take it down the new drain that they ' re
putting in 4th Street at this time and take it on down north
where it should go and quit washing us out .
CARLSON: Thank you.
MARGARET RUHL: Also, I want to mention about the covenants.
That was brought up awhile ago. The covenants that we made
at that time was when Mr. Larson and Mr. Johnson bought our
farm. That was a 40 acre tract on the West side and he put
the covenants in the whole property, hoping perhaps, that
he 'would buy the rest in future days ; but he didn ' t buy it ,
so I think we ought to put in whatever we want to do with it .
CARLSON: Any further comments? If not , do you have
any questions , people?
BEN NIX: Let ' s have the staff ' s recommendation .
CHUCK CARLSON: We did. It ' s been so long ago, Ben. . .
BEN NIX: I thought we had to have that .
CHUCK CARLSON: The staff recommended it would be tabled until
we get the other. We have two reports that we need to get yet--
99
at least one, or was it two?
CHUCK CUNLIFFE : Right . We have not heard anything from the
Engineering Department and basically , I ' ll read the last part
of the recommendations that it was our opinion of the staff
that the time remaining between February the 6th and today ' s
scheduled Planning Commission Hearing was not adequate time
to prepare final comments and recommendations for these applications.
In addition, final Development Standards for the project have yet
to be drafted. Therefore, the Department of Planning Service
staff recommends these applications be tabled until the Plan-
ning Commission meeting scheduled for February 21st , 1978, to
provide time for the staff to adequately review the application
materials and formulate final recommendations to the Planning
Commission .
CHUCK CARLSON: O. K. Any further discussion?
BEN NIX: I wasn ' t completely asleep through all of
this, but I forgot .
CHUCK CARLSON: All right . If no further discussion , what is
your pleasure on this table? You want to table?
FRANK SUCKLA: I ' ll make a motion we table this until the
next Planning Commission meeting.
BETTE KOUNTZ: I shall second it .
100
CHUCK CARLSON : O. K. Is it all right to . . .
KAY NORTON: Could I ask what sort of information , if any,
you want to receive next time other than what the staff has
indicated -they ' re going to present? Do you just want to have
staff comments and make a decision as you did with the Rolanda
application or do you wish to have further evidence submitted
from the parties?
CHUCK CARLSON: Stick with one.
BEN NIX: I think, in view of the most violent objection
that has been expressed here, that the applicants, if they expect
a favorable decision , that they must come up with satisfactory
reasons or justification for the various points that have been
raised here . I personally have the feeling that we must have
a concern for the preservation of the existing minerals within
the county and certainly this particular application involves
a mineral that is most highly important in our society, not
only today, but from here on. We must preserve these minerals.
They must be kept so that they can be made available. Yet ,
on the other hand, in order to get to. . . to mine them, I think
it highly important that the people who are going to be damaged, if
in fact, they are damaged; personally I think it ' s possible to
do this operation without damaging the community and if these
people can . . . could provide the necessary guarantee that that
would be done, then I could be. . . I could vote favorably for
it . I felt that this kind of comment ought to be made here
so that you people understand what we have to consider as a
101
Planning; Commission . I think it ' s folly for us to ❑ ake :1
recommendation to the Commissioners that won ' t stand up. This
is what we' re here for. I speak this way because I ' ve spent . . .
I ' m not new on this Planning Commission . I ' ve been here a
long time. Sorry to take up that much time , but this is an
important issue, not only for the objectors, but also for
the county. These minerals are here . You can ' t go 10 miles
away, for an example, and find this kind. . . this quality of
gravel . So, if it can be extracted without damaging the
surrounding area, then I think it ought to be done.
CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you for your comment , Ben . I think
that you will . . . it wouldn' t take, as Ben stated, and it ' s a
fact, you can get in your car and travel for 10 or 15 minutes and
you can be completely out of any source of gravel--none what-
soever. Down on the southeastern part of our county, this is
one of their biggest and worst problems as far as maintaining roads,
is the gravel . They don ' t have it . And this is the area that
they have to get it . So, there' s several points that have to
be considered along these lines. So, we want to make you people
knowledgeable of these points also.
KAY NORTON: So , as I understand it that the motion is not
to limit the testimony in any way and so we' re just going to
continue here until . . .
CHUCK CARLSON: No, because we feel like if these people. . .
this recommendation comes up and it does need some more rebuttal . . .
102
FRANK SUCKLA : . . . Additional information .
CARLSON: . . .On it and we' d like to find out whether
these rocks have asbestos in them or not , or asbestos type .
I think that ' s a good thing to know. I think that 's what Jerry
said here. So. . .
JERRY KIEFER: I think that ought to be available.
CHUCK CARLSON: As a unit , we feel kind of this way. Any
further discussion?
IRMA WHITE : I ' d like to know how this berm effects the
drainage. We ' ve heard quite a bit about drainage, and I
really can ' t see how this project would affect it one way
or the other, so I would like someone who knows, maybe to
speak to that .
BEN NIX: I think that. . .
CHUCK CARLSON: . . . Next week to bring that .
BEN NIX: I think that we should have some more input
from the City of Greeley on this matter.
GARY FORTNER: O. K. I think. . . Let me develop somewhat the
problem we ' re looking at in terms of drainage and this is one
' of our points in our comments is that we have not received
comments from the County Engineering Department to tell us
103
the drninage is in good shape. 13u1. I think Lh(' major thing
the major thing that we' re concerned with is that a great deal
of the drainage courses in that area go north toward the area
we' re talking about . With the berm being established there,
a larger portion of that water will be unable to cross that
field and will be turned to the east . I think we ' ve got a
question as to whether or not the storm drainage system which
is being installed in that area now is built to handle and
to accommodate that additional storm water which will be shoved
to the east . I think we need additional input from the City
if necessary to get answers to that . This is basically the
drainage problem we' re talking about.
KAY NORTON: Yes.
CHUCK CARLSON: I 'm going to go east and get away (inaudible) .
BEN NIX: I think further, too, that these people who
are going. . .proposing to develop this ; they could plant a cover
crop on this area that would eliminate the erosion throughout
the years that gravel extraction is being performed and in my
estimation, or my judgment, it ' s possible to operate this
operation in such a way as to enhance the environment in the
area, rather than being detrimental , but this depends upon
the operator--how good a neighbor they want to be.
CHUCK CARLSON: Any further comments? If not , Shirley, would
you poll the Commission, please?
104
SHIRLEY PIEI LLIPS : Mr. Carl son Yes
Mr. Nix Yes
Mr. Suckla Yes
Mr. Kiefer No
MR. KIEFER: And I might comment . I personally feel that
as far as I see the question, there is enough information for
me to make a decision .
SHIRLEY PHILLIPS : Mr. Hiatt Yes
Mrs. Yost
MRS. YOST: I have to abstain because of conflict of
interest , but I ' d like to make a statement here. I found out
today that I have a brother who owns 1/6 interest in a 6 acre
parcel of some of this land somewhere and this is my reason
for abstaining. But I feel a little bit hesitant about having
to do it because I ' ve given a lot of years and hours to this
Commission to the best interest of our community, which I ' ve
lived in since 1932 , and I think I can look at it objectively ,
and I think I have , but I will abstain from voting.
SHIRLEY PHILLIPS : Mrs. Kountz Yes
Mrs. White Yes
CHUCK CARLSON: O. K. Thank you. Thank you for all of your
comments and I imagine we will hear. . . next meeting we will
105
have a little more information .
UNIDENTIFIABLE : What was that statement . . . ?
CHUCK CARLSON: Pardon . Next meeting will be the 21st of
February.
106
Hello