HomeMy WebLinkAbout820387.tiff BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DOCKET NO. 82-80
IN RE : APPLICATION OF FLATIRON PAVING COMPANY, FOR A USE BY
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AN ASPHALT BATCH PLANT
DECEMBER 15, 1982
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
JOHN T. MARTIN, CHAIRMAN
CHUCK CARLSON, PRO TEM
NORMAN CARLSON
C. W. KIRBY
JUNE K. STEINMARK
ALSO PRESENT:
APPLICANT APPEARING PRO SE
LEE MORRISON, ASSISTANT WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY
R. RUSSELL ANSON, ASSISTANT WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY
JEANNETTE SEARS, ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD
ROD ALLISON, CURRENT PLANNER, REPRESENTING THE
WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
SERVICES
8 20 387
Pto793
-2-
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Docket Number 82-80
MR. MORRISON: Excuse me . Mr. Chairman, Docket No.
82-80, the application of Flatiron Paving Company, P. O. Box
229, Boulder, Colorado, is for a Use by Special Review for
an asphalt batch plant, located on part of Sections 20 and
29, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld
County, Colorado, and was published December 2, 1982, in the
La Salle Leader.
MR. ALLISON: It was moved by Norm Peterson that
the following resolution be introduced for passage by the
Weld County Planning Commission:
Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning
Commission that the application for an asphalt batch plant
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners
for the following reasons: 1) The submitted materials are
in compliance with the application requirements of Section
24 . 7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2) It is the
opinion of the Weld County Planning Commission that the
applicant has shown compliance with Section 24 .3 .1. 1 et seq.
of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: The proposal
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies in that
that use does not infringe on continued agricultural use in
the vicinity or County. The proposal does not appear to
have any adverse impacts on the agricultural interests of the
County or the environment. The proposal is consistent with
the intent of the Agricultural Zone District; and is provided
for as a Use By Special Review. It is the opinion of the Weld
-3-
County Planning Commission that the attached Development
Standards will minimize impacts on the surrounding uses and
the area to the greatest extent possible and provide adequate
protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabit-
ants of the area and the County.
These determinations are based, in part, upon a
review of the information submitted by the applicant, other
relevant information regarding the request, and the responses
of the referral entities which have reviewed this request.
The Weld County Planning Commission' s recommendation
is conditional and based upon the following: 1) Prior to
scheduling a public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners, the applicant shall submit a copy of the water
agreement to the Division of Water Resources for their review
and recommendation. The applicant has satisfied this
requirement. 2) The attached standards for Use by Special
Review be adopted. 3) The plat for the use permit be placed
of record by the Department of Planning Services staff prior
to any building permits being issued on the site.
Use By Special Review case number 495 : 82 : 10 ,
Development Standards: 1) The permitted uses on the hereon
described Use By Special Review Permit shall be an asphalt
batch plant, associated parking facility, office and mainten-
ance facility as described in the application materials.
Working hours shall be outlined on Page C-1 of the application
materials. 2) All phases of the batch plant operations shall
comply with all County and State Health Standards and regula-
tions pertaining to air quality, water quality, noise emission
-4-
and sanitary disposal systems. 3) All structures on the
property shall be in conformance with Weld County Flood
Hazard Development Regulations. 4) The Use By Special
Review Permit area shall be maintained in such a manner so
as to prevent soil erosion, fugitive dust and growth of
noxious weeds. The site shall be maintained in such a
manner as to present a neat and well- kept appearance .
5) The liquid asphalt storage and heating tank shall be
properly bermed to hold the capacity of said tank. 6)
Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in accordance
with the National Fire Protection Association. The type of
fire extinguishers shall be rated 20 ABC. 7) The owner/
occupant shall provide the Longmont Rural Fire Protection
District with a complete set of written plans of the proposed
structure, including measurements, occupancy and contents.
8) The haul route shall be Weld County Road 3 to Highway 52 .
9) The owner and/or operator shall adhere to maintenance of
Weld County Road 3 as discussed and agreed to in a work session
with the Board of County Commissioners of June 15, 1981. The
agreement is referenced in a letter from the applicant dated
November 19, 1981, and is on file as part of the application
materials. 10) The Use by Special Review shall be limited
to the plans shown hereon and governed by the Standards stated
above and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Any
material deviations from the plans and/or standards, as shown
or stated above, shall require the approval of an amendment
o_f the permit by the Weld County Planning Commission before
such changes from the plans and/or standards are permitted.
-5-
Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services. 11) The property owner
and/or operator of this operation shall be responsible for
complying with all of the above stated standards. Noncom-
pliance with any of the above stated standards may be reason
for revocation of the permit.
The motion was seconded by Bob Halleran. Vote
for passage: Norm Peterson, Bob Halleran, Ed Reichert, Bob
Ehrlich, Jack Holman, Bill Diehl, Fred Otis; Against Passage,
Jerry Kiefer.
The applicant and representatives are here if the
Board has any questions.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Would the applicant or represent-
ative like to come up to the microphone and give your name ,
any comments you would like to make.
MR. HART: My name is Mike Hart, an employee of
Flatiron Sand and Gravel Company, here representing Flatiron
Paving Company this afternoon, to provide you with a little
more background on our proposal. First, I would like to say
that the conditions that have been recommended by the, ah,
Planning staff and Planning Commission, ah, we are in agree-
ment with and, ah, have no problem with complying with those
standards for the operation of our asphalt batch plant. Our
initial application was made in July of this year and it was
to provide a concrete batch plant as well as an asphalt plant,
but we have since withdrawn that. We have met on several
occasions with various neighbors in the area and I don' t want
-6-
to, ah, start right off with saying, or, ah, I don't want
to imply that our meetings implied any kind of an agreement
that the neighbors accepted the location and placement of the
plant in the area, rather we just tried to keep the lines of
communication open and tried to learn as much as we can
about, ah, how people felt about it and what things we might
be able to do to make our application more acceptable. We
felt, as a result of some of those meetings, that the removal
of the concrete batch plant was an appropriate thing to do
and we did that at the Planning Commission level so that
today we have just the asphalt plant that we wish to
locate on this property. The site has been previously
approved from the mining sand and gravel and in fact, mining
has taken place there over the past several years . Most of
the material that is excavated is in fact used for the building
of roads, either in the form of road base or for plant mix
that would be hauled to another location. Typically, sand and
gravel operations and asphalt plants are found together. I
think all you have to do is look around the Greeley area and
you will see that most of those other producing hot mix for
road building here in Weld County do site their plants where
they find their reserves and thus, I don 't think there is
anything unusual about the placement of this plant at this
location. If you can see this aerial photograph to my left,
I ' ll point out the site and some of the features in the
area. This is the approximate location, this is Boulder Creek
along where it crosses the picture. This area in which we
propose to place the plant, the home across, I would say would
-7-
average about 3, 000 at least to 3,200 feet away; one up here;
two up here on the ridge; one down here and then we have a
little home here; and one to the southeast. The proposed
route out of the site is down road 3; to State Highway 52 and
then to our various market places. The impact of the operation
as far as hauling goes, is really minimal, since we do have,
we would have to haul material out anyway by truck to another
location. The asphalt plant might, might result in an in-
crease in truck traffic of perhaps 2% since that would
represent the amount of asphaltic cement that would be needed
to make hot mix. The plant that we would bring in there is
one that' s already permitted by the state health department.
Its pollution control device consists of what' s called a
bag house, it' s like a big vacuum cleaner filled with bags
inside that provides every high quality air, ah, cleaning
capabilities and that would come along with the plant that
we would site at the location shown on the aerial photograph.
We have designed a berming system and landscaping system that
would both protect, minimize the impact in the, in the flood
plain and also screen the plant from view from the neighbors
in the area. We also propose to, in part of our plan, to do
some revegetation to minimize the impact of dust and also to
further improve and diminish the visibility of the proposed
site. The plant would be at this site during the life of the
mine that we propose at the, at the Nelson property. That
basically concludes my comments. I ' ll be happy to answer
any questions that you might have or if some come up later on
I ' ll be happy to address those.
-8-
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: I guess, I 'd like you to
speak to what conditions have changed since your previous
application which require a different ruling this time.
MR. HART: The previous application, being the
one that was made in 1978? Well, first of all, I think that
the the land use regulations of Weld County have changed,
since that time. Ah, I think the location that was previously
proposed down here, was closer by 1,000 feet. We were
proposing to locate a plant on the south side of the lake,
you see here, and as a result of our conversations with the
people in the area, following that ruling, we felt that re-
locating the plant to the north and to the east would result
in a less objectionable location, one that was easier to
screen with berms and one that maximized the surrounding
distances from any of the other households. So I think that
certainly is a significant factor, a significant difference
between the previous application and this present one. And
as I said, the change in the land use regulations as adopted
by the Board of County Commissioners, we felt was also a
significant one. I might add also, that the area is reduced
in size from about 80 acres to 47 acres.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any questions for Mr. Hart?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Not any right now'
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Does anybody here have any ob-
jections to this installation?
-9-
MIKE SHAW: I 'm Mike Shaw. I live at 1435 Weld
County Road 16h. We are located approximately adjoining this
site, on the east and also to the south. I was wondering if
if would be possible, right now, if we could get some clari-
fications on the development standards. There is some things
that we probably didn't understand, as long as we have a
representative here. And, on page C-1 of the development
standards, number 7, on there it, ah, has the normal hours
of operation will be from 7 to 5 p.m. and in conversations that
Mike was, discussion that we had with them, and also Jim
McDowell, president. It was my understanding that these were
the limiting hours and not necessarily the normal hours and
I 'm going to pursue the clarification on that.
(INAUDIBLE)
MIKE SHAW: But, I think we was talking to you and
Jim and he said that this would be the limiting hours.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE) Yeah, I think that was the
purpose of our discussion.
MIKE SHAW: Would it be possible then to say that
we could scratch out normal hours there and say this is the
limiting hours of operation.
(INAUDIBLE)
MR. HART: The reason why, that we described it
as normal, is that there could be occasions when there might
be a necessity to go beyond that time, but there shouldn't
be normally or beyond 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. I think the only
thing I would like to be sure of is that if there were
-10-
occasions when we had to extend those hours we would do so.
MR. HART: Speaking of the number of Saturdays
that would be used, that we would work is about ten Saturdays
per year if need be. Mr. , what I 'm trying to say
is that I don't want, I don ' t want to handcuff the company
100% because there are situations that' ll arise that we have
no control over.
MIKE SHAW: I can appreciate that, we said though
that after 10 we'd have discussion on the Saturday and Sun-
day thing. Can we say the same thing about the hours?
MR. HART: Sure
MIKE SHAW: Rather than this being normal hours,
this limiting hours and discussion (inaudible)
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE) In some circumstances that
requires additional time.
MIKE SHAW: Is that all right to have the change
in there then.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Which, which development
standard is this?
MIKE SHAW: Ah, it' s in the blue book, the Nelson
property one.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Oh, Yeah.
MIKE SHAW: On C-1, number 7 at the bottom. Is
everybody, can we agree to that change then?
ROD ALLISON: What is, what is the suggested change?
MIKE SHAW: That instead of normal hours of operation
-11-
it' ll be operation shall be limited to from 7 to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday.
ROD ALLISON: And then it proceeds to say, if
needed operations will be allowed on a maximum of 10 Saturdays
and two Sundays per year between 7 and 5, is that to be
included or is that deleted?
MIKE SHAW: That' s included.
MR. HART: That ' s included. In addition to that,
I would like to be able to know that if there were extreme
circumstances that cause those hours to be altered, that we
could have some provision in there.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Well, do you want to put a
number of times that or how do you want to handle that? You
might as well get it clear, so we know what we are talking
about.
MIKE SHAW: Could we say something like, for
instance, that these are limiting hours and that anything
in excess of this will be negotiated between yourself and
neighbors, basically, that' s what we have got on the ten
Saturdays and two Sundays.
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Or you could say, hours
of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays through
Fridays, maintenance and emergencies excepted?
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: That' s right.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: That' s all right.
MR. HART: The main problem we have with saying
hard fast that during the life of the operation, we
-12-
will not exceed those times, is that much of the paving work
that we do, of course, is under contract to, ah, some form of
local government or state government at times, perhaps even
the federal government and the contracts that we are success-
ful in winning the bid have specific start and stop dates.
A lot of times we can't control the times in which we operate,
now that' s a rare occasion, but there are times. Let me
give you an example, and I don't want, I don 't want to get,
to get Mike upset about this, but for instance, Trail Ridge
Road was an extreme example where because of the nature of
the highway there, we were only allowed to operate at night,
we could not operate during the daytime at all. They shut
the road down, we, I believe had from 8 o 'clock at night until
6 in the morning and that was, those were conditions that,
through which we had to comply with the bid that we won.
Now that' s a real rare extreme, but there are occasions, I 'm
not suggesting that that' s the kind of thing we, we' ll be
faced with here, but there could be occasions when we would
need to operate other than the 7 to 5 . We said normal hours
are typical hours are in fact 7 to 5, and I think that' s
probably pretty, pretty much the case. But to say, that
exclusively we ' ll not operate at other times, other than 7 to
5, I think really is something we can't predict. And I 'd
like to be able to know that if, if it ' s to Mike ' s satisfaction
that we can set down with the neighbors and say, look, this
is what has come up, this is what we propose, what can we do
to mitigate the impact on you for this period of time. I 'm
-13-
comfortable with that.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Probably, if it isn't pinned
down, why the neighbors really don't have much, I mean to a
certain number excess or something if
MR. HART: If you want to say
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Your emergency might be there
angr . . . , you know what I mean, go on and on, I 'd rather see
it more clearly stated somehow.
MR. HART: It probably is if it was up to Mike and
I , there wouldn't be a problem at all, but the problem becomes
in other than he and I, ah, type of thing and I agree, Bill,
you know, I 'd like to have something where an emergency doesn't
all of a sudden become an everday occurrence which starts at
5 in the morning.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: You have your Saturdays, can
you arrive at a number of hours in that portion
(NUMEROUS VOICES)
running until six during the paving season is a whole lot
different than running all night, or, or whatever and I wish
we had something a little more definite.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE) Let me,
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Well, 8th Avenue here in
Greeley was paved by a different company at night.
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: It had to be done that way.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Yeah, but it sort of
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: It was part of the contract
and if they get a contract like that, they have no other
-14-
choice.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Sort of critical,
(INAUDIBLE)
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: I don't want to turn them
down.
(INAUDIBLE)
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: . . . . to know what we are consider-
ing and I understand there is also it' s for the neighbors to
know.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE) Yeah, I think it' s an honest
(inaudible)
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: You don' t think that' s
an everyday occurrence, but it can happen.
ROD ALLISON: Let me give that some thought as you
go ahead with (inaudible)
MIKE SHAW: I apologize for just having a question
and not a solution. Ah, another question that was come up
that Flatiron' s will pave Weld County Road 3-1/4 from Road
161/2 up to 52. Ah, the question is when does this happen,
what is the kind of time span for the paving of this according
to the rest of it.
MR. HART: I think our understanding is that
what we go ahead and prepare to operate the plant at the time
we get ready to operate it, before it goes into operation,
the road will be paved. So in other words, if we plan to
put the plant in there for next spring, let' s say, one March,
that prior to that date we would go in and resurface the road.
-15-
MIKE SHAW: Than we are just assuming that before
any asphalt operations the pavement, the pavement will be in.
MR. HART: Right, right.
MIKE SHAW: And I also, and it wasn' t addressed
here, but is Flatiron responsible for the maintenance of this
road.
MR. HART: I don' t believe we 've
MIKE SHAW: We've had a problem with this in the
past and that' s the reason I 'm really addressing this right
now. And there ' s
MR. HART: Since the road is shared, not only by
use, but by others, there' s another sand and gravel operation
down the street from us, so to speak, that uses that road
and it' s used by the public overall, I, I guess I feel like
that maintenance of the public road isn't exactly, ah, ah,
a liability that we would welcome. We are prepared to pave
it and do a good job with that and we tried to treat the
surface I think in times when we had heavy truck traffic
coming out of there. But, I don' t know about the mainten-
ance of the road since we are not the only ones to use the
road in either commercial capacity or private capacity.
MIKE SHOW: There is a real problem here at County
Road 7, as I am sure you are aware of Western Paving and
that road is really become a problem and I think maybe
we ought to address the maintenance of this road.
-16-
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anybody have any questions for
Mike? Do you have anything else you want to add?
MIKE SHAW: Yeah, I do, ah, if, if you want to
hold off on the maintenance of that road.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: I think the general, whatever
the situation, that' s, that' s if it is put correctly in the
first place, then it does become the responsibility of the
county.
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: The county's
MIKE SHAW: Okay, cause the problem
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: You' re really moving quite
aways in getting that frontend help because, you know, they
pay taxes, substantial ones, like everyone else, and
MIKE SHAW: Yeah, the only problem we didn't want
to get into is the passing of the buck type of thing and
we have run into that right now, because there is one little
stretch of road between Flatiron' s and Boulder County or
Boulder Creek Gravel Company that ' s a no man' s land, ah,
we just wanted to, you know make sure that, that there is
an understanding of who' ll cover this is all.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Really, all we have done so
far is had some agreements for dust control that have been
on an on going basis, but I think by and large, once a road
has been paved to certain standards, I don' t believe we
have forced the maintenance to any private entity to be
fair with an answer.
-17-
MIKE SHAW: So is the county, the county will be
responsible for the
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: The only one that we have
had, the gravel company has offered to do maintenance on it,
and that' s the one west of Del Camino, there for a mile south
of 119 or two miles south toward Rinn
MIKE SHAW: Yeah, and that' s road 7, I was talking
about
COMMISISONER C. CARLSON: And, and they, they the
gravel operations there, they' re maintaining that themselves,
they' re digging the holes out and repatching them and taking
care of them.
MIKE SHAW: But this will be the county expense
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: This will be county.
MIKE SHAW: Okay, very good. If I might then just
ah, we are really just trying to clarify this, that Weld
County Zoning Ordinance that the Commissioners need to dis-
cuss, ah, there' s several in here that I might have missed,
but I don't know if they were really covered and . . . . for
instance, and I believe it' s section 24. 7 . 3. 3 on page 20-30,
was there anything said as to the maximum number of employees
and that is covered here. And I need to go down on about
four or tive of them, another, the next one down is the
maximum number of users, patrons, members, buyers, or other
visitors that the Use by Special Review facility is designed
to accommodate at any one time. The types and numbers of
operating and processing equipment to be utilized. The types,
-18-
size, weight and frequency of vehicular traffic, an excess
routes that will be utilizied, and the method and time
schedule, removal or disposal or debris, junk and other
waste associated with the proposed use, and I don' t remember
any of these being covered in the Special Use Permit
application.
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Well, on page C-4 , it
says between five and seven employees will work with the
asphalt plant.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: C-5 says 8 to 12 employees
at the concrete batch plant.
COMMISSIONER STEINMAR: Two hundred haul trips per
day.
MIKE SHAW: Can you answer those for me right now,
then if we can run through them quick? Okay, do you have, ah,
for instance a number, maximum number of users, patrons,
members, buyers and other visitors?
MR. HART: Basically, is not a commercial operation
in the fact that a retail sales of asphalt, there are not too
many customers for that, I suspect that most of it will be
consumed by us. If there were any outside sales, it might
be in a situation where the county or, or some municipal-
ity wanted to buy some hot mix, and came down to buy some,
but typically, we would and on' t sell, ah, our, our products
out side the company. They're processed and manufactured
strictly for internal consumption unless we have a contract
with Erie, Colorado or Dacono, or somebody like that, that
-19-
wants to buy, buy hot mix.
MIKE SHAW: See, the problem that I got a little
bit with this, is that it' s a difference to us whether we 're
talking 20 trucks in a day or 200 trucks in a day or we are
talking small asphalt plant or huge asphalt plant of the
size of operation has a lot of bearing as far as there is
an opposition or not an opposition, and the questions are
asked here, I really think the answers areimportant, cause
we have no other way of gauging what it' s going to be with-
out some type of numbers or limitations or something. That
constitutes
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Does that answer your questions?
MIKE SHAW: That didn' t answer my question, that' s the
end of my questioning, ah, but, ah, you know we 'd liked
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Maybe, Flatiron would like to
respond to the maximum number of trucks, . . . .
MIKE SHAW: Bascially, I am questions that are within
the zoning ordinance.
MIKE HART: And, again, I 'm going to talk about
averages instead of maximums because
MIKE SHAW: See, the trouble with averages, ah, we can
be in real trouble with averages .
MIKE HART: Um, we estimate that, ah, 34 vehicles a
day is probably an average. That' s, that' s a 20, 20, ah,
271 ton, ah, haul unit, leaving the site.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Okay, now is that an average for
an operating day, not averaged the year around.
-20-
MIKE HART: That would be averaged for the total tons
produced during the year, we estimate 240, 000 tons is
typical production for, that' s road base and hot mix and
to move that amount of material, we would require about
34 vehicles a day, although the construction season now,
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: There' s, okay, that' s
MIKE HART: Right, that' s divided ,up into, nothing
in the winter, and it goes starting in the spring early, and
then in late summer it peaks and then tails off in the fall
and then again, nothing during the, during the quarter of
the year that maybe would December, January and February,
ah,
MIKE SHAW: I 'm not sure that' s what the zoning is
calling for here in the ordinance, though, because it, it
specifically asks for the types and numbers of operating
and processing equipment being utilized.
MIKE HART: Processing equipment, I think we identified
in the request for additional information that the planning
staff wrote to us, we identified the nature of the asphalt
plant, what would be included on the site as far as a silo
for hot mix, ah, the, the, the type of batch plant that would be
there, of the fact that there would be an office for taking
orders of the batching of the hot mix and that type of thing,
and I believe there' s a little illustration in our application
that shows this kind of schematic of what it is that we are
proposing. Mind you, this is a portable plant and there is
every possibility that it could be brought in and maybe it' s
-21-
there for half of the summer and then it ' s pull out and we
take it some place else. It ' s a plant that we use all over
the State of Colorado, I think it might be in Tabernash,
right now. We used it, it in many parts, many parts of the
state, ah, so it' s not as if we are erecting a permanent
structure that will be there during the entire life of the
operation. It could come and go, in winter months, we might
take it down and move it, bring it into Greeley for some
repairs or to one of our other operations for repairs. I
think in the past couple of years, we've had it at one location
in Boulder twice, we moved it in another part of south
Boulder, we've moved it onto the western slope, so it' s a
very portable unit and I , I doubt seriously that we would
say that it would be there, you know, 12 months out of the
year. It wouldn't be a practical use for that equipment.
I don' t want to belabor the fact, I 'm just going to have to
say at this point, that there is several points in section
24-7 of the zoning ordinance which requires them to limit
or to say what the different vehicles and this type thing
and those questions have not been answered to this point,
either in the application or right here now, but at least it
has been skirted and I don't know what else to say on it.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Well, in this ah, application
booklet, it says that it is estimated the maximum plant
operation will generate approximately 200 haul trips per day.
It' s in this application!
MIKE SHAW: Okay. Yeah, then I would agree with that,
-22-
like for instance the plant sites. Is there a maximum on
plant sites?
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Plant sites limits it to
200 haul trips per day.
MIKE SHAW: Well, I 'm not going to belabored to think
that
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: If they, if they get a big
enough machine there to haul 200 by noon, they' ll have to
quit according to this.
MIKE SHAW: Okay, so we can assume then that 200 is
when the limiting factor
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: That' s what it says, the
maximum is 200 haul trips per day.
MIKE SHAW: Thank you.
ROD ALLISON: Mr. Chairman, Um, I have been advised
by one of the assistant county attorneys that the Board should
consider a separate motion, that, ah, substantial change has
been, ah, information has been supplied by the allicant in
regard to this new application, so we should, as June asked
earlier.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: You mean, we are getting
different information than what was presented to the Planning
Commission?
ROD ALLISON: No, No.
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY R. RUSSELL ANSON: At some
point in time you have to make a decision on whether of not,
this application is different from the application that was
presented at the original hearing, I believe was in 1979 .
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: 1978
MR. ANSON: 78? Right. The question involved in
there is if this application is not different then it should
be denied, because all the considerations were made we are
saying at that point in time, but if it, if you believe
that this is in fact a different application, than that was
presented in 1979, then the case can go on, you do have
jurisdiction here.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Well, is it a different
location on the same creek bottom, constitute a difference?
MR. ANSON: That could constitute a difference, I
think, ah, the question of whether or not it's an actual
difference is a decision that has to be made by you, based
upon the facts that have been presented to you at this point
and time.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: I think, ah, the appropriate
question would be the, ah, from Flatiron, are there any
additional facts to show the difference in this application,
before we make that determination or they've covered that
portion
MR. HART: I think as I have mentioned before, the
fact that the original submittal was for a concrete batch
plant and for asphalt plant. We no longer have the concrete
batch plant in this submittal. The location has been changed
from the site, this site to this area, and I think I would
argue that, that also is a significant change, and I would
-24-
point out another thing, not necessarily in that same vein,
but the fact that the it' s important to remember that the
hauling of material from the site is not hauling of asphalt
on top of what' s already going to be sand and gravel. We
are looking at this as a total change in hauling, in other
words, we would be hauling sand and gravel regardless of
whether there is a plant there or not. So what we are
saying now . . . .
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Let' s confine what you're
talking about right now, to the issue of the change in
application from the previous one so we get that out of
the way.
MR. HART: I think those are probably two of the more
substitute changes that have been made to this application
and again, I would go back to the, to the zoning resolution
we felt was a change that we better complied with than the
previous resolution which was enforced in 1978. The one that
is in force today is, has been substantially altered by the
Board of Commissioners.
MR. ANSON: How does your change in location for the
application, make this a different, ah, application.
MR. HART: Well, it' s further away from the other
houses, it' s more remote, it' s impact on the surrounding
neighbors is diminished by the fact of its distance from the
neighbors that were located to the south and to the west.
MR. ANSON: How many feet would you say that difference
is?
-25-
MR. HART: 2 , 000 feet perhaps, 2 to 3, 000, we have
also reduced the size of the special use area from, I think
it was, ah, 79 to
ROD ALLISON: 79 acres to 47 acres
MR. HART: Correct.
(INAUDIBLE)
MR. HART: It was 79 to 47 . I think the topography
also affords us a better, better location that' s, that' s ah
the way it gives us more area in order to berm better berm
sites we didn' t have down here. So now the ability to berm
along this side and over on this side, which we couldn' t do as
well down here, because of space limitations, we included
part of the lake
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Okay
MR. ANSON: Sorry, is that, ah, you know, northeast
(Inaudible) . . . . so you moved the site approximately, is 2 , 000
feet in a northeasterly direction that will increase the
distance from those residences that were adversely affected
in the previous application. And, if you are saying, that
the present site is, because of it' s, ah, topography has less
of an impact on
MR. HART: We believe so.
MR. SHAW: I think we need a question on this.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Mr. Chairman, I would move that
we determine that there is sufficient difference in the
application, to go ahead and consider this application at
least.
-26-
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: I ' ll second it.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The motion has been made by Bill,
seconded by Chuck, that there is, we feel there is sufficient
difference between this application and the other one, to
consider it. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: I think the significant
difference is this is only for an asphalt plant and the other
application was for both an asphalt and a concrete mixing
plant.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Yeah, I think all of the items
presented have significance and I would like to
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: It' s a different location
even though it' s on the same creek.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further discussion? All those
in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Opposed, no.
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: No.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let the record show that we had four
ayes and one no, so the motion carried.
MR. ANSON: At this point in time, what the Board is
decide it go ahead and hear the balance of the application?
The opponents would still have an opportunity to rebut, any-
thing that the applicants have presented, including the fact
of whether or not, ah, the application is basically different
from the original application, and the Board would at that
-27-
point in time at the end of the entire case, would have to
decide again, whether or not, the application is in fact,
. . . . is that clear?
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I think so. (Laughter)
MR. ANSON: I think what
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Yeah, Yeah, I think so.
MR. ANSON: I think proposed originally, I termed it
as support, it would lack a motion to do this because lack
of jurisdiction by the Board of County Commissioners. Now,
the Board has made a decision that they do have jurisdiction
to go ahead and continue the hearing, the opponents still have
the opportunity to disprove what the applicants have presented
on the facts showing that there is a difference in the two
applications.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay, go ahead.
DALE JOHNSON: My name is Dale Johnson, and I wrote a
letter to you folks, the Commissioners that is, ah, yesterday
and I wanted to submit the original copies of (Inaudible) .
Ah, first of all, addressing the question of whether there ' s
substantial significant difference from this application to
compared to the application of special use permit 365 in 1978 ,
um, we certainly feel that there isn' t significant difference.
It is true that there is not a concrete plant, but it is also
true that there is still an asphalt plant and there is no
asphalt plant down there now. It is true that the surrounding
land uses include grazing of cattle, irrigated agricultural
and a sand and gravel mine. The sand and gravel mine received
-28-
its authority with special use permit 260 in 1974 . Now,
I want to let you know that this sand and gravel mining in not
something that goes on everyday out there. I would say on the
average over the last eight years, it' s probably had ten
days of activity per year. Ah, the amount of gravel hauled,
um, could have been hauled out probably in 25 days if they
wanted to work that hard and fast. But they wanted to run
360 haul trips, correction, 160 haul trips a day. So, I 'm
saying that the existing gravel and sand mining in that
valley, is of minimal impact as it has been used historically
in the last eight years . Now, they have a lot of gravel
mined, and, so you ask yourself, well why is that, and I
think the answer is they have a lot of gravel from different
mines and they bring it into the central asphalt plants that
use this gravel for something, but then they' ll go somewhere
else. Now, this is true that they moved it to the adjacent,
you see adjacent, net acreage just to the north of there,
they applied for approximately was, approximately 80 acres,
79 point something, right along road 161 running a half mile
east/west and a quarter of mile north/south. What they have
done now, in their next application is strictly to the north
of the east end of that land. Now, it is true that they have
moved the plant a little further away from some of the
residents. It is also true that they have moved it closer
to other residents, so the -fact that they, yeah, they moved
it a little further away from some, closer to others, I would
say that an asphalt plant, we're living up on a hill and we
-29-
can hear people talking down at the bridge at night and so
a 1, 000 feet, yeah, I' ll take any foot you give me, but it' s
still going to have a major impact on our lives and I would
like to say that it' s not significant, we 're still going to
have an asphalt plant running there. I would say that, just
in their own testimony earlier today, they talked about, well
somedays we may have to run at night. We have nothing going
on at night there. And, I would say that it is totally
incompatible and it' s, it' s a major obstruction into our, um,
environment, um, to have an asphalt plant running there at
night, when we have had cows grazing at night and water running
on our fields. Now, in that letter, the first paragraph, I
discussed, and Commissioner Steinmark mentioned this a little
bit, when special use permit 365 was denied, there were six
reasons given. I feel at least three of these reasons are
still valid. The first reason, which was given then and I
would give, now, is that Flatiron did not show that the plant
could not be located within, within existing municipalities
which is a preferred location according to the comprehensive
plan. They presently have six plants operating within the
confines of municipalities of the comprehensive plan. They
have a plant in Longmont, Colorado, that they have not used
in two years. They have one in a municipality of Fort Collins,
they have one in the municipality of Boulder, they have one
in the municipality of Loveland, um
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Excuse, Russ, hasn' t there been
some determinations since then that the asphalt plants are
-30-
somewhat of an accessory use . . . .
MR. ANSON: I think, it was determined
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Not necessarily out of the realm
of the comprehensive plan to gravel pits
MR. ANSON: That case, ah, was which you know about,
and as you were a party in that case, was based upon the
resolution that the Board of County Commissioners had, that
case was basically an appeal of the original application denial
of Flatiron Paving. In other words, this Board had denied
that application back in 1979, Flatiron Paving had appealed
that case to district court and district court, state district
court decided in their favor and then it was appealed to the
Court of Appeals and there was a reversal. Okay, the district
court was the court that had decided that that was an
accessory use, however, that decision was reversed by the
Court of Appeals. And, it was also based on the whole zoning
resolution, rather than the new zoning ordinance.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: It' s in our comprehensive plan,
is an asphalt plant, specifically mentioned as an industrial
use or is it left open.
MR. ANSON: I don' t remember, off hand, how it is
this by a use by special review, now, is that correct?
ROD ALLISON: That is correct. It is mentioned in the
industrial section of, of the industrial growth policies of
the county. It also has listed as a use by special review,
ah, appropriate use there, too.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: The agricultural zone?
-31-
ROD ALLISON: Yes, in the agricultural zone district.
MR. JOHNSON: When the Commissioners denied this back
in 78, it was denied the Nelson and Flatiron sued the
Commissioners saying that, that was an accessory use.
Judge Hayes said he agreed with that but the appellate court
3-0 said no it is not accessory use, in fact, one of the
judges said that would be as silly as talking as putting
bread factory in a middle of a wheat field. And that's on
record. On page 62 of the comprehensive plan, industrial,
I 'm reading starting in the middle of the page, it' s entitled,
industrial, industrial development like commerical development
is encouraged to locate within the existing municipalities
where such facilities can accommodate according to the local
comprehensive plan. And, then under the next paragraph,
industrial land use in the rural areas of the county should
be limited to those industries which cannot suitably be
located within the municipality. They have them located in
municipalities. Um, I for the record, would like to say that
I wasn' t. In the new regulations, uh, that were passed back
here a few months ago, in September of 82, 24-7 on page 20-28
talks about application requirements for Use by Special
Review, I think Mike' s point is well taken, they just have
not complied. First of all, the planning commission, the
first point, they use in saying that this should be accepted
was that they complied with all of these things. And, all
I 'm saying is they have not complied with um, I wanted it to
be a part of the record. The maximum, number 24. 7. 3 . 4 it says,
-32-
The maximum number, the maximum number, it doesn' t say
average or anything like that, it asking for the maximum
number of users, patrons, member, buyers and other visitors
that the Use by Special Review facility is designed to
accommodate at any one time. Third, we don't know whether
they' re going to have 25 to 27 ton trucks parked out there
and 25 guys who drive them, coming out of there everyday or
whether they' re going to have five. Um, we know they, they
said in here, how many would be at the plant, they said
five to seven, so we have numbers there that we can look
to, but we don' t know whether we are looking at what' s a
maximum numbers, ah, they need to tell us what your are
expecting to come out there and how, because that has a lot
to do with compatibility to the thing. If it' s only going
to run 10 days a year, that' s one thing, if it' s going to
run and they have trucks parked out there and they' re going
to have maintenance facilities, that has a whole different
issue when you start looking at the compatibility issue which
is one of the things that the new regulations requires to
look at. And just to state the other ones, I don't,
24. 7. 3. 6, types and numbers of operating and processing equip-
ment to be utilized. Um, 24. 7 . 3. 8 , types, size and weight
and frequency of vehicular traffic and access routes that will
be utilized. They did mention the access road, that' s true,
but I'm saying they have complied totally with these things.
Time tables showing the periods of time required for construct-
ion of the operation, that' s 24 .7. 3 . 12 , a statement delineating
-33-
the need for the proposed use, that' s 24. 7. 3. 15, they don' t
have that in their application. Um, a vicinity map, they do
have in their application, and as far as can, and that' s
regulation 24. 7. 4. 4, the city map is the same one that was
used in special use permit 365, and it was wrong, we corrected
it at that time and I would like to submit this as Exhibit
"B" , the dotted houses are the additional houses in the
neighborhood that, um, are there that are not on that city
map that the city map is not right and would lead you to
believe that there are a lot of houses not there that actually
are there, and the reason that is, that map was taken from
several year ago.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: You know, Mr./Dr. Johnson
it seems a little ridiculous to me that, ah, you are pointing
out how many houses and how close they' ll be, yet you in
your our statement say that this should be in a municipality
where you've got, ah, a very much higher density, ah, inside
of a municipality in which you have out here.
MR. JOHNSON: Yeah
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: And most of these houses are
a quarter of a mile from the plant. And in town, there ' ll be
a half a block or could be.
MR. JOHNSON: I understand your point. When they' re
in municipalities, though, I think we have to remember that
they' re in industrial zoned land, so people know that.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Well that' s, that' s ah,
irregardless, they still have to abide by the noise ordinance
-34-
as set forth within the standards.
MR. JOHNSON: That' s they have to, uh, that' s right,
they have to stand by the noise ordinance but on, interesting-
ly in our health code, has noise ordinances that are different
for industrial use and for rural residential use.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: I don't believe so.
MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, um, the health department testi-
fied in 1978 and they testified that they would consider for
noise standards, that our neighborhood would have to comply
with rural residential noise standards and not industrial
noise standards . And there is difference. Now, the new,
I don' t see where the new regulations make it any more com-
patible, um, um, that this plant can belong where they are
proposing it, than the old one did. In fact, I think it
makes it harder for them. On page 24-25, it states on the
top of the page, the applicant has the burden of proof to
show that the standards and conditions of 24. 4. 2 , 24. 5 and
24. 6 are met. They have the burden of proof to show that.
Then the applicant shall demonstrate that, and then it gives
a list of several things that the applicant shall demonstrate.
The one that I am going to address, because some other people
are going to address other ones , is the number 24. 3. 2. 3, the
uses which should be permitted within, will be compatible
with the existing surrounding land use. The issue compati-
bility was faced in 1978 and the issue of compatibility is a
key issue at this time. In their, their proof, they address
compatibility on pages B-1, B-2 and B-3 of their application.
-35-
Now, what they say is this, it is compatible because future
surrounding land uses maybe this, this and this, which all
sound worse than an asphalt plant perhaps. This regulation
says, existing land uses, and I just earlier in my discussion
now, I discussed the fact that the gravel plant is of a
very, very low impact, very, very low use and the other uses
as we have noted, are irrigation, an irrigation for agricul-
tural land use and grazing. Now, another thing, they say, is
that, the relative intensity of the asphalt plant, will be
no different significantly from the relative intensity of an
asphalt plant. First of all, I don't think that is true, I
think the asphalt plant has a great more intensity when you
think of the number of people coming, the number of trucks
coming, when you look at the existing gravel and proposed
asphalt, the intensity is quite different. Now, if it was
the same intensity, which I don't think it is, that argument
I think is fallacious, and the reason that it is, is when you
add something, there is an additive to the affect. If I was
to hit my finger and it hurt, I wouldn' t say it was compatible
to hit the other one because of the relative intensity of the
pain would be the same is compatible. More specifically,
you wouldn't say that if I had made an application here to
put 35 houses on my land, one acre lot sizes, and I say well
each house has the same intensity as the other house. The
thing that they are missing the point of is, there is an
additive effect. And so the fact that they're equal intensity
does not make them compatible. Finally, they talk about
-36-
compatibility because this is a temporary structure. I think
it' s true that it could be taken down and it could be moved.
The fact is, the one in Longmont has been there for a long
time, the one in Fort Collins has been there for a long time
and the one in Boulder has been there for a long time. They talk
about a temporary use in the life of the pit, well the life of
the pit is 20-30 years, that is probably temporary when you
look at, you turn it, but when you look at my life and the
life of my family growing up on that, the rural agricultural
area, it' s their whole life. My kids will know nothing but
an asphalt plant firing off at 7 maybe earlier on these
exceptional days and going until 5 and maybe later on these
exceptional days. It will be going in the summer when most
of our living is in the outside, so I think, first of all,
they have not proven and they have not demonstrated that it
is compatible. I think the reasons are, are not valid, and
I think that, um, the reasons I state that it isn't compatible
are valid and I will also later on show some slides to give
you a visual imput of why I thinkit' s incompatible, um, and
that' s all I have to say right now. Thank you for your time.
Do you have questions?
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Guess not. Thank you. Anyone else?
MARGARET KOBOBEL: My name is Margaret Kobobel and I
live approx. . . I live on Weld County Road 5 and it's approximately
1500 feet east of the new pit site, so the propert. . . the new
-37-
plant site is closer to our property. In fact, it' s about
1500 feet from the back door. Um, when we purchased the
property, approximately nine years ago, we had no idea that
an asphalt plant would be allowed in the area. I 'm definitely
very concerned about the welfare of the neighborhood and my
greatest concern is about our property values . I am an
active licensed real estate person and have been for the past
nine years . I have been proud to show property in that area
because it really is a beautiful area. Many of the area
residents have approached me with their concerns over their
property values. Several new neighbors in the area stated
that they would not have purchased if they had know that an
asphalt plant could be allowed. The surrounding properties
are valued at approximately $200, 000 to a million dollars.
I definitely feel that an asphalt plant in the area will
devaluate the property immensely. For example, can you
imagine an IBM executive paying $350 , 000 for a nice horse
property overlooking an asphalt plant? I can see, what has
happened in the Carmacar area, that is just south of 50 ,
Highway 52 . It is difficult to even get a prospective client
to go out there and look at those properties . I had a client
last year, who was aw, aware of the proposed mining operation,
strip mining operation in the Carmacar area. Without even
going out and looking at the property, he told me that he
would like to make an offer on an $89 , 000 property for
$69 , 000 . He then decided that maybe, this was too much to pay,
he went on to inform me, um, how undesirable the area would be
-38-
and how desperate the sellers must be at this time to sell
their properties. I definitely feel an asphalt plant would
have the same effect on the property values in our area and
I would like to know who can tell me that I could convince
this person that the -Carmacar area was an area to buy in.
Presently, there are four to five gravel mining operations
in the area, and we have not opposed any of them. We ' re not
against any of these guys making a living, not at all, but
if this asphalt plant is allowed in our back yard, what will
then, we will soon be surrounded with more and more asphalt
plants in the area, and then what ever will follow. The
people, with ten, twenty, forty acre horse properties or
smaller 4-H project fin . . . farms, will definitely lose.
We are here today because Flatirons is telling us if this
asphalt plant is denied, it will cut down on their profit.
Who can we depend on to protect us and our property invest-
ments? We are counting on you, the County Commissioners to
deny this Special Use Permit. And, I have one last thought,
it' s a personal thought, Jim Short, the president of Flatiron
Paving lives in a three-quarter million dollar house in the
middle of a large acreage and then we have Milt Nelson who
is the owner of this pit that lives on the golf course in
Longmont Estates, then we have Les Williams and Martha Williams
that live over on Rogers Road and they are definitely against
the expension of the airport, but they want this asphalt plant
in our backyard and we are supposed to be real happy about it.
I don' t know what happened to do unto other that, as you
-39-
would like them to do to you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else.
GLORIA WILSON: My name is Gloria Wilson, and I 'm a
realtor at Pratt Agency in Longmont and the neighbors in the
area of the proposed, proposed asphalt plant, asked me to
come and speak, um, to you today on my opinion of what a,
how the as. . . asphalt plant would affect the value of the
property and what establishes value of property in real estate.
First, there is three ways, that a realtor or a real estate
appraiser establishes value on property; 1) is replacement
cost; 2) pastsolds, what people have been willing to pay
for comparable properties in a certain area; and 3) an income
approach to property and this is mainly used for apartment
houses or self supporting farms, and dairy or something like
that. The comparables are what appraisers refer to as the
market approach, of course, is the biggest determining factor
of the appraisal. This point has been emphasized over and
over again, the past two years, especially when the money
situation has been very tight and there' s been very slow
marketing conditions. Every appraisal that I have seen in
the last two years has explicitly stated that the market
approach is the most reliable indicator. They just, they
have discounted the replacement costs as much as 15%
and we also know in the replacement costs that land value is,
is part of the, how you determine replacement costs. Land
values can range anywhere from two to three thousand in an
undesirable area up to ten thousand in very plush surroundings,
-40-
When a realtor market the property, there are two things
that he knows that will attract a buyer and get the property
sold. One, is location and the second one, is price. Let me
just read to you a few lead lines that I picked at random,
from one of Pratt Agencies ' weekend newspaper advertisements .
'Country Estates, dream hideaway, rare, elegant, horseman 's
estate, quiet country atmosphere, escape everyday, gracious
living, paradise for sale, peaceful country side. " All of
these homes are acreages that were advertised in this with
these lead lines were in the $150, 000 to $500, 000 price range
in rural areas around Longmont. Now, let me read you the
lines of homes that don' t have these special location or
amenities or particular desirablity. "Older terms, good deal,
owner will trade, price reduction, easy to buy, good invest-
ment, affordable." What do these words say to you? All of
these homes were in the $50, 000 to $70, 000 price range.
These adds were appealing to price. If location cannot sell,
the price has to be reduced to attract a buyer. I checked out
the location of these properties and they were really close
to the industrial part of Longmont now, south of second avenue,
near the existing Golden and Flatiron plants now. The turkey
plant, the old sugar beet factory. I also called two,two lenders
to ask their opinion and also a title company to see how a
mining operation or an asphalt plant would affect their
decisions on making a loan on property, because we know
there is very few people around that can take and pay cash
for these type of properties that we are talking about. They
-41-
all told me that a mining operation or asphalt plant would
definitely have an devaluing effect on the property. The
title company manager told me that they definitely would
not give mineral protection to a buyer on a property. In an
extreme or rare situation, they have given mineral protection
to a property that had an excessive amount of royalties and
the reason that we are making the loan was because the
property was um, like I say, making a profit on the amount
of royalties they had from the mineral rights. I recently,
closed a transaction where the sellers were receiving a
small royalty from a gas well, a half a mile away from the
property. The title company would not issue Form 100, the
mineral right protection on the property for the buyer.
Compare the impact of a, uh, as gas well pumping in a field,
compared to an asphalt plant operation in the area. The
lenders, of course, rely on their appraisers to establish the
value of the property. They guaranteed me that they make
loans on site and improvements, not on minerals underneath
the ground. If an asphalt plant would be determined to be a
hazard or have a devaluing effect on the desirablity or market-
ability of a house, they would not loan on the property.
Realtors have a code of ethics that we must follow. The first
loyalty, of course, is to their client, but that does not
relieve them of the obligation to treat the buyer fairly and
protect his future interest. If a realtor has knowledge of
the prop. . . proposed legislation or information affecting
real estate in an area, he has an obligation to disclose this
-42-
to a prospective purchaser. Let' s face it, if you are in
the market to purchase a twenty, a forty or even a hundred
acre parcel, in the country to enjoy a quiet life, have live-
stock and to have a rural atmosphere. Would you pay, pay
top dollar for an area that was next to an asphalt plant?
Or would you buy near the foot hills or in a quiet area, next
to open space? Let ' s face the facts, Coloradoans especially
in this area along the front range have been very lucky to
own real estate and gain the appreciation that we have had in
the past fifteen years, but it isn 't all luck. It' s good
planning, zoning laws, comprehensive plan, along with the
realtors, developers, business people, all working together
to make this, a desirable place to live. If an asphalt plant
in this rural area, really the highest and best use of the
land for the citizens of the county, or could it be located
in a commercial or an industrial zoned area, along the inter-
state, or even near their existing shop along I-25. It is
every property owner and every citizen' s responsibility to
keep this a good place to live, work and enjoy. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else?
BILL KOBOBEL: My name is Bill Kobobel. I live at
7909 Weld County Road 5 . It' s within 1,500 feet of the asphalt
plant site, to the east of it. Flatiron has a plant in Long-
mont which they closed down here a while back and they claim
they want to be competitive in the market. This plant was
closed down cause they couldn' t compete with the other com-
panies coming in from different towns. They are located in
-43-
Longmont. Other companies such as Coltson out of Loveland,
Bestway out of Greeley, Western Paving out of Denver, and
Frontier which is located in the Longmont area. I don' t
think moving away from towns is going to make them anymore
competitive. Western Paving just did a major job in Longmont
a few months ago. The job was bid, the material come out,
for the asphalt, come out of Denver. It was hauled all the
way to Longmont. Western Paving' s major market is in Denver.
Flatiron, ah . . . Paving of Boulder claims they want to be
competitive in the Denver, in the north Denver area and, ah,
the plant should be where the market place is, not in some
farmer'sbackyard. This thing wouldn 't even make good shade
for his cattle. You can haul gravel to an asphalt plant with
one size truck, or tractor-trailer unit. You can haul the
asphalt away from these plants in many such size units.
You can take it away at five hundred pounds a trip or up to
25, 000 ton. When you haul 500 pounds for patch 30 miles away,
it' s not profitable. There ' s no way it is . They also claim they
need the asphalt place plant in the area for the area' s need,
right in that area. And, the only thing out there that could
be paved right now, is the county roads. And Weld County can' t
afford to pave these roads. The last five years, Flatiron' s
has three major jobs in Weld County area. The City of Firestone,
Dacono trailer park, and Weld County Road #7 which goes to
the dump. The costs on the gravel that they've got in these
pits, they've got a pit, a white wash pit over in Boulder.
They can haul that, that gravel pit. . . , is 280 per ton. Nelson
-44-
pit like white rock pits for, four miles from the other
plant. Nieson' s pit, that ' s $2. 80 a ton. That' s Nelson' s
pit and their mix at hundred ton an hour production rate,
they're pricing that mix out on E-EX mix, I think it' s for
$17. 60, E mix, I think it' s $18. 90. They're charging the
counties $25 . 00 or $24. 00 a ton, cities and counties at the
plant. The gravel operations pres. . . presently is on a low
key. Vehicles come in there now is like Dale said a little
while ago, that there, its, ah, there' s not that many coming
in there. If the asphalt plants moved out there, Flatiron' s
at the Boulder plant right now, they've got 35 truck hauling
units, they can put on this haul. And you take, ah, the
employees that, that man these vehicles, like for your operators
and your truck drivers , they' re going to come in there and
that' s forty employees. Eighty trips a day just coming down
that road. Now, as you stated a minute ago, that ' s 200 trips
a day. Does that, does that 80 trips count to their 200 trips?
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: . . . . haul trips.
MR. KOBOBEL: Okay, um, then so you ahead and
an average truck, it can probably haul a lot out of there to
Boulder which is probably 20 miles away. They can get easily,
eight trips a day going into Boulder. That' s easy. So you
take them 35 trucks times 8 , you know, that' s that' s a lot,
that' s a lot of trips down that road. And, also now if this
here thing is going to be tied down like what was mentioned
a little while ago also, if it' s just for the asphalt plant
7 to 5 or at times where they, they've gone into operations
-45-
where then gravel trucks can come in there early in the
morning at 5 o'clock, start hauling gravel until 7 o'clock
on a base job, turn around and haul asphalt that day, stay
within their compliances if it ' s only for asphalt, then go
back to hauling gravel at night from 5 to maybe 9 o 'clock,
work two shifts on that thing. You know, I don 't know, ah,
I was born and raised in Weld County, my father was raised
here, my grandfather was raised here in Weld County. I have
an uncle that started the Greeley, the Martin Produce here,
here in Greeley. We've been involved in agriculture all our
lives. This, this is my home, this is where I was raised.
We have always treated people fairly, we don' t, ah, we didn ' t
try shovin' something down their throat that they really
didn' t want, and I think this, this to me is like a dictator-
ship, take this asphalt plant, put it in your backyard, that' s
alright. You know, I kind of feel sorry for Jim Short here,
he ' s living out in a secluded area in this place over there
and his poor kids, they can' t play on them gravel piles,
dangerous piles, they can' t play around in 300 degree hot
tanks or climb the asphalt plant. You know, I , I just feel that
ah, I don' t want my family near it, it' s not the right place
for it, and this is how I feel.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else?
HOWARD RASMUSSEN: Ah, first of all, Flatirons ,
I have nothing against you, I mean, you, what you done, it' s
clean as a well run place, and ah,
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What' s your name?
-46-
MR. RASMUSSEN: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What' s your name?
MR. RASMUSSEN: Oh, yeah. Howard Rasmussen, I
live on road 161 down there. I farm down there on a little
property. Ah, I guess, enough has been said and what I had
hoped that when this comes to the Board here shortly that, ah
a few commissioners will hide your, your petty feelings, and
think hard if this plant is really, ah, in harmony with the
environment and compatible to agriculture and, and do they
really need it. Thank you.
MIKE SHAW: Mike Shaw again. Ah, ah, I 'd like to
make just one point and that is that you need to really
consider the comprehensive planning on page 114 of the
Comprehensive Plan and I quote "Ag industry will also be
allowed under the Special Use Permit of proximity to agricul-
tural lands with essential for the proposed industrial and
in this case, it' s up to Flatirons to prove that this is ,
is essential to their operation down there. In fact, they
have not proven that, the price that they will save by having
it down there will save them less than 4% on the finished
cost of their operation or finished product. -Western Paving
right now, takes gravel out of our area and takes it to Denver
to process it, takes it back to Longmont for a paving job.
It beats Flatiron out and I can' t believe that 4% savings
on their operation on their final price is going to make that
much difference. The thing is they do not need it, the only
ones that are going to benefit by this, is Flatirons less
-47-
than 4% on a finished price. The landowner on a very small
amount of it coming out, and yet, you've heard all day long
what all of us are going to suffer. So, I think really you
have to, if for no other reason, you have to turn it down
and the Flatirons, in fact, did not prove essential, ah,
for their proposed industry there. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: I think you've already
had a chance once, let' s see if we got some other people here
that want to say something before you hit us again.
MR. JOHNSON: Sure. I was going to show those slides
I promised you, Chuck.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anybody else that would
like to speak before Mr. Johnson shows his slides? Anyone
else?
CHARLES ERICKSON: I 'm not speaking in opposition
to this variance here, I 'm speaking in favor as a citizen I
live on
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Would you give your name?
CHARLES ERICKSON: Charles Erickson. I live at
1616 North 35th Avenue Court in Greeley, on 16th ave, 35th
Avenue and zero street. I live in a subdivision, we have homes
out there ranging from $150, 000 to $400, 000, and I live within
a 1, 000 yards, a 1, 000 feet of their pit about 300 yards, but
one pit that Flatiron has today.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: 300 yards?
CHARLES ERICKSON : 300 yards less than 1, 000 feet.
I live just across the river from Mobile Premix pit which
-48-
has a gravel operation there and they're running over 300
tons somedays out of there each day. I live within a half
of mile of Bestway Paving which has a flat, ah, concrete
plus asphalt, plus gravel operation. And, ah, I want to say,
I think with all of the controls that has been put on through
the state and the regulations, that it is a much cleaner
operation and we live right next to farming that we have next
door, we have less dust problem from, from the pit mining
and from the asphalt than we'd have from the farming operations
in dust and harvesting of crops and also. So, I guess what
I 'm saying here, I 'm representing myself as an individual
who lives close in the area. Another thing, I 'm representing
Northern Colorado Home Builders and we looked at this in
an aspect of we know that there' s only so much gravel in this
nation and it' s located in certain spots . And today, the
price is not too bad, but wait until tomorrow when you have
to start trucking in to provide your concrete, provide your
black top. I 'm, I 'm opposed to things that doesn' t look nice
but I 'm in favor of progress and I think we 've all got to
look at progress here today. Thank you.
(INAUDIBLE)
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Would you come up to the mike
please?
MARGARET KOBOBEL: Margaret Kobobel, again.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE) Yes
MARGARET KOBOBEL: Sir, were you the originial
landowner of the
-49-
CHARLES ERICKSON: No, I wasn' t
MARGARET KOBOBEL: Okay . . . .
CHARLES ERICKSON: I purchased and built the home.
(INAUDIBLE)
CHARLES ERICKSON: The home is just now completed
at Christmas time and in the neighborhood of $300 to $400, 000 .
MARGARET KOBOBEL: How long have you lived there?
CHARLES ERICKSON: I 've lived there five years.
MARGARET KOBOBEL: Okay, Thank you.
CHARLES ERICKSON: You' re welcome. There ' s eight
homes completed, now there is one lot left, ah, to be built
on where I live.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else?
DENNIS COLOHAN: My name is Dennis Colohan. I 'm
a resident of Weld County, living at 4630 West 2nd Street, in
Greeley; 4630 West 2nd Street is located under a mile from the
Bestway Paving Plant and is included in some of the most active
growth area in Greeley, Colorado, for residential growth. The
impact of a small number of citizens to the plant is compounded
if there is indeed, an adverse effect by the fact that Bestway' s
Paving plant is in the vicinity of Collins subdivision, Westmoor
subdivision, ah, the area behind K-Mart, Pheasant Run subdivision,
which is, I think, the fastest growing subdivision in Greeley.
Ah, I am also involved in mortgage lending and ah, needless
to say, the subdivisions around, um, the paving operation has,
as evidenced by Charles house, are not adversly affected by
the plant, if it is installed and meets all the
-50-
requirements so as to be, protect the residential subdivisions
adjoining the plant. Thank you.
MARGARET KOBOBEL: Sir, I don't feel that you
can compare a subdivision that's already completed to some open
farm ground and I would like to refer to what you spoke about.
Farmers probably plow their land twice a year and it might be
dusty two times a year, but ah, an asphalt operation' s there
everyday.
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: we 've got a lot of
people that'd argue with you on that.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else that
hasn' t responded so far? Anyone else? (Pause) Do you, do you
want to show your slides, Dr. Johnson?
DR. JOHNSON: Yes, I would, I 'd like to, then
I ' ll take the slides out of the projector and enter, and enter
'em as ah, as exhibits to Russ, then at that time (Inaudible)
Not that many slides, there' s only 12.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You' re not going to show all
those!
DR. JOHNSON : Pardon
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Les not all those slides in there?
DR. JOHNSON: Not unless you want to look at
eyeballs for awhile, but ah, I ' ll just take a couple of minutes
here (Inaudible) . It is because I want, it' s difficult to argue
compatibility. When you look up the compatibility in Websters
you find the word, harmony and in place of harmony you think of
things that are complimented or whether added to, you got
-51-
significantly stated out for what' s already. But that' s,
that' s a difficult concept to grasp. I felt it would be much
better to show you pictures, Flatiron' s system of grazing,
agricultural area on your right. That' s what it is in these
pictures. This picture, I' ll tell you what the pictures are
and I want you to look at the pictures and determine if that' s
compatible. I want you all to understand that this is only
one sense or eyes, that so they may comply with the EPA
standards and everything else, it' s still going to smell like
an asphalt plant that doesn't now, and, it ' s still going to
sound like an asphalt plant, cause we don't have those noises
now. This is a picture looking from just, most of the
Commissioners have been out there, this is just to the south
of the bridge that has been um, ah, closed. Ah, looking towards
the mountains and this is the pasture on actually is Mr. LaMar' s
ah, land, or the late Mr. LaMar' s land. This is an asphalt plant
in Boulder. This is a picture of an irrigated alfalfa field.
This is just to the north of, correction, just to the west and
slightly south of the, ah, proposed site, is on the north side
of road 161. This is an asphalt plant in Ft. Collins. This is
another picture of the grazing area. This is another picture of
an asphalt plant. This is another picture of grazing, you can
see the house in area house and there are some trees in the upper
right, that is our home and barn. There are two houses on the
left that you can see. This again, is just south of that bridge
that was taken out on road 161/2. This is an asphalt plant in
Boulder, you can see Flatirons in the background, there as a
-52-
matter of fact. This is a road, this is again, just, just west
of the bridge taken out, looking up on the left hand side there
where the old LaMar house and two other houses our house is off
to the right you can' t see in the pictures. Here 's a picture
of some asphalt trucks coming out of the, ah, Ft. Collins plant.
Another picture of a truck. I was talking to a friend of mine
in the highway department and he was saying that these large
trucks do 500 times the damage to the road than my car. This
is a picture looking east, now into the valley. The original,
the original site that they had applied for, ah, in ' 78 would
have been somewhere off in this area here. Now, they have gone
37, 47 acres, um, north of that site, closer to the Kobobels
and a little further away from the Shaws and myself. This is
a valley as we see it. I am having technical difficulty and I
want to show one more. This is a picture of another asphalt
plant and I would say that' s not compatible. And I would enter
those as an exhibit, those five. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We 've heard quite a lot of arguments
of on both sides, does anyone have anything that hasn' t already
been offered?
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: Mr. Chairman, I move we
approve docket number 82-80 , USR, an asphalt batch plant for
Flatiron Paving. I think it is compatible to the area, I think
the people have shown that it' s enough different than what they
had asked for before, and I think the, the area is compatible
for, ah, a batch plant.
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Second
-53-
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The motion was made by Chuck,
seconded by Bill that we approve docket number 82-80 for a
Use By Special Review for an asphalt batch plant. Any
discussion?
MR. ANSON: Okay, one of the things you have to
consider, even before you make a decision on that motion, is
whether or not this is a new application or there have been
substantial enough changes intervening between the old appli-
cation and the new application . . . .
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: I thought we already had
established that with our motion. (Inaudible)
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: That was referred to in this
second motion, also Russ does that have to be separated
completely.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON : We already made a motion
to that affect.
MR. ANSON: You made a motion, at the beginning,
unless I missed it
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: No, ah, included in Chuck' s
motion just now, though, also he did include the, the state-
ment that he felt that there was showing that. Is that ade-
quate or should it be separated entirely.
MR. ANSON : Maybe, I didn' t catch what the statement
was.
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: Well, I stated that I
thought that there was enough change and I can restate it if
you want me to, I can restate in that another if you, ah, ah,
-54-
I believe by withdrawing this was, this is what I included in
my motion I meant to have included in my motion by with-
drawing the concrete batch plant and moving the plant to
where they did, ah, that did constitute enough of a change
in this area and I think the area is compatible for it.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: I would just say, ah, that
I will vote no because of my original vote, in the fact that
I don' t think that the applicants have presented any more infor-
mation that in fact, it is a material change from the original
application. In defense of approval, however, having watched
very closely, the Bestway installation, which I did not approve
of at the beginning either. Um, I think that it has been
compatible with the area and I would hope that Flatirons, if
the motion is approved, would also be as good as Bestway' s .
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: I would just like to make one
comment, I think that, ah, all of the people here that, ah,
appeared and opposed it so vehemently, probably lost a great
deal by not being a little bit more cooperative in working
out some of these time things, ah, I think it' s unfortunate
that you allowed one spokesman to dominate so much of the ah,
testimony that you probably lost some points that you might
have, ah, won, and ah, for that I 'm sorry. We have had, ah,
some hearings recently where, ah, people surrounding this sort
of thing have been somewhat, ah, more helpful in reaching
compromises and I don' t think that spirit has been shown by
-55-
all of you here today.
MARGARET KOBOBEL: Can you explain that a little bit
further?
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Oh, I, one of your group, now
if you want to question it, come state your name, please.
Well, I ' ll respond to that anyway. What I 'm saying is a
while ago, there was a conversation on limiting the number
of hours after nomal working hours. That, ah, totally got
lost in the, ah, shuffle with Mr. Johnson' s domination of
the hearing and spending so much time on obviously just
totally fighting the event of it happening at all and I , and
I think that' s possibly unfortunate, it, ah, did sort of
indicate the lack of cooperation among the neighbors in
arriving at a viable compromise.
VIRGINIA SCHOTT: My name is Virginia Schott and
I, I, I fail to understand the reasoning on that, because
on that just because you personally didn' t agree with some-
one else' s testimony, just anyone that can come in and,
where is your standards, or where is your guidelines, how
many asphalt plants now are you going to allow down in this
area
COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Each man, each one will stand
on its own, it' ll be a different hearing board, I'm sure,
if any other applications are presented. (Inaudible)
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any other, other discussion? All
those in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye
-56-
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Opposed, No.
COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: No
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let, let the record show that
we have four yeas and one no and the motion carried.
Hello