The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About850658.tiff . -------. ,.. .:i ;7, i . Eldt-Liii.! ',,q'ti....,-i.„, , w,, PIPS ,..._.,.,, ISIS ., .1 1i.d ,we ti a IL�t1J' to... `.....,�., ...,,,,. .,.._,,•.... ) m !:L • t F • c/,. ,,,�,...„...,, 101. P „ w.,. • dr 4::27,'I1 • •°••••••••••°•••••••• V/6/N/rr NAPS • :I Ail/'.2000'r. tn \• W f L• MI OW IP W1 .,m,I,owe """1"1 „ w,a ,p,Op[e�JAi„ imL WI..WWI WI W SWIP IOS.II 1 :I E t(. i ()c., ,,,,_,,,.m, .. Soo,,,,.,, .,.IMPS,o WW1 Oa WI OW. .VIII WA�WMPO ,w, MOW I ,. Q,,.,,.,,.-.W,.. ,.,-. .•„s ,,.,,, .E�,i.. �,. , ss D --- - .,n. n,m on Poi,.WOWS sins taw taus 1 Q..� _S,w.., IPM.. nOwsw . WSir P1a-M•1•14(,/__. MOO PIPS INI WV.0.10.11 I i se POO MIDI WI,WO PIP WSW WOW,WS POI W ILW t ©�..,.q,_ .. :, zZ U,SR-695 �"" q . 1 p ®_ 11"��0" .w„w..a.uu, '�e'® t'jrz1 I/ MCRA6 u6 SHORT. INC. OKRA.[QP.[O Mal . " IM Int ar.w,.• aw.am, _ f L Q, , '"I USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW NO. LIC V _. .. .,o.mi — PRE-N/HIN0 PLAN (r t Jam_ __.00 •NT Rita WO AND anon `app, onct 5, 1 850/.5 O Ui 00 3 i - _ , ,mss 6 1i .. ...,. '- ; j © si u ..m. w. . . 1�.�.Ii �. ^� /fir aa �.xM.;..m.I�—c—M iva II --- I: —0\© m'. —.;:a..,ro�©° u //..! e. / 0..... xE,d © S {h�`vv o ,©. ^_ . Lo• ,, . c • \.O...c.11... IS'S ,L. ) 7, 4 I,. ,50._......4....4.1.p"...e.h, • • _! .,n.l.�wrn..'M . . USR-695 .,a„a,.• .ri.: . .. Mu m , A�_. — - ,,,., , Q MC RAG a SNORT. INC. Ins MO MY War.COMM*NM nm wu wn.0 uu _ . _. LM+r-p+«. . .w w,mno vmm�wnunw nw,®. .. _.• ... N/M/NO PLAN . — . . PROW IIw:x sem MO l4C • .. .Tpme/!id n... Sicken I - — x� �Y,we, ` '!f ObN&.J .11 11,,11 f.I.•..®,w..t,.g to II ••e=!. Z rOW .: • .wp~ i w .ar.L., —,� -----:---..-Z-..45{--1•Nrf ©✓r ��.—�...'`.-T f� / 1• pli ,i,..., :,..orn _;1.4'...":1 .it 014'4 pill•• T. .., ..... • •, • , . 1. , . • -, . PS,010 Cs ti + k ) / _____=_____;jRan ..,.J I ,Q • tw. „4,0.• i / r A.+wi.I►}ra-440+0941 M1sI N:%1 sl00.1110 0 II 1 r' !'11• , i :N•�'r I, . — - _ _ . if•l SY•s. 1.111••s u y,;001 w M•ne0.la Nf 1 •1 Aff,:a'• ' w T -^ I /• a ' 1 yeaAINH�,..1an�••..aNwM:Iww1014u •� y 4j© �•1 1\ + i •.eN.ia.arY..1. yq{•H'}� E•1• _ 01 - C, a 1 t •t..:i...t" .".•t. •.w I •.1: "MOTTO I JJ!; i),..r \ . . �•!' ue 1.wa°•lu:t:a.'1 .1' ' ,i`>.Lu. `Y 1'�7�' .r. -" t d.wa ! �r •104 0 330.•�...4 i w••••••u.....••• •�I S *VA" f i YnO:1e`.ww.�:• �.•an rims queers N.1•u... I`1 R^ �1I 'Q * i I Mob 110 IOSYt u00•f We.1010•W I I;, ell., 4✓ • © © / \ ..1 •'''"',.% Mnlw. W r-1e. If W III Cf. f^' S .•.11.1.. sun •au•• .r ON..w w 1 01 P •J�I� © .w,l ! ,tr,-r : . N... ,Wr.a • is iw1: '+ % co • 1 .: J/) S 1 SY•..1••11 If••M i ••ale.[t1 W o ar co .../ I, n.......:1i..i.:.ai w t..1Y.•..N 0114•.e .1 .// .R.r I r^4.1,•.•t I.1•NYule•• 1•. S a 1.1.tt f — h= 41 `i'`• / .. 1N ruM 1•r 1-1•....1.1.•wr1.ISN.�a1lM (/11��j (� / T' • Ira Is t 10 r ' ).✓ .0 U `I / , ....• w f Co*.•t 00,•10 Y•10.0-..a I j /" e i f wb�tr7t.:pat 1010--r.:..".1...-.I'.1'.•.;iai f 1 + J• I Wpm 1 1 ` ..111••44-1'1 1040 :a ..• 0 • 'd L . n'►' © I i 1 .. ea" 0 1.•••00 0.ea"artlaw.Yn w:Y...++. W © • .PO,•. .\ 1 fY wncs. 01 . •u . .w ••••• O •1� , a aatl l 1101••10 0 Oa A.m. Sue: .0 {�� r/ ,�' 1 .,� 1.1•11tw•,•s•0ulu u•o•r.ia 'ore eaS•.0•11i:• . 11! LO el•,.d 1 O-t•.l • wV'-ia. .. I . ...J al eNla. a .�•u ,1100 rwt .0 a . • 1w....•r`• N Ir u a.y . w..i Yal:u:a A Z.lil1,'•ti •11..rtr.,•1:it1 N41••••Al .. .. ..... 1.1•M,wl�i.• 1 aY•.• 1t.•f1w . Ill Sul W.a.sN1.is. • •a.beilflue •ed 1 iMr t•:•• •1 ll:• Na \ f 4010 0 wl1 •r.y l:.Yi w ] Is• •l••. ow r f 00 Il .,:•.0.•11110. 11 4.41••1 Mi..a•l.• 0.11•s•,•.IN f•••,:.1•• U SR- 695 . W �tT.f'e 0.11 • .tl. IN 1111.•0 t1 t eY..0 Cwnt1••.I.S 0.41wus� 1. M l i• ••••-L., ISMUw I.1ie.f 111�O.*V • 11 14 •a0.••O 04 1•�*,Onerue n 0 0 410 M wa•.w.tum-ilsu.~tlim.i•S0.ws••.h Rlw..d//'i�s Gb..'.' 014:.0•1,1..10 Y I...Iss..11:01.- uw-sl. .N .1:41..0 wu-an Nal.us1 - MC RA. O 9MOgT• INC. tl 0 W NsL,1111:bo 1411 Y IYltr M All Iaa/IAA WWI Gunn,QIWNINI0Y1 Rated*0 Ill hifl.•1•ieblle,I.fir.0•01lor o::.r.0ete.1 0001. ar•ale• 11 .401. hin.L 1411:•.1•..0000.0 aau goofy Olsoolf.Cloloalon owl OM •N+ l L i w aa.•.•�K 0•01140 wi.r serf. .wi r•elr le ee•041•4 NfCLAN$4.4 PLIN Y•..a.•u rwla 0010 MIN?'43401 f 131...0 00� ��a•••1t••'f t'„1.liw.WlrNi u GIN r...1�.r•...••oy� IRO ono...=• .AaY nu R —-- �..— 1 , - - - --- . • CASE NUMBER 86CA1281 APPEAL FROM WELD CO. DIST. CT. NO. 85-CV-1065 ALVIN DECHANT, ET AL. , VS'. Y tklaptiffs-epeesaw nts, THE k0 0 OY COMPII$ I ET AL. , ' VOL. etzlastigz Ls 2 of 4 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE COMMISSIONERS 1 ON 10-23-85 PAGES 1 - 93 850658 PI-.D I I 1 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY COMMI , SIONERS,a , 2 WELD COUNTY , COLORADO8 A i i ... 3 DOCKET NO . 85-79 , 4 5 IN RE : Application of Front Range Sand and Gr �Lel for a 0,3:`// � Iraveh 6 Use by Special Review for an Open .b te cow/I o 7 Operation . DEC 0 2 v86 8 October 23 , 1985 of pry 10 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT : 11 Jacqueline Johnson , Chairman " t ,i ' r Gene Brantnery 12 Gordon E . Lacy Frank Yamaguchi 3 , - `L1 ._-ate 13 Bill Kirby - Excused tip;: anis 14 toiti2Var- 15 APPEARANCES 16 Applicant , Jerry Rhea , Pro se 17 Jerry McRae , Engineer for Applicant 18 David Pehr , Attorney representing William and Alice Pehr 19 Vincent Phelps , Attorney representing Freda Dreiling and Myrna Slabaszewski 20 Lee Morrison , Assistant County Attorney 21 Gloria Dunn , Planning Department representative 22 Chuck Cunliffe , Director of Planning Services 23 24 25 1 . 1 (The following public hearing was had to the Board of 2 Weld County Commissioners , on October 23 , 1985 , at 2 : 15 p . m . ) 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : The next item on the agenda is 4 Docket #85-79 . 5 MR . MORRISON : Madam Chairman , Docket #85-79 , is the 6 application of Front Range Sand and Gravel for Use by Special 7 Review , an open-cut sand and gravel operation . Located on 8 part of the W4 SW* , Section 7 , Township 1 North , Range 66 West ; 9 part of the E* SE4 and part of the NE4 NW+ , Section 12 , part 10 of the W4 SE* , Section 1 , all in Township 1 North , Range 67 West 11 of the 6th P . M. 12 Notice was published October 10th , 1985 , in the Johnstown 13 Breeze . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Recommendation of the Planning 15 Commission . 16 MS . DUNN : It was moved by Paulette Weaver that the 17 following resolution he introduced for passage by the Weld 18 County Planning Commission . Be it resolved by the Weld County 19 Planning Commission that the application for Use by Special 20 Review permit for an open-cut sand and gravel operation be 21 recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Cmmissioners 22 for the following reasons : Not based upon the mining plans , but 23 out of concern for the safety and welfare of the residents of 24 the area due to the increased traffic on Colorado Highway 52 . 25 The motion was seconded by Jack Holman . Vote for passage : 2 . 1 Paulette Weaver , Doug Graff , Lydia Dunbar , Louis Rademacher , 2 Ann Garrison , Jack Holman . Against passage : Don Johnson , 3 Bill McMurray , and Sharon Linhart . 4 The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered 5 that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case 6 to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Questions? 8 Okay , I would invite the applicant to come forward and 9 address the Board . 10 MR . MCRAE : Madam Chairman and Commissioners , my name 11 is Jerry McRae . I ' m the engineer retained by Front Range Sand 12 and Gravel to prepare this application , to be submitted 13 concurrently to the County , as well as the Mined Land Reclamation 14 Board in Denver . That will be heard in front of the Mined Land 15 Reclamation Board on November 22nd . 16 We have , as noted , presented this to the Planning 17 Commission . We ' re here , basically , to answer the questions that 18 you may have relative to the Mining Plan , its operation . 19 With me today is Jerry Rhea , the president of Front Range ; 20 Ted Fraum , secretary ; and Glenn Salmon , the vice president , -who 21 can answer the questions relative to specific portions of the 22 operation . 23 If I may , just very briefly , run through the project and 24 then answer the questions that you may have . 25 This map is the outline of the three areas under 3 . 1 consideration . Area A , a small strip that would be used only 2 for the office , the scale house , and the entrance on 3 Highway 52 . The areas to be mined are the 40 acre parcel in 4 this area , and the 130 acre parcel down here in the river 5 bottom . These are the areas that Front Range has contracted 6 for , to extract the mineral rights from the property owners . 7 These are the conditions under which it would he mined . This 8 is -- let ' s see , this is a little better than half a mile out 9 of 52 , at this point . So , the operation itself is a 10 considerable distance away from Highway 52 . We have the one 11 access point here , that is presently being used to access the 12 present use of the property . The only other access is a small 13 field pipe road along the south edge , which exits on County 14 Road 23 and would be approximately a mile and a half south of 15 Highway 52 . This is the general location . At the closest 16 point , at this corner , we are about a quarter of a mile from 17 Highway 52 . But , that is across the river and across the flood 18 plain before we get to that . So , we anticipate no major 19 development in that area , because of the highway and the flood 20 plain in that area . Of course , the river along that area is 21 highly wooded with large cottonwoods and so forth , so we have 22 a natural sound and sight protection to the easterly side of the 23 project . 24 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Mr . McRae , I might just note for 25 the record , and for your information , the Board of Commissioners, 4 . 1 all of us , did make a site vistit there . 2 MR . MCRAE : Okay . The mining plan is shown more 3 specifically on this drawing , which will he available for you 4 to view. This being Area B , which will be essentially mined 5 out , with the over burden being placed in along the boundaries 6 to provide an irregular shore line . This will be the first 7 portion of the operation , lasting approximately 7 to 8 years . 8 The south portion would be configured in this manner , the 9 reason being there ' s an existing canal through the area , set 10 back from the river and oil well , plus the access to the site . 11 MR . MORRISON : That map was one that was contained in 12 your original application , is that right? 13 MR . MCRAE : That ' s correct . These are all from the 14 original application and permit that was prepared for the Mined 15 Land Reclamation Board and yourselves . 16 A schematic of the final operation -- of the final 17 configuration basically follows the mining plan , showing the 18 amount of the coverage to the left . 19 So , I think the basic thing here is that we are not mining 20 close to the highway . We are mining in an area that has tested 21 sources of gravel . It is set back a considerable distance from 22 the highway and , I think , approximately a thousand feet from the 23 nearest residence . 24 This property does adjoin other ownership , where this one 25 does not adjoin ownership on this side , it does cross the river , 5 . 1 but that ' s not a direct contact type of thing . 2 So far , I think the question has been raised more as to the 3 access point . The amount of traffice along the highway . The 4 town of Fort Lupton had those concerns . The residents have 5 expressed those concerns . We are aware of those . This did 6 seem to be the logical point . We have good sight distance 7 along that area . We have been in contact with the Highway 8 Department as shown in your files . They are agreed to the fact 9 that this is a logical place . There is an existing access . 10 With the improvements needed , as requested by them , this would 11 be a suitable entrance . They , of course , are requiring a new 12 bridge across the Lupton Ditch , which we agree is necessary to 13 carry the load of trucks . Secondly , there will be some widening 14 for accel and decel lanes onto the property . 15 The rest of the mining plan did not seem to be highly 16 questioned . They were certainly some points here and there , but 17 I think those are of record in your notes and we will be willing 18 to answer your concerns as we proceed . 19 Jerry Rhea will enhance some of my remarks with some 20 information he has gathered' -directly . 21 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right . 22 MR . RHEA : Madam Chairman , we have tried to find a 23 way that ' s compatible with Highway 52 . We have since gone to 24 the State of Colorado Department of Highways , do you have that 25 letter that --- 6 . 1 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : What is the date? 2 MR . RHEA : The date of the letter is October 22nd , 3 1985 . 4 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : It was just placed in front of us , 5 just now . So , we have it , but we haven ' t read it . 6 MR . RHEA : Would you like a chance to read that? 7 MR . MORRISON : That will be marked as Exhibit G . 8 (Whereupon Exhibit G was marked for identification , 9 and Exhibit was read by the Board . ) 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay . Do you want to highlight 11 this for us then? 12 MR . RHEA : I would , please . The concerns of coming 13 out onto Highway 52 , according to the State Highway , you must 14 have an access vision of 935 feet , which we have from the crest 15 of the hill , which is Road 23 , approximately 2 thousand feet . 16 They felt , and -- from the State Highway findings , and this 17 is on traffic volume report , which is dated 1982 , it says that 18 the hazard index of this area has a rating of point 5 . And 19 point -- anything under 1 point 0 , is what they consider very 20 safe . 21 Now , due to the fact that we want our ingress, egress to 22 come out to Highway 52 , and after the vision for our trucks , 23 we ' re going to make a double width bridge , which means we ' ll 24 take in-coming as well as out-going trucks . The trucks can sit 25 on the bridge and pull onto the highway and see approximately 7 . 1 35 hundred feet to the east ; which is Fort Lupton ; and see to 2 the crest of the hill , which is approximately 2 thousand feet 3 to the left , which will be the west . 4 I talked to the State Highway Department , they said due to 5 the fact of the vision , that is offered by this route , that 6 decel and accel lanes will not be required . 7 So , just in that alone shows you the safety factors that 8 we have by using that ingress , egress area that ' s proposed on 9 the map . 10 Also , and the reason I ' m more or less addressing the safety 11 is because , really the mining is not an issue according to the 12 Planning Commission . The safety is what we ' re trying to 13 address . 14 They also , according to the State Colorado Highway 15 Department , had said that they would want to review our plans 16 on the proposed bridge , to make sure that it was adequate for 17 what we ' re proposing . 18 The rating on -- from the amount of time it takes to turn 19 into the property to the time it takes to leave , we will not 20 in any way hinder trucks coming east bound , because we will 21 not pull onto the highway until , of course , the lane is free . 22 Coming in , it ' s just a matter of going across one lane into the 23 property . The reason for wanting a double bridge is the mere 24 fact , if we have a truck coming out , a truck can come in without 25 holding up any traffic , impeding any traffic coming east bound 8. 1 or west bound . 2 I ' d like to introduce Glenn Salmons , who is our vice 3 president , and let him talk a little further on this ; as well 4 as Ted Frahm , who is the secretary of our corporation . And 5 what he can do is express to you the differences -- how we ' re 6 going to take care of dust control . What we ' re trying to do 7 is direct our answers or questions to what has been given to us 8 through the Planning Commission , as well as with the City of 9 Fort Lupton . So , we ' re going to try to address these issues 10 as they come . 11 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Does anyone have any questions for 12 Mr . Rhea about the bridge or the access or anything of that 13 sort? 14 I had one about the projected number of trucks and I 15 notice in the letter it says a volume of 90 trips per day . 16 MR . RHEA : I ' d like to -- our initial year to two 17 years we ' ll be building the business , and mast of the business 18 will be going to feeding our asphalt plant and our service 19 company in Commerce City . We projected approximately 35 20 trucks . The State Highway Department says , well what happens 21 3 , 4 , 5 years from now. So the reason why it shows 90 is 22 because 3 , 4 , 5 years from now , or even beyond , it could exceed , 23 or it could probably match 90 . It could exceed it by 5 , it 24 depends on the business -- what our business at that time is 25 doing , what our requirements are . So -- 9 . 1 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : That ' s the top figure? 2 MR . RHEA : I would say very close , yes . 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I had one other question for Mr . 4 McRae , and didn ' t get to ask it , maybe you can answer it . He 5 mentioned that the mining plan for Area B was 7 to 8 years , and 6 I realize that those are estimates based on how much demand , but 7 foresee the remainder of 12 years -- 8 MR . MCRAE : Yes . 8 to 10 to 12 years on the remainder 9 with the projected use that we see at this time . 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay . Other questions? 11 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yes , I have a question . I ' m -- 12 I guess -- and we have the letter from the State of Colorado 13 Division of Highways , and I look at this and I ' m looking at how 14 many trips and what they ' re talking about . In the original 15 application there was some discussion as to turn lanes and to 16 the turn lane coming in , and so on . Would you have any comments 17 to whether or not you would feel you could live with an 18 acceleration lane going to the east and west off of that . 19 Putting those on there . And , I know the State of Colorado says 20 that it ' s not necessary , except that I ' m looking at 1982 traffic 21 volume figures , not 1985 . And , so I want to know your thoughts 22 as to the turn lanes and the acceleration , deceleration 23 lanes . 24 MR . RHEA : If we felt that those were needed , for our 25 own benefit we ' d want to put them. For the mere fact of , not 10 . 1 only safety , but getting in and out expediently . Because most 2 of those trucks are on ton mile rates and we would have to look 3 at that . If the need was there , we couldn ' t even question it , 4 we ' d have to do that . 5 Starting out , like I say , it ' s not going to be full bore 6 operation . It ' s something that ' s going to have to be made into 7 a self sufficing operation . It ' s just , more or less , going to 8 help our asphalt company , as well as our service company , for 9 the requirements and the needs of gravel and our mix materials . 10 We are planning to sell some asphalt -- excuse me , road base , 11 and other materials , FOB this area . But , mainly it will be for 12 our mix designs and our asphalt . 13 And , to answer your question and go a little further , if it 14 was needed , we would put them in . 15 COMMISSIONER LACY : The reason I asked that question , 16 in some of the past history of the gravel pits , other areas 17 where we have heavy access , there ' s been a stipulation that ' s 18 been added that has to do with amount of vehicles, or time , -or 19 amount of material hauled out , and then these are put in . Or 20 the roads , you know , something ' s done as far as county roads 21 are concerned . That ' s why I asked the question . 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Chuck , what would trigger , on the 23 part of the State , is there some level of volume that would 24 trigger in their minds or change in their report that would 25 trigger a requirement on these things , or once they ' ve approved , 11 . 1 is that it? 2 MR . CUNLIFFE : Gloria ' s had the conversations with the 3 State Highway Department . I ' m not sure if there is . 4 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Is there anything that ever -- I 5 think with Gordon , if we ' re looking at levels that are talking 6 about what ' s happened in 1982 , and this operation could he 7 around until 1995 or 2005 , or whatever , we ' re looking at 8 significant increases in volume . And , it may be that we ' d want 9 to plan for that . 10 And , I guess I wonder does the State Highway Department 11 have a mechanism to re-evaluate those accesses as traffic counts 12 increase or as their level of business will increase? 13 MS . DUNN : I didn ' t get any information like thai from 14 them. They didn ' t give me any indication of what they have as 15 figures . 16 COMMISSIONER LACY : I guess to go a step further then , 17 Lee , I would ask you a question . Can we put restrictions on the 18 State Highway , as far as access , acceleration , deaccelaration , 19 turning lanes , so on and so forth? Is that part of USR , as it 20 fits the County properties? 21 MR . MORRISON : Well , it relates to the safety of the 22 area . As a practical matter , I don ' t know what you ' d do if you 23 say to put in an accel , decel lane and the State says , what for? 24 You know , if they ' re sent down there with plans to do it and the 25 State says , we don ' t want this , I don ' t know what we can do . 12 . 1 But , I ' m not sure that a stipulation or a condition would he 2 improper . It just raises some other issues as to -- you know, 3 the level of State cooperation , if in fact there is a condition . 4 Because access is clearly one of those areas reserved to the 5 County , as opposed to the Mined Land Reclamation Board . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Well , let ' s keep that in mind as 7 we proceed anyway . 8 MR . RAMES : (From audience ) I ' m with the Highway 9 Department . 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right . Come up and identify 11 yourself . If you could answer my question to start with . 12 Please identify yourself first . 13 MR . RAMES : I ' m Doug Rames , Assistant District 14 Engineer with the Colorado Department of Highways . 15 All right , what question can I start on? The question 16 regarding possible review of the access in the future? 17 The acces permit that we would issue would stipulate a 18 maximum number of vehicles . That would be issued , let ' s say 19 for a hundred per day . And -- 20 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : My question Doug , is if the level 21 of traffic on 52 changes significantly , it seems to me , that has 22 as much effect on access as how many vehicles are coming in and 23 out . 24 MR . RAMES : Whatever we do , Jackie , has to be in 25 accordance with the State Access Code , it ' s State Law . I don ' t 13 . 1 believe that the Access Code addresses increases of traffic on 2 the highway . It only discusses the increase , the possible 3 increase of the access traffic . 4 COMMISSIONER LACY : So , if we ' re talking , to answer 5 my question then , we ' re talking about , you know , if we ' re 6 talking about to start with 35 trucks . 7 MR . RAMES : Yes . 8 COMMISSIONER LACY : You know , per day . And , this gets 9 up to 50 and then more . Is there any way -we can .put a 10 stipulation on there? A operational or developmental standard 11 that says then , at that time , when there are 50 trucks a day 12 coming in and out of there , that there be acceleration , 13 deacceleration turn lanes on the highway 14 Do we , as the County , have any power to put that 15 stipulation on there , to see that it ' s done on a state highway? 16 MR . RAMES : I don ' t know the State Access Code , I 17 don ' t believe . Under the planning process , I think you can . 18 As I started to say , our permit will be written for a 19 certain number of vehicles per day . We have no real mechanism 20 to follow up on that and count traffic . However , if we become 21 aware that it has exceeded that amount , then we can void the 22 access permit . 23 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay . Other questions for Doug? 24 MR . RAMES : I will stay , in case you have one . 25 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Doug , I have one . On the 14 . 1 south side of the highway is the Lupton Bottom Ditch , I believe . 2 That ' s pretty close to the road , would it he possible to put an 3 acceleration lane there , going to the east? 4 MR . RAMES : I ' m not familiar with the location , so I 5 can ' t answer that . 6 There was some question that came up about , if you required 7 accel , decel lanes , would we accept those . We always accept 8 accel , decel lanes , even if they ' re not warranted by the code . 9 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 10 All right . Mr . Rhea , we ' d like to continue . 11 MR . RHEA : Yeah . What I wanted to add was the reason 12 why we ' re going to a 35 foot bridge , is to be traffic conscious . 13 The expense of that bridge is quite -- it ' s about double to 14 two and a half times the cost of a single width , due to the 15 structure . That bridge would have to have the capability of 16 around 250 thousand pounds . So , we are definitely conscious 17 of the traffic , by just going to that means , going to a double 18 width bridge . 19 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Now you indicated that 20 Mr . Salmons -- 21 MR . SALMONS : I ' m Glenn Salmons , vice president . 22 A lot of things to be considered here , it ' s been brought up 23 at the previous meetings , is our dust control , our sight 24 visibilty , things like this , that people feel we will he 25 entering the neighborhoods in . What will happen when we mine it 15 . 1 out . 2 I ' d like to address some of these issues . We have 3 equipment to maintain our roads , from Highway 52 to our gravel 4 area , which we want to do to help from getting our trucks tore 5 up . 6 We want to keep the dust down , because dust is one of the 7 worst things there is on our equipment , as well as the 8 environment . We have available water equipment that will be 9 kept on—site at all times , and utilized continuously , or as 10 necessary to help keep the dust down . 11 We have standards that we have to meet and other 12 requirements , besides our personal satisfaction , that we 13 operate the way that we feel we should . 14 The Reclamation Plan -- people a lot of times , feel that 15 all we ' re going to leave is a big pit . Probably one of the 16 prettiest areas in the metropolitan area right now, started 17 out as a big pit ; that ' s Chatfield Reservoir . That was nothing 18 but a gravel pit a few years ago . 19 Barber Ponds , originally , was gravel . It ' s now a State 20 Reclamation Project . Fishermen , overnight camping , things of 21 this nature . 22 What happens after we leave? We can not say for sure 23 what the land owners will do with it , hut , when we leave , 24 we ' ll have left it the way the Reclamation Plan claims for 25 us to do so . 16 . 1 The site , if you look down the property right now from 2 Highway 52 , there ' s 3 or 4 hay piles stacked up on the property . 3 People don ' t even really see those hay piles when they ' re 4 driving down Highway 52 . The gravel that will replace those 5 will not be too much larger and will be just as unnoticeable 6 as those are from Highway 52 . 7 Most of the operation is a wet mining operation , which 8 means , as you ' re crushing , you ' re not dusting ; because the 9 material usually has 5 -- 6 percent moisture content to it . 10 If it becomes necessary , if you ever hit a dry area , we have 11 ways to control the dust . I don ' t think that the dust , the 12 site , anything that we are really speaking of here is a 13 hindrance to the community . If it was, I don ' t think I ' d 14 want to be a part of it , because we are out here to build a 15 business in this area , because it ' s needed . We want to be 16 community minded and work with the people in the community . 17 We don ' t want to fight with them . We want to hire some of 18 their people and put them in to do the job for us , so we 19 can have a good operation . That is our main goal . 20 All three of us have backgrounds in mining . Approximately 21 15 years in this business , which a lot of it has been in 22 mining operations . Jerry and Ted are the same way . They ' ve 23 been in the construction business , which touches in and out 24 of mining , as long as you ' re in the asphalt business , which 25 we have been for a period of time . 17 . 1 We do things legal . We run our trucks at the legal weights. 2 We don ' t try to make a buck , as some companies call it , and 3 tear up the roads and things of this nature , just to pick up the 4 extra buck . We feel that we have an obligation , not only to the 5 people of the community, but to the people that visit our 6 community from outside of the state , things like this . 7 We try to tarp our loads when it is required , when the 8 material requires it , anything that ' s going to fall . We make 9 our truckers clean their tailgates off , trying to eliminate 10 any and all damage to vehicles as they ' re going down the 11 highway from anything falling . We try to control as much of 12 this as we can , not only for our benefit , but for everybody 13 elses . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Questions? 15 All right . Thank you . 16 MR . FRAHM : My name is Ted Frahm . I ' m the secretary 17 of Front Range Asphalt Company . I ' d like to address the Board 18 with a petition , that we spent actually a small amount of time 19 to get some signatures of people in the area , that may be 20 affected by our gravel operation . I was quite pleased to find 21 that there were several people that will be affected the most 22 by our operation whose signatures are listed here in this 23 petition form . 24 I really don ' t have anything else to add . I think Glenn 25 pretty well spoke as our company and our concerns with the 18 . 1 community and county , state , as far as complying with all rules 2 and regualtions that we can handle . And , at this time , I ' d 3 like to hand in this petition , there ' s approximately 85 names . 4 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : If you give that to our attorney , 5 he ' ll mark it and he ' ll pass it down the line for us . 6 (Whereupon petition was marked as Exhibit H . ) 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Are there questions for Mr . Frahm? 8 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : I have one question . How 9 about the augmentation of your water that ' s going back up 10 in the air? 11 MR . MCRAE : We are -- we will address that with the 12 Mined Land Reclamation Board . They forward all of the 13 application materials to the State Engineer . The State Engineer 14 is the authority on the water augmentation program. Prior to 15 exposing any water in the form of ponds , which are now 16 considered the same as an opening of a well , the State Engineer 17 will have to have an acceptable augmentation plan presented and 18 prepared . Of course , this is an insurance type program . It is 19 an increasing program. Day one , there ' s really no augmentation 20 needed , 20 years from now , we reach a full augmentation program 21 But , this plan is a requirement by the State Engineer . He has 22 been submitted the fact that this is an operation that , with 23 given the approval , it will be proceeded . It is part of the 24 application proceedure that those operators must go through ; with 25 the Health Department , for the noise and dust permits , with the 19 . 1 Highway Department for the access permit . With all of the 2 various entities that have different authorities . These will be 3 permitted operations . 4 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : And , do you have water ready? 5 MR . MCRAE : Augmentation water can be purchased out of 6 the bank . Otherwise , cash will serve that purpose , because 7 through any augmentation authority , they acquire the water 8 rights that are necessary . 9 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : They do? 10 MR . MCRAE : It ' s not -- you can give up water rights 11 that are generated on the property , but you can also purchase 12 other augmented rights that are operated in the same basin . 13 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Thank you -- 14 MR . MCRAE : The authority will -- the augmentation 15 authority will put this program together as to which rights are 16 acceptable , which procedure should be used and so forth . 17 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : I see . Thank you . 18 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Will you , Mr . Rhea , have any -- 19 well , we ' ll give you a chance at the end after we ' ve taken 20 public testimony , is there anyone else from your organization 21 that has comments to make at this time? 22 MR . RHEA : No . 23 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Before we call for public testimony, 24 Gloria , I ' d like to ask a question . In reviewing my materials , 25 the Planning Staff recommended denial only for one part of this , 20 . 1 is that correct? 2 MS. DUNN : Yes . 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Do you want to give us a little 4 background on the reasoning behind that and what your 5 recommendation was . If we backed it up one step behind the 6 Planning Commission . 7 MS . DUNN : Yes . The Planning Department recommended 8 that area B , be denied for sand and gravel excavation because 9 it was determined that this is an area of prime agricultural 10 soil , And they are , at the present time , harvesting hay from 11 this 40 acre site . And , it' s our determination that not enough 12 information was submitted to overturn our priorities , as far as 13 farming versus sand and gravel excavation . The staff felt that 14 this area should be left in farming . 15 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Any questions from the Board in 16 regard to that? 17 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yes . I guess the question ie , 18 where do we come up with the , if I remember correctly , and part 19 of this , that there is a statement to the effect that this area 20 produces about 4 ton to the acre of alfalfa , that ' s what the 21 production is on the property , on the 40 acres now. That ' s 22 about what we ' re looking at . Where do we come up with the 23 criteria that says this is prime , average , or sub-prime land? 24 What does -- I ' ve asked this question to several people and I 25 haven ' t got the answer I want . How many tons to an acre does 21 . 1 good land produce? 2 Do you understand what I ' m saying? 3 MS . DUNN : Yeah , I understand what you ' re saying . 4 COMMISSIONER LACY : I haven ' t gotten the answer yet . 5 Is 4 ton an acre good production? It doesn ' t sound too good to 6 me , but then I ' m not a -- I ' ve never produced alfalfa , so I 7 don ' t -- 8 MS . DUNN : The information that we came up with was 9 from the Brighton Soil Conservation Service . And they 10 classified this as 2W-irrigated land . It was prime . And , I 11 don ' t have the figures for how many tons per acre or anything 12 like that . But , that ' s the source of our information . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Mr . Salmans , did you want to make 14 a comment about that? 15 MR . SALMANS : Yes , I ' d like to address that issue a 16 little bit . Jerry Dreiling , here , the property owner there . He 17 has been farming that for a period of time , and I ' m sure he can 18 back up this statement . He says there ' s only about 26 acres 19 of farmable land in the 40 . I ' ll let him speak after I get 20 through here . 21 So far as the gravel goes in Area B , the test holes that we 22 dug in area B, and the ones we dug down along the river bank , our 23 indication is that the best gravel is in Area B. The gravel 24 depth is there more so than down along the river and the size 25 of gravel seems to be larger , which is shown to you there in the 22 . 1 application . 2 We feel that Area B is the place that we need to start 3 our gravel operation to be able to utilize our equipment that 4 we ' re going to be purchasing for this and make it cost effective 5 for the company to do so . 6 Jerry , would you comment on the farming there . 7 MR . DREILING : My name is Gerald Broiling . My wife 8 and her sister are the owners of the property . And , that 9 property there is -- the rock is right on the top . We ' re 10 talking about , oh , maybe 7 or 8 inches of top soil on a 11 percentage of it . The whole thing is irrigated six different 12 ways , from the multitude of ditchs we have. And , I have talked 13 to Roy Bell at the Conservation Department and he said that 14 they would get a soils scientist down there to change that 15 designation from prime farm land or #19 to 3 which is not prime 16 farm ground . 17 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other questions? 18 Thank you . Okay , I have about a dozen , maybe more cards . 19 I would like to request a couple of things of those of you who 20 are speaking . Recognizing that we have about half the audience 21 here to speak on another issue that ' s as important to them as 22 this one is to you , I would request that you not repeat one 23 another unnecessarily . If someone ' s made your argument , we ' d 24 be glad to have you come up and say that you agree with what ' s 25 already been said and it won ' t make it any more or less forceful 23 . 1 if you do that . We ' ll believe you and we ' ll take that as equal 2 testimony . 3 I would prefer not to have to set a time limit , but I 4 think given the numbers of people in the audience today I ' m 5 going to have to . I ' m going to ask that you limit your time to 6 about 3 minutes . And , I will be pretty strict about that , 7 although we ' ll try and give everybody ample time to try and get 8 their story told . If there are 2 or 3 of you that are on one 9 card , and you want to share the time , yield the time to one 10 spokesman , that would be agreeable as well . So , with that in 11 mind I will just call these as they are before me and ask you 12 please to he considerate , and not repeat unnecessarily for the 13 Board . We can all remember , I think , from one time to the next . 14 The first name I have is Bill , I ' m sorry I ' m not sure I 15 can read it , McQueary . 16 I will ask you to repeat your name and also tell us which 17 side you ' re speaking on . 18 MR . MCQUEARY : My name ' s Bill McQueary . I ' m in favor 19 of the sand and gravel pit . I think it will benefit the 20 community quite well . I own a farm, and I also own town 21 property . I ' m in favor of this . Thank you . 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . Questions? 23 Okay , the next one , the last name is B-E-L-D-E-N , Belden . 24 I think it ' s --- it begins with an E . I can ' t read the writing . 25 DAVID PEHR : If I may Madam Chairman . 24 . 1 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Yes . 2 DAVID PEHR : My name ' s David Pehr . I ' m here as an 3 attorney representing some of the objectors . Mr . Belden is a 4 veterinarian , that we brought here as an expert . If you , at 5 some point, would like to check some of our testimony , I don ' t 6 know that he has testimony to offer at this time . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right . Mr . Pehr , you have -- 8 okay , Mr . Belden . 9 MR . BELDEN : Madam Chairman , Commissioners , my name 10 is Jay Belden , I ' m resident veterinarian of Fossil Creek Farm, 11 which is a race breeding farm at the Windsor I-25 exit . 12 And , as Mr . Pehr stated , some of the residents in the area 13 are concerned with the dust problem, which is a rather 14 subjective problem , with rather subjective effects to animal 15 life and human life . I just might make a couple of generalized 16 statements . 17 The main studies have been on animals that have an economic 18 impact , such as feed lot cattle and race horses . And , there ' s 19 no question that dust control in feed lots is very significant , 20 as far as controlling disease and maximizing weight gain . 21 And race horses , which there is one resident close to the gravel 22 mining proposed site , I believe , a half mile away , that produces 23 race horses to compete on a national level . And , there ' s no 24 question , there ' s been studies done in Tokyo , where dust free 25 stabling in closed situations, where there ' s certain quotas of 25 . 1 air re-circulated per hour , that the disease incidents and the 2 horses ' performance are affected corrolated to the control of 3 the dust . 4 And , again on this issue , both are subjective , as far as 5 I ' m concerned . I don ' t know how much dust we ' re talking about , 6 and I don ' t know -- you can ' t put specific data together on 7 how much damage will be caused . And , that -- from those first 8 points I was just talking about, the breathing of the dust , the 9 ingestion of dust coated farm products , would be highly 10 dependent upon what kind of dust we are talking about , but we 11 do knowtha-t farm animals will refuse to eat heavily dust 12 coated foliage . And , again , this is subjective to speculate 13 how much damage that would cause to the residents of this 14 area . Thank you . 15 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . Are -there questions? 16 All right . Mr . Pehr , David W. Pehr . 17 DAVID PEHR : Thank you , Madam Chairman . 18 If I may , I am an attorney . I ' m here representing 19 Mr . William and Alice Pehr . They own the farm immediately to 20 the north of Parcel B , I believe it is . 21 I also represent Mr . Al Dachant . He owns the parcel 22 immediately to the west of Parcel B . 23 Also , the Wielands , the Robert Wielands . He owns the land 24 immediately to the west of the Pehr Parcel , near parcel B , the 25 mined Parcel B . 26 . 1 If I may , I think that we can cover quite a few of the 2 objectives that you ' re going to hear today , in a very brief 3 presentation that we have . 4 I would like to submit first of all -- we have additional 5 petitions signed by approximately 3 hundred people , that we 6 would like to submit , at this time . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Please hand that to Mr . Morrison . 8 (Whereupon Exhibit I was marked . ) 9 DAVID PEHR : We also have a report , an appraisal 10 actually , prepared by Mr . C . A . Bresnahan , a real estate 11 appraiser , detailing the type of damage , we believe will result 12 in the neighboring areas from this spot . The particular parcel 13 that we have chosen to exemplify damages throughout the area 14 is the Pehr farm . I would like to submit that to the 15 Commission , if I might . 16 (Whereupon Exhibit J was marked . ) 17 DAVID PEHR : And , finally , if I can relieve myself 18 from some more of this paper here , I have a report prepared , on 19 our behalf , by Mr . D . Hemmet , who is the professional engineer , 20 he ' s also chemical , electrical and the plant design engineer , 21 who has prepared a study detailing the types of noise problems 22 that he would feel would be generated in this area by the 23 proposed operation . Again , with permission , Madam Chairman , 24 I would submit this report . 25 (Whereupon Exhibit K was marked . ) 27 . 1 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Mr , Pehr , am I to assume that you 2 are taking the time of Mr. Dechant and Mr . Wagland , as well ? 3 DAVID PEHR : I ' m taking the time , if you will , Madam 4 Chairman , of William Pehr and Alice Pehr . I shouldn ' t need 5 much more than that , if I may . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay . 7 DAVID PEHR : Very briefly , we would like , I ' m sure 8 in this respect , I not only speak for my parents , William and 9 Alice Pehr , and for the remaining clients , but probably for 10 the remaining other people here in opposition to this proposal . 11 We would urge the Commisioners to please take into account 12 these aspects of the problems , that we see as residents of the 13 area . 14 First of all , please consider the tremendous economic 15 damage , the dimunition in value , which we believe will result 16 to the surrounding properties , if the mining operation is 17 allowed to go forth . 18 The appraisal by Mr . Bresnahan , that I have submitted to 19 you , details the effect that he believes this proposal will 20 have on one 140-acre parcel near the project . If you examine 21 that appraisal , and Mr . Bresnahan is an M. A . I . Appraiser , he 22 tells you that , essentially over one half the value that exists 23 in that land now , will be destroyed . For that particular 24 parcel , it involves some $440 , 000 in lost value . 25 He details the causes there , and I won ' t go into them in 28 . 1 great detail , suffice it to say that the property does lie , as 2 does other surrounding property , directly in the path of the 3 growth of the Fort Lupton City . It ' s suitable for residential 4 development . It ' s suitable for commercial development along the 5 highway . 6 Mr . Bresnahan feels that , and I tend to agree with him , as 7 do my clients , that the development of a gravel mining operation, 8 with all it ' s attendant problems , would virtually destroy the 9 value of that property as residential and commercial sites . 10 We offer this as an example , not only for Mr . Pehr ' s property , 11 but for all the other surrounding properties . Please consider 12 that diminution of value in making your decision . 13 Secondly , as further reported , Mr . Hemmat -- I , not being 14 an engineer myself , I can ' t tell you everything he says in this . 15 What I gather from the report , he ' s telling you simply that the 16 noise -- perceived noise level in the vicinity , within one to 17 3 thousand feet of this operation , is going to increase by 18 something like 4 hundred to 1 thousand percent , when this 19 operation ' s running at capacity . 20 He mentions in his report , the adverse effects that these 21 kinds of increase in the noise level have upon people , and 22 presumably , upon livestock , though we ' re primarily concerned 23 with the people in the area . We ask you to consider that . We 24 don ' t really want to live with that sort of noise level . We 25 have a rural atmosphere now , we do not wish to be subjected to 29 . 1 an increase , ten-fold increase from the ambient noise level . 2 Please also consider the immediate and long-term decrease 3 of the quality of life , the aesthetic qualities in the area 4 surrounding this proposed gravel mining operation . 5 I understand what the proponents are saying . But , you know, 6 I live in Adams County . I ' m very familiar with the gravel 7 mining that ' s taken place there . I think you ' re familiar with 8 what these gravel mines look like . You cannot hide one of 9 these creatures , they ' re not simply something that simply 10 blends into the surrounding area . There are large piles of 11 gravel . There are large concentrations of machinery , and 12 machinery noise . There is bound to be at least some effect 13 from dust . There are large , as I understand it , conveyer belt 14 assemblies , that move the gravel from one place to another , 15 that are strung out , not only on the ground , but 'into the air , 16 to elevate the gravel into piles . 17 All of this goes to affect the quality of life on the 18 surrounding parcels of ground . 19 We don ' t believe that -- that either the land owner or the 20 proposed operator has any intention of doing any greater harm 21 than is economically necessary in his operation in the area . 22 We feel that that sort of harm will occur , and it ' s something 23 that my clients feel is entirely beyond their capacity to 24 endure . 25 Quite frankly , all we have to do is look toward Adams 30 . 1 County to seethe kinds of effects that we ' re talking about . 2 We also would ask that you -- and this has been addressed , 3 frankly not to my clients ' satisfaction . We are very concerned 4 about the increased traffic on Highway 52 . We ' re very concerned 5 about the tremendous ingress problem that we see happening when. 6 these 100 trucks a day start entering Highway 52 at this point . 7 That ' s a bad area of Highway 52 . I ' ve heard the testimony 8 about sight distances . I understnad that testimony , and yet , we 9 see that , I think if the figure that was given to me was correct, 10 something like 5 fatal accidents on this stretch of highway . 11 And , I ' m talking about that one-mile stretch , where they ' re 12 looking at access . Five fatal accidents in the last four years . 13 Certainly this situation is not going to be helped when we 14 throw 100 trucks , starting from a standing stop , and throw them 15 onto that highway . I can ' t see that that ' s going to help the 16 situation in any fashion . Now , in fact , we ' re told that , Gee , 17 we don ' t even have to install an acceleration , deceleration 18 lane there . That doesn ' t calm our fears , it merely adds to 19 to fact . 20 We ' d like to point out to you again , as we understand it , 21 the Fort Lupton City Cuncil and the Planning Commission have 22 written to you in opposition to this project . 23 As we ' ve said before , the areas that would be affected by 24 the operation , not just the mined land itself , but the area 25 surrounding it , the area that would suffer , we believe , by it ' s 31 . 1 presence , is in fact , the primary , one of the primary areas 2 which the City of Fort Lupton can grow and add to it ' s 3 residential and commercial area . We can well understand why 4 the City of Fort Lupton in fact urges you not to grant this 5 permit . Certainly one of the things that is listed in the 6 things to be addressed by the applicant , as your Planning Staff 7 hands out to the applicant , is the consideration of the future 8 development of the surrounding area and what effect the project 9 will have on the development ; and how the project is consistent 10 with the future plans of the particular city involved . 11 Obviously , Fort Lupton does not think it is consistant with 12 those plans . 13 We urge you also to consider the long—term problems that 14 remain after any sort of gravel mining operation . Again , simply 15 look to Adams County . I understand that perhaps Chatfield 16 Reservoir and Barber Ponds , are good examples of what a grvel 17 pit can be made into . But , Members of the Commission , that , 18 I ' m sure you realize those kinds of reclamation projects 19 constitute far less than one percent of the gravel pits that 20 have been mined in this Front range area . Most of them do not 21 wind a like that , they wind up as holes in the ground , full of 22 stagnant water . They wind up as sanitary land fills , which 23 generate methane gas , which attract rodents and cause odor 24 problems . They wind up as fly ash fills , which produce 25 termendous , terrible dust problems . 32 . 1 We ' ve seen these things in Adams County . It ' s easy to 2 listen to the promises now . Promises to take care of it . It ' s 3 easy to say we ' ll find the solution , after we ' ve mined the 4 gravel . As the Commissioners in Adams County have found out , 5 it ' s much more difficult to find those solutions when you ' re 6 actually faced with the problems . 7 Finally , I guess , as I said at the start , I don ' t represent 8 all of the people here in opposition . Perhaps some of the 9 things I ' ve said have , maybe , helped to shorten this hearing 10 somewhat . Thank you . 11 MR . MORRISON : I have a question . 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: There are some questions . Stay for 13 some questions , if you would , please . 14 MR . MORRISON : In the document you handed , there was 15 a one-page set of things , entitled : Proposed Plant Machineries , 16 were those supposed to be appendent to the noise report? 17 DAVID PEHR : My understanding is that that is in fact 18 a part of the noise report . I guess it ' s a summary of the 19 noise levels . The actual report itself , contains the percentage 20 increases that I referred to . 21 MR . MORRISON : Okay . 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other ,questions . All right , thank 23 you . 24 The next name I have is Bob Hemmat . 25 DAVID PEHR : Madam Chairman , with your permission , 33 . 1 Mr . Hemmat is the engineer who prepared the noise report . He ' s 2 here to answer any questions that you have on the report . 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Are there any questions? 4 Okay , thank you . We won ' t call on you , unless we need to later . 5 Next is Dick Hein . 6 MR . HEIN : My name is Dick Hein , and I own the 7 property to the north of this proposed site , and to the east of 8 it . 9 The owners of this land are real good friends of mine , have 10 been for a long time and still will be regardless of the outcome 11 of this decision . 12 Jerry approached me some while back and said he ' d like to 13 put a storage unit facility here , and I said "That ' s great . " 14 Then , they didn ' t go through with that . Larry Scott wanted to 15 put a shop -- a commercial shop real close to this same place . 16 And , I said , "Fine . " Mrs . Pehr put a dog kennel in , which was 17 fine with me . Howard Binder built a barn too close to the road , 18 they had a hearing on that , that didn ' t bother me . Ron Craffe 19 moved a couple of trailers in and some houses , and that was okay 20 with me too . But , not a gravel pit . We don ' t need a gravel 21 pit . I ' m awful concerned about this flood plain And , I don ' t 22 think no one really knows what a flood plain really is . Big 23 Thompson Canyon had quite a flood plain there in ' 76 , as you 24 remember , and I ' m a little worried about what could happen if we 25 did get a bunch of big water and I can just imagine that this 34 . 1 open gravel pit could put gravel and all kinds of stuff all 2 over my farm ground , that I produce hay and farm on . And -- but 3 I don ' t think anybody has touched on the most important thing 4 about this thing yet . I ' m not smart , I ' m just a farmer , but 5 I -- on my farm it goes down by the packing plant , and I got 6 a couple of little lakes down there . And , every year , I have 7 to go over to Royers and buy a liability policy for $500 , 000 . 8 And , the reason I have to buy that is because -- I ' ve got signs 9 that say to keep out , you know , No Swimming , No Fishing , and 10 there ' s always , constantly little kids in there . And , on this 11 property that ' s right immediately east of this area , when I was 12 baleing the hay , there was a couple of little kids walking with 13 BB guns in a southerly direction along my west fence . And , I 14 just think this thing is too close to town . I don ' t care how 15 good a fence they put around it , these kids are going to cut 16 holes in it , or go over it , or under it . And , I think it ' s too 17 dangerous . 18 If Jerry wants to put a commercial building there , or if 19 they want to put a truck stop , or a store or a gas station , or 20 an apartment building , anything . I don ' t blame him for wanting 21 to make some money . And , boy , us farmers need it , we ' re really 22 up against it . And , I ' m all for him for something like that . 23 But , not a gravel pit . It affects the neighbors too much . 24 You can argue forever about this and that and really uncertain 25 things , but I think it ' s too dangerous . 35 . 1 Any questions? 2 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 3 C . A . Bresnahan . 4 DAVID PEHR : Again , Madam Chairman , he is one of our 5 expert witnesses . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right . 7 Frank Zadel . 8 MR . ZADEL : Yes , my name is Franklin Zadel . I ' m a 9 business man and owner in Fort Lupton . 10 I come here to speak today against the gravel pit , for 11 several reasons . FIrst of all , my wife had the misfortune of 12 losing her parents just 1 , 000 feet away from where they ' re 13 proposing to enter onto Highway 52 . That happend about six 14 years ago . The traffic on Highway 52 now , I know , has at least 15 tripled from that particular time . So , the safety , I ' m very , 16 very concerned about that . I think that access onto Highway 52 17 would be a great mistake because of that . 18 Also , I agree with everything that David Rehr said . And , 19 I want to add a little bit to that . I think that vibrations 20 that are caused by heavy equipment working , and being an 21 ex—contractor , I know what is all involved in heavy equipment 22 and trucking . 23 A 35 foot bridge to bring people onto Highway 52 , I think 24 it ' s okay , if two trucks are travelling straight . But , if they 25 have to make turns or have to make their stops , and these 36 . 1 trucks do carry heavy loads . 2 I think the dust problem would he very affective to me , 3 as a resident to Fort Lupton , with our prevailing winds being 4 from the north west . 5 For these reasons , I think that we should not have a gravel 6 pit in our area . Fort Lupton is a thriving little town . We 7 have to depend upon people to travel to and from there . 8 Traffic is a very big problem , and I can see that . I can 9 see where it can hurt the businesses in Fort Lupton , as well as 10 the sale of homes and so forth . 11 Thank you very much . 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Questions? 13 Tammie Taylor . 14 MS . TAYLOR : My name is Tammie Taylor and I ' m a 15 student at Fort Lupton High School . 16 I just want to agree with a lot of what Dick Hein said . 17 There is a lot of buses , people going back and forth from 18 school on Road 52 clear up to 23 and onward . Buses have stops 19 between town and probably to about Road 19 . A lot of stops 20 along there . There ' s children crossing the highway . If we got 21 the trucks trying to get on the highway , accelerate , decelerate , 22 and we ' ve got buses stopping and little kids crossing the 23 highway . Will they be able to stop in time? 24 Mr . Hein brought up a very good point . There is a lot of 25 little kids that like to go and fish down along the Platte , 37 . 1 along the lakes . There ' s also a park right across the highway , 2 very near to the site where they want to put the gravel pit in . 3 That area is very busy . I ' m concerned about people I go to 4 school with . We haven ' t lost any lives in our community in a 5 long time , I don ' t want to lose any more . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you , Tammie . Are there 7 questions? 8 Frances Wieland . 9 MS . WIELAND : My name is Frances Wieland , and I ' m here 10 against . 11 Everythng I was going to say has pretty much been covered . 12 I ' m a mother of four , my main concern is safety . I have a 13 daughter that has just started driving , and she drives up and 14 down 52 everyday . 15 And , the trucks when they ' re loaded weigh , if I ' m right , 16 about 40 tons . And , it would be impossible to stop in a hurry 17 if they had to . And then also there is a curve in 52 , as you 18 come from the park going west . And , you cannot see to pass 19 anyone there , but people try it all the time . It is very 20 dangerous . There ' s not a clear shot . You can ' t see to the top 21 of the hill , you can ' t see to the top of the hill where 23 is . 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . Are there questions? 23 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : I have a question for her . 24 Now you said you got heavy trucks , possibly weigh 40-ton . 25 Now , how many feet does it have to go before the truck can stop 38 . 1 at 20 miles an hour? 2 MS . WIELAND : A regular size car it would take , I 3 would say , I had it down one time . I think like 180 feet , going 4 55 miles an hour . That ' s a regular sized car . 5 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : We ' re not talking about a 6 car . I want to know about the truck . 7 MS . WIELAND : The truck , I don ' t know. But , if you 8 multiply how far it would take a car by that then you would have 9 it . And , I can ' t tell you exactly what -- 10 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Okay . Thank you . 11 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : C . Vincent Phelps . 12 MR . PHELPS : I reserve for rebuttal . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : R . R . Chip Arnold . 14 MR . ARNOLD : Yes . Chip Arnold . I moved up, 2 years 15 ago, to Fort Lupton . 16 I ' m a former vice president with Colorado National Bank and 17 First Interstate Bank for 17 years . I was a trouble shooter 18 for the banks . Handled all the commercial problems . I ' m a 19 licensed real estate broker . 20 In the year anda half, 2 years I ' ve lived there , I ' ve 21 lost : 1 dog , 4 cats , 2 mailboxes , and 1 windshield , due to 22 gravel trucks . 23 I see in this situation , there ' s a benefit only to the 24 applicant and a detriment to me . I don ' t think there ' s any 25' parity there . 39 . 1 I have three children that wait for a school bus at that 2 mailbox , ranging from 15 to 5 years old . I don ' t care to lose 3 any children . 4 I also raise Morgan Horses . I agree with the speech given 5 by Mr . Belden , the veternarian . There is , indeed , a health 6 hazard to horses . I ' m more worried about my family than my 7 horses . 8 I think that the last -- the first meeting that I came to , 9 I couldn ' t attend the second meeting , I asked all the gentlemen 10 here , who seem to think , while sitting in the back room , that 11 it ' s kind of funny , this whole thing . I don ' t think it ' s funny . 12 I asked them all if they ' d like to live next to a gravel pit , 13 or do they live next to a gravel pit? No , they wouldn ' t . They 14 answered "No , " in the negative . I ask all you the same , "would 15 you like to live next to a gravel pit? " 16 I find it curious that during this whole application that 17 not one of these peole have ever asked me what I think about it , 18 until the first meeting . 19 I guess that ' s all I have to say . 20 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Questions? 21 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yes , I have a question . 22 Where do you live in regards to the site? 23 MR . ARNOLD : I live about a mile , a mile from where 24 the site is . And I can see -- 25 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yes , which direction? 40 . 1 MR . ARNOLD : West . 2 COMMISSIONER LACY : Okay , thank you . That ' s up the 3 road to the west , up the hill and to the west? 4 MR . ARNOLD : Yes . 5 COMMISSIONER LACY : Okay , thank you . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Anthony Duran . 7 MR . DURAN : My name is Anthony Duran and I ' m a home 8 owner in the south west corner of Fort Lupton . I come to speak 9 against , and everybody has pretty much covered my reasons for 10 being against it . Noise pollution , air pollution , safety , 11 reduction in land values . 12 Again , I would like to address the safety factor . You got 13 a park that every child in Fort Lupton , that is involved in 14 sports , is going to and from Pierson Park , during probably peak 15 hours on that highway . And , you add truck traffic and children 16 walking to and riding bicycles from that location , you ' re 17 going to really compound a safety problem , for children of 18 Fort Lupton that are using our park . 19 Also , I think nobody has mentioned the destruciton of 20 highways caused by the heavy trucks . I happen to work in an 21 area that , I have three major gravel pits on each end of my 22 office . One to the west , one to the north , and one to the east . 23 And , the dust, the broken windshields , the constant overweight 24 tickets being issued by the State Patrolmen there , it just goes 25 to show you that the safety problem is compounded by the way 41 . 1 people load their trucks . 2 And I am against it for them reasons . 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 4 Any questions? 5 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Yes . Mr . Duran , you make 6 reference to a park , is that a city park , city owned? 7 MR . DURAN : It ' s a city owned park . Pierson Park . 8 Just on the north west side of the Platte River . Where they 9 have , I believe , three baseball fields , that are used by various 10 groups . Not only Little League , they are used by Adult League . 11 Which means , the traffic is there throughout the afternoon and 12 evening hours . 13 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Of everyday , or just weekends? 14 MR . DURAN : In the summer months and in the fall 15 months , when the Little League programs are in operation , it ' s 16 pretty much every day . And , during the summer months , it ' s also 17 weekends and Saturdays , due to Softball Leagues . 18 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Now , is there much activity 19 there once shool starts? What ' s the activity during the school 20 year . 21 MR . DURAN : During the school year , the activities 22 take place in the evenings , after classes , when the Little 23 League teams have their practice sessions and games . And , 24 there ' s a tremendous amount of traffic coming to and leaving that 25 ballpark area just about every evening . 42 . 1 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Thank you . 2 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 3 Alvin B . Stalder . 4 MR . STALDER : Madam Chairman , Members of the 5 Committee . I am agravel truck driver . I also am probably the 6 person who lives closest to this proposed operation , living on 7 the Pehr Farm , right on Highway 52 . 8 I ' ve seen the damage those massive trucks do to the 9 highways . I ' ve seen the accidents . I ' ve personally been first 10 on the scene for two of these fatal accidents , in this mile 11 stretch of road . 12 I have two small children that get on the bus at that stop , 13 just 200 yards from that stop . Not only myself , but the bus 14 driver , C . J . Ard , are very concerned about the truck traffic on 15 the road . Particularly the east bound traffic coming down 16 the road , because of this hill , that nobody seems to worry about 17 too much . They travel at about 55 miles an hour . The minute 18 the weather becomes inclement, it ' s impossible to stop that 19 truck coming down that hill . I know, I ' ve tried myself , and 20 I ' ve slid trucks sideways down that hill trying to stop . It 21 can ' t he done . 22 I would like to read a letter . Mr . Ard couldn ' t be here 23 today , he is my bus driver . 24 To the Weld County Commissioners: I regret not being able 25 to attend this hearing in person to voice my concerns , due to 43 . 1 my job commitments . 2 I have some real concerns about plans to put a gravel pit 3 west of Fort Lupton , on Highway 52 . I hope the Commissioners 4 will consider these concerns , as I ' m sure they ' ve been voiced 5 before . 6 While I ' m a school bus driver , I ' m voicing my concerns as 7 an individual . My concerns are as follows : 8 Traffic . I do drive a bus on that stretch of highway , and 9 I ' m concerned with the volume of traffic on it . While 10 I ' m aware of the company ' s plans to run as many of their trucks 11 as they can onto Highway 85 and avoid using 52 , I ' m concerned 12 about the trucks that will use Highway 52 from the west . I ' m 13 already concerned about the build up of traffic volume at the 14 intersection of 85 and 52 . It is my opinion that this 15 intersection is already overused . 16 My next concern is safety due to the speed of traffic in 17 that areaalong Highway 52 . I feel the speed limit is too fast 18 for truck traffic to enter the highway safely . The speed limit 19 in such an area should be no greater than 40 miles per hour , due 20 to the slow speed of the truck that will pull across the 21 highway . 22 Even though I ' m expressing these concerns as a private 23 citizen , I must state my concern for the safety of the school 24 buses that use that portion of the highway . There are at least 25 4 school buses that use that highway , that I personally know of . 44 . 1 They use the highway , for the most part , before and after school . 2 And , it has been my experience that those are the highest 3 traffic volume times of the day . I do have several stops along 4 52 , and I ' m concerned for my own safety , as well as that of my 5 passengers . 6 He has also expressed a concern in inclement weather , about 7 trucks not being able to stop there and will frequently bypass 8 my bus stop , rather than endanger the children due to this truck 9 traffic . Now , this is traffic that already exists . If we add 10 a hundred trucks to that traffic , I ' m afraid that the mess will 11 get totally out of hand , and that we are going to kill some 12 children along there . Thank you . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . If you would give the 14 letter , please , to our attorney . 15 (Whereupon Exhibit L was marked . ) 16 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Alvin Dechant . 17 MR . DECHANT : My name is Alvin Dechant . I live on 18 Road 23 . I ' m a farmer and our porperty , or my property , joins 19 right to the west of this Phase B, or whatever they ' re talking 20 about, of the gravel pit . I grow grass there and I ' ve got cattle 21 there on the same -- right on the west side of this property 22 that we ' re talking about . 23 This is a hay field . This 40 acre farm is hay . I planted 24 hay , I farmed the place for about 6 years . And , I think someone 25 said it was about 26 acres of farm ground .- I believe it ' s more 45 . 1 like about 32 . 2 And , one of the commissioners here wanted to know a little bit 3 ago what hay grows -- what good hay does do . Well on normal 4 ground , if you take care of the property and water it like 5 you ' re supposed to , I believe there would be no problem for a 6 16—ton an acre on that ground , cause we done it . 7 And , I just don ' t see why they want to take good productive 8 farm ground and exempt out of it . I oppose it , I ' m against it , 9 I don ' t want no part of it . 10 The noise would be terrible . Our residences , our houses 11 are probably within a thousand feet or less of where this gravel 12 pit ' s going to be . And , I don ' t know -- I just hope you 13 Commissioners will take this into consideration and vote it 14 down . 15 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Any questions? 16 All right . Thank you Mr . Dechant 17 Tony Bueno . 18 MR . BUENO : My name is Tony Bueno . I ' m a native of 19 Fort Lupton , I ' ve been on the Planning Commission before . 20 But my problem is ; I got a son I almost lost 4 years ago . 21 Now the problem was dust . He ' s allergic to it . And , I ' m 22 allergic to noise . 23 Yes , it ' s true that I can live anywhere I choose to live , 24 but I shouldn ' t be forced to leave Fort Lupton because of dust 25 reasons . Thank you . 46 . 1 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Where do you live in 2 relationship to this application? 3 MR . BUENO : I live directly to the east , right across 4 the highway . Just a little bit north , close to the - 5 St . William ' s Church . 6 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : How far from the proposed -- 7 well from wherethe little bridge is now, how far east? 8 ML BUENO: The little bridge? 9 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : The bridge that goes into this 10 property . That goes across the Lupton -- 11 MR . BUENO : Well , I ' m just directly across the highway 12 to the east . 13 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Oh , you ' re on the east side 14 of 85? 15 MR . BUENO : Right . 16 COMMISSONER BRANTNER : Thank you . 17 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Bill Pehr . 18 WILLIAM PEHR : If I were asked to sum up in one phrase 19 what ' s wrong with this whole project , I would say ; I don ' t want 20 to live in Adams County . 21 All of us moved out to the Fort Lupton area because -- we 22 liked it because it was nice , it was safe , it was comfortable . 23 I don ' t want to move . 24 In your standards , one of your standards is -- what is -- 25 how does the applicant propose to protect and provide for the 47 . 1 health , safety and welfare of the county and of the 2 neighborhood? 3 There ' s been no provision . They have not answered that 4 question . In their application they have not designated , by a 5 list , 1 , 2 , and 3 , of the equipment . They have it stated by 6 general reference ; bulldozers , indicating more than one , hut you 7 can ' t tell how many . And that , I think , intends to reduce our 8 expert ' s ability to tell you more precisely what the noise level 9 is . It is greater than what he has projected . 10 Let me talk about the highways , again Highway 52 , in the 11 hope the engineer from the Highway Department is still here . 12 The Department of Highways appears to be about 20 years behind 13 time . When I first bought that farm, traffic was light , but 14 today it is terrible . By way of example , and this is not an 15 isolated transaction , the other day , last Friday , I was near 16 the front of our property on 52, coming down the hill is a 17 Mayflower van passing a car going about 65 --70 miles an hour . 18 Two or three weeks prior to that , there were 2 semis , one 19 passing the other , going down the hill . Those cars do not drive 20 45 or 50 miles an hour . We have had in that strip , from the top 21 of the hill down to where you enter -- where the trucks propose 22 to enter , and the top of the hill in the last 6 years , we have 23 had two deaths . Where you saw the ditch adjacent to the road , 24 there was one . There was one on the north side . There was 25 one on the south side , and again there was another one on 48 . 1 the north side . Right in the same matter of a few feet . 2 Now , the highway , because you can see , seems to lull 3 everyone , including the highway department , into thinking that 4 it ' s safe . On the contrary , it ' s highly dangerous . 5 In Adams County , I ' ve had occasion - to observe it for some 6 30 years , and I ' ve seen these gravel pits from Jefferson 7 County ' s borders , to Denver ' s, to here . And what happened? 8 Once there was one gravel pit , today they ' re uncontrolled and 9 running wild . And , that ' s a big mess . I would not like to see 10 that happen to this county . If one gravel pit goes in there , 11 that entire area , that entire bottom is going to he mined . 12 Some of our neighbors have already indicated , both to the 13 south and to the north , that they would like a gravel pit . 14 to the south , there ' s what? , 2 or 3 hundred acres that looks 15 like it could be mined . If that ' s mined they ' ll cross the river . 16 and they ' ll mine to the highway . There are other places they 17 can get gravel , it ' s not saying you can ' t have gravel , or that ' s 18 the only place gravel is located . There are other areas , within 19 a 5 or 6 mile area , a ten mile area , some closer to Denver . I 20 suggest that they locate a separate area . 21 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Mr . Pehr , the lenth of time is -- 22 I want to give you a chance to finish , but we are -- 23 WILLIAM PEHR : Well , I was just going to mention the 24 dust. Cattle and horses do not eat alfalfa or grass that ' s 25 dusty . 49 . 1 We raise pure bred Carolais cattle , and we also raise 2 grass hay on that bottom. 3 And , I don ' t see why we should be penalized so that the 4 applicant can mine his gravel . Thank you very much . 5 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 6 Vincent Phelps . 7 MR . PHELPS : Madam Chairman , Commissioners , my name 8 is Vincent Phelps , I represent the land owners in the matter . 9 As a matter of clarification , I would simply indicate to you , 10 that the land owners here , are not the applicants , and are not 11 going to mine this property . The land owners , Freda Dreiling 12 and Myrna Slabaszewski , inherited this property from their 13 grandmother . This property has been in their family for a 14 number of years , and they fully expect it to be in their family 15 for a good number of years hence . 16 I would like to address also , a couple of issues that we 17 noted here. I don ' t know how many fatal accidents there have 18 been on that stretch of road . Mr . Pehr says there have been 19 four . The other one says there have been two , and my client 20 says one , and that was because of a heart attack . 21 The next issue relates to the growth of Fort Lupton . 22 There ' ve been some statements that Fort Lupton will indeed 23 obviously grow into this area . I would suggest to you that 24 Fort Lupton cannot grow into this area because it ' s a flood 25 plain. You can ' t build in a flood plain . 50 . 1 Just to reiterate, the owners -- after the applicants 2 here said that they intend to comply with the reclamation 3 provisions that they have to live with . I can assure you that 4 Mrs . Dreiling and Mrs . Slabaszewski are going to see that , not 5 only are they complied with , but probably they ' re going to see 6 that they ' re even more than complied with . They ' re the ones 7 that are going to own the property ad infinitum . 8 Interesting to note that the land owners in this case , 9 people have said nobody wants to live next to a gravel pit , the 10 land owners are going to live next to the gravel pit . 11 My clients also tell me that the ballpark that is used 12 there is primarily a summertime and weekend park and that once 13 school starts , most of the activity is , indeed at the school . 14 There ' s very little , if any , activity there except for weekends 15 and the evenings . 16 And , as an aside , I ' d -- no skip that . Thank you very 17 much . 18 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Questions? 19 We ' ll ask the applicant to make a brief summary statement 20 to the Board . 21 MR . RHEA : Madam Chairman , Jerry Rhea , president of 22 Front Range Sand and Gravel . We have listened , and we have been 23 honest in our approach with the Commission . 24 I cannot speak for the State Highway Department . We have 25 shown you documented proof that this stretch of highway is , 51 . 1 indeed safe . I cannot control how a Mayflower truck drives , 2 but I can control how my men drive . 3 Our land owner has registered horses . 4 We are , as we said before , a wet mine . We have the latest 5 state of the art crushing equipment , which is cone crushers , 6 it ' s not the old fashioned jaw crushers , self contained . Our 7 requirement , everything we have will meet the F . P . A . Standards . 8 Highway 52 safety is a factor . I ' ve shown you in a letter 9 from the State of Colorado that that road is safe . And , we 10 were turned down from the Planning Commission , not from the 11 mining , but from safety . This is what we ' re trying to prove 12 today to you , that we have documented proof that that road is 13 safe . 14 And , now I ' d like to give you Glenn Salmons , my vice 15 president . 16 MR . SALMONS : We recently bought some new trucks . 17 I do not have the definite information as to how long it takes a 18 truck to stop compared to a car . The only thing I can say is , 19 the company` that we purchased trucks from told me a 20 loaded truck , whether it be gravel or whatever , is capable of 21 stopping in a shorter distance than an automobile is . The 22 reason for that is because it is built equipped for the load it 23 is made to carry . 24 I ' m sure that if a truck was not safe , it would not be on 25 today ' s highways , it would not be bringing our groceries into 52 . 1 us . They would not he bringing our oil into us , and all our 2 other necessary needs that we need for our economy . 3 I ' ve heard a lot of assumptions as to what we are going to 4 do . That we have not made any statement that we ' re going to he 5 doing . All of our statements , basically , are in our application 6 to you today . 7 There ' s a lot of things that we cannot control . Sure , 8 we would like nothing better than to be able to have school 9 buses running and everything else stopped to protect our 10 children . I agree a hundred percent with that because I have 11 children myself . There is things that we can do to protect , to 12 the best of our ability , make things safer , and that ' s why we 13 are here, is to make them safer , to do our best . 14 So far as dust , noise , we will meet the necessary standards , 15 if we don ' t , the E . P . A . will come out and shut us down . That is 16 our control . I run an asphalt plant , if I get out of standards 17 on my asphalt plant , I have 24 hours to get back in standards , 18 or they shut me down . 19 Mr . Pehr asked =- how do we know that they are going to 20 comply? That is why we comply , is because we want to stay in 21 operation . When we invest money to get something going , we 22 want it to keep going . We don ' t want up again , down again , type 23 of operation . 24 So far as traffic on Weld County Road Highway 52 , the 25 location of our gravel pit , where it is , will definitely 53 . 1 eliminate some trucking on highway 52 . The products still have 2 to get in and out of the area . Whether they ' re coming to 3 Fort Lupton ; whether they ' re going to Greeley on Highway 85 ; or 4 whether they ' re coming to -- they still have to get in and out 5 of the area . 6 I ' m going to give you a good example of this . I bid a 7 contract for Weld County , approximately 45 days ago , that is 8 being pulled out of a gravel pit up at Del Camino . The trucking 9 route on that was a designated haul route down I-25 to Highway 10 52 , and east through Fort Lupton approximately , let ' s say , ten 11 miles on the east side of Fort Lupton . 12 If my gravel pit would have been in operation , I would have 13 been able to bid at my pit instead of the pit up at Del Camino . 14 The designated route of Highway 52 from I-25 to our gravel pit 15 entrance would have been a lot safer than what it is now for 16 this period of time because you ' ve still got X number of trucks 17 coming in from Highway -- I -25 , to get the area that is 18 necessary to get to , tc be able to take care of the progress 19 today . 20 With the progress going and Fort Lupton growing , as well 21 as other areas , like everyone in here agrees that it is growing , 22 it ' s going to grow. These products that we are trying to make 23 in the gravel , goes into the asphalt , the concrete , the gravel 24 for your driveways , the sand for your foundations , all of this 25 type of product has to come into the area somehow , someway , and 54 . 1 probably from some other source , that is not going to employ 2 people from this area . I ' m not saying we will a hundred percent 3 employ people from this area , but that will he one of our main 4 attempts to do so . That is one reason that we are community 5 minded as I have stated in the past to you . 6 I would like to request , without dragging this on any 7 further , that instead of stopping progressing , we would like to 8 request your approval for this pit . 9 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . Are there questions? 10 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Could you expand a little 11 bit on the reclamation . I see here plans in the book , is there 12 any bonding , are there any assurances from the state level . 13 When you file your mining reclamation plan , are you bonded to 14 make sure that is done and in a timely manner? 15 MR . SALMONS : I think that he can answer your question 16 better than I can , because he has been dealing with them. I 17 know that we will he required to bond , yes . 18 MR . MCRAE : Part of the application to the Mined Land 19 Reclamation Board , and that is their authority to ensure that 20 these areas are reclaimed . Obviously, there are some older pits 21 that have not been required to meet these standards , however , 22 this is a new issue , the standards are specific . One of the 23 major requirements of reclamation that doesn ' t exist and got as 24 a bad view on the older pits is the slope that is left on the 25 embankments . This specified slope now is a 3 to 1 slope . 55 . 1 You can walk on that , you can grow grass on it . It is not an 2 embankment . It is a maintainable slope . It protects the 3 cattle , the children from being unaware of the drop off in that . 4 Or kids swimming in this , they shouldn ' t be , but these are 5 protective measures that are part of the reclamation plan . 6 The finished reclamation plan also calls for reseeding and 7 planting some vegatation , to revegatate and reclaim the area 8 that has been disturbed . This is done on an annual basis . The 9 Mined Land Reclamation Board does inspect on an annual basis . 10 The few that I ' ve worked with -- those that I have worked with 11 get annual reports that those inspections have been made . A 12 check list is made , notifying the owner as to a deficiency 13 or so forth . 14 The bond is established on an annual basis , as to the 15 maximum amount of disturbed area , the cost that it would take 16 to reclaim that if operator were to walk away from it as of any 17 specific day . That cost is estimated to come for somebody to 18 contract , to come in and rn shape it , re sod it , and at least 19 put it back to the condition specified in the original 20 application . 21 The bond , in this case , is approximately $50 , 000 . They 22 haven ' t reviewed that yet , but it ' s been based on standards that 23 they have previously accepted . 24 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other questions? 25 I have one question for the staff , that ' s with regard to 56 . 1 Fort Lupton ' s long range plan . 2 As I read their letter of objection , their letter is not 3 based upon non-compliance with their long rage plan , it ' s 4 based on some other factors , is that correct? 5 MS . DUNN : That ' s correct . They are concerned with 6 safety and aesthetics , pollution , things of that nature . But , 7 they did not address long term plans and development as it 8 affects Fort Lupton . 9 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other questions? 10 COMMISSIONER LACY : I have one qustion to staff . I 11 guess my question that I have is ; what part of this , what area 12 of this land , and I ' m -- I guess I talked to you on this Chuck , 13 what part of this , you know, what percentage of this is in the 14 flood plain? Is it a hundred year flood plain? Is it -- you 15 know , what are we talking about , can you tell me that? 16 MR . CUNLIFFE : We don ' t have a percentage , but on the 17 map they ' ve submitted as an exhibit , they do show a hundred 18 year flood plain on that . Which , it ' s my understanding , from -- 19 COMMISSIONER LACY : That ' s the whole property? 20 MR . CUNLIFFE : The dashed line . Area B in not within 21 the hundred year flood plain . 22 COMMISSIONER LACY : It is not? What is . 23 MR . CUNLIFFE : Area C , the majority of almost all the 24 property is within the hundred year -- 25 COMMISSIONER LACY : Okay . What would Area B then 57 . 1 be in? 2 MR . CUNLIFFE : Area B is out of the flood plain . 3 COMMISSIONER LACY : It is no flood plain , period? 4 MR . CUNLIFFE : No , not according to the map submitted 5 as part of the exhibit . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Right . 7 MR . CUNLIFFE : Is that correct? Jerry may want to 8 comment on that since he -- 9 MR . MCRAE : I think you ' re essentially correct . Area 10 C is basically within the flood plain , almost entirely . There 11 is a small portion of Area B that is in the flood plain , but 12 the majority is on a small plataeu at the edge . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other questions? 14 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : I got a question . Are they 15 in the gravel business , presently? Are you mining gravel 16 anywheres right now? 17 MR . RHEA : No , we are not . We ' re purchasing our 18 gravel , at this time . 19 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Oh . In other words , you 20 don ' t have any trucks right now to haul gravel , do you? 21 MR . RHEA : Yes , we have . We have trucks . 22 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Do you? How many? 23 MR . RHEA : Approximately 14 to 15 of the 18-wheel and 24 12-wheel type and 5 or 6 of the single axle -- 25 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : The reason I ' m asking you is 58 . 1 you said , I think you said , you could control your drivers . 2 Haven ' t any of your drivers ever gotten any tickets , yet ? 3 MR . RHEA : I would like to answer that very honestly . 4 According to our insurance company , I have a national , I believe 5 over the last 24 months we hgve been ticketed twice . 6 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Are you saying that you ' re 7 going to cut that down to zero? 8 MR . RHEA : No , I ' m not saying that at all . I ' m 9 just saying that we do have regulations and company policies 10 and we follow them to the T . I cannot stop someone from 11 breaking the law , but he won ' t do it twice . 12 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Because he won ' t work for you 13 anymore , is that it? 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I don ' t think he can hear you , 15 Frank . He asked if someone did it more than once , would he work 16 for you any longer? 17 MR . RHEA : The way that works , it depends on the 18 severity of the crime , or the -- you know what I ' m saying . 19 Speeding is something that defiritely involves our 20 insurance rates . Our insurance has gone up with a good schedule 21 almost a hundred percent over the last three years . And , that ' s 22 with no accidents . 23 All I can say is that I can ' t control what someone does , 24 all we can do is set forth rules and regulations , and try to see 25 that they ' re followed . 59 . 1 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 2 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Thank you . 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Are there other questions? 4 COMMISSIONER LACY : I would like to have Mr . Rames 5 from the Highway Department , I have a couple of questions I 6 would like to ask him . 7 You probably can ' t answer them , but I have a couple of 8 questions I ' d like to ask , We ' re talking considerably about 9 safety on Highway 52 . And , I understand you ' re not totally 10 familiar with that area , or anything like this , but we ' re 11 talking about that hill that comes from the west . And , you ' ve 12 heard the comments on this and so on . What , in restrictions 13 that say we might make to this , with the acceleration 14 de -acceleration lanes and what would -- and the other one would 15 he speed limit , as far as the area is concerned , and that would 16 have to he highway controlled -- you know, there ' s no way we 17 could put a recommendation in , this could not be part of the 18 commit process , as I understand it , to regulate the actual speed 19 on that as we could on a county road? 20 MR . RAMES : That ' s right , you cannot . 21 COMMISSIONER LACY : That I wanted to clear , but we 22 could recommend that there be from , let ' s say from a half a mile 23 west or up over top the hill , which is about 2 , 000 feet , if 24 I remember correctly , we ran it off somewhere between 3 and 4 25 tenths of a mile , that we could see down to the access . There 60 . 1 could be no way that we could not recommend -- that we could 2 not reserve? 3 MR . RAMES : You could recommend to us that the speed 4 limit be changed or you could -- what that would result in is 5 a traffic engineering study -- 6 COMMISSIONER LACY : Right . 7 MR . RAMES : And , depending on the outcome of the 8 study , it may or may not be lowered . 9 COMMISSIONER LACY : We could probably reserve , or 10 we could , if we were to put some restrictions on this , or to 11 put the acceleration, de-acceleration lanes on as part of the 12 USR . Those would be respected by the State as on the highway? 13 MR . RAMES : Yes . 14 COMMISSIONER LACY : Okay . 15 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Any other questions , Gordon? 16 COMMISSIONER LACY : That ' s all I have . 17 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 18 Discussion by the Board or other questions that they might have 19 to ask? 20 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I ' d like somebody from 21 Front Range Sand and Gravel to maybe talk a little bit about 22 the acceleration , de-acceleration lanes , and if they even think 23 it ' s possible on the south side , with the ditch being there? 24 MR . RHEA : There ' s approximately a ten foot shoulder 25 on the existing Higway 52 . The area where the orange bridge is 61 . 1 is the entrance way . For an accel lane east bound , would have 2 to probably --- the bridge would have to be built to the east , 3 proabably an extra 150 --200 feet . Because that ditch starts -- 4 it ' s going east and then it veers to the south , but it widens 5 the shoulder at that point . 6 We have also addressed the fact that by putting that 7 double width bridge in , east of the existing bridge , which the 8 oil company is using , that is feasible . 9 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 10 DAVID PEHR : Madam Chairman , might I inquire , is it 11 possible for us to have a few minutes to rebut? 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : No . I think , at this point , we ' ve 13 given opportunity for public testimony , and at this point it ' s 14 for the Board to request further information if they ' d like . 15 DAVID PEHR : Thank you , Madam Chairman . 16 WILLIAM PEHR : A new matter came up . If they present 17 it , we ought to have the opportunity to speak against that . 18 MR . MORRISON : What new matter is that? 19 WILLIAM PEHR : Secondly -- 20 MR . MORRISON : What new matter is -- 21 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Excuse me sir , if you would come 22 over to the microphone and identify yourself . 23 WILLIAM PEHR : Yes . My name is William Pehr . 24 There are many people here who , while they didn ' t sign up 25 to speak , ought to be at least recognized in the term of whether 62 . 1 they ' re for or against -- 2 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Mr . Pehr , I gave everyone in the 3 room an opportunity to address the Board . I think that -- we 4 recognize that there ' s a great deal of sentiment in opposition . 5 We ' re quite well aware of that . 6 As far as any new matter , I don ' t believe a new matter has 7 been brought up . The issue of -- 8 WILLIAM PEHR : Pardon me . Ninety percent -- 95 9 percent of the persons here are opposed to the granting of this 10 application . 11 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Yes , sir , we have a good deal of 12 information that makes us aware of that fact . I don ' t believe 13 it ' s necessary to take a vote . I think we have -- 14 WILLIAM PEHR : I ' m not asking for a vote . In the 15 past , at least the Board has recognized the people who have 16 taken their time to he here today . 17 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 18 (Whereupon a discussion off the record was had by 19 Mr . Morrison and Commissioner Lacy . ) 20 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Gentlemen ,. I think our discussions 21 probably ought to be on the record . 22 COMMISSIONER LACY : We ' re trying to pick out the 23 Lupton Bottom Ditch , as it runs south . That is what we were 24 doing . 25 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right , thank you . 63 . 1 If there are no further questions from the Board for any 2 people here , then the moment of truth has come . 3 Does everyone have a copy of the standards by which we 4 make our decision on , is that something that we need? The 5 USR policies? 6 I might , just for the record , review these findings that 7 we must make . In order to approve this , we must find that the 8 proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan , and it is 9 consistent with the intent of the district in which it is 10 located , which is an agricultural district . That the uses which 11 would be permitted , would be compatible with the existing , 12 surrounding land uses . That the uses which would be permitted , 13 would be compatible with future development of the surrounding 14 area , as permitted by the existing zone ; and with future 15 development as projected with the comprehensive plan of the 16 County or adopted master plans of affected municipalities . 17 If the use is proposed in an A district , that the applicant 18 has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve 19 productive agricultural land in the location for the proposed 20 use , and finally , that there is adequate provision for the 21 protection for the health , safety and welfare of the inhabitants 22 of the neighborhood and the county . 23 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I have a question for our 24 attorney . 25 What are -- what is the criteria as far as mining in 64 . 1 agriculture and as far as comprehensive planning? Does it -- 2 MR . MORRISON : Well , there ' s a couple of issues . 3 One is that state law advises the counties not to make zoning 4 decisions that will interfer with the extraction of commercial 5 mineral deposits . I think that ' s interpreted to mean , doing 6 somthing that will preclude in the future extraction , such as 7 allowing a large industrial facility to be placed over a 8 commercial mineral deposit . 9 That does not mandate that you approve a permit to extract 10 the minerals . It just says you can ' t -- the concept is , don ' t 11 allow a use that will prevent forever the extraction of the 12 minerals . But , not that you have to allow extraction today . 13 Now, there ' s some policies in the comprehensive plan and in 14 the mineral resource plan , that encourage extraction , in advance 15 of other kinds of development . The Planning Staff can maybe 16 address those better . Those are the policies and not a hard and 17 fast rule of law . 18 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Does that answer your question? 19 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Would you maybe like to 20 elaborate on that? 21 MR . CUNLIFFE : I believe the Board has a copy , or 22 should have a copy of the Staff ' s recommendation to the Planning 23 Committee . Those policies are outlined in that . If you like , 24 you can read those into the record , but , they are part of the 25 record since you have that information . 65 . 1 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : That ' s the language that begins ; 2 open-cut mining operation , and that was the basis for your 3 recommendation to deny minig on the Parcel B? 4 MR . CUNLIFFE : That ' s correct . 5 . COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : But , your whole basis for that 6 was prime agricultural land? 7 MR . CUNLIFFE : Right . 8 MR . MORRISON : Well , you have to consider the nature 9 of the testimony that was given on that . 10 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : We heard both sides . 11 MR . MORRISON : Right , but also the nature of the 12 testimony that was given that it wasn ' t , -- I mean , you have to 13 consider how that was presented and to what extent you should 14 rely upon that , when that was not direct testimony of those 15 persons charged with classifying the soil . 16 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Let ' s take a ten minute recess to 17 lett the reporter rejuvenate . 18 (Whereupon a recess was had and the following 19 proceedings took place at 4 : 20 p . m. ) 20 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Would you please take your seats , 21 or if you have conversations , if you would conduct them outside 22 the hearing room , please . 23 I have been told during the recess that we have expert 24 witnesses here to answer questions , if we had questions and not 25 otherwise . So , they did have an opportunity to speak to the us , 66 . 1 if the Board has questions . I ' ll ask now if there any desires 2 of the Board to hear from any additional witnesses? 3 All right , if not then I suggest we proceed with some kind 4 of a motion to get this discussion going . 5 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I ' m not sure, if there ' s anyone 6 here who can answer my question . I have a question : how far 7 west on Highway 52 does the City limits come down? 8 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Do you know, Gloria , how far? 9 MS . DUNN : It is one half mile east of this area , the 10 city limits . They begin at Highway 85 , U . S . Highway 85 and -- 11 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : The park is out of city 12 limits then? But , the highway is out of the city limits? 13 MS . DUNN : The highway is out of the city limits . I 14 can show you on this map . 15 (Whereupon Ms . Dunn approached the bench . ) 16 MS . DUNN : Fort Lupton City limits approach U . S . 17 Highway 85 east and at the center of section 7 and the closest 18 area would be one half mile west of Highway 85 on the southern 19 most boundaries , is the closest that the property comes to the 20 Fort Lupton city limits . 21 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Your question had to do with 52 , 22 didn ' t it? 23 COMMISSIONER BRATNER : Yes . 24 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : How far west of 52 is the Fort 25 Lupton city limits? 67 . 1 MR . CUNLIFFE : It ' s our understanding that the ball 2 field , the park , located on the north side of 52 is within 3 the city limits of Fort Lupton . Therefore , it would be 4 approximately 3/4 ' s of a mile to a mile from the 5 boundary on the north side . 6 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : But , you don ' t know whether 7 Highway 52 is within the city limits , at that point? 8 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Is any part -- is the part of 52 9 that is to the west of Highway 85 , and on the southern boundary 10 of the ballpark , is that in the city limits of Fort Lupton? 11 I ' m asking Mr . Rames from the Highway Department . 12 You do not know? 13 MR . RAMES : No . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay . 15 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I ' ve heard two different 16 distances now . The City letter , and I ' m looking at the City of 17 Fort Lupton ' sletter of August 30th , says that the city operates 18 and maintains a community park facility within one quarter of a 19 mile of the proposed entry . And , I just heard that that 20 proposed entry ' s at least a mile away . 21 (Whereupon people from the audience reply . ) 22 MR . MORRISON : We can ' t take testimony en masse . Is 23 there someone who has a particular knowledge about this issue? 24 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Please come forward . I ' m sorry , 25 we have to have you come forward to the microphone . 68 . 1 May we have your name , please . 2 MS . DICKEY-KUNZMAN : My name is Pam Dickey-Kunzman . 3 I grew up in Fort Lupton , near that site . 4 On nice days , when I was in high school , I used to walk 5 home often from there , along that road . And , the site where 6 they ' re talking about , the gravel pit and the park , is at least 7 a half mile , not any more , not any less . 8 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 9 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : That doesn ' t tell us where the 10 city limits are . 11 MR . RHEA : Madam Chairman , -- 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Would you stand up please and tell 13 us who you are . 14 MR . RHEA : Jerry Rhea , president Front Range Sand and 15 Gravel . 16 I measured that with a roll tape . It ' s 33 to 3 , 500 feet , 17 depending on the on ramp on the 85 . To the driveway of Pierson 18 Park it ' s 3 , 300 feet . That ' s with the exception of the 150 19 foot move of the driveway entrance east . From the original 20 driveway entrance , it ' s about 3 , 500 feet . 21 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 22 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Thank you . No more . 23 COMMISSIONER LACY : Madam Chairman , do we discuss 24 developmental standards per say , before we make a motion? 25 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : It probably depends on what kind of 69 . 1 a motion you ' re going to make . 2 COMMISSIONER LACY : Madam Chairman , I ' ll make a motion, 3 we ' ll get it on the floor -- 4 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think that ' s what we need . 5 COMMISSIONER LACY : Okay . I would like to make a 6 motion that the USR 695 : 85 : 39 Front Range Sand and Gravel he 7 approved . 8 The reasons that I will state for the approval are : the 9 proposal is consistent with the Weld County comprehensive 10 plan , that ' s yes . 11 That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the 12 district in which the use is located , yes . 13 That the uses which would he permitted would he compatible 14 with the existing surrounding land uses , the south part yes , 15 the north part , no . 16 That the uses which would be permitted will be compatible 17 with the future development of the surrounding areas permitted 18 by the existing zone , and future development , I would say yes . 19 That if the use is proposed to be located in A district , 20 that the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been 21 made to conserve productive agricultural land in the locational 22 decision for proposed use , there again is a yes and no because 23 there ' s a part of that agricultural land that I haven ' t got a 24 statement from anyone yet that I am satisfied with . 25 The main thing that I have , and I have a problem with this , 70 . 1 is , that there is adequate provision for the protection of the 2 health , safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the 3 neighborhood and the county . And , I ' m talking primarily of the 4 road area that I ' m concerned about . I ' m not that concerned 5 about the area of the gravel mining , for the simple reason that 6 is controlled both by our IISR and by the Colorado State 7 Department of Land and Mining or whatever it is . 8 MR . MORRISON : Mined Land Reclamation . 9 COMMISSIONER LACY : Okay . That would be my motion for 10 the time being . I feel that there should be some discussion on 11 additional developmental standards if we ' re going to allow this . 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Is there a second to the motion? 13 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Second . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : The motion is made by Gordon and 15 seconded by Gene . 16 I think Gordon ' s suggestion was that we need to have a 17 little discussion about what kinds of operation or developmental 18 standards might he applied to address those areas where you have 19 some questions , is that right , Gordon? 20 COMMISSIONER LACY : That is correct . 21 MR . MORRISON : In the record , there ' s 13 developmental 22 standards originally recommended by the staff . For their 23 original recomendation , the Planning Commission , that did not 24 include Area B however . Area B was excluded from the 25 development . But , the development standards themselves do not 71 . 1 make reference to any particular area , those are general 2 regarding the operation . 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right . Let ' s go back and take 4 them one at a time . 5 Gordon , do you have the piece in your record? 6 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yes . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Frank , do you have this piece here? 8 This is what we ' re going to be looking at . Do you want to see 9 if you can find that? 10 COMMISSIONER LACY : The 13 standards . 11 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Oh , I see . Okay . 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Gordon , if I understood you 13 correctly , the first area where you had some question had to do 14 with compatibility with the existing surrounding land uses . You 15 mentioned something about , on the north . 16 COMMISSIONER LACY : Okay . I guess the question that 17 I have on that , Jackie , is the alfalfa land and the production 18 land . Again , I have not had anybody answer what is prime 19 alfalfa land , and how many tons per acre this produces . We ' re 20 talking about a statement here , 4 ton per acre . 4 ton per acre 21 is not prime alfalfa land , in the knowledge that I have , 22 although I ' ve never farmed . I know that if we ' re going to 23 raise four ton per acre , we ' re going to not come close to making 24 it pay out . We ' re talking about 8 , 10 , 15 ton an acre . 25 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : So , you ' re really talking about 72 . 1 that standard here that has to do with Seciton B , or Parcel B , 2 but you ' re talking really about the next to the last -- you ' re 3 not really talking about compatibility with surrounding uses , 4 you're talking about whether or not this is prime enough 5 agricultural land to follow the policies of the resource 6 extraction plan? 7 COMMISSIONER LACY : That ' s right . 8 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : The information that we have , I 9 think , is two-fold . 10 One is the statement from the Brighton Soil Conservation 11 District , which identifies this as prime soil . 12 The statement was made by someone that those people were 13 prepared to retract that statement or change it , but we don ' t 14 have that kind of information in our record . 15 MR . MORRISON : You do have the experience of the 16 person farming the land right now . He was the one that 17 referenced the potential for change for that . He also has his 18 own personal experience on the land . 19 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Right . So , I don ' t know how the 20 Board feels about that based on those . 21 We also have , I think , someone who farmed that land 22 previously who gave testimony . 23 COMMISSIONER LACY : We had a neighbor who farmed to 24 the west of it . 25 We ' re not getting the information that I look for , as far 73 . 1 as the agricultural land is concerned . 2 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : I think the alfalfa could 3 vary . It depends on how long it ' s been seeded , you know , how 4 many years ago it was seeded . It won ' t produce forever , if 5 you get what I ' m saying . 6 So , 4 tons could be pretty good deal, I would say . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : When this referral was made to 8 Brighton , did they inspect the land or did they just go to 9 their books? 10 MR . CUNLIFFE: They reference a map in the letter of 11 August 23rd . The Prime Agricultural Land on the important farm 12 land of Weld County Colorado . So , that ' s out of their standard 13 book that they use . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : So , would it be possible for us 15 as the condition of approval , to have , for that parcel , to have 16 an on-site evaluation . Would they do that sort of thing? 17 Is that within their scope to indicate to us -- would that 18 satisfy you , Gordon? Is that what you ' re looking for? Is that 19 something they would do? 20 MR . CUNLIFFE : I think if the Board requested that , I ' m 21 sure that they would . 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Can we condition that way , Lee? 23 MR . MORRISON : I think you can say your approval 's 24 conditioned on, if you want to go that way , on a 25 re-classification of that parcel . 74 . 1 COMMISSIONER LACY : Just that parcel? 2 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Yeah , we ' re just talking about 3 that B parcel . 4 MR . MORRISON : And including that parcel , you know , 5 if it were for approval , you would include that parcel only if 6 it was re-classified . 7 MS . DUNN : When I ' ve spoken to them in the past , 8 about matters of this nature , they ' ve indicated to me that they 9 could do a soil test for us if requested . 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right . 11 Maybe one could be working on a little language , if you 12 would please , for us as a condition . 13 Let ' s go on then . I think the other area of concern is 14 the health , safety and welfare issue . 15 COMMISSIONER LACY : I ' m very concerned about that , and 16 have been ever since we started on this , in talking to these 17 people . I feel that a number 4 , and I guess development 18 standards talk about the applicant shall obtain a State Highway 19 Access Permit and satify all access design requirements of the 20 Colorado Division of Highways . I would like some wordage on 21 that , a developmental standard for acceleration and 22 de—acceleration lanes . 23 My thoughts on this would he that those are -- would be 24 extremely necessary for the operation . I guess I feel that they 25 would be necessary if there are 5 trucks , 10 trucks , or 50 75 . 1 trucks going in and out of there , I think that it ' s important 2 that that be part of the developmental standard . 3 And , the comment that the driveway could he moved , or 4 would have to he moved , I ' m not sure is totally correct ; 5 although , I don ' t know if it would be less expensive to move it 6 or to put a pipe or a tube in that , along side that ditch and 7 build over to the south side of Highway 52 , for an acceleration 8 lane in that direction . But , I think there should be some -- 9 I hope you two gentlemen and Gloria are right , but this is my 10 thoughts on that . 11 The other thing , Madam Chairman , would be that I think that 12 we should have a strong recomendation to the State Highway 13 Department that the speed limit on that area , from 85 to one 14 mile to the west , or to the top of the hill , or in that area , 15 and I ' m not sure how far we ' re talking about up on the hill , 16 that the speed limit should be -- that should be a 40 mile an 17 hour speed limit for that area . 18 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right , I hear two things there . 19 One , to make as a condition on developmental standard , the 20 creation of acceleration , deceleration lanes . 21 COMMISSIONER LACY : That ' s right . 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : And , additionally to forward to the 23 State Highway Department , the Board ' s concern for a speed limit 24 within that area . 25 Now , let me ask a question . Developmental standard 3 , in 76 . 1 the record , speaks about the haul route being only to the east , 2 has the rest of the Board picked up on that? 3 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yes . 4 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Yes . 5 COMMISSIONER LACY : There ' s a change in that , as_I 6 understand it . I read a change in that because now we ' re 7 talking about the letter from the Highway Department having 8 90 percent going east and 10 percent going west . 9 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : So that west should be addressed 10 as well . So , that would make it necessary then to have the 11 speed limit -- 12 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yes . Yes . 13 MR . MORRISON : What kind of time frame , Gordon , in 14 terms of from the time of -- there ' s a number of places you 15 could put this . Before commencing extraction , before a certain 16 number of vehicles per day , -- 17 COMMISSIONER LACY : My statement a minute ago , Lee , 18 was that I felt that those were necessary before there was 19 anything going on out there . It didn ' t make any difference to 20 me if it was 5 trucks , 10 trucks , 50 trucks , I think they ' re 21 necessary . 22 MR . MORRISON : Okay . 23 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Are there other issues that concern 24 the Board with regard to this application that you might like 25 to see addressed in developmental standards , that aren ' t already 77 . 1 presented before us? 2 COMMISSIONER LACY : I guess , going back to the other 3 one again , are we going to hang our hat on what comes back from 4 the Brighton or -- 5 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Well , it seems to me that I would 6 prefer to do that . That ' s certainly something that_I would 7 support , making that conditional for that parcel based upon 8 a re-classification on that piece of land . I just think it ' s 9 inconsistent , otherwise , with other policies . 10 COMMISSIONER LACY : That ' s right . I agree with that . 11 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I support that strongly . 12 COMMISSIONR BRANTNER : There ' s a statement , I guess , 13 I ' m trying to find it now , that they will adhere to all health 14 standards , I suppose . 15 There ' s quite a bit of comments made of dust , - It ' s - going 16 to he a wet operation , but going up and down their lane , their 17 work road , this could create dust , they said that they would 18 water that . But , I don ' t see a standard here , specifically , 19 looking at the dust problem , or the potential dust problem . 20 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Gloria , can you address that for 21 us . 22 MS . DUNN : That would he covered in Operational 23 Standards , number 10 . It ' s under the operation Standards for 24 Uses by Special Review . That covers any areas that the Health 25 Department has jurisdiction over . Those would he air pollution , 78 . 1 noise pollution, things of that nature . 2 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Yeah , and that ' s a little bit , 3 I think on the weak side , it ' s pretty hard to enforce . I 4 would rather have a specified operational standard , development 5 standard for the dust . 6 MR . CUNLIFFE : Okay , in Developmental Standard number 7 8 , it refers to section 44 . 4 , of the Weld County Zoning 8 Ordinance , which deals with operational policies on sand and 9 gravel operations . One of the standards in the zoning ordinance, 10 section 44 . 4 . 6 , states that : All access roads , from sand and 11 gravel operations to public highways , roads , or streets , or to 12 adjoining residential structures , shall be paved or otherwise 13 treated to minimize dust conditions on all parts of such access 14 roads , which are located within one-quarter mile of a public 15 highway , road , street , or adjoining residential structure . 16 So , that statement , which is incorporated into the 17 developmental standards , would cover the concerns . Basically , 18 those roads are to he paved , or they have to apply some kind 19 of a dust batement program to keep the dust out , within a 20 quarter of a mile of the public road , any residential structures, 21 or streets . 22 So , I think your concerns are covered . 23 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Are there other concerns that 24 weren ' t addressed by these amendments to development standards? 25 We ' re going to review them in a minute , hut I want to see if 79 . 1 anyone on the Board has any more concerns . 2 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I have one more question , 3 Doug , I think it is . Two questions , Doug , please . 4 MR . RAMES : Doug Rames . 5 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : What is the normal procedure 6 on signing of highways? Now , there will be a truck entrance 7 there , will the State Highway just automatically put up signs , 8 saying Truck Entrance , or would that have to be requested? 9 MR . RAMES : Probably should be requested . I don ' t 10 think .we automatically do it , unless it ' s brought to our 11 attention that there ' s a problem. 12 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Then , also , the same concern 13 of the park area . What criteria do you use of putting up 14 warning signs of : A Park , A Playground , Children at Play , or 15 another access that could be a potential hazard , or condition 16 for signing . 17 Would -- in your estimation , would that meet your criteria 18 to put up warning signs for the playground area , park area? 19 MR . RAMES : I ' m really not familiar with that aspect , 20 Gene . We have a traffic engineer down at the office and if you 21 think that that ' s appropriate , let us know down there and we ' ll 22 refer to him and he can get hack to you , or study the situation 23 himself . 24 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Okay . I ' m just trying to 25 look at all the concerns that were stated today , and that was 80 . 1 one of them . Thank you . 2 MR . RAMES : One thing that you ' re doing that concerns 3 me , I ' d like to comment on it , if I could . Your request for 4 accel , decel lanes . I think that that should be clarified . 5 There are two distinct types . 6 There ' s the type that ' s on the shoulder of the road , the 7 right turn , or the right turn in movement accel , and .the right 8 turning out movement decel . And , then there ' s also the median 9 type to accomodate the left turn decel . 10 So , I think you should make it clear . If you ' re going to 11 want us , at some point , to work with this developer to include 12 these accel , decel lanes , which type you ' re talking about , 13 and which type you want . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : It was my understanding that the 15 reference was to what had originally been required by the State 16 Highway Department , before we got the second letter . Wasn ' t 17 there some -- 18 COMMISSIONER LACY : Well , my thoughts on that , and 19 I ' m not asking , my thoughts on this would be that the west 20 bound traffic would come into the center of the highway and turn 21 left . That the on-going traffic would go to the right , as 22 you ' ve seen in many instances on the Kodak road and so on and 23 so forth . And the outgoing traffic going east would have an 24 accel that would be on the right-hand side , and the decel coming 25 in from the left . There ' s a real problem going up that hill for 81 . 1 an accel going to the west . 2 MR . RAMES : Ijust think you ought to make it clear 3 what you want . Our letter states that our warrents do not 4 require either type . And , the type that ' s in the middle 5 requires even more traffic than the type that are called for on 6 the outsides . 7 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : How do you have decel if you 8 don ' t have a middle lane? 9 COMMISSIONER LACY : Well , you turn to your right . 10 You make a right turn rather than a left turn . 11 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : To make a left hand turn , 12 would he in the middle , correct? 13 COMMISSIONER LACY : That ' s correct . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : You ' re just thinking on the south 15 side . That ' s what you ' re thinking . 16 COMMISSIONER LACY : I ' m thinking when you come down 17 off the hill , the trucks are coming in from the west , there 18 should be a decel lane on the right—hand side , and there should 19 he an acel on the right-hand side going out . PO Okay . Now , the trucks coming in , most of this traffic 21 is going to be coming in from the east , and if they ' re going P2 to make a left turn into this , they should have a lane where 23 they turn into the center to make their left turn and stop if 24 that ' s necessary for on-coming traffic , and the on-going traffic 25 goes around on the right side . 82 . 1 MR . MORRISON : Can you give us terms of art for that? 2 I mean the center lane deceleration , for a left turn . What 3 term do you apply to that? 4 MR . RAMES : That ' s a left turn decel . 5 MR . MORRISON : And , then for a left turn out , they head 6 west out of this particular thing , it ' d be a left turn 7 acceleration lane? 8 MR . RAMES : To come out and turn left? 9 MR . MORRISON : Yeah . 10 MR . RAMES : Yes , that would he a left turn accel . 11 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : And , that type of lane is 12 built in the center of the existing highway , so the highway 13 would have to be widened at both sides to that? 14 MR . RAKES : Although , there can be a problem in 15 doing that , if it requires more right of way on the opposite 16 side of the road , and the developer doesn ' t control that right of 17 way . 18 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : There ' s a right to condemn . 19 MR . RAMES : Yes , there ' s definitely a right to condemn. 20 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Well , Gordon , you ' re proposing 21 something here , let ' s get the language and see how it goes . 22 COMMISSIONER LACY : I would propose coming from the 23 west , that there be a right turn decel lane to the west of the 24 driveway . To the east of the driveway , that there would he a 25 right turn accel lane . Coming from the east , there would be a 83 . 1 decel left turn lane , which would be in the center of the road . 2 And , I ' m not sure that we can require a left turn out of the 3 driveway onto 52 , with a left turn accel going west . I don ' t 4 know how we could require that , but I ' d like to see something 5 there , because we ' re going up that hill . 6 MR . MORRISON : Well , the original thing was to not 7 allow -- was to direct the haul to 85 . 8 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yeah . Yeah . I guess one thing to 9 keep in mind is when you build the left turn decel , and widen 10 the median , that you can ' t immediately go back to no median , so 11 that you do have some room to build into the road there for an 12 accel lane . 13 I guess the simplest solution to that , Madam Chairman , is 14 that they go east to 85 . And , restrict all traffic to the east . 15 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : You still haven ' t addressed 16 your left turn lane . 17 COMMISSIONER LACY : Well , you ' d have a left turn decel 18 lane in the center . 19 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Lee , what would be the legal 20 ramifications , we put this in there , they can ' t acquire the land 21 necessary for the width to achieve that? 22 MR . MORRISON : Well , they would have to come back and 23 seek to amend . It depends on whether you make this a condition 24 or an operation standard . If it ' s a condition , they couldn ' t go 25 further without having done that . If it ' s an operation standard, 84 . 1 they have to come back and seek to amend to have that removed . 2 I mean , if you do that for the purpose of not granting it , 3 but granting it , that ' s another matter . But if , in good faith , 4 you try and impose that standard and it turns out to be a 5 problem , I think they need to come back in and seek relief from 6 that condition ; if it ' s not possible to meet . 7 We don ' t know -- don ' t have enough information now , what 8 the width of the right of way is on the north side , or what is 9 available . 10 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I think there ' s a lot of 11 unknowns . The flow of that creek and flooding conditions . If 12 they ' re going to have to put tubes in there , do you put a little 13 curve in the highway to achieve that? 14 You ' re dealing with the State Highway , they have their 15 specifications and their engineering . We ' re getting into a 16 field that -- we may be requiring something that may not be 17 achievable . 18 I ' ll concur , I think we need it , but how do we get it? 19 MR . MORRISON : Well , I don ' t doubt that the engineers 20 can design around the problem , if there ' s adequate right of way . 21 But , the right of way is a question , and I don ' t know what the 22 State will do if , they have the power to condemn , if they need 23 the road . And , you get into a question of whether they will 24 do that , if it ' s not something required by their code . 25 MR . RAMES : No , we would not . 85 . 1 MR . MORRISON : But , we don ' t know if that ' s necessary . 2 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : To get additional land? 3 MR . MORRISON : Um-hum. 4 MR . RAMPS : I don ' t know either what the right of way 5 is right through there . You would need about 6 feet of 6 additional road way on the off side . And , -- I thought I heard 7 someone say there ' s a ten-foot shoulder , and , if that ' s the 8 case , you would need 4 to 6 foot of widening on the accel , decel 9 side also . 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Do we maybe need to allow time to 11 get that information before we vote on this? 12 MR . MORRISON : That ' s a possibility . I mean , that -- 13 the other thing is that would allow you time to get S . C . S out 14 there and not make it a condition , but make it further evidence . 15 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Doug , if we asked the State 16 Highway Engineers to take a look at that , not necessarily 17 engineer it , but give us just a look-see at that , whether that ' s 18 feasible , practical way to go on that turn lanes , accel , decel , 19 would that be possible , to get an opinion from them? It ' s 20 going to come from us as a requirement . 21 MR . RAMES : An opinion as to whether it would fit in 22 the right of way , is that what you want? 23 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Yeah . Or , if it ' s feasible . 24 MR . RAMES : Yes , we could do that . 25 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Pros and cons? 86 . 1 MR . RAMES : Yes . 2 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Well , what do you want to do? 3 Well , I ' m not sure that we need to necessarily 4 withdraw the motion , at this point . I think we ' ve got a little 5 problem with the details with a couple of these development 6 standards . 7 COMMISSIONER LACY : I have a question , Doug . If we 8 were to contact the State Highway Department and discuss the 9 questions that we have on this , for an opinion , for some idea , 10 for somebody to get out there , in ten days? 11 MR . RAMES : Fifteen to 20 days , you ' d probably have 12 an answer . 13 MR . MORRISON : It would he appropriate for you to just 14 move to continue , or to table -- no , continue this item for 15 three weeks . And , that would leave the motion on the floor . 16 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : What ' s three weeks? 17 THE CLERK : The, 13th . 18 COMMISSIONER LACY : And , all that we would do at that 19 time would be to discuss the information that we have received 20 on that parcel , and from the State Highway Department , that 21 would he -- 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think that would be the intent . 23 COMMISSIONER LACY : There would be no further 24 testimony or , you know , anything like that? 25 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I understand that basically what 87 . 1 we ' re doing is to get further finding of fact . So , I think we 2 can do that without opening additional testimony , isn ' t that 3 right , Lee? 4 MR . MORRISON : Well , it may be appropriate , if there ' s 5 testimony on this particular issue , to allow it on those issues 6 only . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : That ' s fine . 8 COMMISSIONER LACY : That would be then from the State 9 Highway Department , and/or the soil conservation district? 10 MR . MORRISON : Right . And then the applicant , and 11 other interested parties who had evidence on those two issues . 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Is there a desire to do that by the 13 Board? 14 I feel like if we don ' t we ' re going to leave a lot of 15 loose ends . And we really can ' t solve it , at this point . I 16 really appreciate , Doug , you bringing that issue up for us . 17 Is therea motion to continue until the 13th of November , 18 to allow , at that time , information from the Soil Conservation 19 Services , do you think that will frame -- I don ' t even know if 20 you know -- 21 MR . CUNLIFFE : I guess one of our concerns would be , 22 I ' d like to put some of that responsibility on the applicant . 23 I think it should be his responsibility to contact the State 24 Health Department , to contact the Platte Valley Soil 25 Conservation District , get the information that they need --- 88 . 1 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : State Highway Department -- 2 MR . CUNLIFFE: Well , both , because we also have a 3 concern on the soil , whether that ' s prime or not prime . 4 COMMISSIONER LACY : You said State Health Department , 5 you meant State Highway Department . 6 MR . CUNLIFFE : Oh , I ' m sorry . State Highway 7 Department . 8 We need both of those agencies , and put that burden on him , 9 it ' s really his burden of proof to show -- 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I agree . 11 MR . CUNLIFFE : Instead of involving the staff , and 12 so that ' s my concern . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think that ' s a fair statement . 14 MR . CUNLIFFE : So , I think that should be part of the 15 motion . 16 COMMISSIONER LACY : I think there should be people 17 who hear from those departments , or -- 18 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Written testimony . 19 Is there such a motion? 20 COMMISSIONER LACY : So moved . 21 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Second . 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right , the motion by Gordon , 23 and seconded by Gene , is to continue until November 13th , at 24 2 o ' clock . At which time we will consider testimony regarding 25 the accel , decel lanes , that we ' re considering requiring as a 89 . 1 developmental standard . 2 And , at which time , we will also consider the information 3 from the Soil Conservation District of Brighton , regarding 4 the classification of the Area B . 5 That it is the responsibility of the applicant to bring 6 that information to the Board , at that time , for our 7 consideration . I ' m sure the staff will be willing to help you 8 relate that in the form to present to us , but the contacts 9 should be the responsibility of you . 10 And , that at that time , we will take testimony on those 11 two issues only . The others , we think , we have heard sufficient 12 testimony . 13 Are there any questions about that ? 14 DAVID PEHR : I have a question . Will that information 15 he available to the public , for example 48 hours prior to the 16 hearing? 17 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think it would be helpful if it 18 could be . And , I would ask the applicant if he can make that 19 information available , through our staff , and then the public 20 can get it through our staff . 21 Mr . Rhea , comments? 22 MR . RHEA : No comments . 23 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : You will not be able to make that 24 material available? 25 MR . RHEA : Well , we can give that to you 48 hours in 90 . 1 advance , that ' s no problem. 2 It ' s just that I would like to -- are these requests that 3 we were making , are they going to be -- I ' m trying to jot them 4 down , I want to make sure that I ' m accurate on them -- 5 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think our staff could give you 6 specific -- in fact , you probably already have this . What we 7 want , specifically , is information regarding Parcel B , as to 8 its classification , from the Soil Conservation District . 9 MR . RHEA : Okay . 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : And , what we also want , 11 specifically , is information regarding what would he required 12 and the feasibility of putting in acceleration , deceleration 13 lanes , as were outlined by Mr . Lacy . 14 MR . RHEA : If I -- I could have our engineering 15 department draft a , more or less , a sketch of what we ' re going 16 to propose , or are we going to have to get with the State and 17 they ' re going to have to come out and show us? 18 Because , they ' re not requesting any decel or accel lanes , 19 so -- 20 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : That ' s right . We ' re requesting -- 21 MR . MORRISON : That they ' re aware of what kind of 22 right of ways available there . 23 MR . RHEA : Exactly . 24 MR . MORRISON : And so , I don ' t -- you know the process 25 is something , if you want to propose something to the State and 91 . 1 have them say whether it ' s feasible or not , that might be the 2 fastest way to do it . 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Are you clear , now? 4 MR . RHEA : Yes . No problem . 5 WILLIAM PEHR : Are we going to get those documents 6 in sufficient time ahead of the hearing . so we can prepare -- 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : We just indicated that that 8 information would he available 48 hours prior to the hearing on 9 the 13th . That would be Monday , at 2 o ' clock . 10 WILLIAM PEHR : Is the staff going to mail it to us? 11 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : No . I think you would have to make 12 it available to yourselves . 13 MR . RHEA : One last question , Madam Chairman . 14 Are these the only two issues that we ' re going to address in 15 November? 16 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : The other issues are the 17 development standards , which were recommended by the staff 18 initially , when you came to the Planning Commission . And , I 19 think you ' ve seen those , and have copies of those . 20 To the best of my understanding , based on what the Board 21 has said today , those development standards , plus these that 22 we ' ve just talked about , are the only issues that we ' re 23 considering at this time , as being ones that we need to satisfy 24 in order to meet the standards that we ' re required to meet under 25 the Use by Special Review . 92 . 1 MR . RHEA : Okay . Thank you . 2 MR . CUNLIFFE : I may just have one thing . In addition 3 to the 13 development standards , the staff also had 7 conditions 4 of approval , which I think the Board also needs to consider . 5 COMMISSIONER LACY : Were they in the packet? 6 MR . MORRISON : Yeah , they ' re in there . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay , those conditions were part 8 of the original material , as well , and I think you ' ve seen those 9 before . One of them relates to Area B , which may or may not he 10 applicable , depending upon the Conservation report . 11 The others require -- the others look , for the most part 12 to be pretty boiler plate , Chuck , is there anything unusual 13 in any of the others that I ' m missing? 14 MR . CUNLIFFE : No . I think they ' re the standard 15 conditions for approval . 16 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay . 17 All right . Other discussion? 18 The motion before you is to continue on until November 13th, 19 for the reasons outlined . Is there further discussion on the 20 motion? 21 All in favor say Aye . 22 (Whereupon everyone on the Board signified with an 23 Aye . ) 24 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Opposed? 25 The motion is carried . 93 . 1 (Whereupon this hearing was recessed to conclude 2 on November 13 , 1985 . ) 3 4 5 6 7 8 I , VALERIE S . ANTUNA , certify that the foregoing 9 transcript is a full and accurate record of the proceedings 10 in this matter on the date set forth . 11 12 13 Dated at Greeley , Colorado , this / I j � day of 14 December , 1985 . 15 16 17 h 18 VALERIE S . NTUNA SHORTHAND REPORTER 19 NOTARY PUBLIC 20 21 22 23 7 ? /2 --/L'tt CineO4a 24 25 O{,t_ :X / /9 Hello