The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About850660.tiff 1 I I I I CASE NUMBER 86CA1281 APPEAL FROM WELD CO. DIST. CT. NO. 85-CV-1065 ALVIN DECHANT, ET AL , .' c'VS. P1aAinSif'fk-Apeal THE BOARD OF CQUPAlCI01 S, E , ' of n s-Appellees VOL. 3 of 4 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE COMMISSIONERS 11-13-85 PAGES 1 - 60 t 1 1 ' 850660 PLoao2 1 1 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 WELD COUNTY , COLORADO I r3 3 DOCKET NO . 85-79 /: 4 5 IN RE : Continuation of application of Front Range Sand and 6 Gravel for a Use by Special Review for an Open-cut 7 Sand and Gravel Operation . 8 November 13 , 1985 9 10 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT : 11 Jacqueline Johnson , Chairman Gene Brantner 12 Bill Kirby Gordon E . Lacy 13 Frank Yamaguchi (4\ Ste: 14 4 'yam; 15 APPEARANCES te:r -60 PEALS © 16 Applicant , Jerry Rhea , Pro se t/IJ Q 21986 17 Jerry McRae , Engineer for Applicant yy Richard Fuller , Attorney representing AC$e% '1ir8ON�Kt 18 UrtofA PPedi Lee Morrison , Assistant County Attorney 19 Gloria Dunn , Planning Department representative 20 Mary Reiff , Acting Clerk to the Board 21 22 23 24 25 1 . 1 (The following public hearing was had to the Board 2 of Weld County Commissioners , on November 13 , 1985 , at 2 : 05 p . m .) 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Will the clerk please call the 4 roll . 5 THE CLERK : Gene Brantner . 6 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Here . 7 THE CLERK : Bill Kirby . 8 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Here . 9 THE CLERK : Gordon Lacy . 10 COMMISSIONER LACY : Here . 11 THE CLERK : Frank Yamaguchi . 12 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Here . 13 THE CLERK : Jackie Johnson . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Here . 15 Mr . Morrison , would you make a record on the first case , 16 please . 17 MR . MORRISON : Madam Chairman , Docket #85-79 is a 18 continuation of the hearing of October 23rd , 1985 , on the USR 19 for an open-cut sand and gravel operation , for Front Range Sand 20 and Gravel . 21 At that time , the matter was continued . The resolution 22 provides that the matter would he continued to this date , and 23 testimony would be concerning the feasibility of acceleration 24 and deceleration lanes ; and regarding re-classification in 25 terms of the soil types , by Platte Valley Soil Conservation 2 . 1 District , what is known as Parcel B . 2 Those are the two issues in which further testimony would 3 be taken . 4 I also note that there was made a motion at the last 5 meeting to approve , with certain conditions , and then as we went 6 through the conditions , these issues arose . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right , thank you . 8 Gloria , do you want to make any additional statements , at 9 this time? 10 MS . DUNN : No . I think I just want to make sure that 11 the Board remembered that a motion was made and seconded at the 12 last meeting . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay , thank you . 14 Would the applicant like to come forward , please . 15 MR . MCREA : Madam Chairman , Board members , my name ' s 16 Jerry McRea , with McRae and Short . We do the engineering and 17 planning on the Front Range Sand and Gravel Pit . 18 With me is Jerry Rhea , and Glenn Salmon , officers of Front 19 Range ; also Jerry Dreiling , the land owner is here . Lauren 20 Sims , we have been dealing with on the highway matter , he ' s 21 also here . 22 The information requested at the last meeting regarding 23 those two items has been submitted to you in letter form . I 24 think at this stage we probably would just stand ready to answer 25 any questions that might arise , acid some clarification if 3 . 1 necessary , and be responsive to your questions . 2 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right . Does the Board have 3 questions? Let ' s take the matter of Area B , that we were 4 speaking of . Any questions on that? 5 MR . MCRAE : The Soil Conservation did send out a 6 technician to review the site . The letter states that the soil 7 still does fall within the general classifications as shown on 8 the soils map . The indication on the written material is that 9 the gravel would be approximately 60 inches below the surface . 10 In the letter I note that he ' s indicated that it ' s a much 11 shallower depth , it ' s only 28 to 36 inches . So , we are on the 12 light side of over burden , which is good for the gravel and I 13 think probably affects the surface quality . 14 It ' s also indictated that there are several gravel spots 15 within that area that have already surfaced . 16 He did not , specifically address area 3 , or the soils area 17 3 , which is shown on the map , which is basically a swampy ground 18 water table area . But , I think , he ' s reviewed it and he ' s 19 given general comments and he has not made a clear statement as 20 to whether this is or is not prime agricultural land , but it ' s 21 still a general classification . (Whereupon Exhibit M was marked.) 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Gloria , from the Planning Staff ' s 23 perspective , what would be their interpretation? 24 MS . DUNN : I spoke with Roy Bell on the telephone 25 earlier this week and he told me that 35 acres were still 4 . 1 classified as prime agricultural land . 2 He directed me to Page 96 of the Soil Survey , when I 3 inquired of him the yield of certain types of crops . He 4 directed me to this page , in order to determine the amount of 5 yield for certain types of crops , and indicated to me that it 6 was considered prime land . And , that the yield would depend 7 upon the stand and the management of the land . 8 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : The Planning Staff does not 9 recommend a change from the previous recommendation? 10 MS . DUNN : No , we do not . 11 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other questions from the Board with 12 regard to this particular aspect? 13 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Well , I think Iwould comment that 14 if you took 35 acres , that out of 40 , that sounds like a fairly 15 high percentage of prime ground . But , I guess , it depends 16 partly on how the gravel ' s distributed , as far as being a very 17 useful ag field and consider it with the overall site , the total 18 acres . There ' s not an awful lot of prime land out of the total 19 number of acerage . So , it sort of depends on how it ' s split up 20 and divided . 21 MR . MCRAE : I think the owner did give testimony at 22 the last hearing as to how much was actually useful in the 23 farming aspect . There is a swamp area , there ' s a gravel out 24 break , there ' s several irrigation ditches in use to irrigate 25 the property , so it is chopped up . 5 . 1 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other questions or comments? 2 Let ' s move on now , to the other issue , which was the 3 access on 52 . 4 MR . MORRISON Before you do , I don ' t see in the record 5 a copy , or the original of that letter . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Gloria , would you have that? 7 MS . DUNN : We received a copy in the mail . Do you 8 want me to submit this to you? 9 MR . MORRISON : Yes . 10 (Whereupon Exhibit N was marked . ) 11 MR . MCRAE : The application report also carries a 12 section that was requested of the Soil Conservation District , 13 as part of the record . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay . We just got the letter , 15 I think , as we came down , from the -- with regard to Highway 52 16 access , could you summarize it for us . 17 MR . MCRAE : Certainly . As requested as of last 18 meeting , we pursued and tried to clarify with the Highway 19 Department , what would be necessary to consider any additional 20 improvements along that particular stretch of road . 21 We met once by phone , once in the Highway Department ' s 22 office . We ' ve analyzed what the basic criteria are . Lauren 23 Sims with the Highway Department is here . I may generalize on 24 some of the Highway Department ' s indications , I would ask you 25 to refer to him for any specific questions as to the design and 6 . 1 criteria that they use to establish various improvements as 2 they are required . 3 In summary , after our meetings , we have reached basically 4 the same conclusions that were included in the previous letters 5 from the Highway Department . Being , the proposed traffic 6 volume is well below the criteria for any additional road 7 improvements . And , that ' s based on the present traffic within 8 Highway 52 , itself , and in addition , the proposed ingress and 9 egress traffic from this gravel pit operation . 10 Secondly , that the access permit is required by the 11 Highway Department for any access to the highway . This permit 12 will detail the imporvements required and specify the amount 13 and type of traffic use . 14 That would indicate that the application and the permit 15 are based on a certain set of conditions . If those conditions , 16 in the future , increase , then that intersection would be 17 reviewed and improvements made on the basis of some pre—set 18 higway volume and turning movement conditions . 19 In the highway , there is presently a bridge over the Lupton 20 Bottom Canal , which is just to the west of the site . And , also 21 the canal on the south side of the right of way . Both of 22 those things are existing within the highway , and would have an 23 effect on the widening of the road , either now or later , as to 24 the width , the turning lanes , and so forth . 25 The third item is that based on the present criteria , the 7 . 1 Highway Department could not find any reason to make 2 recommendations for such improvements , becuase they would not 3 meet the criteria . They could not finance those now , because 4 they are not within the criteria to make improvements . 5 The addition of accelaration , decleration lanes along the 6 highway , because everything has to be built within the highway 7 according to the new criteria , in looking at widening the road 8 for turning lane movements and acceleration and deceleration 9 lanes , to meet the present criteria , that would require about 10 4 , 000 feet of widening in variation along that section of road . 11 About 2 , 000 feet on each side of the entrance itself . 12 We made an evaluation on that basis as to what the economic 13 impact would be . That ' s in the letter . We estimated what it 14 would cost to widen that bridge , which would be very close to 15 the major portion of widening . We have not considered such 16 items as additional right of ways , that might be required . The 17 relocation of the Lupton Bottom Ditch , or how to handle it . 18 So , there are still some unknowns , but based on the 19 highway work , the road way work to do , the tapering lanes , the 20 widening lane , the turning lane , and so forth , the bridge , we ' re 21 looking at 225 , 000 , or $350 , 000 . 22 After all of the review , we went back to what would be the 23 basic requirement for an intersection , at this time , and with 24 the projected traffic load onto the highway . We laid out the 25 required radius off of the bridge , the bridge and road way 8 . 1 approach on the access site , would meet the requirements . 2 We provided for 50 foot return radius , so the trucks can have 3 adequate turning movement into the property and off of the 4 property onto the highway . And , we ' ve indicated that that , 5 of course , would be paved to the right of way line , and that ' s 6 required by the Highway Department . We would carry that further 7 into the property , to cover the baic high traffic areas within 8 the site , because of the dust and the smooting of the loads and 9 so forth . 10 The other items , of course , are just more management -- 11 oh , signing control would be as recommended by the Highway 12 Department , Trucks Turning , Left Turn , Trucks Turning , that type 13 of information would be installed according to their 14 recommendations . 15 The only additional thing , of course , that the operator 16 is there on a day to day basis . It ' s his trucks that would be 17 moving in and out and from an insurance aspect , from an 18 etiquette aspect , they would certainly impress upon their 19 drivers that this is an intersection that does have some traffic 20 and the visibility is good , but there still is a need for care 21 in entering and exiting at that location . That could be 22 monitored and taken care of just as a matter between the 23 operator and the drivers , as necessary . 24 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Questions? 25 Would you review for me , again . The paving would be as 9 . 1 outlined on this map . And , you indicated that you would pave 2 into the access road to a distance . 3 MR . MCRAE : Yes . We ' re showing here the pavement 4 required by the access permit with the Hihgway Department , to 5 pave the shoulders and the entrance back to the right of way 6 line , in this case , the bridge is also within the right of way , 7 and that would be reviewed by the Higway Department . The 8 basic configuration of width in that location seems to be g suitable at this time ..' 10 Additionally , the operator would carry the pavement into 11 the property to serve the scale area and those other high 12 traffic areas adjoining the highway . Obviously , once you leave 13 the scale and the office-type area , you are well within the 14 property and dust control -- other dust control measures would 15 be more economical . 16 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : The other question I had , had to do 17 with the traffic control signing . Can you be specific about 18 what the signing requirements would be by the State Highway 19 Department? 20 Is there someone here from the Highway Department who 21 could speak to that? 22 Would there be a speed reduction or would there just be 23 warning signs? I ' d be curious to know exactly how it would be 24 signed . 25 MR. SIMS : I ' m Loren Sims with the Colorado Department 10 . 1 Highways . I am project engineer and am working in the Greeley 2 office here . 3 We really haven ' t researched the exact requirements for 4 signing , so I can ' t tell you right at this time , exactly what 5 the requirements would be . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay . Other questions? 7 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yes . We ' re looking at the 8 criteria for the decel , accel lanes and the State -- the 9 information we get is that they are not necessery because of the 10 amount of traffic that ' s there at the present time . 11 Can you tell me how much -- what the traffic count is now 12 and how much it takes to put in the criteria a decel , accel 13 lane . What is , you know , what are we looking at? 14 MR . SIMS : Normally , we do not base the design on the 15 present traffic , but on the projected traffic , and , it ' s based 16 on both the highway traffic and the traffic using the access . 17 We base our design on 20-year traffic projection and the full 18 build out of the acces site . 19 I have some traffic data for the access , which was given 20 to me by the Front Range Sand and Gravel . They are indicating 21 that there will be 90 vehicles , average , daily traffic in 22 their full build out . 23 And , we base our design on what we call , Design Hour 24 Volume . And , we look at the traffic making various turning 25 movements ; a left turn in , a right turn out , a right turn in , 11 . 1 a right turn out , and in analyzing their traffic , and our 2 manual , we have concluded that they do not need acceleration or 3 deceleration lanes , using our projected traffic and their 4 full build out traffic . 5 COMMISSIONER LACY : In other words , what you ' re saying 6 here -- you ' re talking about 90 single trips , in and out? 7 MR . SIMS : Yes , it ' s in and out -- 8 COMMISSIONER LACY : So , it would be 45 -- 9 MR . SIMS : So , approximately 45 coming in and 45 10 going out . 11 They have indicated to me that 90 percent of that traffic 12 will be going to the east to State Highway 85 . The other 10 13 percent will be coming from and going to the west . 14 COMMISSIONER LACY : So , 40 of those vehicles will be 15 coming in from the east , and going out , approximately . 16 MR . SIMS : Approximately , yeah , approximately 40 . 17 That ' s total daily traffic . For design purposes we break 18 that down into an hourly volume . 19 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON : And , you ' re projecting what 20 you anticipate the traffic will be with this , and a 20 year 21 projection for the other kinds of increases due to the population 22 developments and that sort of thing . 23 MR . SIMS : I assume that our traffic projections take 24 into account projected development in the county . 25 MR . MORRISON : Do those projections -- those traffic 12 . 1 estimates take into account the type of vehicle , or is it just 2 a matter of a vehicle? 3 MR . SIMS : This , I believe , is just a matter of total 4 vehicles . The data that I have here would include trucks , 5 pickup trucks , cars , that ' s all -- 6 MR. MORRISON : Do your criteria for determining when 7 the turn lanes are required take into account the type of 8 vehicle? I mean , the speed in which they can make turns and 9 the ability to do that? 10 MR . SIMS : The actual requirements for accel , decel , 11 do not take into account the types , but the types do affect the 12 length of the decel lane or the length of the accel lane , the 13 length of the sight distance requirements . But , as far as the 14 requirement for the accel , decel lane , the type of vehicle is 15 not indicated . 16 MR . MORRISON : What is the break even -- when would 17 you start requiring , under these circumstances? 18 MR . SIMS : Well , the requirement for an accel , decel 19 lane are based both on the traffic on the highway and the 20 traffic using the access . And , we have a graph or a chart 21 that we use . It ' s also related to the speed limit . So , there 22 are various conditions that affect that , and the traffic can 23 vary somewhat within those conditons . I can ' t give you a 24 specific number , it ' s dependent upon the circumstances . 25 MR . MORRISON : Well , assuming the same conditions on 13 . 1 highway , the same speed limit , how many would have to be coming 2 in and out of this particular facility at the same break out 3 of turns? 4 MR . SIMS : I ' m not sure I exactly understand your 5 question , but -- 6 MR MORRISON : With the only variable the number of 7 trips in and out , with everything else the same as it was 8 presented to you -- 9 MR . SIMS : Okay . 10 MR . MORRISON : How many trips would it take? 11 MR . SIMS : Okay . There are different conditions or 12 different requirements for a right turn decel lane , a left turn 13 decel lane , a right accel lane . Fora right turn decel lane , 14 they would need to have 5 design hour volume , or 5 vehicles per 15 hour minimum . 16 For a right turn accel lane out of that access , they would 17 need to have 15 vehicles per hour . 18 For a left turn decel lane into that access , they would 19 need to have , oh , about 14 vehicles per hour . 20 MR . MORRISON : Okay . And , you ' re assuming how many 21 vehicles per hour on the left turn? 22 MR . SIMS : With the data they have given me , and 23 using this 90 percent split , 90 percent of the traffic going 24 to the east , and I assume a 6 hour day , I think that ' s 25 fairly conservative , they may operate more than 6 hours , I 14 . 1 came up with approximately 8 vehicles per hour in and out , 2 going to the east . 3 MR . MORRISON : Okay . 4 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Okay , in looking at this design , 5 do you feel like that ' s adequate so they can make the right 6 turn out of the facility without getting in the west bound lane? 7 MR . SIMS : We ' ve designed the radiuses there 8 sufficient for a truck to turn into that lane going east 9 without encroaching upon the west bound lane . 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : 90 percent of the traffic coming 11 into the facility will be coming from the east to the west , 12 so they ' ll be making a left turn into the facility? 13 MR . SIMS : That ' s correct . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : But , you ' re not able to tell me 15 what kind of signing or what kind of control . 16 The reason I ' m asking these questions is a lot of the 17 testimony we heard last time related to the safety of school 18 children and school buses , of the traveling public along 19 Highway 52 . I ' m not feeling a level of comfort with regard to 20 the controls that might address that concern . I really would 21 pressure you to give me some idea , if you can , of what ' s 22 available for this . 23 MR . SIMS : The code itself does not specifically 24 address signing , that ' s -- 25 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Who ' s going to make that decision? 15 . 1 We ' ve got a letter here that says that the signing will be 2 installed as recommended by the Highway Department . I ' d like 3 to know what you recommend . 4 MR . SIMS : We do have a traffic engineer that works 5 out of our Greeley office , and I would consult with him on that 6 signing . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : You don ' t have any idea what that 8 might be? 9 That really makes it hard for me to make a decision without 10 that information . 11 COMMISSIONER LACY : I think that that was one of the 12 things we asked for the last time , because we had talked about 13 a 55 mile an hour, and we were talking about reducing that 14 speed , and so on and so forth . I thought that that was 15 information we were going to get , along with the accel , decel 16 lanes . I have a real problem, along with you Jackie . 17 One of the things that I might add to this , when we made 18 our presentation to the State Highway Department last Thursday 19 morning , when Bill and I went down there , one of the questions 20 they asked us was what kind of protection the county was giving 21 the state whenever we allowed this type operation to run on 22 state highways . I ' m not sure that we can do anything on it , but 23 I think that we need to make sure that when we do something like 24 this , or if we do this , that there are definite speed limits , 25 and definite turn lane situations . And , I ' m not getting the 16 . 1 . information I thought I needed . 2 MR . SIMS : Okay . I might mention as far as the 3 speed limits are concerned , they are difficult to change . 4 Normally , we spend 2 or 3 months studying the situation and 5 determining , mainly , how fast the people travel in that area . 6 It doesn ' t mean that we ' ll necessarily change the speed limit . 7 We look and see how fast people drive in that area , but the 8 study takes maybe 2 or 3 months . And even after the study we 9 do not guarantee that we would decrease the speed limit . 10 Traffic is a field that I normally don ' t work in , we have 11 a traffic engineer , he ' s not here today , but we do have a 12 traffic engineer that works in that field . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other questions , comments from 14 the Board? Thank you , Mr . Sims . 15 Mr . McRae , any additional comments? 16 MR . MCREA : I don ' t think so . 17 MR RHEA : We talked last meeting about what the 18 actual increase of volume of traffic on Highway 52 in this 19 area is going to be . 20 We ' re already talking of four of my major competitors 21 using Highway 52 . I ' ve talked to some of these competitors , 22 who I know quite well , and they are saying to me that if this 23 pit became an availability, a possibility , that they would , in 24 essence , trade out materials for my pit , future pit , to theirs . 25 Meaning that Highway 52 from I-25 , literally the traffic would be 17 . 1 reduced . What I mean by that is that there are 4 pits presently 2 at I-25 and Del Camino exit , which is -- 3 MS . DUNN : One-nineteen . 4 MR. RHEA : Might be . And , they ' re presently coming 5 south on I-25 to the Highway 52 Dacono exit , traveling the 6 entire length of Highway 52 into Fort Lupton , or whichever 7 way they ' re going from that point , whether it ' s east on 52 or 8 south or north on 85 . 9 And , you know, the major concern in our industry is 10 trucking . The cost of trucking . It ' s tremendously high . At 11 one time in our industry the material cost' more than the 12 trucking , now , it ' s reversed . Our trucking is actually more 13 than the material that we buy . 14 So , these things are definitely a concern of ours . The 15 amount of trucking . We do anything in our industry to work on 16 these problems . For instance the Frontier Materials , they have 17 a pit right off of the Highway 52 , I believe they call it the 18 Stronquist Pit . We buy a lot of material from that pit . They 19 haul a lot of material to Fort Lupton , to Brighton . What we ' re 20 actually talking here is we ' re increasing the volume of traffic 21 from our entry way 90 percent by approximately 45 trucks one 22 way . And , down the line , we could be decreasing the volume 23 of traffic on the entire Highway 52 from I-25 . 24 I ' m not saying it ' s going to compensate truck for truck , 25 but I ' m saying the 90 , in realization , could only be 45 , when 18 . 1 you talk about our inter-company working . 2 You know , there ' s a lot of positive attitude toward this , 3 it ' s not all negative . And , as far as the signing goes , we 4 would request from the Colorado Department of Highways , at our 5 own expense , to put up signs . If we felt that we needed more , 6 and they gave us permission , we would put them up ourselves . if 7 they do not , then we have to follow their criteria . 8 We are definitely saftey minded . We have not ever once 9 shirked that . We will never shirk that . That ' s for our own 10 protection , as well as that of the community . 11 Now, as far as the speed limit , I can ' t impede traffic by 12 going under the speed limit . If it ' s 55 , my trucks wouldn ' t 13 want to be going down the highway at 35 , they would be impeding 14 traffic . I can ' t control the speed limit , that ' s the Colorado 15 State Highway Department . 16 The visibility factor , and we talked about this very , very 17 extensively with the State Highway Department , the visibility 18 factor of this ingress , egress , of this pit , is probably , it is 19 beyond 99 percent of the ones that are in existence now. There ' s 20 an excellent in and out view from either side . 21 And , I just wanted to kind of let you know that the amount 22 of traffic , in summing up , can in the future actually be 23 maintained or decreased through inter-company trading of 24 materials . And , that is a possibility, it ' s becoming more and 25 more evident as time goes on because of the high cost of 19 . 1 construction . 2 Is there any question you ' d like to ask me? 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Questions for Mr . Rhea? 4 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Say , how about moving the 5 driveway either east or west by realigning the ditch? 6 MR . RHEA : I didn ' t hear you , sir . 7 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Have you ever thought of 8 realigning the ditch , or putting the driveway east of the Lupton 9 Canal , or move the canal to the west and come straight into 10 the crossing the highway , how would that work? 11 MR . RHEA : We talked about that . There ' s quite a bit 12 of money involved in moving that ditch . First of all , we ' d 13 have to have the permission of the ditch company , which we have 14 not received . We have looked at that as feasible and the 15 approach that we ' re taking onto Highway 52 is right now , 16 according to this map , is the most feasible , possible entrance 17 that we have ; as far as monetary reasons or as far as proficiency 18 reasons go . This is the design that works best for us and , we 19 feel , best for Highway 52 . 20 If you look , the width of that bridge is 35 feet , given 21 that radius of 50 feet , that ' s more than ample for a tractor 22 trailer , 18-wheeler . Now , not all the trucks will be tractor 23 trailers . I would say probably , 60 percent 18-wheelers , 40 24 percent 12-wheelers . 25 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Are there other questions for 20 . 1 Mr . Rhea? 2 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : How do you think that the 3 rates are going to be in 20 years from today? The 18-wheeler 4 that you say and then , you know , tandem. 5 MR . RHEA : For our operation , inter-company , our 6 asphalt company as well as our service division , we carry about 7 a 60-40 range . There ' s nothing we can really do about that . 8 We have to have those tandem vehicles . We would want to use 9 them for our own use , so there will always be approximately 10 40 percent and 60 percent . It ' s required for our business . 11 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Okay , thank you . 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Any further questions? 13 Thank you , Mr . Rhea . 14 Mr . Morrison , in terms of testimony , at this point , we can 15 take public testimony on the matters that we ' ve discussed , 16 specifically the Area B , and whether or not that should be 17 included in the mining plan because of its soil designation . 18 And , specifically the adequacy of the access as outlined here? 19 MR . MORRISON : Correct . 20 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Is that clear to the audience? If 21 you ' re here to speak , those are the two things that the Board 22 is willing to hear testimony on . We are not anxious to repeat 23 all of the arguments we heard previously because we remember 24 those arguments , and many of us have notes , and so forth , on 25 those . But , those two items , the Area B and whether or not that 21 . 1 should be included in the plan , and then the adequacy of this 2 proposed access . Those will be the two issues that we would 3 take testimony on . 4 Could I see a show of hands of how many people wish to 5 speak on this matter . 6 Okay . Will you try to keep your remarks to , say , 5 minutes 7 a piece , if you can do so . We ' ll just ask you to come forward 8 at this time and indicate your name and tell us what you ' d like 9 to about these issues . 10 WILLIAM PEHR : My name is William Pehr , 11222 Highway 11 52 , Weld County Colorado . 12 At this time I move for a ten minute recess so the 13 objectors can have the opportunity to at least read and view the 14 letters and maps that were tendered to this Board . We haven ' t 15 seen them. 16 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Is that agreeable to the rest of 17 the Board? I certainly have no objection to that at all . I 18 think that would be most appropriate , we will do as you request 19 and take a ten minute recess . 20 WILLIAM PEHR : Thank you . 21 (Whereupon a recess was had and the following 22 proceedings took place at 12 : 57 . ) 23 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : We will reconvene this hearing . 24 I would mention to the Board that members of the audience 25 say they ' re having difficulty hearing us . 22 . 1 Okay , Mr . Pehr , if you ' re ready . 2 WILLIAM PEHR : Thank you . At the last meeting , either 3 Mr . Brantner or Mr . Lacy suggested that the applicant look 4 into the feasibiliy of constructing an acceleration and 5 deceleration lane . 6 Feasibility , I always have thought , means practical . 7 And , I ' m sure that Mr . Brantner and Mr . Lacy had in mind the 8 safety of the people that live in that area , the children who 9 travel in that area and drive in that area . And , it seems to 10 me that an acceleration , deceleration lane is practical and 11 feasible . 12 It boils down to dollars and cents . The safety of the area 13 demands that an acceleration lane and deceleration lane be 14 constructed . 15 On khe other hand , the applicant demands and says it ' s too 16 expensive , we can ' t do it . Now , very simply , to emphaisize that 17 it ' s not feasible because as expenses , you can do that simply 18 by saying it ' s going to take 4 , 000 feet . That 4 , 000 feet is 19 not a realistic figure , and is about 50 percent of what is 20 needed , and my authority is the Department of Highways . 21 The expenses , or the cost of the project is also over 22 priced . Mr . McRae says it ' s 250 , 000 . That ' s not factual . 23 I ' m going to ask the highway engineer to step back up here 24 and tell us what he thinks it would cost . I think you ' ll find 25 that we can look at that , especially the acceleration lane to 23 . 1 the east and the deceleration lane someplace around , oh , 2 $100 , 000 . That is not excessive and not prohibitive . And , we 3 ask that if the permit is granted , that you require the 4 construction of that acceleration lane . 5 There seems to be some variance in the opinion of the 6 people in that community as to the traffic , and between what 7 the Highway Department said . The Highway Department works upon 8 projections . Not viewing the area , not living there on a day-to- 9 day basis , But , as we said before , as many people said before , 10 there ' s high truck traffic . 11 Mr . Rhea , I believe , to induce the termination of the 12 acceleration lane , said he could reduce the truck traffic on 13 Highway 52 by letting his competitor to the west , haul out of 14 his gravel pit . Very simply , it ' s going to double the truck 15 traffic in and out of that point . 16 I don ' t want to wear out my welcome such as it is , but I 17 do want to comment again about Parcel B . 18 All of you know that I live there , and I farm that area 19 immediately touching and adjoining Parcel B; we have an alfalfa 20 field . 21 And I , in addition , have been able to see what the 22 applicant , Mr . Dreiling , has been doing with his alfalfa field , 23 because when I drive down there to irrigate or whatever we do , 24 you can ' t help but look . Mr . Dreiling ' s field has the ability to 25 produce alfalfa at the rate of about 5 and a half to 5 and 24 . 1 three-quarter tons per year . And , that ' s what I produce , but 2 we have to irrigate properly . We keep it weed free , and we do 3 not over—water . 4 Now Mr . Dreiling wants to justify the reclassification of 5 that field by saying it produces 4 acres . It probably does , 6 but it produces 4 acres of alfalfa simply because he does not 7 irrigate properly . The alfalfa dries to the point where the 8 leaves fall off and then he comes in to irrigate , and you may 9 green the alfalfa again , but you do not produce a reasonable 10 yield . 11 Additionally , I think that he harbors all the thistle in 12 the county . And , that has invaded our field now. 13 But , I think with good farming practice , if he kept it 14 weed free , and irrigated promptly , and cut the alfalfa when it ' s 15 ready , he would at least produce the 5 and a half . I base my 16 yield per acre based upon weight . When alfalfa is hauled off 17 it ' s weighed , and I know what it yields . So , Tract B is as 18 good a field as any other field in that area . 19 I ' d like to present an exhibit of prime agricultural land 20 document from the U . S . C . S . Also , my affidavit in support of 21 that . And , in addition , I want to tender as an exhibit , 2 22 manuals marked Colorado Drivers ' Manual , and Colorado Truck 23 Manual . 24 The purpose of these , and the pages I marked with respect 25 to the acceleration lanes . There was a question last week that 25 . 1 remained unanswered , except for Mr . Rhea , who said that an 2 18 wheel truck can stop as quick as a passenger car . I ' m not 3 an expert , but I accept the word of the State of Colorado . 4 A 6-wheeler truck , empty , requires 84 feet to stop . A passenger 5 car requires about 40 feet to stop . 6 And , I hope that from what I ' m saying , you can appreciate 7 that trucks create a danger . 8 Thank you very much , gentlemen . 9 (Whereupon Exhibits 0 , P , Q , and R , were marked . ) 10 Mr . Sims , can you tell the Board the length of imporvements 11 that would have to he made for the access and deceleration 12 lanes? 13 MR . SIMS : The length really depends on what is done 14 there . When I talked to Jerry McRae the other day , the length 15 that he came up with was based on providing accel and decel 16 lanes both east and west of the access . 17 But , in light of the fact that 90 percent of the traffic 18 will be going to the east and coming back from the east , it 19 doesn ' t seem to make a lot of sense to provide those lanes to the 20 west . But , based on accel , decel lanes both east and west , I ' m 21 estimating in the ballpark of around 1 , 500 feet each way . This is 22 somewhat less than the 4 , 000 feet . 23 WILLIAM PEHR : How much would it cost? 24 MR . SIMS : The costs vary considerably . I have a 25 figure of cost per mile . I ' m estimating approximately 200 , 000 26 . 1 per mile . So , for 3 , 000 feet , three fifths of 200 , 000 . 2 But , you got to consider that part of that length is 3 tapered . And in my estimation of the length , I have cut down 4 those lengths a little bit because you ' re not building the 5 full width for that total length , you ' re putting in a taper . 6 The lengths of the taper vary depending on whether or not you 7 widen to roadway about the center , or whether you shift the 8 trough lanes to one side or the other . So , the taper lengths 9 can vary . 10 It ' s very difficult to give an exact figure for the length 11 and for the cost . The cost varies anywhere from $185 , 000 to 12 700 , 000 , per mile , they vary considerably . In this area , I ' m 13 estimating around 200 , 000 per mile . 14 Now, if you were to provide accel , decel lanes just to the 15 east , I ran through some figures before I came over this 16 afternoon , and I ' m estimating around 1 , 200 feet . But , I ' m 17 taking into account the tapering . I ' m only considering those 18 about half the full length because they taper back into the 19 narrower roadway . So , I do not consider that as full width 20 widening . So , I ' m taking an average and I ' m looking at 21 something like 1 , 200 feet . That ' s assuming that we do not put 22 accel , decel lanes to the west . 23 WILLIAM PEHR : Does the Board have any questions? 24 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Any questions from the Board? 25 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : How wide is the lane , do you 27 . 1 figure? Twelve -- 14 feet wide? 2 MR . SIMS : We prefer having a 12 foot lane . The code , 3 the access code , does allow us to go down to 10 feet wide . We 4 normally do not do that , particularly if we have trucks or large 5 vehicles . We prefer a 12 foot lane . 6 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : Thank you . 7 WILLIAM PEHR : Anybody else? 8 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I guess not at this time . 9 WILLIAM PEHR . I just want to say , when they proposed 10 to put the bridge , they can go just a little further east and 11 get rid of moving the ditch , that would be on the highway right 12 of way , on solid ground . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Are there other people who would 14 like to give public testimony? 15 MR . DECHANT : My name is Alvin Dechant , and we own the 16 property right straight east of that . And on this hay field , 17 and this is hay , and I ' m the one that farmed that place before 18 Mr . Dreiling took it . I farmed it and planted hay and the hay 19 is about 6 to 7 years old now . And , that is the one reason why 20 the hay is only producing 3 and a half to 4 tons an acre , because 21 it is getting old , and it has to be tore up and it has to be 22 re-planted , it ' s got to be rotated every so often . 23 Like Mr . Pehr said a little bit ago , if this hay field was 24 taken care of properly , and watered properly like it was supposed 25 to be , this is productive land . It will grow good crops down 28 . 1 there . 2 It ' s been about 7 or 8 years ago , some Japanese people 3 farmed tha land . They used to raise good vegetables on that 4 land . But , you have to work at it . 5 I always thought it was good , productive land , until 6 Mr . Dreiling got a hold of it . 7 Now , all of a sudden he wants to put a gravel pit on it . 8 I don ' t understand why -- well , I do know why , but I don ' t want 9 to get into that part . 10 Then , I got another thing here I want to ask , maybe this 11 includes the State Highway Department . How many deaths or 12 accidents has to happen down there before the State Highway will 13 take action and do something about it down there? 14 MR . SIMS : I can ' t answer that question right at the 15 moment . 16 MR . DECHANT : It seems to me that I was told sometime 17 ago , that the Highway Department will not take action on things 18 like that until there are so many accidents or so many deaths 19 has to take place first before they get involved and before they 20 put these passing lanes in . 21 Just like down at Wattenburg , Road 6 I believe it is -- 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Let ' s keep our comments just to 23 this particular issue , if we could . 24 Mr . Sims , are you able to give us an answer there? 25 MR . SIMS : No , I don ' t think there ' s an actual number 29 . 1 of accidents above which we would take some action . We look at 2 the accidents and the accident rates over the entire state , but 3 I do not think there ' s a specific number that I could give you . 4 MR . DECHANT : Okay . And then , I got another question . 5 Here on these trucks , they say -- are they planning on 90 6 trucks per hour or 90 trucks per day going in and out? 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Per day , I believe was the figure 8 we were given . 9 COMMISSIONER LACY : 90 trips . 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : That ' s 90 trips , which would be 45 11 trucks , and I believe that was at full operation . 12 MR . DECHANT : Okay . And , they talk about their trucks. 13 That they ' re going to keep their drivers in line , that they ' re 14 going to give them rules and regulations to abide by and if not 15 they ' ll get on and they ' ll do this and they ' ll do that . Well , 16 how about the leased trucks . I ' m sure they don ' t own all these 17 trucks . I ' m sure there ' s going to be a bunch of leased trucks 18 that go out and haul gravel . How about those trucks , are they 19 going to abide by what he tells them to do? I don ' t think so . 20 These are all things that they don ' t tell you about . They 21 tell you the good things , they don ' t tell you the other side of 22 it 23 And , this is why I ' m up here . To try to explain to you and 24 tell it to you . And , I guess that ' s about all I have to say . 25 And , it ' s right next door to us down there , and I don ' t 30 . 1 see how we ' re going to live down there , with the loader all day 2 long . With those beepers that they have when they go backwards , 3 all day long , we ' re going to hear that noise there . And , it ' s 4 within about a thousand feet from our property that this gravel 5 pit ' s going to be . And , I just don ' t know -- 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Would you identify where your 7 residence is . 8 MR . DECHANT : My residence is immediately to the east 9 of this Area B . I meant to say west . 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay . I thought you ' d said east -- 11 MR . DECHANT : I did , I ' m sorry . It ' s directly west . 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right . Thank you . 13 Questions? 14 Other people who wish to give testimony? 15 MR . FULLER : Good afternoon . I ' m Richard Fuller , the 16 attorney for Alice Pehr , who owns property to the west of the 17 proposed gravel pit . 18 I ' d like to address the Board solely on the issue of safety. 19 I think I share some of the concerns with some of the people 20 here , as well as the concerns I ' ve heard some of the 21 Commissioners have . 22 I think one of the things that Mr . Sims said , that the 23 projections and the criteria that the Highway Department has 24 for these accel , decel lanes , are based on , basically , standard 25 automobiles , small trucks . They' re not based on large tandem 31 . 1 vehicles , truck tractor vehicles that are going to be used in 2 the gravel pit operation . 3 Will you look at these vehicles? I think that changes the 4 complexity of the safety problem very much . 5 It ' s unfortunate that the Highway Department does not have 6 particular criteria to address this issue of the tractor 7 trucks . I think that calls into question the criteria that they 8 presented to the Board today , because they do not deal with the 9 large size of these vehicles , and I think it changes the safety 10 requirements in a number of ways . 11 One , as Mr . Pehr was mentioning , these large vehicles take 12 a long time to get up to speed , they take a long time to slow 13 down . They are going to be coming into a rather small area 14 when they make their turns . This is on a two lane highway , 15 that has a lot of use , I think this use is growing as the Fort 16 Lupton area grows . 17 On one -- on the west end is a hill , and I think the 18 vehicles have a tendency to come down that hill at possibly a 19 little faster speed than the law would permit . Unfortunately , I 20 don ' t think that ' s a very well patrolled area and people do 21 speed in that area . And , when they ' re coming down the hill , 22 sometimes they don ' t realize that they are speeding coming down 23 a hill . 24 Mr . Rhea talked about the great visibility there . Yes , 25 there ' s great visibility except when a truck is in the way , 32 . 1 then the visibility is next to nothing . 2 I think we ' ve all had the misfortune of following a large 3 truck that , basically , takes away all our visibility . And , 4 that is a narrow road and there is really not sufficient space 5 to get around those vehicles without going into the lane . 6 And , I fear what will happen , is that people will try 7 to pass these vehicles from a position of very little or no 8 visibility around , and that ' s going to cause a rather severe 9 accident at one time or another , and maybe a lot more than one . 10 And , I think that ' s where the risks come in , because of 11 the extremely large size of these vehicles , the amount of road 12 they ' re going to take up , and that they are going to remove 13 visibility . And , I think the worst , one of the possibilities , 14 is a truck coming in from one end with a car behind it , that 15 car not being able to see and trying to pass , and possibly 16 running into a car coming the other direction , or running into 17 one of the trucks coming out . 18 The decel , accel lanes are the way to get around this 19 problem. They probably only need it on the east access. It 20 would be nice to have it on both , but based on what the 21 testimony has been , I think they definitely need it on the east . 22 This is the side that the City of Fort Lupton is on and it 23 would be expected , I think , to have a lot of traffic coming 24 from that direction . 25 But , also I request of the Board to take notice of the fact 33 . 1 that the Highway Department criteria ' s based on a projection . 2 I think in a letter earlier to you , they mentioned it was 3 based on 1982 evidence . It is not up-dated . It is a 4 projection . I think we all know that projections can get out 5 of date . I don ' t think there is a present knowledge by the 6 Highway Department of actual usage , actual number of cars , and 7 vehicles and other large trucks that use that road . 8 There is going to be a severe sight hazard , there is going 9 to be a number of accidents on that road . And , I think the 10 simple solution that ' s needed is decel , accel lanes . 11 We ' re talking about safety for people . I don ' t think 12 $100 , 000 for a gravel pit operation this size is unreasonable , 13 when we ' re talking people ' s lives . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Questions? Thank you . 15 Are there any other people in the audience who wish to 16 give public testimony? 17 WILLIAM PEHR : I ' d like to say one thing -- 18 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Mr . Pehr , I think we ' ve given you 19 an opportunity to give your testimony , and I think if the Board 20 needs more information , they ' ll ask for it . 21 WILLIAM PEHR : I only wanted to call to your attention 22 that this permit will extend until the year 2015 . 23 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 24 MR . DREILING : Madam Chairman , my name is Gerald 25 Dreiling . I farm the property . It is my wife ' s and her sisters 34 . 1 property . 2 I ' ve heard a lot of things here , mainly about irrigating 3 this property and the four tons per acre on that . I don ' t 4 believe that I ever said that I took four tons to an acre off 5 of that property . 6 I did say that it irrigates three different ways . There 7 are six fields in that property , every field irrigates to the 8 center of the property , it ' s never been leveled . There ' s half 9 a mile of ditches on this property , approximatel'y . , 10 On the safety matter , on this property , right 250 feet to 11 the west of us towards the hill , there is now a farm implement 12 shop on Mr. Pehr ' s property . But , we didn ' t hear this safety 13 problem at that time . And farm implements go a heck of a lot 14 slower than trucks do . 15 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Questions for Mr . Dreiling? 16 Thank you . 17 Are there any other people in the audience who wish to 18 give public testimony? 19 If not , I ' ll ask the applicant to , or representative, to 20 come forward . We ' ll give you an opportunity to make any final 21 comments you might like to , and perhaps answer any questions the 22 Board might have . 23 MR . RHEA : To answer a couple of questions of the 24 people concerned . I never said that an 18—wheeler takes as 25 short a time to stop as a car does . I don ' t know , he might 35 . 1 have heard that from someone else , but not from me . 2 Another thing , you do have more control over your leases 3 than you do over an employee , because they can ' t take you to the Labor 4 Board . You can fire them right on the spot if they ' re not 5 doing something right , and write them a check . 6 I believe Mr . Dechant has a boy or someone that runs a 7 leased truck , or someone that he knows . I don ' t know where he 8 gets this information , but , if he knows leasing , it ' s just a 9 matter that they do it right or they ' re fired . 10 We don ' t use an awful lot of leased trucks to the point of 11 feeding our asphalt plant , which primarily that ' s what the pit 12 is being proposed for . 13 The safety factors on Highway 52 have been discussed in 14 length and detail . I believe for an access onto any highway of 15 any pit that I ' ve been involved with , or been around , I have 16 never seen an accessible entry way onto a highway any better 17 than this one . 18 I believe that the operators which I speak of , ourselves , 19 are very conscientious about the neighbors , about the community . 20 I am 37 years old , I have to work another 20-some years , 21 regardless , if I like it or not . I want to do it right . 22 I would invite anyone to see our operations in Commerce 23 City . They ' re detailed , they ' re clean , they ' re a good part of 24 the community . 25 I would just like to close by saying to the Board that our 36 . 1 landlord , the Dreilings and Merna , their wish is to have a 2 gravel pit on their property . It ' s their property . They 3 farmed it for many years . I think we , as applicants , are just 4 trying to fulfill their dream and our dream . 5 That ' s all I have to say . Thank you . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Thank you . 7 Are there questions? 8 All right , we will close public testimony , at this time , 9 and allow deliberation or a motion by the Board . 10 MR . MORRISON : Before you proceed , I think the record 11 should reflect Mr . Kirby ' s -- 12 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I did listen to the tapes . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Oh , that ' s right . 14 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I missed the first part of the 15 hearing but , I did listen to the tapes and I feel prepared to 16 vote on the issue . 17 I would like to have the motion read . 18 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Yes . I was going to suggest that 19 we review what the motion was . 20 MR . MORRISON : The hearing certification indicates 21 as follows : Commisioner Lacy moved to approve the Use by 22 Special Review , the Front Range Sand and Gravel for an open-cut 23 sand and gravel operation subject to the recommended 24 conditions and development standards with the addition of a 25 developemnt standard which address concerns regarding 37 . 1 acceleration , deceleration lanes , and the reclassification of 2 Parcel B. 3 Commissioner Brantner seconded the motion following a 4 considerable discussion . It was continued . 5 The recommendation referred to is , of course , the Planning 6 Commission ' s recommendation . Do you wish to have that read or 7 highlighted , Mr . Kirby? 8 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : No . 9 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right . The motion then , as 10 I understand it , exists right now for an approval with 11 developmental standards1 through 13 . And , as I understand it , 12 right now , it does include area B . Is that proper reading or 13 not? 14 COMMISSIONER LACY : No . 15 MR . MORRISON : It does, because the reclassification , 16 the reference was to the testimony that Area B was eligible 17 to reclassify by Soil Conservation . 18 Those additional conditions were never drafted . That ' s 19 the considerable discussion is what might be contained in those . 20 So , as proposed , it did include B , because it was anticipated 21 B would be reclassified by the Soil Conservation and no longer 22 be prime farm land . And , you do have the evidence of what the 23 Soil Conservation did do with that request . 24 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I would like to comment on 25 Parcel B. We did visit and inspect the property , and it 38 . 1 certainly does lie every direction you can imagine . I could not 2 imagine farming that very efficiently without more work than 3 anyone is willing , in this day and age , to do . 4 I obviously did not do any soil testing personally , so I 5 would assume that we would have to accept Soil Conservation ' s 6 comments on that . But , if you have 5 acres , or there about ' s , 7 at least out of the 40 acres, scattered throughout the place 8 with gravel spots , that certainly takes some of the possibility 9 out of trying to farm that . 10 So , that part is not so much an issue with me as addressing 11 the safety issue , the turn lanes that were proposed . 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other comments with regard to that 13 parcel . 14 I guess , Bill , I don ' t profess to be a farmer . And , I , 15 with you, visited the area , but I guess the evidence and the lack 16 of change of perspective from the Planning Department , would 17 lead me to support a feeling that that area should be excluded . 18 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I think this is one , again it 19 was mentioned before with our prime farm land classifications , 20 I think we have a lot of loose spots , even though it is a 21 comprehensive plan . I don ' t think anybody is really capable , 22 with all due respect to the Planning Department , of really 23 evaluating that piece of farm ground . They have not had the 24 experience to look at that area , that size , with that much 25 ditch . So , it might be prime land , but it certainly isn ' t a 39 . 1 prime 40 acres to farm, by any stretch of the imagination . 2 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I guess what further complicates 3 it is the fact that we ' ve had testimony from someone who had 4 farmed it , who said it was -- 5 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : With enough labor and enough 6 fertilizer , you can raise crops on pure sand , we all know that . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other comments with regard to this 8 parcel . 9 Okay . Any other comments with regard to the motion . 10 As I understand it , Lee , the motion would -- the standards say 11 that the access should be related to number 3 , as shown on 12 the submitted Use by Special Review Plat , we have somewhat of 13 a modification of that , don ' t we? 14 MS . DUNN : The second sentence should read : The haul 15 route shall be from the point of ingress and egress east to 16 Highway 85 and west to Highway Interstate 25 . 17 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : The plat is the same , isn ' t it? 18 Or , has that been altered with the material that we were given 19 today as far as that egress and ingress? 20 MS . DUNN : I don ' t think the plat needs to be altered . 21 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I guess my question is -- I ' m 22 looking at number 4 , the location is the same , the egress and 23 ingress location is the same , it has not been changed? 24 MS . DUNN : No . 25 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : By this new submitted proposal? 40 . 1 I think it has been . 2 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Is that different than we 3 originally -- 4 MR. MORRISON : No . 5 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Do you have the original? 6 MR . MORRISON : I have both . This one ' s the new one . 7 It shows the original . 8 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : So , we need to amend this plat 9 if this is to be -- 10 MR . MORRISON : Right . That would have to be the 11 condition . 12 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : But , I thought we heard 13 testimony at the first hearing that they were going to put a 14 new bridge in to the east . 15 MR . MORRISON : But , the initial plat shows the access 16 as being the existing access . 17 MR . MCRAE : The application that was submitted to the 18 Mined Land Reclamation Board did show using of the same access . 19 In further discussion , we preferred to build a new bridge at a 20 new location , and that ' s also in conjunction with the proposal . 21 I still have the original plat . 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : All right . So , that should be 23 then made a condition that the plat should be amended to reflect 24 what was presented here today . 25 MR . MORRISON : The other thing is the motion , as it 41 . 1 stands , is not consistent with the Soil Conservation District ' s 2 position on Parcel B . 3 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : So , that motion , if Gordon ' s not 4 of mind to exclude B , would be amended? 5 MR . MORRISON : Well , even if you ' re going to exclude 6 it , the discussion of reclassification is inappropriate , 7 because it wasn ' t reclassified . Soil Conservation declined to 8 reclassify . 9 So , you need to make a decision on B. To keep it in or 10 to exclude it . But , reference to reclassification are not 11 appropriate . That ' s not what the facts show . 12 COMMISSIONER LACY : I made the motion , and when I made 13 that , I think at that time , the motion was made to clarify that 14 that Parcel would be subjected to a re-examining and 15 reclassification by the Soil Conservation District . 16 It was examined , but it was not reclassified , so if we 17 go through with the motion as we have it now, then it would 18 exclude Parcel B. 19 MR . MORRISON : It would include it , as the motion 20 stands because -- the testimony discussed would reclasify it in 21 such a way that it would no longer qualify , according to their 22 standard , as prime farm land . 23 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I think if we make a motion 24 to include it or not include it , that would clear up the -- 25 MR . MORRISON : And , eliminate the reference to 42 . 1 reclassification either way . 2 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think unless you request more 3 information at this point we need a motion . 4 COMMISSIONER LACY : Somebody can amend my motion if 5 they like . 6 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I would move that we eliminate 7 the reference to reclassification . 8 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Second . 9 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Motion by Bill , seconded by Gene , 10 to eliminate the reference to reclassification . The effect of 11 that is simply to approve tha whole plat . 12 All in favor of the motion to delete that language , please 13 signify by saying Aye . 14 (Whereupon all members of the Board answered Aye . ) 15 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Opposed . 16 That motion is carried . 17 We now, we do have a motion on the floor to approve this 18 Use by Special Review as presented in the application materials 19 with the operation standards and development standards , and 20 conditions that accompany the Planning Staff ' s recommendation . 21 Is that a fair statement , Mr . Morrison? 22 MR . MORRISON : But including -- 23 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : But , to include Parcel B . 24 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : How do you address that new plat? 25 MR . MORRISON : That would have to be a condition that 43 . 1 the plat be amended to show the new point of access . 2 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Actually , we can ' t do that either 3 because , as I review these again , if we go back to what the 4 Planning Staff gave us , they recommended the deletion of Parcel 5 B . So , there is reference in there to delete all references 6 to Parcel B . So , their materials are not going to be 7 sufficient record for what I understand the motion to be at this 8 time . 9 Do you see what I ' m saying . If you look at their 10 conditions , the very first condition that the Planning Staff 11 gives refers to this Parcel B. So , we have to delete that . 12 MR . MORRISON : I guess if you ' d want to make a 13 generic reference , you ' d have to do that . 14 Well then , maybe to clarify it , that motion should 15 specifically delete that one recommendation of the Planning 16 Commission , and incorporate all the others , plus the additional 17 regarding accel lanes and decel lanes . 18 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I ' m going to suggest , so that we ' re 19 perfectly clear on what we ' re doing , the motion is to approve . 20 But , in terms of the basis for approval , I think we need to go 21 back and examine the language of the recommendation of the 22 Planning Staff . 23 The motion is to approve the entire parcel ; A , B , and C , 24 as presented in the plan . 25 I think we need to look at those recomendations , because 44 . 1 they ' re not consistent with the motion and we can ' t use them 2 in justification in this motion . 3 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : But , C was eliminated later 4 on , wan ' t it? 5 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : C is the major mining area . 6 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Or , is it A? 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : A is just the access . 8 The question arose over Area B. If you look here , all of 9 the statements from the Planning Staff , do not support the 10 motion . And , if you ' re using that as a reference , I think 11 you ' ve got a problem . 12 MR . MORRISON : But , the development standards are not 13 inconsistent . The development standards would apply regardless 14 of the number of parcels involved in the operation . 15 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : That is correct . 16 So , again what the motion -- did it reference the motion 17 other than just the development standards? 18 MR . MORRISON : No . Well , subject to the recommended 19 conditions and development standards . And , there is a condition 20 that they amend Area B out . So , you would have to deal with 21 that . 22 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Well , would the motion that we 23 already have be sufficient to eliminate that? 24 MR . MORRISON : Well , for clarification , I think maybe 25 you ought to delete from the conditons , the Planning Sevices 45 . 1 Staff condition one . 2 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I ' ll move that we delete that 3 condition . 4 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Second . 5 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Motion by Bill , seconded by Gene 6 to delete the conditon number one , as presented by the Planning 7 Staff . 8 Now , I don ' t think we formally moved to include the 9 condition , although we indicated we wanted to , with regard to 10 the amendment of the plat . Do we need to? 11 MR . MORRISON : Why don ' t we substitue that for the new 12 number one . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Is there a motion to insert a 14 condition which would reference the need to amend the plat to -- 15 COMMISSIONER LACY : Do we vote on Bill ' s first? 16 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I ' m sorry . All in favor of Bill ' s 17 motion to delete number one under conditions by the Planning 18 Staff , signify by saying Aye . 19 (Whereupon all Board members said Aye . ) 20 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Opposed . 21 Motion is carried . 22 Now , we need a motion to -- 23 MR . MORRISON : I ' d suggest prior to recording the Use 24 by Special Review plat , the applicant shall amend a plat to 25 show the new access as proposed by letter and plat of 46 . 1 November 8th , 1985 , by Jerry McRae . 2 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Now , does the Board wish to do 3 that before this discussion on whether -- any further discussion 4 on that accel , decel , or what is the procedure on that? 5 MR . MORRISON : This wouldn ' t preclude , although you 6 may wish to have on the plat the other new items as well . 7 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Let ' s just talk about that a 8 little bit . 9 I thought I had asked for that earlier , but maybe I 10 didn' t make myself clear . 11 If there ' s discussion on the access issue , let ' s hear it 12 now. 13 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Well , T thought we had some more 14 testimony on this . I don ' t particularly care, I just wondered if 15 there was any further discussion . 16 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Is there any discussion by the 17 Board with regard to the submitted plan for access and not 18 including the accel , decel lane , as we discussed previously ? 19 COMMISSIONER LACY : Madam Chairman , I would like to 20 discuss that . I think the moving of the access to the east will 21 help somewhat as far as getting on and off the property itself . 22 But , I will just be very honest with you . I feel there ' s 23 got to be some kind of traffic control , accel or decel to the 24 east, with the amount of traffic going that way . Being on 25 that road , as much as I am , with the traffic going on that and 47 . 1 with the information that we have heard here , the information 2 that we have received today , has not changed my mind a whole 3 lot as to what my feelings were at the first hearing that we 4 had . 5 I really , basically , have a problem , unless we have some 6 type of turn on and off lanes , or whatever you want to call 7 them , off of 52 onto the pit area and from the pit area back 8 on . 9 I uderstand that probably when traffic gets built up that 10 there is a lot of traffic going through there and people that 11 use the road more consistently , will probably he more aware of 12 the trucks coming out . And , that may slow the traffic down . 13 I ' m disappointed , very much , in the State Highway Department 14 with not coming up with a recommendation for slowing that 15 traffic down , coming off of that hill . 16 But , if that ' s , you know , the feeling is that it will slow 17 itself down considerably , that ' s fine . But , I 'm sorry , I still 18 have a problem with accel , decel and I will hold for some type 19 of lane on there . 20 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I think , too , if we look to the 21 east , we don ' t have to address the problem of widening the 22 bridge to the west . And , the testimony that we had today that 23 possibly those lanes could be somewhat shortened , because of the 24 tapering in fact , that maybe isn 't too much to ask . 25 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other comments . 48 . 1 Is there a motion to include that as a development 2 standard? 3 COMMISSIONER LACY : It could be added to number 4 , 4 could it not? 5 MS . DUNN : Yes , it could . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think it would be substituted 7 for number 4 , -- well , maybe not substituted for-- 8 COMMISSIONER LACY : Well , not all together . 9 You ' ve got to satisfy all access designs by the Colorado 10 Division of Safety because it ' s not one of their requirements . 11 But , then the applicant shall obtain that State Highway Access 12 Permit , and they have to do that . It ' s part of number 4 . 13 And then , I would think there ' d have to be something to -- 14 MR . MORRISON : We might ask the representative from 15 the Division of Highways . 16 If the standard were to say they are to provide accel , 17 decel lanes for traffic to and from the east , according to your 18 design criteria , is that enough information for them and for you 19 to work with? 20 MR . SIMS : Yes , that would be enough information . 21 And , I would like to point out that any construction 22 requirement on the highway will have to meet our standards . 23 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I think we understand that . 24 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Is a decel lane the same as 25 a left turn lane? 49 . 1 MR . SIMS : It could be a left hand turn lane , yes . 2 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I think that ' s what we ' re 3 after though , is from the east , a left hand turn lane , isn ' t 4 that correct? 5 MR . MORRISON : Yeah . 6 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Do we have to spell that out , 7 which would be the proper wording? 8 MR . SIMS : That would be a left decel lane . And , I 9 understand what you mean , what you want . 10 COMMISSIONER LACY : Do you need a motion to add that 11 to the development standard? 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : That would he required . 13 COMMISSIONER LACY : So moved , Madam Chairman . 14 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Second . 15 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Motion made by Gordon , seconded by 16 Bill , is to add to the -- or to amend number 4 to indicate the 17 applicant shall obtain a Highway Access Permit . 18 MR . MORRISON : And , provide a right acceleration lane 19 and a left deceleration lane for traffic to and from the east , 20 according to the Colordo Division of Highway ' s design criteria . 21 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I think that says it well . 22 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Okay . Discussion on that motion? 23 All in favor say , Aye . 24 (Whereupon all the members of the Board said Aye . ) 25 Opposed . 50 . 1 That motion is carried , and the development standards 2 are so amended . 3 Is there further discussion with regard to the motion , or 4 changes that might be needed? 5 MR . MCRAE : I have one small correction you may want 6 to consider . The standards that I furnished last time , under 7 Paragraph 3 , indicates a point of ingress and egress east to 8 Highway 85 . We talked , in general , about the bulk of it 9 going that way , but , we would not want to deny -- 10 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think that was amended at the 11 last meeting . 12 MS . DUNN : It was changed to include west . 13 MR . MCRAE : Thank you . 14 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other discussion on the motion? 15 I would just like to make a comment or two . I will vote 16 in favor of the motion . I feel satisfied with the way we 17 addressed the traffic considerations , and I am in favor of that 18 change . It alleviates some of the concerns I had erlier . 19 The answer with regard to how this would be signed , that 20 was not specific enough , but I believe with this addition we 21 will have given probably some better -- 22 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I think from that point on , we 23 just about have to depend on the State Highway Department , 24 and their criteria for signing and hope they are diligent in 25 studying that . I guess we could ask them to study it . 51 . 1 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think we should and pursue that . 2 Is there a language in here about signing? 3 There was in one letter , I think , some indication , I 4 certainly would -- I don ' t know what authority we have to include 5 that , except indicate that we would like to see that -- 6 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I don ' t think we do , except to 7 ask that it be done . 8 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : The other area that I ' ve given 9 considerable thought to is Area B , as has been identified . And , 10 I think it ' s one that I have wrestled with and recognized 11 perhaps my own lack of expertise in that area . But , given the 12 kinds of arguments made by this Board , I think I will be able 13 to support the inclusion of that area within the mining plan . 14 And , I think Bill , the argument you made about the way 15 the land is irrigated and the way it is laid out , presents 16 difficulty in farming that economically . 17 When we talk about prime land , I guess that does have to 18 be -- 19 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : To me it ' s just a consideration 20 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think the jargon is what 21 convinced me there and I think I will be able to support that 22 part . 23 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I have one other quick question . 24 On the west bound traffic , do we have that pinned down to the 25 south perimeter within a neighborhood of 10 percent , so that it 52 . 1 doesn ' t start dividing up 50/50 , or something , is that 2 satisfactory? 3 MR . MORRISON : Well , I understand that the way that 4 particular development standard was amended , it is a 90/ 10 5 split , is that correct? 6 MS . DUNN : No . Are you talking about development 7 standard number 3? 8 MR . MORRISON : Yes . 9 MS . DUNN : It just allows the haul route to be east 10 or west . 11 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : That ' s what I wondered . We had 12 all the testimony about 10 percent , and I ' m not sure if I care 13 if it ' s 20 percent , but I think maybe that should be pinned 14 down . 15 MR . MORRISON : Well , you may want to put that in , so 16 that anything in excess of that would be considered a major 17 change and require an amendment . 18 Put in a triggering point in which you would have to look 19 at the permit again . 20 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Do the rest of you think that ' s 21 important? 22 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I do . 23 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : I think that ' s a good point . 24 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yes . I agree with you , Bill . 25 MR . MORRISON : And , arguably , since the evidence was 53 . 1 all 90/ 10 , that that would be considered as part of the 2 application . 3 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Would someone -- a 20 percent 4 triggering point , or what do we want to do? 5 I think it is something that should be pinned down . 6 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Well , do you want to ask the 7 applicant in terms of -- I think his testimony was that way , 8 and I -- 9 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I think if he would come to the 10 microphone for that purpose . 11 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Do you understand our question , 12 Mr . Rhea? We ' re trying to put a figure on the haul routes , 13 allowing some to go to the west , but most , I think you said 14 it ' s going to he about a 90/ 10 split . 15 MR . RHEA : That figure is on an annual basis , not 16 a daily basis , that ' s an annual basis . Sometimes we ' ll he 17 going west , but 90 percent of the time we ' ll be going east . 18 And , that ' s for the mere reason of feeding our asphalt plant . 19 MR . MORRISON : Gloria , can you read that 3 , as it 20 now stands . 21 MS . DUNN : As it is presently? 22 MR . MORRISON : Yes . 23 MS . DUNN : Vehicular traffic shall ingress and egress 24 onto Colorado Highway 52 , as shown on the submitted Use by 25 Special Review plat . 54 . 1 The haul route shall be from the point of ingress and 2 egress east to U . S . Highway 85 and west to I-25 . 3 Okay , do you want to add the truck traffic traveling to 4 and from the west shall not exceed -- 5 MR . MORRISON : 20 percent of the trips on an annual 6 basis . 7 COMMISSIONER LACY : Why 20? 8 MR. MORRISON : That ' s what Mr . Kirby -- 9 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : I ' m just trying to be a little 10 safe . I don ' t believe if you took a 20 percent of the -- that 11 that would be that excessive . 12 I don ' t know , I ' m just trying to help everybody get together 13 and pick a figure . 14 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I think that is -- I think 15 20 percent is too much , Bill . The reason I feel that, is that 16 with the existing highways they ' re starting up the hill , if it 17 was level it would be different . But , if you get 20 percent of 18 the trucks going up the hill -- I think there should be some 19 changes . So , I would go -- I would make a motion that , with the 20 proper wording from Lee or the Planning Staff , as to no more 21 than 10 percent to the west and 90 percent to the east . Any 22 more than that would cause a review -- 23 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : We ' re talking 10 percent of the 24 total developed numbers , I suppose -- 25 MR . MORRISON : It would be 10 percent of the trips on 55 . 1 a yearly basis . 2 We ' ll just add an additional sentence . It should say : 3 No more than 10 percent of the trips on an annual basis shall be 4 to the west . 5 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Okay , is that 10 percent of 6 actual or 10 percent of the 90 units , total development? 7 MR . MORRISON : Ten percent of the trips . So , it 8 would be 9 , no more than 9 trips on -- 9 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Are they approved trips? 10 MR . MORRISON : Yeah . Well , if there ' s 10 , it would 11 be one trip . So , it would be 10 percent of the trips on an 12 annual basis . 13 Does that make sense to you , in your field , sir? 14 MR . SIMS : Well , you could base your percentage on 15 whatever traffic goes in and out of there , rather than on the 16 90 that he ' s projecting . It doesn ' t really make any difference 17 to us . 18 MR . MORRISON : Yeah , but I think we ' re trying to say 19 percentage of trips , not a percentage of 90 . So , we ' re not 20 saying 10 trips , we ' re saying 10 percent of the trips . 21 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Of the trips actually made 22 during the year? 23 MR . MORRISON ; Yeah . 24 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Well , those are two different 25 things , made or approved . 56 . 1 MR . MORRISON : Well , I didn ' t use the language , 2 approved . 3 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Okay . All right . 4 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : The motion by Gene , seconded by 5 Bill , is to amend , again , development standard number 3 , to 6 limit the westward haul to 10 percent of the actual trips on 7 an annual basis . 8 Discussion on that motion? 9 All in favor say Aye . 10 (Whereupon all members of the Board said Aye . ) 11 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Opposed? 12 That motion is carried . 13 Are there other suggestions with regard to this 14 application? 15 Okay , the motion then is to approve the Front Range Sand 16 and Gravel application for Use by Special Review, with an 17 amendment to the conditions from the Planning Staff to delete 18 number 1 , and to add a condition that would require an amendment 19 to the plat prior to the recording , to show a new access . 20 To amend development standard number 3 , as we ' ve just voted, 21 so I won ' t repeat that . 22 To amend development standard number 4 , to require the 23 provision of the accel , decel lanes on the eastern entrance and 24 egress . 25 And , so that it ' s clear , the Board did find upon 57 . 1 considering the evidence with regard to Area B , that while it 2 was not reclassified , it was not considered by the Board to 3 require exclusion based upon the conditions that were described 4 in regard to that land . 5 Discussion on the motion? 6 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : I ' m going to -- this is a 7 tough decision , I still haven ' t made up my mind , so I ' m going 8 to do a little thinking out loud . 9 We need the natural resources . No question . We need 10 gravel for development . This is a perfect place for it , maybe 11 not perfect , but it ' s a good place . It ' s in a flood plain , and 12 I ' m not sure it ' s good for much other than a natural resource , 13 such as gravel . 14 The end product we end up using for a good recreational 15 area , wildlife area , or some ponds . 16 I guess I have a little bit of a problem with trying to 17 maintain , keep all of our prime agricultural land , when the 18 farmers are in such dire financial needs now . If a farmer has 19 a chance to make a few bucks by selling the gravel , or whatever 20 it is , I have no problem with that . 21 The problem I have with it , is that the Planning Commission 22 recommended denial . I ' ll quote from them : Not based upon the 23 mining plans , but out of concern for the safety and welfare of 24 the residents of the area due to the increased traffic on 25 Colorado Highway 52 . 58 . 1 I think we ' ve tried to do the best we can , with making it a 2 safe area , but we ' re still putting traffic on that road . 3 Fort Lupton Planning Commission recomended denial for the 4 same reasons , plus the air quality , aesthetics . 5 We heard testimony of land use people , real estate people , 6 saying that the values of lands could go down . 7 I think if we could have provided a different access to 8 there rather than Highway 52 , it -- 9 I guess I ' ll make up my mind when they call for the roll 10 call , but I just wanted to do a little thinking out loud for 11 some of the reasons for and against it . 12 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other comments? 13 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Madam Chairman , I ' m going to vote 14 for the motion . I ' ll try to quickly state my reasons . 15 I think the proposal is , probably , consistent with the 16 comprehensive plan , but with a bit of a question mark on the 17 soil classification . The other considerations were outlined . 18 The proposal is consistent with the intent of_ the district 19 in which the use is located , and I think we can answer that as 20 clearly as we ever can on any use that is allowed . 21 That the uses which would be permitted would be compatible 22 with existing surrounding land uses , and while there may be 23 some inconvenience while the operation is being used , I think 24 it could be a very desirable thing , long-term. 25 The uses which would be permitted would be compatible with 59 . 1 the future development , again , yes , very definitly . 2 If the use proposed be located in A district that the 3 applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve 4 productive ag land . Well , obviously you do use up a small 5 portion of ag land , but I don ' t think it affects the use of 6 any ag land beyond the immediate use . 7 And , I do think we addressed , pretty well , the main 8 concern for the safety and welfare of the inhabitants in the 9 area , at least to the best of our ability . As traffic builds , 10 in any area , for any reason , of course the highway will become 11 a little more dangerous , but I guess for there , it isn ' t too 12 excessive . 13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Other comments? 14 I ' ll ask the clerk to call the roll . 15 THE CLERK : Gene Brantner . 16 COMMISSIONER BRANTNER : Yes . 17 THE CLERK : Bill Kirby . 18 COMMISSIONER KIRBY : Yes . 19 THE CLERK : Gordon Lacy . 20 COMMISSIONER LACY : Yes . 21 THE CLERK : Frank Yamaguchi . 22 COMMISSIONER YAMAGUCHI : No . 23 THE CLERK : Jackie Johnson . 24 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON : Yes . 25 The motion is carried . 60 . 1 (Whereupon the hearing was adjourned at 4 : 06 p . m . ) 2 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 14 Dated at Greeley , Colorado , this 2 day of 15 November , 1985 . 16 17 18 n i 19 7 20 VALERIE' S . ANTUNA SHORTHAND REPORTER 21 NOTARY PUBLIC 22 23 24 7/ or, ?kW.. Hello