The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About781189 i BEST-WAY PAVING PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING February 21, 1978 Sup 3`11 18 a°1 Zone eh: nv,e from E to A - Z : 294 : 77 : 12 , 1=T-WAY PAVING ETAE. (;hnge of zone from E to A, Part of the NE ; of Section 2 , Township 5, Range 66 West , Northwest of the intersection of 35th Avenue and 4th Street . CHUCK CARLSON: Now, beings that we' ve had presentations from both sides to start off today I want the staff ' s recommendations and then we will call on you for rebuttal or whatever you want to present and then we' ll call on comments from the audience. O. K. ? CHUCK CUNLIFFE: These comments are in reference to Zone Case 294 : 77 : 12 in the name of Best-Way Paving Company etal . The request is a change of zone from E (Estates) to A (Agricultural) . The legal description is described as Part of the NE4i Section 2 , Township 5 North, Range 66 West . Location is the Northwest of the intersection of 35th Avenue and 4th Street . The Department of PLanning Services staff recommends that this request be denied for the following reasons : Number 1, it is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with Section 8. 3 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution . Such Section states, "Request for rezoning of tracts within Weld County should be supported by detailed sub- stantial evidence that such rezoning is necessary. Recent findings and oral statements by the petitioners should show very clearly that either the original zoning was faulty or that changing conditions in the area now justify a new classification . Without the presentation of such supporting documentation the County Planning Commission should not recommend a change in 107 zoning. " The applicant has argued that the original zoning was faulty because the underlying mineral resource was not taken into account when the Estate zoning was established in 1961. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services and staff that the decision to establish the Estate zoning in 1961 was not faulty because at the time the preservation of mineral resources was not an issue in establishing Estate zoning. This was because society had not yet realized the finite nature of the mineral resource deposits and had not taken any action to preserve and protect them. It was 12 years later , in 1973, before the Colorado Legislature enacted legislation to preserve mineral resource deposits. Therefore , it is the determination of the Department of Planning Services staff that the applicant has not fully demonstrated that the original zoning was faulty. Further, it is the staff ' s opinion that the occurrence of new issues as a result of new legislation cannot be applied retro- actively to an earlier zoning decision to render that decision as faulty. Further, it is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the changing conditions in the area that have transpired since the establishment of the original Estate zoning in 1961 support the determination at this point in time not to rezone the property to another classification . In fact , these changing conditions in the area only reinforce the decision in 1961 to establish the Estate zoning. Since 1961 the area to the west and south has developed into intensive residential uses. Also , the property located to the east is zoned for residential development in the future. Further, the adjacent property owners as indicated have relied upon the future development of this property being residential in nature due to the existing Estate zone. As l0R presently zoned, the property in question is eligible for residential development which would be compatible with the uses in the surrounding area. Approval of the rezoning has the potential of reducing the values of surrounding property. Section 8. 3 further states, "There must be a definite proof that the area requested for zone or for change has unique characteristics which distinguish it from surrounding lands and thus make its zoning essential . " It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the applicant has not demonstrated that the area requested for change has unique characteristics which distinguishes it from surrounding lands and thus make its rezoning essential . The applicant has argued that the property in question is unique due to the underlying mineral resource deposit and that this makes its rezoning essential . It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that mineral deposits are not unique to the property in question and therefore the rezoning is not essential . "The Weld County Extraction Plan Map Journal" identifies other areas of Weld County containing gravel deposits . "The Atlas of Sand, Gravel and Quarry Aggregate Resources - Colorado Front Range Counties" identifies existing gravel deposits located in Weld County in greater detail. These documents demonstrate the existence of numerous other gravel deposits in the county. Number 2. The purpose clause of the Weld County Zoning Resolution states : "By the use of well established legal principles , zoning makes possible the safeguarding of residential areas . Business areas are protected for development in logical areas and industrial districts may be preserved in locations with 109 t,,cicicl ,i cc•( ,,,, h) main travel rocs l c ;c ncl III. i I i I icy,. . " Said Seal icrn Further states, "Property values tiro Ilc•otec• I ('(I since uses which would lessen values are not. allowed in areas where conflict would occur. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that approval of this rezoning would not be safeguarding the existing residential area. Further, it is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that approval of this rezoning request would have a potential of creating adverse effects, impacts on surrounding property values. Comments : To date our office has received one letter in favor of approving this request , 16 letters of opposition and petitions containing approximately 300 signatures in opposition to this request from people within 500 feet and the immediate area. CHUCK CARLSON: O. K. Is there any questions of the Commission? If no questions, would you like to present your. . . ROBERT MATHIAS : Thank you, Mr. Chairman , Members of the Planning Commission . We appreciate taking the time out of your afternoon to spend a third afternoon on this particular project. I ' d like to, before we start out , answer a couple of questions that were raised at the last meeting. CHUCK CARLSON: Parson me, just a minute. We need your name again . Just for the record. ROBERT MATHIAS : O. K. Robert Mathias with R.V. Lord and Associates from Boulder. I apologize for not making these comments at the meeting last week, or three weeks ago, and the 110 reason we didn ' t w.i:s two- fold : One i , we try to ::Lay oiit uI' an open debate with the opponents of the proposed gravel op- eration , and the second is that . . . is that we felt that this kind of thing would be better not to make. The. . . and one of the reasons I apologize is that the answers to these par- ticular questions would take a considerable amount of radio time and newspaper space. In 1975 the Asphalt Institute published a study dealing with the hydrocarbon emissions of hot mix asphalt plants, very similar, well , essentially the same thing as Best-Way currently has on its site. Let me read the abstract of that report . It ' s a brief page and I think that will pretty much lay to rest the concern regarding hydrocarbon emissions from that asphalt plant . The findings are based on 8 complete sets of emission samples taken at two hot mix plants involving four asphalts--that ' s four types of asphalts--and that ' s from three refineries. The emission samples were taken following the discharge of the mix from the mixing chamber. In most of the samplings, the immediate area was shrouded to concentrate the emissions to exclude extraneous matter and to provide more uniform sampling conditions . Most of the air contaminants found in the emissions were at extremely low concentrations and all fell well within currently applicable limits established by OSHA. Analysis of gaseous substances, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide , hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, mercaptans, ozone, aldehyds, phenols, and C2 to C14 hydrocarbons . Salt particulates were also collected and found to contain only trace amounts of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and metal compounds much lower than are typically found in emissions from other industrial 111 and commercial sources.rc es. The threshold limit value for asphalt Iumes. . . i t gives the numbers in here . . . are also considered and - found to be slightly exceeded in one sampling. However, each sampling was found to be well within this limit on a time weighted basis and sampling was made under exaggerated conditions not typical of the workmen ' s exposure. Therefore, this limit is intended primarily to apply to substances high in polynuclear aromatics where it has been shown that the asphalt being contained in extremely low concentrationsof these compounds and are largely made up of innocuous saturated type hydrocarbons. Under the shrouded concentrated sampling conditions, the amount of volatile organic hydrocarbons that occasionally exceeded the 0. 24 ppm limit set forth in the ambient air quality standards promulgated by the E. P.A. However, it is inconceivable that this limit would ever be reached at the fence line of a hot mix asphalt plant . The same applies to other compounds considered to be air contaminants. Then, it concludes, "The findings of this study may be summarized by the statement that there is no serious air pollution or employee health problem resulting from the use of petroleum derived asphalt in hot mixes. This is essentially the abstract from a 60-80 page report prepared by the Asphalt Institute in. . . again, in 1975 . I just brought the abstract that I ' ve read here because I didn ' t really feel that you have interest in delving into the 60 or 80 pages of that. Interestingly enough, this report itself was referred to me by the Colorado Department of Health as being the best study on hydrocarbon emissions from hot mix plants. I can make copies of this if necessary. 112 CHUCK CARLSON : Tht1nk you . ROBERT MATHIAS : Basically, what that report says is that hydrocarbon emissions from the hot mix plant that Best-Way currently has at the site and proposes to continue at the site, are insignificant . That could be looked -at in another way, and that is , if, in its current zoning the property under consideration can be converted to Rural Residential as zoning and the hydrocarbon emissions from both the vehicles and the houses that will be built on that site will far exceed the hydrocarbon emissions coming from the present asphalt plant . The next item was that of asbestos pollution coming from the rock crusher at the site . I understand that this has occupied a good bit of newspaper space in the last few days. At the conclusion of our last meeting a few weeks ago, I collected a sample of the material from the Best-Way pit , that had come through the crusher and I had some more. . . you know, first of all , I was going through the gravel plant again . I took a sample of that down to Colorado Department of Health to have an asbestos test run. And all I received was a lack of re- sponse. There ' s not enough asbestos in that to test . Well, that ' s not very good documentation , so I called all of the Geochemical Analytical labs that we deal with in the other environmental studies that we do. That ' s actually, I re- ceived the same response, and actually one of the labs suggested we hire a good geologist to tell us that we don ' t find asbestos in that kind of rocks. Actually, that brought kind of an interesting response from my firm because I have my Masters degree in geology and that ' s how I generally earn my living. 113 if we wanted to get into a debut° last. limo , I would h:ive stood up there and said that there is not asbestos in the kinds of rock that Best-Way is crushing. Asbestos is a metamorphic mineral that comes as a result of metamorphism of either existing metamorphic rocks, sedimentary rocks , or igneous rocks. The type of rocks that occur in the Best-Way gravel deposit are igneous rocks and do not contain the metamorphic minerals which include asbestos. The asbestos problem that was referred to at the meeting last time occurred back east where they are indeed crushing metamorphic rocks . We . . . Like I say, we started at the Colorado Department of Health, we went to all of the chem. analytical labs that we could think of in Denver. They sent us to the School of Mines Research Institute. Still to no avail . I did receive a written response from the Colorado Department of health. I thought you might . . . in which I thought you might have some interest . It is addressed to me. "Dear Sir: The Engineering unit of the Air Pollution Control Division--this is at the Department of Health--never has had any experience nor has the question ever arisen on the subject of asbestos rocks in this area. " I submit this for your review. Essentially two other questions have been raised. Somebody actually, in their presentation as a response to ours at the last meeting, said that , sure, there are gravel resources at the site, but Greeley and Weld County don ' t need those resources. The per capita consumption on an annual basis of gravel by every individual in this room, and this essentially has been found to be true state-wide . The annual per capita consumption of gravel is ten tons per year. I haven' t counted the number of people in the room. I would 114 guess there are probably a hundred. That means that this year this room full of people will consume 1 , 000 tons of gravel . Well , if you think about it for a minute, how can I consume 10 tons of gravel? A house contains a lot of concrete for which gravel is used. The driveway, the basement floor, the walls , the street out in front . If there are ground water problems , the perimeter drain, the highway that got me from here to Boulder, or from Boulder to here today is either concrete or asphalt with an aggregate base. Ten tons per year per capita is a very large number. You take the gravel resources at the Best-Way site, and we confirmed this with our test points , and you take this 10 tons per year per capita consumption and distribute that over just the population of the City of Greeley, which I think would be 55 , 000. If you maintain that population at that level of 55 , 000, the gravel resources on the site would last 13 . 6 years. That ' s an incredible amount of gravel. The Planning staff came back with the recommendation there to deny approval based on the lack of unique characteristics of this site--a site which can on as small a piece of property as we ' re talking about, which can satisfy the entire gravel needs of the present community of Greeley for 13 . 6 years has to be con- sidered unique. That gravel deposit is at least three times as thick as any other gravel deposits you ' d find in the Greeley area. The people in Boulder would be delighted Lo have a gravel deposit like that . A unique site. . . I hear snickers from the audience . Tomorrow, the Boulder Planning Commission, Boulder County Planning Commission is reviewing the Boulder County Mineral Resource Extraction Plan. They' re only 5 years behind the Weld County Planning Commission. Boulder County has awakened 115 Lo rind aI'Lc'r much or the (,i_ Ly or Boulder and its outlying areas have been built on a floodplain that Boulder County only has 50 years left of gravel . Best-Way truly does have a unique site. We' ve talked about the water table situation at the site. A floodplain site gravel deposit which the Planning staff mentions as having been described in more detail. I ' ve looked at the maps and there ' s a designation of the F- 1 for those floodplain deposits. Our site is a T-1. How much. . . you know, I don' t see a great deal of detailed difference there , but the thing about the aspect about the floodplain gravel deposits that we consider to be a problem, is that if you mine a 75 acre site like Best-Way has, you end up with a 74. 5 acre pond. Best-Way is planning to mine the 75 acre site and wind up with a 14 acre pond. This certainly makes that a unique setting because of the overburden thickness and the water table situation . Mention was made of the property values and I 'm sure that ' s the concern that has brought most of the opponents, or that has created most of the opponents, and has focused attention on this particular meeting. Point 1, people who are objecting to this proposed operation are doing so because of their fear for an effect on their property values . I haven ' t heard any of those individuals mention the effect on the property value of that piece of ground owned by Best-Way Paving Company who bought that as a gravel property. The complaint of many of the opponents to the thought to this project is that they bought their property not realizing that Best-Way Paving Company had a gravel operation on the site. Best-Way has been there for a very long time. We ' ve discussed that . They ' ve been there longer than many of the houses in the area. I find it highly interesting that now that Best-Way 116 It conic out of the c• Ior;el. , ;;c► to ;;peak , and :;aid , "We ' re here ! " ; people who cl i dn ' t know they were there before are suddenly heard from. In our opinion , those people have essentially said, Best-Way has been such a good neighbor, we didn ' t know they were there . We have spent a good deal of time and effort in planning Best-Way ' s gravel operation to minimize impacts in the surrounding area. Do you consider for a. minute, I ' m sure , that the property value issue is something you all have had a great deal more ex- perience with than I have. But , basically, there are two factors which relate to any type of land use or operation which affect the property values. The first is noise. I didn ' t bring any graphics with me today because we' ve presented all of that . I think we ' ve proven that the noise from the proposed Best-Way operation will not impact the neighborhood. We ' ve shown that graphically . We ' ve actually measured noise levels in the field and discovered that as you approach the property boundaries, the noises that are heard are those from off the site , not from the site itself . We ' ve shown that even as the operation moves its actual mining operations around the site, the pit noise won ' t ever be heard off this site. The mining noises won ' t be heard off this site. The overburden removal noises which will occur possibly 2 weeks out of every 6 months will be kept within legal limits and for almost , well , nearly the entire site will simply not be heard off of the site itself . As I said, it ' s our intention that the Best- Way operation as proposed will not have a noise impact on the neighborhood. The second aspect that can affect property values is the visual intrusion of a land use . Best-Way has proposed to construct a 4 foot high vegetated berm around the perimeter of the site topped with a 6 foot high wooden privacy fence . It 117 wi l I be I i tc'ral ly impossible for people of f the Si le to sere the mining operation with this perimeter configuration . At best, or at most , the only operation that might be visible is the initial part of the stripping operation at the perimeter. Again , it ' s a stripping operation which will last perhaps two weeks out of every 6 months and consists of a scraper and again this is the situation where the scraper is visible on the sur- face until it starts removing overburden and then drops below the surface. So , as I indicated, property values are affected basically by noise and visual impcts. We feel that with our proposed operations and reclamation design that those impacts will be effectively mitigated to the point where they . . .we don ' t consider them to be critical in the least . So, basically, we. . . it ' s our fondest contention that there are valuable unique mineral resources at the site, which should be' preserved and that the operation that Best-Way is proposing for the site will have essentially no impact on the neighborhood. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission? JERRY KIEFER: Mr. Mathias , I have a couple , I guess one maybe for you. I 'm still very much concerned on your comment about length of knowledge. I don ' t . . . you said that the property has been owned by Best-Way for quite some time . And I guess you' re referring to the agreement that we have in our packet dated October of ' 71. Is that true? ROBERT MATHIAS : Not quite. I said that Best-Way has been there for quite a long time. Best-Way' s had an operation there for at least 10 years . 11O JERRY KIEFER: 0. K. ,, but l ' m speaking about the property that we ' re talking about.--Lhe acreage that we ' re asking for rezoning for, or you' re asking for rezoning for. ROBERT MATHIAS : Right . O. K. They ' ve been in their present pit for that length of time. . . JERRY KIEFER: Right . ROBERT MATHIAS : . . .For 10 years. With essentially , what Best-Way is looking to do is to expand their operation on their. . . not necessarily. . . JERRY KIEFER: Right . ROBERT MATHIAS : . . .Physically expand it , not . . . JERRY KIEFER: O. K. But the point is that the property that we' re discussing now in this hearing, though , Best-Way has not been on that property. Is that true? ROBERT MATHIAS : If. . . I don' t know if I can. . . the easiest thing to do is to answer yes to that , except it ' s deeded in one contiguous piece. JERRY KIEFER: Well , I guess I ' m. . . all right I see that March of 1977, you know, that this is. . . I believe we asked once before, about maybe two hearings ago, that in March of ' 77 was when this would finally have been a public record. I guess that ' s 119 still my question , as to how long it has been a public record that the property , let ' s say , adjacent to 4th Street , has been owned by Best-Way. ROBERT MATHIAS : I think that ' s right . Probably since 1977 it has been recorded. JERRY KIEFER: The reason I mention that of course, is that , therefore, probably the residents of, say across 4th Street and the other areas would not have been able to know, or would they, that Best-Way did have plans to mine that area, prior to March of ' 77? ROBERT MATHIAS : Through a search of recorded documents, no, that would not be the case. ( Inaudible) merely answering his question , no, again , you know, the operation has been at the north end of. . . JERRY KIEFER: Yes. ROBERT MATHIAS : . . . This piece ground where, you know. . . ( Inaudible) JERRY KIEFER: Yes . That ' s O.K. I can handle it. ROBERT MATHIAS : O. K. Does that answer your question? JERRY KIEFER: Yes, I just wanted to double check that . 120 ROBERT MATHIAS : S i r. FRANK SUCKLA: I ' d like to ask a question . I understand you' ve been there for some time mining gravel and asphalt . How much of a health hazard has it been in the past , in the area there? ROBERT MATHIAS : From? FRANK SUCKLA: From your gravel mining and asphalt plant . ROBERT MATHIAS : You know, I don ' t know exactly how to answer that . We don ' t think any. FRANK SUCKLA : Or, let ' s put it this way. How much complaints have you had from the people in the area? ROBERT MATHIAS : Regarding the existing operation? FRANK SUCKLA: Yes. ROBERT MATHIAS : To my knowledge, there' s been one landowner who has consistently complained about the presence of the operation and I think there have been some formal complaints riled. I think we discussed the. . . at least part of the reason for that animosity at past hearings and we could get into that again . I 'm not particularly interested. But to the best of my knowledge, there have been, you know, with the exception of that one indi- vidual , no complaints about the operation . 121 DRANK SUCI(LA.: Thank you CHUCK CARLSON: Any further questions? JERRY KIEFER: Could I ask one of the staff now, concerning, perhaps the staff , maybe it ' s been answered by Mr. Mathias, but I don ' t know. Is there any further comment on the question Mr. Mathias raised concerning the value , or is there any. . . He mentioned the difference between F-1 and T-l . Is there a clarification that we could have on that? TOM HONN: The only clarification I think that can be made, and I am not a geologist , and I think the people, either a geologist , or the people at the State Geological Survey could probably respond most appropriately. The classification of the F and the T identifier or label the type of the deposit . The F is classified as a floodplain laid-down deposit . The T is a terrace deposit. , The geologic definition of terrace versus the floodplain, I could not give you. JERRY KIEFER: ( Inaudible) . . .understand that . TOM HONN : The one designation that would follow the F-1 , or the T-1 is . . . the number 1 identifies it as a prime gravel resource . JERRY KIEFER: Right . Maybe then , the follow-up would be as to saying. . .O. K. , the potential gravel deposits for the area; I guess I take it that according to the comments here , you say 122 that there is. . . let ' s see , "Th opinion or the Department or Planning Service is that the natural deposits are not unique. " Does that moan that they are, in your opinion , whoever, plenty of either T- 1 and/or F-1? Or does it matter? Or just plenty of gravel 1 deposits? GARY FORTNER: I think what we' re looking at is that there is quite extensive gravel resources within Weld County . To speak specifically to the question saying that either T-1 or F-1 is more plentiful than the other, it would take an expert geologist to study on it, just to identify the two quantities in question. But as a county as a whole, there are quite extensive gravel resources and I think this is what the staff ' s comments were directed as. In general , there are high qualities of deposits throughout the county. JERRY KIEFER: Is that true of both the Poudre, as well as the Platte? - GARY FORTNER: I think the. . . from what we understand of it , the resources on the Poudre River are generally , as a general statement , a higher quality than those on the Platte River . JERRY KIEFER: Yes. And there are say , considerable deposits along that area also? UNIDENTIFIABLE: Yes. ROBERT MATHIAS : Can I make one comment in regard to the question? 123 JURY K I KrI:li : Y(Th RORER MATHIAS : This is particularly relevant in the light of the problems that the utilities are having hack in the east and mid-west regarding a power generation . Back in the 1040 ' s and 1950' s natural gas was considered to be of such great abundance that we didn ' t have to worry about it . We ' d never run out of it . You know, that was 20 years ago . The story has changed. I mentioned Boulder County a few minutes ago . Boulder County a few years ago was where Weld County is right now, with respect to gravel resources and I ' d hate to see Weld County get into that situation . Sure , we could do without the gravel resources on that site for quite awhile . How long did we burn natural gas at the rates we did because it was abundant? I think that ' s really an issue here because once that site is developed for residential ( inaudible) purposes if that gravel is completely and totally lost , until the value of those materials exceeds the value of tearing down whatever is on top of it . So , if. . . if . . . I would ask you to ask yourselves, you know, should we ignore the natural gas that we did 20 years ago? Any other questions from the Planning Commission? CHUCK CARLSON : Any other questions? If no further questions, thank you very much for your comments . ROBERT MATHIAS : We appreciate the opportunity to preside, and particularly. . . (inaudible) afternoon on this thing (inaudible) . CHUCK CARLSON: O. K. Do you have any comments that you want 124 to come up with for now? Anything? O. K . We open up to comments from the people in the audience. TOM CONNELL: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman , could I provide one item before we ( inaudible) . . . CHUCK CARLSON : O. K. TOM CONNELL: Tom A. Connell , Atorney of Law, representing Best-Way Paving Company. I don' t think I will comment further on the Planning Commission or the Planning staff recommendation to the Board. I think Mr. Mathias has adequately covered that . I would offer that the matters are discussed in the recommendation have been presented in far more detail than they have been (inaudible ) by the staff , I believe, in the report . I would like to read briefly , a copy of a memorandum to the Board of County Commissioners dated February 16 , 1978, from the Community Relations Committee of the Greeley Board of Realtors . Reference : Aggregate Deposits . Dear Commissioners : The Community Relations Committee is a sub-committee of the Greeley Board of Realtors and is a committee which has been conceived for the furtherance of the best interests of the citizens of our community and does not have authority to speak for the Greeley Board of Realtors . Due to recent discussions within our committee, we ' d like to take this opportunity to advise you, the Commissioners of Weld County, that , in our opinion, there are many economic advantages to having mineable aggregate deposits in close proximity to Greeley. The cost comparison between nearby deposits and long- distance hauling is significant and we are consistently interested 125 in keeping home and road building costs as minima] as possible. These basic building materials being readily available to us constitute a valuable asset to all of us, Thank you for your attention . And the letter is signed by fourteen names . If you would like, I would submit a copy of that . The original is with the County Commissioners. CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you, Tom. TOM CONNELL: I would simply note that apparently, in their writing of this letter, as they are in the real estate business, the realtors also have given some consideration to property values, prices of ( inaudible) homes, which is where they make their living. Thank you. CHUCK CARLSON : Thank you. Do you want these? UNIDENTIFIABLE: I ' ve got three. . . three things here about asphalt . CHUCK CARLSON: O. K. State your name . KENT JACKSON: Kent Jackson, and I 'm a resident living on the property adjacent to the proposed site for the gravel operation. We' ve heard the concerns of those that . . . of us that are opposed to the rezoning request and I believe that you should be fair in representing the summary of those concerns that we collectively put together, and I hope that ' s been of some use to you. I will, therefore, not take your time, additional time, to review those in detail, but will allow you to take the time that you have 126 available , i f you ' ve already considered , I 'm sure for this matter. But I would like to make a couple of remarks that will hopefully put into some perspective those concerns that we expressed. I would like to first of all , comment that it appears to me that the staff is already of a much better experience base than ours in judging the relative importance of gravel pits answered some of the concerns that we have . Basically, one of them is the relative value of the particular site that we have discussed. We were a little concerned about that question obviously, and so we consulted the available resources that we had and that we could interpret--those geological survey maps that we could also get sets of. We looked at those maps , and essentially we discovered two things. The first things was that as defined in that geological survey map , which I will be glad to share with you--it was published in 1974--is the identi- fication of the zone . . . of the pit site in question , as a low quality area, and I might just quote how they refer to it . They define it as "a low quantity source of concrete aggregate" . Secondly, the other thing that was most notable to us , is the fact that there are very large deposits defined as "best quality for aggregate road metals" in the present region and quite ex- tensively available in the areas that are currently zoned for Agricultural purposes which seem to be reasonably accessible for the purposes that have been described. So I would sutyrnit to you that the question that we ask, and obviously, the question that the staff has raised as well is how valuable is this gravel on a relative basis to the public when it appears to be a relatively low quality and secondly , when it appears to be surrounded by a higher grade level much more accessible for 127 minim!, piur•pcoses. Finally , and I think chat this Is a . . . this pivots on all of the basic concerns we ' ve raised is that the . . . that the implications of this operation for the health , safety and welfare of property values, quality of life and possible reversal of what we consider and define as a public zoning commitment that ' s previous to the thing. What are those im- plications for us? We have not had those implications responded to in any direct way, we don ' t think, by Best-Way Company, or their representative, Lord and Associates, in the two previous hearings, nor in the prior public meetings . And I can assure you, we stand firmly on the original position in direct opposition to the proposal having had none of our concerns answered directly. Finally, we submit that a health. . . healthy, a safe , attractive, a progressive neighborhood, which we ' re proud to say that we think we have in that particular area , can also be reasonably defined as a valuable resource for Greeley , and reasonable. . . reasonably defined as a valuable resource for Weld County. I think that traditionally we don ' t think of the neighborhood in quite that regard, but I think that we can readily do so. This proposal , if approved, will I think have. . . no doubt have, a most discouraging affect on the neighborhood and on those of us who reside there and will ultimately devalue that those resources that we are very proud of and look forward to developing some more. We thank you very much for your consideration. I will make the map available . I ' d like to also point out that we have attached the list that identifies 11 other current gravel pit operations that are currently operating in the immediate area. That , to me, is part answer to one of the concerns about the particular level of valuable resource . 128 CHUCK CARLSON : Thank you. Auy further coruuc'nt ROBERT FOOSE : I ' m Robert Foose and I live in the exact area of the proposed pit . As far as Best-Way Calking to you about us not knowing that Best-Way was there; we was fully aware that Best-Way Paving was there when we bought our houses. It ' s directly. . . it ' s in the line of sight , but it ' s always been below the ridge, and if it ever come up on top of the ridge then we would be able to see it . We was also told by our realtors--my realtor is Wheeler Realty, who does not have a representative that will come and talk to you people , but they have told us by Jerry Dedon ; I won ' t say his name because I know ( inaudible) that that was zoned for Estates and we did not have no worry about that gravel pit was expanding. So, as far as Best-Way saying that we did' t know it was there--we knew it was there. It ' s just that we was told by representatives of the Greeley community that it would not be going into there. . . that it was a phasing out operation, that was just a small little deal and couldn ' t last forever. But to go ahead and make them. . . let them make it bigger, well then, we' re there . . .but it ' s there forever. In our terms, in other words 13 to 15 years, or 20 years, whatever you say--that ' s our lifetime in that area. So that ' s all I wanted to say. I do not say it is truthful to say that we did not know Best-Way was there because we did. Thank you. CHUCK CARLSON: Sir, on this list of names of these gravel pits, I thought you said they was in the immediate area. KENT JACKSON: They ' re in the Weld County area . 129 CHUCK CAItI„SON : Yes. Weld County i :: ' UO x IO0 miles . KENT JACKSON : As you . . . as you look at the map, though , you' ll sec' that the gravel deposits tend to almost criss-cross the Greeley area--a good portion of Greeley is already constructed over sizeable quality level gravel deposits. But you' ll see extensive deposits in the immediate area that extends north of the city as well as south. DONNA JACKSON: My name is Donna Jackson and I would like to go on record as being opposed to this rezoning. I signed one of the petitions and that I think it should be denied, and I would like to go on record as saying I believe that Mr. Connell , who cited at the last meeting about the gravel pit at the Cherry Creek Shopping Area; I would like to say I think that it was a gross exaggeration to compare our home site with the Cherry Creek area. I was born and raised in Denver, Colorado, and there are no homes as close as our homes are here at Greeley. To compare our site to Cherry Creek is a gross exaggeration . I would also like to say, we are not only concerned about our property values , as Mr. Mathias would lead you to believe. We have pointed out a number of health hazards. The quality of our life is in danger if this gravel pit goes in . CHUCK CARLSON: Any further comments? If we have no further comments, I want you, Commission , do you have any questions? Any points that you need to think--need to be brought out? 130 FRANK SUCKLA : Mr. Chairman , I ' d •j ii-I. 1 i ke to make ono comment . I 'm wondering what effect it would have on the area after this gravel pit is mined out if it went through and that area that would be reclaimed to either agricultural land or open space or whatever . it is used for--if it wouldn ' t be a valuable asset as an open space after it was mined out. CHUCK CARLSON: Are you. . . do you want a staff comment , or do you want a. . . FRANK SUCKLA: Wel] , yes , if the staff would like to comment on that . GARY FORTNER: I think if we approach it from the point of having good management in the operation, that , yes, definitely you could have something that would be an asset at the end of the 15 to 30 years of operation if it was done correctly. . . . Judge. . . it might be better. I think we would have to rely on tying it down so it was done correctly so it does turn into an asset and doesn ' t turn into something less than that . A lot is going to depend on who has the property and what they want to do with it at the end of the operation . CHUCK CARLSON: Say that this operation is O. K. ' d and we feel like it needs to have some development standards along with it. How deep on the standards are we limited or how deep can we go? We have to use the Health Department ' s request or do we have to use. . . 131 GARY FORTNER: 1 think it depends lo a great extent on what areas you are trying to regulate when it comes to Development Standards . When you talk about air pollution , you ' re pretty well tied in terms of the Health Department standards--the state level to the Air Pollution Control Division . There are other things. . . it ' s hard to give you a straight answer unless I have the specific things you want to deal with . There are other things that the county through its zoning powers could write . But it is going to be a matter of what particular aspects of it you want to develop in terms of developments here as to how we can actually respond on that . Did you want to add something? KAY NORTON: Yes. As we have discussed before , the Colorado Supreme Court has upheld the imposition of reasonable, whatever that means , conditions on rezonings and land use permits . So, if we do feel that we want . to impose conditions on the property, I think it ' s simply in your judgment as to whether or not these are reasonable conditions and you should discuss them with the parties involved and determine that during the hearing process. CHUCK CARLSON: All right , D. A. As you know, the state has extensively gone into a reclamation program development standards that the state requires and things like this. This is something that we must be concerned with. KAY NORTON: Right . Now that . . . that is a situation which the State Mined Land Reclamation Act has pre-empted counties in the regulation of the method of reclaiming mined land. The 132 state has a full and complete program on that . The applicant has to obtain a permit from the state and the methods of reclaiming the slope has been brought up--the slope is set by the State Mined Land ( inaudible) . However, all matters relating to land use, which in this case, is primarily impacts on surrounding properties, are left to the local government , so this is what we are considering--things relating to noise, aesthetics , as far as blocking the site and so forth; all of these things that have been discussed. CHUCK CARLSON: I just wanted to clarify a couple of those points. I think they need to be clarified. Any further comments? JACKIE FOOSE : I 'm Jackie Foose , 431 37th Avenue Court . I think you' ve missed part of the point . We have children down there . I have an 8 year old son . What if he decides to climb a 6 foot fence , which if he wants to, (inaudible) . Is a life more important than this gravel pit? Not in our area; not in a residential area. ( Inaudible) CHUCK CARLSON: Thank you. Mrs. Reed, you had a point. I was discussing a. . . VICKI REF1) : Can you hear me? I just simply wanted Lo respond to Mr. Suckla' s question about the impact after the area was mined out and I think the Planning staff accurately answered that . Right now, we have a very limited choice as to how that land is going to be used. After it ' s mined, it can be rezoned to be used for anything once it ' s approved by the Planning 133 Commission again , and there are no guarantees for the future . One statement in the ori_ginaI plan developed by Lord and Associates talks about future use of the land and one statement- in there regarding ( inaudible ) as the future use of the Land. JERRY KIEFER: For the whole land, Mrs . Reed? VICKI REED : For the 25 acres in question . UNIDENTIFIABLE : I thought it was for a portion of the. . . if I 'm not mistaken . O. K. GARY FORTNER: Let the record show that was Vickie Reed speaking. CHUCK CARLSON : Yes , I forgot to ask . Pardon . Any further comments? Any further questions by the Commission? If not , we need a decision . And. . . go ahead. JERRY KIEFER: O. K. , Mr. Chairman, maybe I could get started by moving that we accept the Planning Staff ' s recommendation that the request for rezoning from Agricultural , pardon me, from Estate to Agricultural be denied. PERCY HIATT: I ' ll second it . CHUCK CARLSON: It has been moved and seconded that we refer this to the Commissioners as being denied, following the staff ' s recommendations. Any further discussions? If not, Shirley, would 134 you po l 1 the Commission? SHIRLEY PHILLIPS : Mrs. White Yes Mrs. Yost Abstained Mr. Kiefer Yes Mr. Carlson No Mr. Suckla No FRANK SUCKLA : Because I feel that the mining of the gravel would not be a health hazard. SHIRLEY PHILLIPS : Mr. Nix No Mr. Hiatt Yes KAY NORTON: In a tie vote the motion fails. CHUCK CARLSON: Pardon . KAY NORTON: In a tie vote the motion fails . CHUCK CARLSON: In a tie vote. . . I am informed in a tie vote , the motion fails. So, in other words , the thing has passed in favor and. . . VICKI REED: No. . . No, you motion fai 1 ed. . . CHUCK CARLSON: . . .To be approved. VICKI REED: No, the motion failed. . . 135 UNIDENTIFIABLE : Whore does that put it ? CHUCK CARLSON : According to Robert ' s Rules of Order, we have to have another motion , but . . . KAY NORTON: Well, you can . . . yes, you do an alternative motion, the opposite would not automatically happen upon the failure of the motion . It ' s possible that the Commission may change its mind. I think we can entertain an alternative motion. The Zoning Resolution does require recommendation from the Planning Commission . However, if the Planning Com- mission is simply unable to come up with a recommendation , I suppose we' ll have to proceed that way. CHUCK CARLSON: Well , this is true . Beings that we ' re just a recommendation body it could be forwarded this way, but I 'm going to call for another vote and. . . FRANK SUCKLA: On the same motion? CHUCK CARLSON: She needs a point of order. (General discussion among the members during this time) CHUCK CARLSON: Maybe I better clarify this to the people. O.K. 1 A point of clarification that we need to bring up is the fact that if this does pass, or it ' s got to go to the Commissioners and if it ' s ruled on by the Commissioners, why then it has to come back 136 1 Ii 1'011 O1 I I►c' Cumin i i oh for I he Spec in I II,;(' I'(' rni ► I The re , ;►ncl at that t in►e. . . KAY NORTON : See , the motion in vote was on the rezoning. If no action was taken on the rezoning, no action can be taken on the Special Use Permit . CHUCK CARLSON: That ' s right . And then, until that . . .until such time that it comes back, well then, then we would act on the Development Standards as we like. But right now, we ' re just voting on the change of zone from E to A. JERRY KIEFER: O. K. KAY NORTON: Right . Yes, if the rezoning were to be approved, the Special Use Permit could then be considered-- the Special Use Permit . . . in an Agricultural zone. CHUCK CARLSON: Right . O. K. Thank you. BEN NIX: Mr. Chairman, could I ask legal advice on this point? It seemed to me that since the Planning Commission is at an impasse here, as far as a decision is concerned, that it would be in order to refer this in that capacity to the County Commissioners. KAY NORTON: Well, as I stated before, the Zoning Resolution doesn ' t deal with this question because it simply states that the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation . However, it 137 seems to me only reasonable that if the Planning Commission is at an impasse the recommendation is that the Planning Commission is split three to three and could make no. . . that there was no consensus ( inaudible) planning. Again , there are alternate motions which could be made which possibly could pass, although I don' t know. But I would think that , yes, you can refer to the Commissioners at this point if you are unable to come to a decision for. . . on the question of the rezoning. But it will still have to be disapproved at the Commissioners level . It will still have to come back before the Commissioners for its recom- mendation on the Special Use Permit . BEN NIX: I would assume that if you presented another motion , asking for approval , it would be a split vote again . CHUCK CARLSON: Well , I ' ll ask for that motion if you want to make it . If you don ' t, why, we ' ll just . . . BEN NIX: I ' ll so move, Mr. Chairman. CHUCK CARLSON: That we approve it? BEN NIX: Yes. FRANK SUCKLA: Just to clarify this motion , that ' s for. . . KAY NORTON: Rezoning from E to A. FRANK SUCKLA: Rezoning from E to A, with a Special Use Permit? 138 KAY NORTON : Nu , Just the rezoning of i l . BEN NIX: No. Just the rezoning. CHUCK CARLSON: It has been moved that we approve it. Is there a second? FRANK SUCKLA: I ' ll second it . CHUCK CARLSON: It ' s been moved and seconded that we approve the gravel pit . JERRY KIEFER: No. . . the zoning. CHUCK CARLSON : . . . And refer it to the Commissioners as with our approval . UNIDENTIFIABLE: For the rezoning? LARRY WIKHOLM: Mr. Chairman, are you approving the gravel pit or the rezoning? KAY NORTON: The rezoning. CHUCK CARLSON: I said, zoning. LARRY WIKHOLM: No, Sir, you said the gravel pit . CHUCK CARLSON : I re-stated my statement , Sir! All right . 139 All in . . . is there any discussion? 1r not , Shivloy , poll I he Commission . SHIRLEY PHILLIPS : Mrs . White : No Mrs. Yost : Abstain Mr. Kiefer: No Mr. Carlson : Yes Mr. Suckla: Yes Mr. Nix Yes Mr. Hiatt No CHUCK CARLSON: O.K. We are at a. . . IRMA WHITE : If we change the motion to the way the City of Greeley Planning Commission recommend. with 100 feet buffer, maybe there would be a change of vote then . JERRY KIEFER: Pardon me. IRMA WHITE : Is anything like that in order, or. . . ? KAY NORTON: Those are factors that would be considered in the Special Use Permit . CHUCK CARLSON: Right now, we' re. . . essentially, what we ' re doing we ' re just voting on the change of zone from E to A. IRMA WHITE : I see . 140 CHUCK CARLSON : And i r we . . . KAY NORTON : Well , it ' s considered. . . CHUCK CARLSON: That condition should be brought up in the Special Use Permit , yes. But right now we' re kind of locked in one way or another. KAY NORTON: Could we have a conference with the Planning Commission? CHUCK CARLSON: I think it would be a good idea. O. K. , five (break for conference) minutes . I Are you ready, Shirley? O. K. We feel as a Commission that we' re not going to vote on it again , but I would like to hear each Commission member' s comment and make it part of the record so that it can be forwarded on to the Commissioners as such, and whatever the Commissioners decide to do, this will be sent back to us if they decide it tha way , and we will work on the Development Standards at that time if it comes back that way. If it doesn ' t , why, it doesn ' t . So, at this time , we ' ll start over here with Percy. He can make his statement . If they wish not to make a statement , they don ' t have to , but if they do, why they can . PERCY HIATT: Well , I fully agree with the staff ' s recom- mendation here that there is a. . . the opinion of them that the zoning was not faulty, so I ' ll have to go along with that and let it go at that . 141 131E NIX: Mr. Chairman I think previously I have made it guile clear my feeling as regards the County Comprehensive Plan referring to mineral deposits of which we have a limited amount . Now, it ' s debatable about how long this. . . l.hese sup- plies can and will last , but I feel that even though this is not . . . cannot be needed for even as long as 50 years then we ' re amiss to allow housing development or any other kind of development to develop on this particular gravel or mineral site and this is the reason for my voting the way I have . I have a real concern for the feelings of the people living in the area. I also would like to say that I think Development Standards can be required so that these people will have to develop this in such a way as not to be a nuisance and if this couldn ' t be done then I would not be favorable . But I know it can and I think that we must preserve the minerals that are available to us in this area. FRANK SUCKLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . My reason is pretty much as such as Ben Nix' s. I believe our natural resources should be preserved whether it be gravel, coal, or other natural resources. After they are depleted, this particular site could be made into a park or open space or other uses and I would like to see some strict land use put in this so it would be presentable and be a good open space for the area. And my reason also, as far as noise level and health hazards , I don ' t think that the health hazards from the gravel pit would be significant and the noise levels would. . .probably most homes have more noise in their homes than you have in the gravel pit with your stereo or television going, the decibels get pretty 142 hir;h : uiiieI IIIe , and I would like lo Kee ! one Ioo(I :,Iandards put on Lhe Land Use Permit . Thank you . CHUCK CARLSON : Thank you, Frank. Irma . IRMA WHITE : I ' ve gone along with the opinion of the staff. They have said the original zoning was not faulty and I believe that and I see no change in conditions that justifies a new classification . I would, however, if the Development Standards were . . . had been voiced into a motion differently , I may have voted for it . I have some questions that haven ' t been answered, and one of them is, how valuable is gravel in our area. How much do we have? Both sides have presented evidence both ways and I haven ' t been satisfied with an answer to that . CHUCK CARLSON: Jerry. JERRY KIEFER: I , too, agree with the staff ' s recommendation , primarily, I suppose, on two points. One is, I also have not been convinced of the need although I understand the value of the mineral deposit. I feel that the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods outweighs the--or the negative impact to me--- outweighs the benefit from the mineral deposit and part of that , then , my second concern, rests with the property values of the land surrounding. I feel that even with diligent care , the majority of the residents could not have been made to realize the future plans for that piece of property. CHUCK CARLSON: O. K. Marge is just chomping at the bit . 143 She' (I like to make a :;LnL('ment loo , hilt we eNn ' I. do Ih,il. right now. But for myself , being in agriculture and knowing the value of gravel in all forms of business and knowing the fact that we have good gravel in this country and knowing the fact that in 1957, ' 58 and ' 59, when I was in college, we repeatedly said that we would never run out of energy . It would be the year, the middle of 2000 ' s before we run out of energy and that ' s not even 20 years ago and here we ' re looking it straight in the face. And another thing about the gravel , it ' s the same difference. We ' re never going to run out of gravel? I just cannot be made to believe that . Another point , the asbestos point that was brought up I thought was irrelevant. Didn ' t have any foundation to it , none whatsoever because the rocks in this country around here have no asbestos particles such as that what was presented to us and I think that was not relevant to this situation . Also, I think along with the fact that the value of gravel that we have to us in this immediate area with the growth that we are facing today and with the gravel that ' s been asked for from this area to other areas , it is a very valuable thing to protect and I think it ' s something that we need to look head-on into with a very clear mind, and I think this can also be a great asset to this area rather than a detriment to this area because I believe that this can be dealt with through our rules and regulations, through our health and reclamation projects that it could be entirely lived with. I don ' t think that the people would even know the thing was being there with the aspect that cleaning the air, which is very strictly controlled and patrolled by the State Health Department and this can be done . So we are going to forward this on to the Commissioners with a 3-3 vote and the Commissioners will have this . I don ' t know when . Do • i 1 1 you have any idea? KAY NORTON : No more than 30 days from. . . GARY FORTNER: O. K. , it depends on when it can be advertised in the paper. As you' re aware, the Greeley Journal is not going to be publishing after a given date . There might be some problems in getting schedules arranged. I would guess from 30 to 45 days. CHUCK CARLSON: - O. K. This will be before the Commissioners in from 30 to 45 days. From that point is where we ' ve got to go . If they O. K. it , well then it ' s a Special Use Permit which, when it comes back, Irma, then you have your standards to work with it . If not why, then , it ' s done. So, this is the way it is right now. That closes our books right now. Thank you. GARY FORTNER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion . What the Board follows, as a general rule, that when the Planning Commission , I guess when it ' s recommendation is denial , I don' t know what they' ll do in this case, where we have a hung Commission , but what they usually do, is send out a letter to the applicant , indicating, or requesting events as to whether or not they want their application heard by the Board of County Commissioners. If the applicant does not want to wait that time period for that letter to get out , I would suggest that after this meeting they go directly up to the Clerk to the Board and indicate that they want this heard by 145 l 1)e Board or County Commissioners. I Li inlc that will peed up tho process a little bit . CHUCK CARLSON: Tom. TOM IIONN: I ' ll take care of that . CHUCK CARLSON: O.K. He ' s got it . O. K. Thank you, people very much. No more statements. It ' s all dune . 146 Hello