HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTERLING SPECIAL REVIEW - COUNTY REFERRAL - 40-88 - REPORTS - OTHER JURISDICTIONSTITLE :
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
STAFF CONTACT:
I. SITE DATA:
Total Development Area:
Existing Land Use:
Proposed Land Use:
Land Use Designation:
Services:
Access:
Fire Protection:
Zoning:
No. Trips Generated by Use:
II. BACKGROUND:
Sterling Special Review (Resuhmittal)
Approval to conduct a gravel mining
operation in the FA-1 Farming Zoning
District.
E 1/2 33-8-69; located on the west side of
County Road 19, 1/2 mile south of Highway 287
Sterling Sand & Gravel Company
Jerry White File 1Z-46-87
57.94 acres
Vacant farmland
Gravel mining
Area of joint planning concern - Ft. Collins
County load 19; major collector
Poudre Fire Authority; 1 mile frcan
Station #7
FA-1 Farming
218 per day during production
In 1985 Sterling Sand & Gravel Ccmpany received approvel for sand/gravel
excavation on 45 acres just north of the Poudre River on the west side of
Taft Hill Road. on February 24, 1988, the Planning Ccnmission reviewed a
request to expand that quarry to the north, increasing the size by 59
acres. The Planning Caimission recommended denial (see minutes on
pages ). The request was scheduled for hearing by the Board of
County Commissioners on Larch 21. At that time, Sterling requested that
the matter be tabled for one month. Those who were present in opposition
asked that the matter not be tabled and the Board agreed that it would be
heard unless the applicant wanted to withdraw the request. Sterling then
withdrew the request and indicated it would be resuh fitted with additional
information. Sterling re -submitted the Special Review on March 23 with no
significant changes.
on Axaril 8 staff received, from Sterling, a Groundwater Study, plans
showing a pond which will be createdand the timetables for mining and
reclamation of the area. This information was provided to the attorney
for the residents by the Planning Department on April S. Mr. Refer
indicated that the Groundwater Study had been presented to the Colorado
Division of Water Resources one week prior.
PC 4/27/68
STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW
( RESUBMITTAL)
jh
III. HISTORICAL INFORMATION:
History of the sand and gravel operation in the area:
Pre 1970 Sterling mined the areas adjacent to the Poudre River including
areas north of the Poudre River. The first record of mining by
Sterling was about 1953.
1960 Sterling purchased 120 acres which adjoined the existing
residential area on the east and south. At that time, there
were only 2 of the 8 hams which exist in the area.
1972 Sterling filed, with the County, a description of the area which
they owned or leased for mining in order to qualify as a Pre-
existing Mining Operation. This plan included the 120 acres
which adjoins the residential area on the south and east.
1976 Sterling granted an access easement to Bill Waldo noting that
future mining would occur immediately south of Mr. Waldo's
proposed building site.,
1977 Sterling received a State Mining Permit for the property
adjoining the residential area on the south and east.
1985 Latimer County approved mining of 45 acres north of the Poudre
River, west of Taft Hill Road.
1988 All of the "historic" or pre-existing mining areas were
incorporated into a single plan which was approved by the State
and County. This plan included the 120 acres adjoining the
residential area on the south and east.
History of residential development in the area:
1970 Three hones existed in the area east of the proposed gravel pit.
1972 Dr. Martin's hone was constructed on 10 acres.
1976 Exemption approved on the Martin property at the request of then
owner Wilson and Bill Waldo. To provide access, Mr. Waldo
received an easement fran Sterling. The easement noted that
Sterling "reserves the right to mine gravel to and within 50
feet of the easement".
1977 Waldo residence constructed on 5 acres with the Sterling
property adjacent on the east and south.
1979 Exemption approved on property north of Martin and Waldo, one
existing hone and one constructed in 1978.
1984 variance request and Exemption submitted by Mr. Waldo to allow
construction of an additional residence. In the application,
Mr. Waldo stated, "The property is bounded on the south and east
PC 4/27/88 STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW
(RESUBMITIAL)
jh
•
•
by Sterling Sand and Gravel who plan, eventually, to mine the
land." The exemtpti.on was originally denied and later approved
by the County. At the request of Sterling, the plat showed a
100 foot setback from the proposed mining area to the south.
1987 Mr. Waldo moved a residence onto the vacant exemption parcel and
sold his previous residence on the adjacent exemption lot.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Sterling Sand and Gravel requests approval for a 59 acre sand and gravel
extraction pit, which is basically an expansion of the 45 acre pit that
was approved in October 1985 to the south. Access wnuld remain where it
was proposed with the earlier pit just north of the Poudre River off of
Taft Hill Road.
Crushing and stockpiling of materials will follow the face of the mining
operation. The asphalt and concrete batch plants would remain on the
southwest corner of the previously approved pit near the river. A tree
screening plan for the area adjacent to Taft Hill Road is being reviewed
by the county Forester. Installation of the tree screen would begin in
the Spring of 1989. Mining would take place frcrn about 1993 through 2003
on the western half of the site and from about 2003 through 2013 on the
eastern half.
V. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES:
There are 8 residences immediately east of the subject property and one
residence just west of the property. Several letters have been received
frcm these area property owners indicating their objections to the
proposed gravel operation (see pages ). Each of the concerns stated
by the residents is addressed below:
1. INCX.1`'IPATIBILITY OF GRAVEL OPERATION AND RESIDENTIAL USES:
The six property owners of the 8 hones located just east of the site
have indicated there was never an indication that Sterling Sand and
Gravel would expand the gravel operation to the north and that they
would not have purchased their hones if they had known of the
potential for gravel extraction nearby. According to records of the
Assessor's Office, all of the present owners purchased their
properties in 1976 or later. Although it is often difficult for have
purchasers to establish what future land uses may be, it appears that
information has been available since at least 1972 showing Sterling's
intention to mine gravel in the area adjacent to the residences
although not specifically on the subject property. The information
was in the following fozns:
A. purchase of the 120 acres south and east of the residences in
1969 by Sterling Sand and Gravel.
PC 4/27/88 STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW
(RESUEMITTAL)
jh
B. Notification to Larimer county Planning in 1972 of Sterling's
intent to mine the 120 acres adjacent to the residences.
C. Granting of an access easement to Bill Waldo in 1976 to allow
the creation of two parcels by exemption, the one for the
existing Martin residence (then owned by Wilson) and a site for
construction of a hone by Waldo. The recorded access easement
noted "Grantor reserves the right to mine gravel to and within
50 feet of the north line of said easement." Access to three
existing homes is across Sterling property based upon this
easement.
D. Sterling received a State permit in 1977 for the 120 acres.
E. In 1984 Mr. Waldo requested another exemption to create an
additional building site. The application stated that his
property was "bounded on the south and east by Sterling Sand and
Gravel who plan, eventually, to mine the land". The exemption
was at first denied but subsequently approved in 1985 at which
time Sterling wrote "Prospective owners should be aware of our
future mining plans" which were shown on the attached map. The
exemption plat included a 100 foot setback from the future
mining area at Sterling's request. Mr. Waldo sold his residence
and moved another dwelling onto the adjacent lot. His most
recent letter states that he would not buy a home where "there
seems to be an ongoing threat of more gravel pits in your front
mod"
Although the subject property was not involved in the above
situations, they do indicate clearly that Sterling had intended at
least since 1969 to mine gravel adjacent to the residences. At least
four of the homes were constructed after Sterling purchased the
adjacent parcel for mining and all of the properties were purchased
after Sterling gave notice to the County that it would be mining
adjacent to those properties. Although it may be argued that
Sterling should not be allowed on three sides of the residential
cluster, there is little doubt that Sterling has long intended to
mine at least on the south and east sides.
2. IMPACT ON GF OLIT9VATER:
The Sterling Sand and Gravel operation involves dewatering the gravel
pits to allow a "dry" mining operation. A trench is normally dug
around the mining area and as water seeps into the trench it is
pumped into a settling pond and then into the river. Area residents
indicate that the groundwater level has declined considerably since
Sterling began mining and dewatering the Seawurth Pit, southwest of
the residential area. The complaints state the lowered groundwater
has resulted in ponds drying up, elimination of subirrigation for
crops, and greater depth to well water.
Sterling contracted Resource Consultants, Inc. to produce an
"Evaluation of the Ground -Water Resource in the vicinity of Gravel
Mining by Sterling Companies". The report included water level data
PC 4/27/88 STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW
(RESUEMITI'AL )
jh
fran exploratory drillings made in 1985 and 1988. The report noted a
decline in the groundwater level but noted that the two tests did not
provide adequate data or consider seasonal variations in
precipitation or irrigation flow. Several possible mitigation
techniques were suggested (see pages ) including artificial
groundwater recharge reducing permeability of the pit and direct
delivery of surface water to affected property owners.
The report is very general and makes no specific rec mmendations
except that additional monitoring should occur. Unfortunately, the
present operation of the Seawurth Pit is likely to preclude the
collection of any base data which would reflect groundwater levels
over a long period without any mining nearby.
The report was provided to the Colorado Division of Water Resources
but they were not able to provide a written analysis in time for
preparation of this agenda. In a telephone conversation, a State
engineer indicated that there are examples of the techniques
mentioned by Resource Consultants but the Division of Water Resources
is not aware how successful they were. Rex Burns, County Floodplai.n
Administrator, agreed that it is difficult to predict the success of
these procedures and the provision of surface water to affected
properties was the only assured way to mitigate the impacts of the
declining groundwater.
The applicant should consider testing sane of the mitigation
techniques on the existing Seaworth Pit along with a Comprehensive
Monitoring Program.
one method of resolving the problem is to utilize mining techniques
and equipment which does not require dewatering the pits. However,
this may require considerable investment by Sterling and also makes
it hard to recover the "fines" which Sterling requires in its
products.
Another alternative, which is used in Adams County, is to require
that the operator shall "take all necessary actions to provide water
to the affected property owner" where it can be shown that a well has
been damaged by the mining operation. If the two parties cannot
agree on the cause of the failure of the well, the County
Carmissioners would make the final decision of what should be done to
resolve the problem.
It should be noted that groundwater rights are protected by law only
when they have been decreed through the Water Court. A well permit
frcm the Division of Water Resources does not guarantee the
availability of water. If a well has been decreed by the Water
Court, a damaged party can pursue action through the Court.
Loss of surface water through evaporation must be addressed through a
water augmentation plan filed with the Water Court and Division of
Water Resources.
PC 4/27/88 STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW
(RESUBMITTAL)
jh
3. VISUAL Il1PACT:
Area residents are concerned about the visual impacts from the
equignent, mining operation, and the material stockpiles. People who
make their hones in rural areas do so because of the pastoral
setting, views of the mountains, and the open space nature of
farmland. They often do not recognize that rural areas present land
uses which they had not anticipated but which are considered some�,mat
normal in rural areas, i.e. dairies, feed lots, pig farms, oil wells,
hunters, poultry farms, horse stables, etc. Unfortunately, gravel
pits are industrial type uses which cannot be confined to industrial
parks. While a pit is being operated, most would agree the visual
impact is negative. Landscaping can be used effectively to minimize
the impact as evidenced by the area near the Sterling headquarters.
However, landscaping is generally not effective as a screen until it
reaches about six feet high. Therefore, it is important to either
install the plants several years prior to the mining or to install
larger plants
The applicant states they are coordinating with the County Forester
to develop a landscaping plan which will effectively minimize the
visual impact and also provide some benefit to wildlife. That plan
was not available to the County Planning Department at the time this
report was prepared.
The storage of heavy equipment, while not in use, can also create an
eyesore. This can be ameliorated to some extent by requiring that
when the pit is not operating any equipment shall be stored out of
view of the adjacent residences. Berms created with the stockpiles
topsoil, with landscaping, can also be used effectively to screen the
operation.
4. AIR POLLUT aT:
The Sterling Sand & Gravel operation must comply with all State and
County Health Department regulations regarding creation of fugitive
dust. The crushing equipment utilizes a spray bar to contain dust
fran this operation. Soil stockpiles should be seeded with grasses
to eliminate blowing dust.
Haul roads within the pit are generally a major source of fugitive
dust. This can be sanewhat mitigated by watering or hard -surfacing
the haul roads using chemical dust control agents, clustering the
processing operation so vehicle travel is limited, or transportating
the material with conveyors instead of trucks.
It should be noted that the residential area is surrounded by
farmland which is also a major source of fugitive dust during certain
periods.
PC 4/27/88 STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW
(RESUEMITTAL )
jh
5. PROPERTY VALUES:
As with any proposed change in land use, the imnact on land values
will only be known when properties are actually placed on the
market. All of the current property owners roved to the area despite
the existence of the Sterling Sand and Gravel operation 1/4 mile to
the south and the ownership by Sterling of 120 acres immediately
adjacent to their parcels. Some owners even built houses with full
knowledge that a mining operation wauld be placed adjacent to their
hcnesites. It would not seem logical to do so if there was a belief
that property values would decline in the future because of the
mining.
It is true that adjacent farmland, which provides open space for
rural residential areas, likely enhances the value of those
properties. However, the recently approved County Land Use Plan
notes that "rural landowners should not be expected to provide open
space for urban residents without compensation".
6. NOISE:
The operation must meet State requirements for maximum noise levels.
Because of the low background noise usually found in rural areas,
residents are generally less tolerant of changes in the type and/or
level of noises. Noise will be generated from the crusher equipment
and from the vehicles used to extract and carry the material.
Screening and benning will help somewhat to provide a noise buffer.
The crushing and screening equipment is planned to follow the face of
the mining which means it will, at times, be within about 500 feet of
same of the homes. The residents have suggested the crusher should
be located at the far southwest corner of the Seaworth Pit. However,
this would require a substantial increase in the hauling and movement
of material which also increases the noise and dust.
An alternative would be to place the equipment as low as possible on
the west side of this parcel and move the material with conveyors as
much as possible. Conveyors can also be noisy, however.
7. TRAFFIC:
In 1985 Sterling Sand and Gravel hired a consultant to prepare a
Traffic Tmpact Study in conjunction with the original Seawnrth Pit.
According to Sterling, that study is representative of the current
traffic conditions and would apply as well when mining begins on the
subject property. Sterling states that traffic is not increased when
a new pit is opened because there is simply a move in the operation
firm a depleted pit to a new one.
For this type of use, it is difficult to establish the "average"
dailv traffic because much depends upon the construction industry,
economy of the regicn, State Highway projects, etc. The amount of
material that is to be removed is fixed. The rate at which that
material will be hauled from the site is unknown.
PC 4/27/88 SI' I NG SPECIAL REVIEW
( RES MITIAL )
jh
In general, gravel trucks traveling on County roads and through
residential areas is less when there are available sources of gravel
within a short distance of the urban center. Most other gravel pits
are southeast of Fort Collins which would require traveling a
considerable distance to provide material to the northern parts of
Fort Collins and Larimer County.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to have gravel mining and
distribution without utilizing county roads and, in most cases, this
requires the trucks to pass by residential areas.
8. RECLAMATION:
After mining, the property will be reclaimed in accordance with
requirements of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board which also
requires that Sterling Sand and Gravel post a bond to assure
reclamation.
A large pond will be developed on the site after mining. Soil will
be reapplied to the shore areas around the pond and reseeded as
reccmended by the Soil Conservation Service.. Islands will be
provided in the ponds for wildlife habitat. Willow, cottonwoods, and
cattails will also be planted on the site. Reclamation will begin
when mining ends and must be completed within five years.
Other pits have been limited to a maximum of 10 acres being mined at
any one time. Sterling should be held to this unless adequate
justification is provided for allowing the full 59 acres to be opened
UP .
9. OPERATING HOURS:
The Seaworth Pit was approved for operation Monday through Friday,
7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Area residents indicate there were several
occasions when mining occurred outside these hours. Sterling Sand
and Gravel has agreed to monitor the operating hours more closely and
comply with those required by the County.
Sterling can request that the Board temporarily modify the operating
hours if a situation arises which cannot be accomplished within these
hours.
10. LOCATION AND USE OF M=AL RESOURCES:
Commercial mineral deposits occur in Larimer county in real
relatively few locations. Sand and gravel is found only along the
present or historic flood plain of the Poudre River according to the
Sand, Gravel, and Quarry Aggregate Resource Maps prepared for Larimer
county in 1974. This map also indicates that in 1974 there were only
two major areas for gravel extraction, the Sterling pits between
Shields and Overland Trail and the pits east oft Collins
Mapbetween
�e
Prospect and Mulberry. (see page showing
the Sterling area)
PC 4/27/88 STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW
(RESUEMITTAL)
jh
The importance of ccramercial mineral deposits is recognized in State
law which prohibits a County from any action or inaction which would
interfere with the present or future extraction of such a deposit.
This does not dictate that a County must approve a gravel pit but it
does suggest the importance of the resource.
Urban or residential development is naturally attracted to those
areas where sand and gravel are found because of the proximity to
water, the open space resulting from undeveloped flood plains,
separation from natural landscaping due to high groundwater, ease of
establishing new landscaping, etc. Residential development has
occurred throughout the rural areas of Larimer County because of the
high demand for this type of lifestyle. Unfortunately, there is no
way to inform those who chose this lifestyle of the potential
conflicts with other land uses. This is especially true of the
development which occurs in areas which contain a limited non-
renewable resource which is necessary for any type of development.
In most cases, it is not possible to predict what land uses might
occur on adjacent vacant parcels. This is less so for sand and
gravel pits because the deposits have been mapped, the
existing/historic quarry areas are obvious, and there is no doubt as
to the future need for material.
As development continues to occur in the rural areas, the residents
and future purchasers need to be aware of the potential conflicts.
If not, the extraction of sand and gravel will become more difficult
and the cost of new development will increase as the availability of
sand and gravel decreases in the area.
IV COM A=S FROM OTHER AGED7CIES :
1. County Health Department ccxmients :
The Health Department has no objection to the expansion of the
Sterling Sand and Gravel mining project. They have all the
appropriate air and water permits required by the Health Department
and they are also aware of their obligations regarding the expanded
area.
2. Larimer County Engineering Department states that the request appears
to be a continuation of the existing mining operation and would not
increase the truck traffic on Taft Hill Road beyond what occurs
presently. Therefore, the project does not qualify for enforcement
of the County offsite Road Policy. Dedication of additional right-
of-way will be necessary to provide a minimum 50 foot right-of-way.
3. Fort Collins planning Department recc mended approval when the
previous Sterling Sand and Gravel request was sent to them with the
following comment:
This type of operation does have an impact on the structure of the
street system but, because the impact is not increasing and the
PC 4/27/88 STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW
( RESUEMITI'AL )
jh
•
possible mitigation is difficult to determine, staff is not
recanmending off -site improvements.
(No=: The present request was sent to the Fort Collins Planning
Devartment March 23 but they indicated it was not received. Another
copy was provided April 13. Therefore, any additional cotme.*its were
not available when this report was prepared.)
VII. STAFF FINDINGS:
1. As submitted, the proposal does not canply with the intent and
purposes of the Zoning Resolution and C.anprehensive Land Use Plan.
2. As submitted, the proposal is not harmonious with the surrounding
neighborhood and may have a negative impact on the neighborhood and
property values in the area.
3. As submitted, the proposal may impair the public health, welfare,
prosperity, and/or safety through creation of adverse environmental
influences.
4. All procedural requirements for Special Review have been =Tlied
with in accordance with Section 26.6 of the Zoning Resolution.
5. The applicant has not adquately addressed potential negative hTpacts
of the proposal on the adjacent residential area.
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of the Special Review as submitted. This recaTmendation is based
upon the inadequacy of the application in addressing the following issues:
1. act on groundwater and specific plan for mitigation.
2. Plan to show how the crusher operation can occur on the site without
'having a substantial impact on the residential area.
3. More detailed plan for minimizing the fugitive dust from the
operation particularly fron the haul roads.
4. Plan for mitigating the visual impacts from the time the mining
operation begins.
5. Discussion of phasing the excavation by 10 acre parcels.
6. The possibility of increased setbacks from the residential area for
this parcel and for the mining which would occur adjacent to the
residences east of Taft Hill Road.
PC 4/27/88 STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW
( RESUEMITTAL )
jh
March 14, 1988
Larimer County
Larimer County
Fort Collins,
David and Ginger Slatten
2412 North Taft Hill Road
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Commissioners
Courthouse
CO 80521
Dear Commissioners:
We wish to express our opposition to the proposed mining permit
that Sterling Sand and Gravel is bringing before the County
Commissioners.
The proposed site is directly across from our property which is
located at 2412 North Taft Hill Road. We believe that allowing
this property to be mined would have several adverse effects upon
our quality of life.
Open pit mining contributes greatly to dust pollution, and, with
the prevailing winds in this area, that dust will carry directly
into our living room. The operation of the rock crusher during
mining contributes greatly to noise pollution, and, with the
location of the proposed mining within 100 feet of our home, we
feel the noise would seriously affect our home life.
We are also concerned about the loss of property values from
having an open gravel pit directly across from our property. We
recently purchased this property and, if Sterling's intent to
propose a mining operation at this location had been public
knowledge when we were looking at this property, we would not
have purchased it. Now we will lose thousands of dollars in
property value if Sterling is allowed to mine in this proposed
area.
Another concern is the effect to the water table from the
dewatering process that must go along with the mining operation.
We feel we will lose the yield of hay from our property by losing
sub -irrigation water. We are also concerned about our
landscaping dying from lack of sub -irrigation water.
Of further concern is the evaporation of sub -irrigation water due
to its accumulation in open ponds, into which Sterling will
eventually reclaim this property. The overall water table for
March 14, 1988
Larimer County Commissioners
Larimer County Courthouse
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Sterling Sand and Gravel Special Review #Z-46-87
Dear Gentlemen:
The concerned acreage has a history of being prime farm land with many
ecological benefits. Deer, fox, eagles and numerous other species of
animals have used this area as a natural habitat for years. Since the
advent of the "Seaworth Pit", in 1986, sitings of these animals are
declining.
One of the many reasons we purchased our property, and not the least
important, was the serenity and beauty of the natural surroundings.
These are being destroyed. Yes, we were aware of the current mining
operation, but we were also aware of the limits of the mining.
The 1985 special review designated the reclaimed lands to be used as
public use lands, perhaps parks, no such mention of public use has been
made for the property currently under review. Not only do we have to
deal with years of increased air pollution, noise pollution and probable
property devaluation, but we are also looking at property with question-
able future use. Surrounding our neighborhood on three sides by mining,
making it a residential island, will indeed'have adverse effects on our
property values.
Adequate studies were not done in 1985 to address sub irrigation water.
Since 1986, and the new mining at the Seaworth site, sub irrigation
water levels have dropped. How do we address this water loss? By
extending the pit in question? The long term effect of increased mining
in the proposed site will dry our fields and ruin our landscaping.
We specifically purchased our property at 2202J North Taft Hill as a farm
atmosphere day care, working with special children. Increased pollutants,
dust and noise will limit the types of children we can admit, (ex. esthma,
respiratory problems, etc.).
Gentlemen, it is obvious our neighborhood will lose the characteristics
which lend its' quality of life and it's members will suffer economically.
As Sterling Sand and Gravel has land to mine until the year 2027, we feel
our losses are more pivotal in your decision than their gains.
Kind Regards.
Sincerely,
Ric �dlller
•
April 7, 1?89 (( OLD-
SAPR 7128"
Larimer County Planning Department
200 West Oak
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
r•
Dear Gentlemen,
This letter is regarding the Sterling Special Review #Z-46-87
that will once again be brought before the Larimer County
Planning Commissioners on April 27, 1988.
There are several problems that have and will severely affect our
�2 North Taft Hill Road, which is `r{irectly
property located at �._�1�J :for ti ,
across the street from the proposed mining Operation- Our house
is the closest residence to the 58 acres in question. The ace of
line of the proposed t�
our home is 95 feet from she property � r• p site.
you are aware we have reiterated these problems to your
department, the d Board of County
Planning Commission and �.�r�.
Commissioners throughout the Course of this review. However,
these problems so severely impact our health, prosperity and
quality of life that they bear repeating once
again -
The
decrease in subirriga ion'ater (since the 1985
Seaworth Pit
opened and started pumping) has causes a 66% drop in the
production of our hay field this past year. We raise aIse hay to
year.
provide Teed for the horses we board at our livery. Consequently
it is having a direct effect on the income derived from our
business, as we have found it necessary to purchase horse hay for
the first time in three years, as documented by our federal
income tax reports.
Another major concern we have is for the health of my 14 year old
son who has been an asthmatic with allergies since the age of
two. It _s his docto• s e inicn that the location of a gravel pi
in such a close proximity to our home will deteriorate his
condition. A copy of the letter from Dr. Daniel Jinich is
attached !or your examination.
The reduction of our property value due to a view of unsightly
hills of sand, coupled with the noise pollution from this project
is obvious. it will ultimately 'effect the ability to sell our
land. Few people will want to purchase property 95 feet from a
mining operation. We Teel that this r-ounty's usable land need not
be made into what appears to be a continual gravel pit,
especially in our front yard.
In closing may we also point out that Sterling Sand and Sravel
virtually ignored the Larimer CountyCommissioners' advice that
upon withdrawal of the review they reevaluate their position with
the homeowners before resubmittal. Within 48 hours they had
refi1ed without consultation and without our knowledge.
s
•
•
We hope that this will be the final hearing with both the
and County Commissicners. This process has
Planning Department
. - - this neighborhood does not have
been lengthy and costly
funds such as Sterling's. What we do have
continual and unlimited
is a life style that is good, healthy and worth protecting.
We urge you to uphold and resubmit your previous decision of
denial of this protect to the Larimer County Commissioners.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Steve R. Kuhlman'
Ceargegnn Venis
March 14, 1988
RFF: Sterling, Special Review V-46-87
')ear �'r.
?'his letter is to inform you that we are opposed to the proposed gravel
mining operation which would be located directly across the road from us.
I.e own 20 acres to the east of this proposed operation.
our personal residence and 2 rental properties are located on it. '.�e
are very concr_rnc.d about our property value dropping as well as the ability
to rent our properties for as much as we can now. As out scenic view and
fan -I like atuiosirhere. aye part of the attraction we feel that the projected
incorr:e we :lave fronn these properties would be drastically effected.
Sinr:e the operation started just north of the river our water table
dropped as much as 6', thereby effecting our grass yield, forcing us to sell
several valuable horses at a great loss.
When the cut off ditch is dug around the mining operation we are very
concerned that it will effect our irrigation water, in that the ground will
he porous and the irrigation water will gravitate to this rather than flowing
east into our irrigation ditch, thereby, depriving our garden and pastures
of vet more water.
it is our understanding that as long as there is even 5 yards of gravel
to be --inrl the :;round does not have to be reclaimed. with this aspect of
the law in mind we could quite possibly have an open gravel pit and a dust
howl acros the rani from us indefinitely.
;tors is a (lui.et, peaceful surrounding and the thought of growing old with
a rock crusher is not very appealing.
,',s to whether the proposed mining; parcel could be profitable fanning
1and; nccordin;; to the IRS our 20 acres have proven profitable.
hnve clasp: to a half million. dollars invested in the area it
becon r. ;;rrnt concern when that is threatened. please put yourselves in
u r position fur just a few :Minutes and try to take our concerns seriously
when r:,a;cin .;our ;1<• ision.
Sincerely,
e/
i)arwin :;oe
r
CAA LA POUDRE VETERINARY CAC
2200 North Taft Hill Road
Post Office Box 825
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
303-221-1297
April 6, 1988
Larimer County Planning Department
PO Box 1190
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Sirs:
This letter is in regard to the Sterling Special Review #Z-46-87 which
concerns permission to mine 58 acres directly across from our property and
veterinary clinic at 2200 North Taft Hill Road. This application was
previously submitted and on February 24, 1988 was denied by the Larimer
County Planning Board.
On Monday, March 21, 1988 this item was on the agenda for the Larimer
County Commissioners meeting. At this meeting Sterling Sand and Gravel
requested their application be tabled for 30 days. After considerable
discussion, the Commissioners gave Mr. Reefer, the Sterling representative,
one of two alternatives; either continue with their request or withdraw their
application but tabling would not be granted. The Commissioners stated they
felt nothing would be gained by postponing the applicant's presentation. Also,
withdrawing the application and later reapplying would give Sterling a chance
to try to work out some of the differences with the landowners. Sterling
opted to withdraw their application; however, shortly after that they refiled
their application. It is of concern to us that Sterling is prolonging this
situation and we sincerely hope if there is a request to table this matter, that
it will not be granted. Sterling has had just as much time as us to prepare
for these meetings and much more money.
I am extremely concerned that this mining project will detrimentally
affect my business. At the present time the land for this proposed mining
operation is a grass pasture and hay field and there is very little or no dust
or blowing dirt. Due to the prevailing wind in this area coming from the
northwest and the large amount of dust and dirt generated by the mining
operation, I will not be able to perform sterile surgery or carry on an
adequate veterinary clinic. This will definitely affect my livelihood.
Another concern that I have is that our property values will negatively
be affected if a gravel pit with all the noise, dust and dirt is situated across
from our property. In this case I feel that us and our neighbors were here
first, not Sterling Sand and Gravel Company.
My neighbors and I are also very concerned with the drop in the
underground water level and how our lawns, trees, pastures and hay fields are
affected. We already know that mining the land which is just south of the
proposed project and was approved in 1985 has greatly affected the water
Larimer County Planning Department
April 6, 1988
Page 2
level and our pastures. In 1985 we were told by both Sterling Sand and
Gravel Company and the planning department that this would not happen.
However, it certainly has and we are outraged because no one wants to accept
the fact that the water level has dropped due to that mining project and its
associated dewatering procedure. As we understand it, that is the same
procedure that will be done at the proposed mining site.
I would also like to remind you and everyone concerned with this special
review that the land for this mining site does not lie in the 100 year flood
plane, only a very small portion lies in the 500 year flood plane. So there
are other uses for this land. I do not think that tearing up our environment
in a residential area is justified just for the sake of mining gravel when so
much other unusable land has been designated for mining.
In conclusion I would like to say that I feel that the Larimer County
Planning Board was justified in denying the approval of this request for
mining this parcel of land at the February 24 hearing. I feel that they
understand that our quality of life, health, livelihood and property values are
in jeopardy. We as property owners and tax payers hope they will again
recommend denial of this request by Sterling Sand and Gravel Company and
not allow a gravel mining operation in our front yard.
Sincerely,
Bill R. Martin, DVM
BRM:mam
April 5, 1988
0.;
Larimer County Planning Board
Fort Collins, Colorado
Re: Sterling Review File #Z-46-87
Request: Approval to conduct a gravel mining operation in the FA-1
Farming Zoning Di.,strict
Location: E 1/2,33-8-69; located on the west side of County Road 19,
1/2 mile south of Highway 287
Applicant:Sterling Sand and Gravel Company
Dear Board Members:
As landowners at 2202 Borth Taft Hill Road, Fort Collins, we would ask that
the Planning Board deny the request of Sterling Sand and Gravel to conduct a
gravel mining operation at the above described location because of the detrimental
impacts this would have on our neighborhood, individually and collectively.
Following are some of the concerns which we feel are a threat to our quality of
life:
1. In addition to the current existing gravel and mining operation southwest of
us, we would then have another mining operation directly west of the whole
neighborhood. It is already "history" to us that the present operation has
resulted in a progressive deterioration of air quality. When heavy winds
prevail, they blow directly at us from the northwest and with the addition
of another gravel pit directly west, we'd have nothing but a "brown cloud"
much of the time. I- am personally very allergic to dust and air contaminants.
Also, we provide day care for a 5 year -old child who is a chronic asthmatic
who has trouble even now with dust blowing and precipitating an asthmatic
attack. She is on medication evey 6 hours to control her asthma (see
attached doctor's statement). The dust impact would be very severe at times.
2. Land values and visual impact - As the films and pictures indicate, the
beauty of the foothills has already deteriorated with the huge piles of
gravel in the foreground and the mountainous holes in the ground - if I
were to buy a hozge, it would not be in this situation where there seems to
be an ongoing threat of more gravel pits in your front'.yard, blowing dust
and the industrial noises of heavy equipment and a pounding rock crusher.
Even up to now, there have been many times that a rock crusher began at dawn
forcing a person to close windows to diminish the noise. It is an extremely
noisy operation and certainly does not belong directly across the road from
our residences. This defeats the reason for our move to this beautiful location
over 11 years ago. The wildlife in the area has been breathtaking until the
current operation south of us began. The geese and ducks no longer habitate:around
our pond and the songbirds are leaving because of the noise. I'm certain that
the value of our property has already decreased. Any additional mining directly
west of us will perpetuate this problem which is a very serious one.
3. The water table has been lowered appreciably already by the existing operation.
The lowering of the sub -irrigation water is a real concern as the pasture and
the 240 young trees and shrubs and the orchard we planted last year are being
affected by this depletion of moisture.
•
•
Page 2
These areas of concern reflect our strong opposition to the approval of the
Sterling Sand and Gravel Company's request to acquire the land directly west of
our homes for the purpose of an additional gravel mining operation, which, if
approved, will adversely influence and affect our lives now and in the future.
We families in the neighborhood have expended a very significant amount of
money and time to oppose this request because we firmly believe that our
quality of life in all ways will be affected if this request is approved.
We do not understand that this request was again submitted only one day
following the withdrawal of the request. No research had been pursued by
Sterlings prior to the request-, while we had expended funds and time to
substantiate our lbgitimate objections. While, clearly, the Planning Board
and the Board of Commissioners have been understanding, we seem to be getting
nowhere towards a final resolution of this most critical problem.
We respectfully request that you evaluate, again, and consider again, these
heartfelt concerns of ourselves and of our neighbors, and Aena the mining
operation request.
Sincerely
William E. Waldo
Evelyn J. Waldo
weiis wilt uC ul C:VllVcltt uvcL n ..l __ ....,.._.._.
Summary and Recommendations
Ground -water investigations conducted thus far relative to Sterling
Companies' proposed mining operations in the East 1/2 of Section 33, T8N,
R69W of the 6th P.M. in Larimer County revealed no prohibitive negative
effects on existing ground -water users in the area. Only two shallow
ground -water wells are sufficiently close to the mining pit that they may
require mitigative measures through a part of the mining period. The
ground -water resource of the site is greatly dependent upon surface -water
import and application on lands lying generally to the north and northwest.
Water level measurement data are available only for the two times
exploratory drillings were made in early 1985 and 1988. The second set of l
measurements made in 1988 are not sufficiently different from the first and
do not provide distinctive new information. The seasonal behavior of the
2CSOU2C CONSULTANTS INC
9
water table is not known at the present, therefore it is recommended that
water levels be measured monthly in the observation holes completed in
March 1988 and in any other wells that could be included in the program.
These measurements should continue through 1988 and possibly thereafter.
Based upon the results of the above water level observations, the
construction of other observation wells may be recommended to document the
water -table behavior through the entire mining operation. The need for
mitigation and the effectiveness of various mitigative measures will be
evaluated with the results of this ground -water monitoring program.
Mitigative measures that could be considered are directed toward
either reducing the amount and extent of the water -table lowering resulting
from the pit dewatering, or delivering water directly to the location where
a shortage was created. The selection of the proper mitigative measure or
a combination of same will. be based on economic evaluations throughout the
period of mining with strong reliance on the water -table monitoring pro-
gram.
10 Water -table related mitigations that may be considered are:
1. Artificial recharge from
a. Gill and Taylor Ditch
b. Artificial recharge ditch along North Taft 'Jill Road
C. Existing or new recharge ponds
2. Reducing permeability of the pit sides
a. Packing top soil as part of the restoration
b. Slurry trench cutoff
c_ Chemical or cement injection cutoff
Mitigation of injury to ground -water users to the east of the site
could be by:
1. Providing surface water in the Gill and Taylor Ditch
2. Delivering ground water to the Gill and Taylor Ditch
3. Delivering surface or ground water to user's pond
4. Pressure delivery of ground water to user
RE(OURCE CONSUUTNN7 VIC
10
•
•
Prior to considering any of these mitigation possibilities, the
existence and magnitude of the injury should be determined and matched with
the most feasible mitigation measure. At this time it appears that, if any ,1I
injury is recognized at all, a direct delivery of surface water to the
injured party would be the most desirable solution.
RESOURCE CCN UUTAIy T S If'C
11
r
�It
•
1 / ;•ems, ���-~'w.,` !. } ia=
00orrrr.
17,
�� I �x
'\v' /•r�.,. �� i /' _ _... i ga• • . r'
� � sa N�s '.�•.� yc1 �f ��� / � i i2
. - i 'ems• � �_" _. ^L.��-. - � _. �• a o i-"• n. .. �•• � � a
�� .'� f r -s o+�• - J•Al0- `��.r _'• � � ''»ram n�
a -1 %.)j �1 /L 1----�_--L-�-` tom- ad•
46
Ave
Qp
ZZ
1-�T .- � ram•,•+ /� - \ _ _ ..• � '-1./��
-I S-• i�•�' . j � 1. � _ ,. :. i7 ;• � i S `.
Ems-- �j � � _ �• i . � � � � O1 _ O F