HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 02.08.1984PC 2/8/89
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PROJECT REQUEST_: Request for a Special Use Permit to
operate an open mine gravel
operation, an asphalt batch plant,
curshers and a concrete batch plant
on a job to job basis for a 5 year
period.
APPLICANT Asphalt Paving Company
LOCATION_ Section 10, T6S, R92W; located 1/2
mile south of Silt on one island in
the Colorado River, west of Co.
Rd.311.
SITE DATA The proposal is to mine and operate
the batch plants on 9.69 acres of
the island. The remainder of the
island is to remain agrarian in
nature.
WATER On site pond
SEWER Portable chemical toilets will be
provided on-site for employees.
PROPOSED ROADS_ There is a proposed haul road. It
would be a 2 land paved road
entering onto the west side of
County Rd. 311.
EXISTING ZONING A/I
ADJACENT ZONING_ North Town of Silt
South A/I
East A/I
West A/I
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposal sits within the Urban Area of Influence of the Town of
Silt.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The site is an island which sits between two
channels of the Colorado river. It is basically flat land
bordering the river bank and being riparian and agrarian in
nature.
B. Project Description: The applicants propose to mine a 9.69 acres
of land_for gravel. The pit will be mined on a job -to -job
basis. In addition, the proposal is to allow a portable asphalt
batch plant and a portable concrete batch plant and crushers to
operate on the 9.69 acres, also on a job -to -job basis. The
mining plan is to operate for a 5 year period from west to east
on 9.69 acres. Water will be provided from on-site sources and
retained in a holding pond prior to discharge into the Colorado
River as allowed by NDPES permit no. CO -0038962. No part of the
operation will be closer than 100 ft. from the river.
-9-
HISTORY: In the Spring of 1982, Asphalt Paving Company applied with
Garfield County for a Special Use permit to allow the development of
an open sand and gravel pit, and asphalt and concrete batch plants.
On April 26, 1982, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
application with conditions. On May 3, 1982, the Board of County
Commissioners denied the request for a Special Use permit. On May 24,
1982, a Resolution of Denial was signed by the Board of County
Commissioners. This resolution (RES. 82-118) outlined the reasons for
denial. (See copy page Z So). A summary of the major points in the
Resolution for denial are as follows:
1. The Board established the neighborhood of the proposal as a 1/2
mile radius from the southern point on the Silt bridge where it
crosses the Colorado river on County Rd. 311. The established
neighborhood was determined to be Agricultural/Residential and
included areas incorporated in the Town of Silt. The applicants
did not alleviate the concerns of the Town of Silt with regards
to:
a. their water intake facility located downstream from the
proposed mining operation;
b. The proposal was inconsistent with Silt's Master Plan
and would be harmful to the present character of Silt
as well as adversely impact the orderly growth of Silt
in the future.
2. At the time of the application, the new Silt bridge had not been
constructed and the weight Limit of the old bridge prohibited the
use of the bridge for the trucks associated with the proposal.
3. The proposal was denied because the County was unable to
determine that there would not be objectionable levels of noise
and dust, unsightliness and in general, be a nuisance to the
neighborhood.
4. The proposal was found to be out of character with the defined
neighborhood being Agricultural/Residential.
5. The site of the proposal was found to be unacceptable given the
adjacent location of critical habitat for the endangered species
of:
1. The Bald Eagle
2. Blue Heron
3. Canadian Geese
The applicants failed to demonstrate that harm to the above
wildlife in the Colorado river corridor would not take place.
6. The proposal would add to the impacts associated with the number
of gravel operations located in the area.
7. The proposal was to mine gravel of commercial grade which was
determined to be a valuable resource to be conserved for future
generations given the fact that the Commissioners had recently
permitted on a number of other pits in the general area of the
proposal which was available to supply the current needs of the
market.
8. The proposal was found to be inconsistent with the Garfield
County Mast_ Plan for the following reasons:
(See Resolution 82-118 for specific page numbers and quotes)
A. The proposal was not an appropriate location ("encourage
industrial expansion where similar development already
exists in appropriate areas").
B. The location did not have adequate and public utilities
available.
-10-
C. Silt's Urban Area of Influence - much of the area
surrounding Silt is agrarian in nature and new development
should minimize impacts on the agrarian character of the
area.
D. Transportation: "The County may deny development proposals
on the basis of inadequate road access which will create an
inadequate road with large daily traffic volumes.'
E. The proposal was denied on issue of compatibility including
"adverse effects to the desirability of neigborhoods or the
entire community alteration of the basic character of
adjacent land use, and impairment of the stability or value
of adjacent or surrounding properties. Further, the
Comprehensive Plan speaks of noise, dust, odors, and visual
unsightliness as "regards to public health and safety" and
nuisances to the surrounding community."
9. In general the proposal failed to show compliance with the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations.
10. There was evidence that the proposal would cause economic injury
to other property owners in the neighborhood.
III.NAJOR ISSUES -AND CONCERNS
A. Review Agency Comments:
1. Colorado Division of Wildlife
Verbal comments indicated no real problem with the
Proposed application. Concerns about the
Precedent of allowing this operation leading to
future applications were made. Also questioned
the cumulative impacts of this operation in
conjunction with all other operations. A written
response was not available at the time the staff
report was written.
2. No other response's have been received.
3. Comments from the neighbors have been received
that are opposing the application based primarily
on the fact that the circumstances have not
changed since the previous denial. (See letters,
ti pages 3i- 34 ).
B. Staff Comments
1. The differences between the 1982 and the 1984
proposals:
a. In 1982, the proposal was to mine 86 acres of the
island area. The present proposal is to mine 9.69
acres of the island for a 5 year period.
b. The 1982, the proposal was for 40 to 50 trucks per
tThe present proposal is for a maximum of 200
rucks
per day (100 one trips per day).
C. The 1982 proposal was for a permanent operation.
The 1984 proposal is to use the gravel mine and
batch plants and crushers on a job -to -job basis.
Thus the location would be used on an intermittent
basis for the operations.
-11-
The 1982 proposal required a 404 permit from the
Army Corps of Engineers whereas the 1984 proposal
does not as a result of the smaller operation not
encroaching any closer than 100 feet from the
river. (See letter, page .75-
At
s
At the time the previous application was denied,
the Silt bridge was incapable of handling the
heavy truck traffic. The new bridge is capable of
handling the traffic. The County Road supervisors
has indicated that there would be no
transportation problems associated with the new
proposal.
General Comments:
The present application is for a significantly
smaller area as noted previously. The neighbors
and Division of Wildlife are both concerned about
the precedent of allowing the smaller operation,
with the potential for a request to expand the
size of the operation at a future date. If this
were to occur, the critical wildlife habitat could
be encroached upon to the degree that was a basis
for denial in the previous application.
The character of the neighborhood and the
potential adverse impacts on that neighborhood was
one of the reasons for denial previously. While
the operation is smaller in size and over a
defined period of time, there will be more trucks
per day along with the potential for adverse noise
and odor impacts on a neighborhood that has not
changed in character.
This request, if approved, would allow the
applicants to move portable asphalt and concrete
batch plants and crusher, in and out of the area
on an intermittent basis. All equipment must be
permitted by the Colorado Department of Health.
The State regulations were revised to impose
stricter pollution standards, but some equipment
is "grandfathered" in and do not function as
efficiently as equipment that meets the present
requirements. Any portable equipment should be
relatively new, not "grandfathered" equipment.
While the applicants have noted a potential of 100
round trips, truck trips per day, there are no
days or hours of operation noted. Any approval
should be contingent upon specific hours and days
of operation.
One of the more controversial issues previously
was the impact on wildlife. The applicants
propose to keep the operations away from the
critical habitats and retain the large cottonwoods
along the river. Additionally, they propose to
enhance the wildlife habitat at reclamation by
creating a still water pond and mud flat.
-12-
IV. FINDINGS
V
1. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters, and issues were
submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that
hearing.
2. That the proposed Special Use permit application meets the
requirements for Section 5.03 of the Garfield County zoning
regulations regarding Special Use permits for industrial
operations.
3. The proposed land use will be incompatible with existing land
uses in the established neighborhood.
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special
Use permit is not in the best interest of the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
Denial of the Special Use application for the following reasons:
1. There is no evidence that there has been a change in
character of the neighborhoold defined as being the
neighborhood within a 1/2 mnile radius of the point on the
south end of the Silt bridge where County Raod 311 crosses
the Colorado river.
2. There is no evidence that the 1984 proposal now complies
with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan regarding the
following items:
1. "Encourage industrial expansion where similar
development already exists in appropriate areas".
2. Silt's urban area of influence "much of the area
surrounding Silt is agrarian. New development should
minimize impacts on the agrarian character of the
area."
3. Performance standards re: Compatibility which sets
forth criteria including "adverse effects to the
desirability of neighborhoods or the entire community,
alteration of the basis character of adjacent land use
and impairment of the stability of value of adjacent or
surrounding properties." Further, the plan speaks of
noise, dust, odors, and visual unsightliness as
"hazards to public health and safety" and "nuisance to
the surrounding community."
In order for the Planning Commission to approve this application, it
is necessary to determine whether or not the circumstances that
resulted in denial previously have change to justify approval. If
this finding is made, then the following conditions should be imposed
at a minimum:
1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless noted otherwise.
2. That the permit shall be valid for a period of five (5)
years from the date of issuance of the Special Use permit.
3. That all other required permits from state and federal
agencies shall be submitted to the Planning division,
Department of Development prior to the issuance of the
Special Use permit.
-13-
4. Operations will be limited to the. hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday thru Friday.i-i.
5. Prior to moving any portable concrete and/or asphalt batch
plants, copies of current Colorado Department of Health
emissions and relocation permits will be submitted to the
Planning Division, Department of Development. Further, that
each piece of equipment shall have been initially permitted
after April 5, 1975, when the new State regulations were
revised.
6. That upon verified allegations of a violation of thgs-SiJ `"�
received from the appropriate persons or agency, the Board
shall investigate compliance with the conditions of approval
as provided for in Section 9.01.06 of the Garfield County
Zoning resolution of 1978, as amended.
-14-
EXHIBIT C
STATE Of COLORADO
County of Ga rleld
At .............. ...S.e$al.a.r....... ...._................ meeting of the Dowd of County Commiuionen for Gwfxelf'county, Cobwdo,
held .t me Court H.. m Glenwood Springs nn .................. ........... 11ooday................................. roe _..24.t1i.__................dey or
_.._................. _..M&,y................. A- D- 19.B2........ there woe pre¢nL
........Flaven...1...... ae.rise................................ Commum.rrercsa;rm.n
Eugene...Azinkhause ............................. comm none
........ L�arlry...r�..tvy,uesq.uez... .................. _........... . commari.ne.
........ E.ar.l....11A 1.p.(��.$................................................. Counly Attomey
........ 1,.e.ann.e....C.1.e].an.d._..Aep.ury............. clerk of he Dowd
when the foffowing proceedings, among otherr were had and done, town:
RESOLUTION k82- 118
RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL
USE PERMIT BY ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY.
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by the Asphalt
Paving Company for a special use permit for extraction and processing
of natural resources, specifically, open pit sand and gravel mine, and
asphalt and concrete batch plants, in accordance with §9.03 of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution, on the following described tract of
land:
SEA of the NEA of Section 10; NEA of the NWA, and the
SWA of the SEA of Section 10; E'� of the SA of Section
10, Tp 6 South, Range 92 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado;
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County, Colorado, has reviewed the application and impact statements
submitted by the applicant and received the recommendations of the
Garfield County Planning Commission, as authorized by §9.03.04 of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution;
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has conducted
public hearings duly advertised and held in accordance with the
requirements of §9.03.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
regarding the ouestion of whether the requested special use permit
should be granted or denied, and during such hearings received extensive
testimony and other evidence from the applicant and interested parties;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered
said application and impact statement, the recommendation of the
Garfield County Planning Commission, and the Garfield County Planning
Department, and the testimony and other evidence _Presented at said
public hearings, and based thereon, said Baord of County Commissioners
hereby make the following findings in respect to such application, to wit:
1. That all procedural and notice requirements set forth
in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution with respect to special use
permit applications have been met, and this proceeding is properly
before this Board;
2. That except as hereinafter noted, the application and
impact statements are complete, and the applicant has paid the required
fee in the sum of $500.00.
3. That in accordance •,ith general principles of administrat
law and §24-4-105(7), C.R.S. 1973, as amenaeo, c,1e buz.en of proof is an
the applicant to snow oy a preponderance of the evidence that its land
use application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolutio
of 1978, as amended.
4. That the Board must, for the purpose of analyzing the
subject application in accordance with the provisions of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution, establish the neighborhood which may be
V
by the possible granting of the proposed special use permit,
er, the Board has determined that, except as otherwise noted
herein, such neighborhood is the area of Garfield County, Colorado,
within a one-half mile radius of the point on the south end of the bridge
where County Road 311 crosses the Colorado River.
5. That the general character of the neighborhood of the
tract proposed to be subject to the special use permit is Agricultural/
Residential, and includes areas incorporated into the Town of Silt.
e
6. That landowners adjacent to and in the area of. the
subject property and other citizens of Garfield County have indicated
concern regarding the effect of the proposed gravel pit and associated
operations on the agricultural and residential nature of the neighborhood,
upon the value of adjoining properties and other properties in the area
ano its impact on the Town of Silt.
7. That there is substantial evidence in the record of
inadequate road access from the proposed site of operations of the
apoiac aii to the Silt interchange on Interstate 70. At present the
only existing access is by means of a one-lane bridge across the
Colorado River on County Road 311. That bridge is restricted to vehicles
weighing less than 15 tons, and all vehicles used to haul gravel from
the. applicant's proposed site, would exceed this weight limit. Further,
that said bridge is inadequate to carry the 90-50 trucks per day which
would be generated by the applicant's proposed use of the subject site.
8. That there is substantial evidence in the record that
the public safety and general welfare would be harmed by the applicant's
�,roposa], in regards to the Town of Silt's intake water facility. Said
water facility is immediately north and downstream of the proposed use.
Substantial evidence has been presented to show the likelihood of harm
to the silt facility, since the mining of ground water on the applicant's
prgP_erty may lower the water level at the facility, and there is the
possroility that the minii�y operation in itself or in conjunction with
o flood on the Colorado River would cause a change in the course of the
rjv p- stream. The applicant has failed to show that the concerns of
the Town of Silt in regards to its water facility could be addressed by
means of attaching conditions to the applicant's land use permit.
9. That section 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, as amended, requires that the applicant conduct
any industrial operations so as to minimize dust, smoke, and odor and
a]) other undesirable environmental effects bevond the boundaries of
the, property. That there is substantial evidence in the record that
the proposed use would generate objectionable levels of noise and dust.
Further, the proposed use would be out of character with the other uses
in the neighborhood and would be unsightly.
10. That the site of the proposed use is adjacent to a
critical habitat for the endangered species of bald eagle, blue heron,
and canadian geese. That Section 5.uj.07 of the Garfield County
Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, requires that the applicant
file an impact statement which, among other things, requires that the
applicant demonstrate that the proposed use will "not have a significant
adverse effect upon (c) wildlife...". The applicant has failed to
demonstrate that by the imposition of conditions on the proposed land
use permit that the harm to wildlife in the Colorado River corridor
can be lessened to an acceptable degree.
11. That section 5.03.11 of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, as amended, provides that a basis for denial of
a soecial use permit application is the lack of physical separation
in terms of distance from similar uses on the same or other lots.
That substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that the impact
of the number of qravel pits in the genera] area of the proposed use
would have an adverse effect on the general welfare of Garfield County
as a result of the increase in dust, noise, and visual pollution.
-28-
rthat
12. That the Board of County Commissioners hereby finds
osits of commercial grade gravel is of importance to the
Id County and that there is a need to conserve
general welfare of Garfie
valuable resources for f,)re
ptt e
county has recently u aenumber oof otherns. Totpitsxinsat the the
area so that commercial grade gravel is presently available, it is
appropriate to deny the applicant's application.
13. That the Town of Silt is included within the defined
wn
neighborhood of the applic�no'sosed use. The Proposal , since othe psubject f Silt hproperty
strongly objected to the Kas
,
is
is adjacent to the Town's boundary, and inconsistent with the town's
master plan. The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds that there
is substantial evidence in the record that allowinq the applicant's
oprposd fotheeTowne o fa silts andme, would its orderly growth in the future.
present character
ure
14, That on play 11, 1981, the Garfield County Planning
Commission adopted the Garfield County comprehensive plan of 1981,
pursuant to §30-28-106, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, which plan is now the
master plan for Garfield County. That the proposed use of the subject
property by the applicant is inconsistent with the master plan in the
following respects:
1) Part one concerns and policies, re: Industrial,
commercial activities objective six (page 12): Encourage industrial
expansion where simi(paaaee'e1�): Encourageent dy exists industrials developments areas;
in
and objective seven (p
portation facilities and public utilities are
areas where adequate trans
available.
2) Part two, management district -s, re: silt urban area of
influence (nage 59) provides in pert inent',part�'the silt bridge has a
15 -ton limit, and replacement of the biidgc`<is necessary due to the
large volume of traffic and services. -bevelopment which would place
further traffic on this bridge should be required to contribute to its
reu)acement or approval withheld until the bridge can safely and
adequately accommodate additional traffic."
3) Part one: Concerns and policies, re: Transportation
(page 23) number 12 which provides "the County may deny development
proposals on the psis of ... (2)inadequate road access which will create
an inadequate road with large daily traffic volumes."
9) Part two: Management di tricts, re: silt urban area of
influence (page 5B) which provide n �tinent part: "much of the
area surrounding Silt is agrarian. N ' development should minimize
impacts on the agrarian character o the area."
5) Part three: Performance standards, re: Compatibility
(pages 89-99) which section sets forth criteria including "adverse
effects to the desirability of neighborhoods or the entire community,
alteration of the basic character of adjacent land use, and impairment
of the stability or value of adjacent or surrounding properties."
Further; the plan speaks of noise, dust, odoand rs,auisances tonvisual the
as, "hazards to public health and safety," n
surrounding community."
15. That based upon the above findings of fact, the Board
of County Commissioners find that the applicant has failed in his
burden of proof to show compliance with the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution and the Garfield Countv Comprehensive Plan, and further
that there is substantial evidence to support a denial of the land
use request.
16. That there is substantial evidence in the record that
the allowance of the nroposed use will cause economic injury to other
property owners in the neighborhood.
-29-
' NOW, TBE BEFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
lication of Asphalt Paving Company for a gravel
;ommissioners for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, that t e
gpecial use permit app lant be and .hereby is denied.
concrete and asphalt batch p
DATED THIS day of Nay, 1982
BOARD OF COUNTY CODIMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Chairman
Attest:
ty Clerk of the Board
U1 . moo Dn dwy ode ,r,d K ded he foleg g Relolutioe war ,d.p"d DY the Io0uwulg lou:
..1. a Y.e n...J...:..C.e.r.i s e .......................................................... Ay [
EugeD.e....I�z> nkhaus.e.......................................................Aye
..........1 az> x.._Y.e.1 a&..que.Z.............................................................Are cnmml doncl
STATE OF 00Lop'sDO u
Counly of Gar Geld Commi+donm
......., CountY puY and ea a(Goo Clvk of the Ifoard of County
................
'ed 11om the Rem1d1.1
1• "�����-�""""' ............thal Ne armued and (oregoulg Abu u Y eoP
in and 10: 0, County aK Sw! aforl..md do hm eDY "'yuid Gu Geld ComiY. now in my ofG¢.
the Ploreldlny+ol t},< boud Df Coun1Y Covmu:.onerl
M Nr wl of said Cowry, el Glenwood Springs,
11: NiT1JESS WHEREOF, 1 Ear' he canto set my hand and atfu
tDu
...... dzy ot............................._......._................... A. D. 19._,..........
Cnmry 9.— ofLoD CIVI oI the Wad of GOWIy GofnausnW m.
Planning and Zoning Commission
2014 Blake Ave
Glenwood springs. Colorado 81001
County Commissioners
201 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Sirs,
1964
FIELD
CO- PLANNER
Once again the Garfield County ? 3 Z and the Commissioners
must make a decision concerning gravel operations on the Colorado
River in Silt. This is a request for a special use permit to mine
gravel by Asphalt Paving Co who tried to obtain a permit two years
ago and failed. The County Commissioners denied the permit for
these reasons, among others:
1. Cumulative inoact to area(created by noise,dust,traf£ic,etc
2. Incompatability witi area w:ich still remains basically
rural and agricultural
3. Opposition from the 'Town of Silt because of the effect
on their water intake system
4. Opposition from residents(petition submitted carrying
800 names)
5, opposition ffom wildlife officials
I have all the same concerns as two years ago, the situation on the
river i:as not changed and the reasons listed above for denial still
apply.
The request this time from Asphalt raving is for a much
smaller area to be mined, but my concern is: if once the area is
changed in use to alloy: for this small pit, what will be the
situation when Ashalt Pavine applys to expand (as did Frei :. Sons)?
The Commissioners fell, in the Frei',L Sons case, that they had no
good reason to deny them their expansion hermit because the area
was already in use by gravel operations. This could very well be
Asphalt Paving's plan.
And now we,re back to the original question we posed two
years ago of need, and of impact" Yet since then, r'rei is now in
full operation and have expanded greatly, only making need less
of an issue.
We don't need any more gravel and related operations on
the Colorado River. Please deny Asphalt Pavin.gs request for a
special use permit.
As Larry Velasque stated at the :,iay 12, 1982 r,eeting to deny
Asphalt Pavings first request- he said he might in the future be
less inclined to approve such permits, even if a. need for gravel was
demonstrated. "'We have a responsibility to future generations to
disallow anyone to come into the county and exhaust our resources."
It could be, he said, that developers may have "to import some of
the materials from other areas."
I appreciate you taking into consideration my thouihts when
you•make your decision.
Thank you.
Si'ni�erely,
Susan Th-om
0361 :toad 311
Silt, Colorado 81652
(quotes taken from "The Weekly ;vewsnaper", s:ay 12, 1982)
-31-
i'la_nning and Zorig Committee
2014 Blake Ave
Glenwood Springs, ;olorado 61601
County-ommissio::ers
201 Btl: Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 31601
Dear Sirst
In spring cf 1982, the Garfield County Commissioners
refused to issue a special use permit =or a gravel operation
on property owned by Asphalt Paving Co. The !:gain reasons for
denial werei
1. Cumulative impact
2. Incompatability with nei-hbors
3. Opposition from Town fo Silt and residentsof county
T:ne Division of Wildlife was also concerned as to the effect
of a gravel operation on the large 31ue .ieron and ,:a=le populations.
As it now stands all the reasons eiven for denial are still the
same.
There still are too many gravel pits in a small area, the
neighborhood is still rural -agricultural in nature, a pit in this area
contradictory to the Silt Comprehensive flan, and also the :;ou Ity
Plan. 'Phe ^own of Silt is also concerted :bout the effect of a
Sravel operation so close to their new: water filtration plant.
In 1982 we helped circulate a petition to show the
commissioners a broad public opposition to d ,;ravel nit at this
location. As I see it that petition is just as valid for this
special use permit as it was ill 1982. There is still a great deal
of opposition to a pit so close to town and so close to other
operations. Where do we draw the line? 1 thought we crew it in 1982.
Giynce e
hro-
,zona d R. ihror{�
0361 Road 311
Silt, Colorado 816$2
1984
C.t �iEL� uJ. PLAN�6P.
-32-
O
-33-
-34-
On February 8, 1984, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the
following Findings and Conditions of Approval.
fN." FINDINGS
F 1. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters, and issues were
submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that
hearing.
2. That the proposed Special Use permit application meets the
requirements for Section 5.03 of the Garfield County zoning
regulations regarding Special Use permits for industrial
operations.
3. The proposed land use will be compatible with existing land uses
in the established neighborhood.
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special
Use permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County. -
U1 CONDITIONS
f( 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless noted otherwise.
2. That the permit shall be valid for a period of five (5) years
from the date of issuance of the Special Use permit.
3. That all other required permits from state and federal agencies
shall be submitted to the Planning division, Department of
Development prior to the issuance of the Special Use permit.
4. Operations will be limited to the—hours of 7 A.M. to 5 P.M.,
Monday through Friday with the exeption of the maintenance of
equipment on Saturdays.
5. Prior to moving any portable concrete and/or asphalt batch
plants, copies of current Colorado Department of Health emissions
and relocation permits will be submitted to the Planning
Division, Department of Development. Further, the ^f
equipment shall have been initially permitted after April 5, P
1975, when the new State regulations were revised.
6. That upon verified allegations of a violation of the conditions
of this Special Use permit received from the appropriate persons
or agency, the Board shall investigate compliance with the
conditions of approval as provided for in Section 9.01.06 of the
Garfield County Zoning resolution of 1978, as amended.
7. The following conditions requested by the Division of Wildlife
shall be met.
1. A 100' greenbelt should be left between the pit and the
river and along both the north and south wetland channel.
2. The sediment pond should be located to the south of the
north overflow channel so that it can discharge into the
channel rather than directly into the river.
3. The pit shoreline and bottom should be irregular to enhance
aquatic life forms. Peninsulas are desirable since they
create additional edge.
4. Cottonwood trees should be retained around the perimeter of
the pit (i.e. the greenbelt). Any cottonwood trees removed
should be replaced on a 1:1 basis.
5. An area sloped at 5:1 and 150' in length should be left
along the southwestern corner to create a mudflat for
waterfowl and encourage growth of aquatic emergents.
6. Areas of intensive activity such as crusher, batch plant,
etc., should be located away from the river.
7. No activity should occur on the western end of the island
from march 1 to May 15 to prevent disruption of great blue
heron nesting. (The need for this recommendation should be
evaluated prior to any expansion of the subject proposal).
8. Disturbed areas should be revegetated with native shrubs and
grasses.
8. In case of water quality being affected adversely, in the Town of
Silt, the town will notify the Board of County Commissioners in
accordance with;,.9.01.06.
O V