Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.01 BOCC Staff ReportASPHALT PAVING COMPANY - SILT PIT OWNER: Asphalt Paving Company PLANNING/ENGINEERING: Rindahl and Associates LOCATION: ' mile south of Silt, on one island in the Colorado River, west of County Road 311. SITE DATA: The proposal will affect approximately 54 acres on the island. The southern most island has one existing residence. WATER: Bottled water will be provided for on-site employees. SEWER: Portable chemical toilets will be provided on-site for employees. PROPOSED ROADS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The applicant proposes to construct a two lane asphalt entrance to tie in with County Road 311. All approaches would be signed appropriately. A/I North: Town of Silt South: A/I East: A/I West: A/I The proposed pit is in Urban Area of Influence of Silt. Therefore, staff recommends that the Town's comments be given considerable merit. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL' Project Description: The applicant is proposing an open pit sand and gravel mine, and asphalt and concrete batch plants. The mining would proceed in four phases, from west to east, over a 5 year period. Reclamation would proceed at the end of each mining phase. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES: 1. The applicant is proposing to use County Road 311 and the Silt Bridge for access to the interstate highway. At present, however, the Silt Bridge has a 15 ton load limit. A Contract has been let for of a new bridge; however, construction would not begin until fall 1982, and is expected to be completed within 3 to 6 months after that date. 2. The property is adjacent to a parcel being annexed by the Town of Silt, and is not compatible with the uses proposed for the site. 3. The proposal is not compatible with Silt's existing comprehensive plan. And as the Town of Silt is currently in the process of developing a new comprehensive plan, it seems premature to allow development in the area at this time. 4. The applicant has addressed the areas affected by the 100 -year floodplain for the proposal. However, no substantiating information has been developed to indicate the proposal's potential affect on stream flow and water quality, and the effects of these on Silt's nearby water intake system and wastewater facility. 5. The Division of Wildlife has identified the site as an extremely sensitive wildlife area. The Colorado River corridor near Silt is an extremely important wintering area for the endangered bald eagle. The largest known great blue heron rookery on the Colorado River is found on the island adjacent to the proposed site. Another important specie potentially impacted by the proposal is the Canadian goose. The Division's policy is to discourage development in such critical areas. Their enclosed letter addresses these concerns, and specifies the need for certain amendments, or conditions, to the proposal, if the project is approved. Page 2, Asphalt Paving Company COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS: Section 5.03.11 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations refers to the ability of the Board of County Commissioners to deny special use permits. One of the bases for denial refers to the impacts from a special use which may adversely impact the established character of the neighborhood in which the use is proposed. In deter- mining the "neighborhood" of the proposed Asphalt Paving Company operations, several items need to be addressed: FIRST, the Town of Silt is expanding its defineable "neighborhood" to those properties north of the river from the Asphalt Paving site. This is being accomplished through annexation of those properties.._ SECOND, the Town of Silt is now in the process of further defining and/or expanding their "neighborhood" through development of their Comprehensive Plan. The new plan may logically include areas south of the river as appropriate for expansion by the town. Further, the town has approached the county in regard to purchasing county property in the area for use as a park by area residents. In addition, the town has a considerable investment in public facilities (water infiltration galleries, etc.) in the area. The locations of these facilities and these actions by the Town of Silt indicate several parameters by which the perception of this "neighborhood" may be defined. Clearly, Asphalt Paving's proposal is incompatible with the existing uses and the uses proposed for the immediate neighborhood. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: / 5 County Comprehensive Plan encourages industrial expansion where similar development r 3b' already exists in appropriate areas; and although Frei and Sons received approval for a large gravel operation nearby (see enclosed map), the general area remains very X. rural in character. The Comprehensive Plan also discourages development that would - $n impact Silt's agrarian character. Aye The plan encourages industrial development in areas where adequate transportation Vt \\ facilities and public utilities are available. Because construction of the Silt Bridge appears to be 8 months to one year away, the project cannot be adequately uPC served by existing facilities. Specifically, the plan states that development should o•q Abe required to contribute to the bridge's replacement or that approval be withheld until Q.� the bridge can safely and adequately accommodate additional traffic. Further, the plan allows the county to deny a project based on inadequate road access which would 4 23_9 lead to further deterioration of the road and large daily traffic volumes, an additional concern of the Town of Silt. The Comprehensive Plan addresses at length the issue of compatibility of proposed and existing uses. Specifically, it speaks to a proposal's adverse "impacts on the desirability of the surrounding community," "alteration of the basic character of adjacent land uses," and "impairment of the stability or value of adjacent or surrounding properties." The plan speaks of smoke, noise, dust, odors, and visual unsightliness as "hazards to public health and safety" and "nuisances to the surrounding community." STANDARD CONDITIONS: Reviewing Agencies: 1. Town of Silt -recommendation for denial (see attached letters of 1/22/82 and 3/3/82; as of 4/21/82, the town's concerns and recommendations for denial remain) 2. Division of Wildlife -see attached letters of 1/14/82, 3/4/82, and 4/7/82. 3. Army Corps of Engineers -will weigh county's decision heavily in their decision to issue a 404 permit. 4. Mined Land Reclamation Board -will withhold a decision until the county has made : its review. See also: 5. Letter from Gingery & Associates for Asphalt Paving -3/24/82. 6. Letter from Asphalt Paving in regard to concessions/considerations/ amendments to their proposal. 7. Letter of opposition from Gerald and Carolyn Bernhardt. 8. Letter of concern from Garfield County Citizens Association. 9. Letter of support from Don and Marian White. PREVIOUS HISTORY: A decision by the Planning Commission on the request was originally scheduled for March 8, 1982. A delay was requested by the applicant to further discuss concerns Page 3, Asphalt Paving Company with the Town of Silt and other agencies. On March 26, 1982, a meeting was held at the Planning Department Offices with Silt's Town Planner, Asphalt Paving representatives, Rindahl 6 Assodiates representatives, the Division of Wildlife, the County Road Supervisor, and staff. Concerns were discussed with these representatives, although no elimination of concerns or changes in position were noted. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1982: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Asphalt Paving proposal by a 3-2 vote, with the following conditions: 1. That all existing and proposed buildings be removed upon completion of the extractive operations; 2. That the permit be limited to five years; 3. That earthen berms be established to screen the operation from the Throm and Keller properties, and such berming is agreeable to those adjoining owners; 4. The operation will not haul aggregate until the new Silt Bridge is built; only stockpiling will be allowed during the bridge's construction phase; 5. That the concessions and amendments specified by Asphalt Pa4ing Company be accepted as conditions of approval of the project; 6. That the applicant agree to retain the cottonwood trees and develop an island or penisula preserving those trees in Phase IV of their operation; 7. That further flood flow information be submitted to the County Flood Plain Administrator for review of the potential impacts of mining on the existing Colorado River channel in this area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While the County Comprehensive Plan would allow development in areas where its impacts could be mitigated, the basic problems of incompatibility with existing surrounding uses and premature development of an area would not be lessoned. Staff therefore recommends denial of the Asphalt Paving Special Use Permit for the following reasons: 1. The proposed site is incompatible with the uses existing in the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The proposal would be injurious to the character of the established neighborhood. 3. The impacts an traffic volume created by the project would be injurious to the surrounding community. 4. The area is premature for development due to inadequate access; and due to the fact that Silt has just commenced a reworking of their Comprehensive Plan, and the project site is a logical area for extension by the Town of Silt. 5. The proposal has potential substantial impacts on wildlife in the surrounding area, including impacts to the bald eagle, an endangered specie. VW 1V 0J :MIA P,O. Box 174 Silt, Cf,. Irado 81652 303 876-2353 January 22, 1982 Chairman Garfield Board of County Connni;.inn,n. ('lenwood Spy. inns., CoI°rade Dear Mr. Chairman; Thank you for the opportunity to review the request of Asphalt `Paving Company for gravel extraction and processing — portable asphalt and concrete plant. We recommend denial based upon several grave concerns. 1. With our water intake system and wastewater facility located, immediately adjacent to this proposed pit, changes in surface and -sub-surface water quality and flow pose grave hazards to the Town" 2. This area is adjacent to a pending annexation. As such it is not the type of development that would be compatible to the proposed land uses for that annexation. It is not compatible with the existing comprehensive plan for the Town. I do not believe it will be compatible for the re -write of the comprehensive plan. 3. As we have indicated before, cumulative traffic impacts of. proposed gravel pit activity poses a clear threat to the Town's economic revitalization as well as presenting an imment danger to the residents using the Silt interchanges 4. The Town's residents are extremely concerned over the impact of visual pollution caused by the smoke of the asphalt plant:: as -well as the dust and noise generated by the activity, not with- standing the existence of State Standards. Sincerely, Iljvi 1 C. Weltzef / lawn Administratgr TOWN of :MLT P.O. Box 174 .Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876-2353 January 22, 1982 Chairman Garfield Board of County Commissioners Glenwood Springs, Colorado Dear Mr. Chairman; Thank you for the opportunity to review the request of Asphalt Paving Company for gravel extraction and processing - portable asphalt and concrete plant. We recommend denial based upon several grave concerns. 1. With our water intake system and wastewater facility located immediately adjacent to this proposed pit, changes in surface and sub -surface water quality and flow pose grave hazards to the Town 2. This area is adjacent to a pending annexation. As such it is not the type of development that would be compatible to the proposed land uses for that annexation. It is not compatible with the existing comprehensive plan for the Town. I do not believe it will be compatible for the re -write of the comprehensive plan. 3. As we have indicated before, cumulative traffic impacts of proposed gravel pit activity poses a clear threat to the Town's economic revitalization as well as presenting an imment danger to the residents using the Silt interchange. 4. The Town's residents are extremely concerned over the impact of visual pollution caused by the smoke of the asphalt plant as well as the dust and noise generated by the activity, not with- standing the existence of State Standards. Sincer ly, avid C. Weitze Town Administrator GAR. ELD COUNTY CITIZENS ASSOC_.2ION February 22, 1982 1315 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Garfield County Planning Commission 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Garfield County Planning Commission Members: This letter is to reiterate our concern about the continuing approval of gravel pits in Garfield County based on what we believe are inadequate criteria and policies guiding both their siting and operation. The county planning staff has identified 29 pending and/ or approved gravel pits. The Mined Land Reclamation Board, however, lists 47 pits approved for operation in Garfield County. Apparently, the MLRB had authority to approve pits prior to the county's devel- oping its own zoning regulations. County records on approved gravel pits are scanty or nonexistent except for the last several years. A very rough comparison of county records with state records indicates there may be as many as 33 pits in the county (most of them relatively small) about which the county has limited or no current information. For example, the MLRB records show the Colo- rado Division of Highways has 13 pits which the county does not list. These may or may not be active. In some instances, these state pits may be being used by a different operator for other purposes than state highways, and in some instances their permits may have lapsed. (We understand that state pits' permits often are for 200 days.) This, in our minds, underscores the need for the county to take more time to evaluate the existing situation before issuing further approvals. We recognize that the county planning staff has many pressing duties at this time and there are very limited hours to do the out in the field checking that we are suggesting. We also recognize that the county has only one zoning enforcement officer. We believe, however, that the current situation can only deteriorate unless some steps are taken now. It may be necessary, for example, to plan for the county's adding to its zoning enforcement staff. The county has approved a number of gravel pits in the last couple of years with conditions attached to their operation. Meanwhile, it has limited knowledge of how preexisting pits are operating or even if they're operating. Regulations often are only as effective as their monitoring and enforcement. Garfield County Planning Commission February 22, 1982 Page 2 Therefore, we once again suggest that the county consider a time limited moratorium on approval of new pits. It has been suggested that a moratorium denies companies due process. We don't believe this is the case unless the moratorium would be lengthy or indefinite. But regardless of whether or not a moratorium is implemented we want to once more indicate our willingness as residents to work with county staff on developing more specific criteria and policies for siting and operating gravel pits. (Please see at- tached January 25 letter and February 1 addendum to Garfield Coun- ty Commissioners.) Following are some areas where we feel more specific regula- tions are necessary: 1. Operation hours and days: Especially when residential neighborhoods exist nearby, we feel hours and days of ex- traction, operation of batch plants and truck transport should be more specifically addressed. 2. Colorado River corridor: We understand that gravel is found along river bottoms. The population centers in our county, however, are also found along the rivers. How competing interests can be protected needs to be addressed. Tourism is still the dominant industry in the county, and the Colorado River Valley is visually vulnerable. Ways of mitigating visual unsightliness needs to be thought out more, e.g. berming, fencing, vegetation, etc. Excavating visually sensitive areas such as ridges, hilltops and scenic areas should be minimized. 3. Transport routes and maintenance: Developers should clearly spell out the proposed route in the proposal and then must comply with it. Residents along that route might be considered "adjacent landowners" since they are sometimes affected as much by the operation as those with contiguous land. "Adjacent landowner" is too narrow. 4. Proof of contract: This may be difficult to address in regulations, but we are concerned about granting permits when the operation is purely speculative. The applicant might be asked to supply information as to the contracts which he has in hand for how much gravel, etc. Garfield County Planning Commission February 22, 1982 Page 3 5. Determining suitability: Some sites may be completely inappropriate for development regardless of gravel quality. The Colorado River seems to have good gravel most of its length. That doesn't mean it should be mined entirely. Some counties have weighting systems for helping determine site suitability. Various factors such as visual impact, wildlife conditions, truck traffic, unique vegetation, the capacity to return the land to beneficial use, protecting the economy (which should include tourist economy), adjacent land use category, hazards, etc. are weighted on a point basis to aid in evaluating sites. 6. Fugitive dust emissions: We feel the state air quality regulations on fugitive dust on unpaved routes may be too lax. The state allows 200 trips per day averaged over three days in attainment areas before an abatement plan must be prepared. The abatement plan includes various measures which might be adopted to mitigate dust. We feel 200 trips a day can mean a significant hardship to those residing along an unpaved route. The county could adopt more stringent dust regulations. 7. Wildlife impacts: Those living in and visiting Western Colorado appreciate the abundance and variety of wildlife who share the land here. Rapid energy development and the accompanying residential development, commercial and indus- trial plants, road building and traffic, will have dramatic effects on wildlife nesting, roosting and migratory areas. Foresighted regulations can help mitigate these impacts. Wildlife depend on the river corridors also. 8. Cumulative effects: In some instances, a proposed gravel pit's site might be appropriate if it were the first gravel pit in that location and its development plan might be appro- priate. There might, however, already be a number of pits operating in that area which tax the carrying capacity of the land and residents. We believe there must be provisions in the regulations for denying an application based on cumu- lative impacts from existing pits. 9. Batch plants: Gravel extraction on a small scale can be harmonious with agriculture and therefore considered a natural extension of a ranching/farming operation. We believe, how- ever, that batch plants are more appropriately defined as in- dustrial operations and therefore are inappropriate in an agri- cultural and residential zone. Batch plants require increased support facilities, machinery, garages and equipment, more personnel and importation of more materials than are found on-site to make asphalt or concrete. The additional materials must be trucked in by large semis thereby necessitating in- creased truck traffic and safety hazards. If there are to Garfield County Planning Commission February 22, 1982 Page 4 be batch plants in A/R/RD land, then perhaps that land should first be rezoned industrial to allow all industrial operations. Similarly, while a 10 acre gravel pit with a short life may be considered a natural extension of agricultural activities, we feel a 50, 100 or 200 acre pit with a 10 or 25 or 100 year lifetime is more appropriately con- sidered an industrial use. The intent is not then for on- site use, for county roads, etc. but to produce gravel on a commercial scale. The operation size produces increased noise, dust, fumes, activity and hazards which can impact agricultural and residential neighbors severely. 10. Enforcement: We believe mechanisms for penalizing companies when they are not in compliance with the con- ditions of their permits and mechanisms for reviewing permits need to be addressed. In evaluating any proposed changes to regulations for gravel pits, we believe the gravel industry should be represented, and we would look forward to cooperating with representatives as well as the county staff. During this time of rapid growth and change, we believe it is essential to have regulations that can protect and respond to the interests of all concerned --residents, land- owners and developers. We also believe public participation in any regulation changes is vital. Thank you very much for lis- tening to us. Sincerely, For the Garfield County Citizens Association 6Y. fS GARFIELD COUNTY CITIZENS ASSOCIATION 1315 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 January 25, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners Flaven Cerise, Chairman Larry Velasquez, Commissioner Jim Drinkhouse, Commissioner Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners: As you review the application of Asphalt Paving Company, the Garfield County Citizens Association would like to take this opportunity to ask that you consider imposing a temporary moratorium on approval of pending and new gravel pit applications, The purpose of this moratorium would be to allow time for the county to develop specific criteria and comprehensive policies for the issuance of special use permits for gravel pit operations. As a citizens group, we believe that such criteria and policies are essential to guide gravel pit development throughout the county as it attempts to keep pace with energy development. As of Friday, January 22, county planners had determined that there are 29 approved and/or operating gravel pits in Garfield County. (A large proportion of them are concentrated along the Colorado River from Silt to Parachute.) The Colorado and Roaring Fork Rivers and the communities in their valleys would seem to have a finite "carrying capacity" for the amount of gravel mining that can occur without substantial and long-lasting damage. We are extremely concerned about the cumulative effects on county residents, wildlife, land and rivers from the traffic, noise, dust and general activity associated with these operations, The county obviously can neither approve nor deny all current and future gravel pit applications. Establishing concrete, specific criteria and policies, then, becomes an equitable way of treating developers and landowners. Those with an economic interest in gravel pit development can thereby know clearly in advance if to proceed or how to proceed with their plans, To our knowledge, the need for gravel is not at an "emergency" level in the county that would necessitate continuing to issue special use permits without such a study. Garfield County residents, on the other hand, stand to lose a great deal if these pits continue to multiply without their cumulative impacts being addressed. Even beyond the serious consideration that residents must live with these impacts through the life of the projects is the potential that scarring of the land and loss of wildlife can be permanent. These are extraordinary times in Garfield County and on the Western Slope --probably no one knows that better than the county commissioners. Our land use regulations were developed when Garfield County economies were predominantly agriculture and tourism We have no specific regulations and guidelines for gravel pits We have no specific criteria for siting gravel pits, for determining suitability for a particular site. The special use permit procedure has been sufficient. At the time regulations were developed it was envisioned that ranchers might use the special use permit procedure to extract gravel as a sideline --sell gravel to the county for county roads. Y9% Now we are seeing the industrial development of gravel to accomodate R. the largest mining attempt in the history of the world We are not just dealing with the industrial mining of gravel but also gravel crushing and batch plant facilities. There is already tremendous competition for land in Garfield County. Available land for residential use, for gravel pits, for a myriad of er uses will become increasingly scarce as energy development proceeds. Exxon's announcement last week that its worker force would be at least twice what it had estimated emphasizes once more how scarce land for housing might become. It should be obvious from the numbers of people turning out to protest gravel pits that gravel operations and residential neighborhoods are not especially compatible. House Bill 1529 passed in 1973 required th4opulous counties of the state to develop "a master plan for extraction of 'commercial mineral deposits.' Such deposits are defined there as those; a) consisting of limestone used for construction purposes, coal. sand, gravel or 2 quarry aggregate whose extraction is commercially feasible, and b) which have significant economic or strategic value to the area state, or nation las demonstrated by geologic, mineralogic, or other scientific data." The Garfield County Citizens Association is not opposed to gravel extraction in Garfield County. That would be highly unrealistic, Rather, we want to see development occur in the best ways possible for us all. We are suggesting that the county take time to develop specific criteria and policies to guide gravel pit development in the county so that these pits can be sited and developed in ways that do not conflict with the interests of residents but still meet the needs for energy development. • DON WHITE, INC. 16000 West 76th Avenue Golden, Colorado 80401 Call Collect (303) 422-8795 &X L February 10, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners: Garfield County Planning and Zoning Board: Dear Sirs: We owned the land at Silt, commonly known as the 'Island", We applied for and were granted a temporary permit for a mobil home for one (1) year in April of 1981. When we purchased this land, we specifically stated that we would build three residences on it, however, upon requesting a permit for the mobil home we were informed, that only one residence would be allowed on the 112 acres. This was totally impossible for us, because, we would require in residence help, to adequately care for the property. When we were notified of this decision by the county, we determined the only choice was to sell the property, and the only real conceivable use for the land would be in a gravel operation, We then sold to Asphalt Paving Co. We have personally known of Asphalt Paving Company for many years. They are a highly respected members of the business community in the state of Colorado. We would highly recommend that you grant a special use permit to them for the island at Silt, because there is no other practical alternative. Sincerely, 7)7 a-Lietr- Donald R. WhiEe Marian J. White The Sirs ot, 2aalit Mr. Flaven Cerise, Chairman Garfield County Commissioners P.O. 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Mr. Cerise: • April 29, 1982 14802 W. 44TH AVENUE GOLDEN, COLO. 80401 279-6611 We would like to take this opportunity to show the Board of County Commissioners the numerous concessions which Asphalt Paving Co. has made since our original request application was filed in December of 1981. The concessions we made are as follows: 1. Eliminating phase V from the mining plan. This was done to protect vital wildlife habitat and to add an increased buffer between our operation and the Town of Silt's water intake system. 2. We agree to leave 100 ft. buffer zones, as opposed to the originally proposed 50 ft. buffer zones, between the Colorado River and any excavation. This was done in accordance with recommendations from the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Mined Land Reclamation Division. (As you can see from #1 and #2, we, as operators, have dropped from 86 acres to 54 acres of proposed mining area. This is a drop of approximately 36 percent which, needless to say, creates a substantial burden on us as both owner and operator.) 3. We will leave all cottonwood trees within the 100 ft. butter zone as well as replant new ones in our reclamation process. This is to satisfy the Colorado Division of Wildlife in regard to bald eagles and great blue herons, and to satisfy the Mined Land Reclamation Division. 4. No activity will occur at the western end of the project between March 1 and May 15 to afford protection to nesting great blue herons and Canada geese. 5. We will leave irregular shorelines and construct a 70-90 ft. mudflat to satisfy a Division of Wildlife recommendation. 0 Mr. Flaven Cerise April 29, 1982 Page 2 6. We have also agreed to work with the Division of Wildlife and pay for nesting platforms for the Canada geese. 7. We agree to hold trucking to a minimum until the completion of the new Silt bridge (which looks to be complete around the end of 1982.) In addition, we will repair any damage to the county roads that is caused by Asphalt Paving Co. hauling units. These concessions are acceptable to Mr. Leonard Bowlby, Garfield County Road Supervisor. 8. We have also agreed to work with the Town of Silt and pay our fair share of a traffic study to be done by Centennial Engineering Co. of Carbondale. 9. We also employed Gingery Associates, Inc. to analyze the situation in regard to Silt's water system. In addition, we agreed to pay for Ted Wing's time in any such analysis. (Ted is of Armstrong Associates and is the engineer for Silt's water system.) 10. We have also agreed to limit intensive activity to the plant site rather than the entire site. 11. We have agreed to pave our access road from the plant site to County Road 311. Both our access road and County Road 311 will be properly signed. 12. We agreed to perform dust reduction measures by use of dust pallatives or other agents for all work contained in regard to this proposed mining and processing operation. Further, I would like to inform the Board of County Commissioners of the concessions and agreements that were reached on Monday, April 26, 1982 when this application was approved by the Garfield County Planning Commission. These concessions and agreements are as follows: 1. Asphalt Paving Co. will not commence trucking operations out of this site location until the bridge project is completed across the north fork of the Colorado River on County Road 311. 2. Provide flood plain information. Please be advised that we have submitted a letter (see attached) from Gingery & Associates stating that the impact of this proposed mining and processing operation will have no adverse affect on any flooding activity which could occur in this area. 3. All buildings presently located on the property will be removed as part of the reclamation of this project. 4. The term of this special use permit will be five years with the option to renew at expiration should there by any material left to remove from this site. Garfield County Cod_>:.ssioners January 25, 982 Page two A short-term moratorium could allow the county planning staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the towns and interested groups and individuals to evaluate the existing situation and to develop appropriate criteria and policies to assist with these critical decisions. Mechanisms for determining need for gravel; various safeguards for the towns, developers, river corridors and wildlife, and siting stipulations all could be incorporated in such policies. We feel that this course of action represents the fairest way of protecting and responding to the interests of all concerned --residents, landowners and developers. We trust that you will seriously consider this request for a temporary moratorium. Thank you very much for listening to us. frvi--196(al cYvLdex Sincerely, L�\ t / 41 Il Odeth otc-* tut— Por Chc cnrti P CnITTY CI7'I7Kn'R ASSPC[ A'I'lON , • • Mr. Flaven Cerise April 29, 1982 Page 3 5. Dirt berms will be built at the southeast corner of this property to screen activities going on in our plant site location. It was agreed that these berms would be built in agreement with Don Throm, Larry Keller and Asphalt Paving Co. We will do our utmost to cooperate with the neighbors to properly screen our plant operation. 6. An additional small island will be left on the north boundary of the proposed excavation where large cottonwood trees presently exist. This area will remain for the protection and enhancement of wildlife activities, both during and after operations. 7. In conjunction with Item #1, it is agreeable that Asphalt Paving Co. could commence to stockpile material during this construction season. However, Asphalt Paving Co. will not commence to haul out until the bridge is complete. As you can see, our company has made numerous concessions and agreements to insure that this project will have very little impact on any of the surrounding parcels of land adjacent to this site. Let us reiterate to you our sincere desire to cooperate with the residents of this area and the county officials to insure that this project will not in any way be detrimental to anyone. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Respectfully yours, ASPHALT PAVING CO. WJK:nb Encl. cc: Larry Velasquez Eugene Drinkhouse Garfield County Planning Staff c24/4/ William J. President 2030.200 • Asphalt Paving Company Gravel Pit Silt, Colorado Special Addition to Planning Commission Submittal Asphalt Paving Company is planning a gravel mining operation in the Colorado River immediately west of the County Hwy. 311 bridge south of Silt (See attached map). A11 mining operations will take place on the island outlined in red. All structures will be located on the large island on the downstream side of Hwy. 311, and will be above the estimated 100 -year flood elevation of 5426. No materials will be stored within the 100 -year floodplain. All potentially toxic materials, such as diesel fuel and gasoline, will be stored at the plant site, which is above the 100 -year flood elevation. Also, mined aggregate and crushed rock stockpiles and temporary sanitation facilities for employees will be located at the plant site. As shown on the enclosed cross sections, no alterations will be made to the Colorado River channel. Because of this, no adjoining properties, upstream or downstream, will be adversely affected during a 100 -year flood event. The increased floodwater storage, created by the removal of the gravel, will tend to lower the flood elevation and velocities in the immediate vicinity of the pits, to a slight extent. In conclusion, the Asphalt Paving Company gravel pits will not adversely impact the 100 -year floodplain on the Colorado River, and will not create a danger to public health or safety if the plant site and toxic material storage are located on high ground on the west side of County Hwy. 311. Prepared by: Ronald R. Fromknecht, P.E. Gingery Associates, Inc. 4GE fRRlf f/., 0 ,i'. (ttl660 c : t 4= N 0E3 577, 55 165 Cc) _ 1 / -- -l:.. I Silt's r$ tLitj..-5'— .--c,,41-• .14:" I RIO GRANDE C. 7 VdI LCY I GfIGH h 5460 • �/ IC .12 L 7-OY SS4 4 • '\ rt -'r ` I 1'79 5600 5476 se �/ _ cr HCle cit\ -0- C3 \ z 21' r 23 .• A -A BEFORE MINING 2 O U w N -J w 2 2 Q S 0 SCALE, HOR. 1"_ 400' VER. 1": 201 O M O_ to 0 cr m rr 0 M to SECTION A -A AFTER MINING J w 2 2 Q 2 U 0 w 0 0 a 0 Z w -J 0 U Et) PREPARED B z 0 N Q LLJ J Q U N 0 N W W S co m 0) W H Q 0 • 10•1 CAS TLl © APPLICATION AREA D•PI• .1 wrist - S' (2•026241) PYP• •f •I.1.rI.1 lard • y••• 1 21•12•4 •f •4a4Is,• D/•EII•• ADJACENT PROPEITY OMNI RS OToo A of 5,11 OValle F tor N• I•t. W' SAS ALT VICINITY MAP D X1 s o •5 Uwe on Yalu R LEVEL ELEV. 5•;201 ( Uses SUI T S' 1 I wRlEe VARIESSECTION - PRIMARY ISLAND SCALE HOR R VCR I • 40' 0' [ IDA XIS INA RIVERBED 2'1 SECTION—SECONDARY ISLAND SCALE — HOR. YER.f I0 A0 3 1 EX1511NS R VERbEO PROPOSED GRAVEL PIT IN THE COLORADO RIVER 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF 5111, COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO APF LA C ATION BY ASPHALT PAVING COY PANT PREPARE[ SY R.::DANL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2150 :OVTN IVANHOE STREET DENVER, COLORADO 10222 Slit ET 1 OF 2 DATE !2/14/2! • 'GINGERY ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2777 CROSSROADS BLVD., SUITE D-2 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 (909(245-0627 April 30, 1982 Asphalt Paving Company P. 0. Box 5 Silt, CO 81652 Attention: Mr. Bill Keller Reference: Silt Dry Gravel Mining Company Dear Mr. Keller: This letter is a sequel to a letter written to your office on March 24, 1982 regarding referenced project. The discussions I have had since the March 24th letter have indicated to me that the potential damage to the Colorado River floodplain during the 100 -year flood event, will be minimal as a result of the mining operation of the type you have proposed. This is my opinion and only my opinion, since the practicality of detailed floodplain analysis is,beyond the scope of the project. This opinion is generated based on my examination and available information, consultations with our hydrology engineers and others who have a practical knowledge of floodplains., Based on the foregoing, it is hard for me to imagine any impact on the.silt water intake structures since they are so far removed from the mining activity in terms of the relationship of the river channel, etc. Respectfully submitted, A. L. Robinson ALR:mj ENGLEWOOD - GRAND JUNCTION tar arf Weir 401/4 it lk •40 ift V- o�r•' r 1 e kt�t •' : 4 j • r r'� i gtip. Ari r 111'11 (VfIs •. _M ..at. I0��y*L lb % • at f • • \`,T • • • • \� ,may $'..A: 2- 5 1 3 4. TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners rieny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No, 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No, Name - Signature ) Date Residence Address (,/ /. -/J/ -b pi 1 )1 ., l°(i,,//c (` HCl _/ /6" , // ,-( W• rviro iii .111L L:-) cA c . � `/ P � ),) Iia ('ir): 4 11 iu cr- x/- 5'- S 2 ' 44 /3 Aid, -/9 - a �. -Zu-S7 s1/I, \'rl 0 4-x Reg, Voter Yes/No .2i?/ ais lZd 64'/3 3/74 ,ri'/V5- 2/V6, /V6, I cf 70 L' /f, -V6 f 5?» 4/.) • L Y ec S/05-3 612 /1//%r 4 76 1, a Cots Q VS' AVs 3 a~- ,t,/s.j $; ye,$ r,s_e At% ///,1 f At y f� ,„i% „-te TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application bi Asphalt Paving Companyjfor a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. • Name - Signature Date i °1 n(4 114,-4ts Yui Residence Reg. Voter Address Yes/No Ud/ 3 7 05 2 4 u f1tL4 .Cz/ 5a V� c�pJ'b cL1irngc✓ 7 Av itzu 3° nter— c(Gn PG, Sox 90 Ak �� CC..t1,C0 . 'Na ?St 3I j 'eek /2(2/33 - e � _ 43) 3z - ,�A- a/Gt,; P v- 3�6 .. 24,, Gr'.._.f(� 6 33"3' 3`i 35 3S Yo 41 92- q 3 2.y3 145 `14 fa b� 4>71-i- U v hl ; cE k frL a_ \ l Ca 'St re �r)G& c ©efr 34- ) -fj - 03L.,s 20a r?e-( wt.) (oJ/c Co— WO i/� � /1 j, f E ensaE c o fO U\0 W C&,- —Q ee��7 /f�'%` .5 . Li ?t Ce-oC1 /e z ,sem ,�J4� c,�<�l CIL : c'l-tet<�� rk 47- yN 9 50 SI 51- 5 3 1- 53 5y 55 54 5? S $ 5 4 LO 1 Lz (i3 G5 it qp 43' Id THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the and the Garfiel by Asphalt operate a g batch plant just West o County, Col ersigned, hereby petition and demand that d County Commissioners deny the application Paving Company for a special, use permit to ravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete s on land situated next to the Colorado River f County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield orado. No. NNAme - Signature Date Residence Reg. Voter Address' Yes/No z� _/�Lid f fU�G�r� /�.�.�r� tf Z� ez Z1(�3 / ( ()/ Y % b',1 -- L/21.. fie( . . hC-1 A-41 /%z _Pru 5/ e/j g(/ •';� e' J, z z, dol / d�2 R,I fin 7_'— 67 CO ( (A J) til l t1/25 n�a r I 0 <�� G f�^ 1CL B i /5c 1>, TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road Nt. 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date 23-8z Residence Address Reg. Voter Yes/No 3 7 , 2 ReicQ 84,6 61‘)S, / kvc /CS /15)/4, ;,,i Si/7 2r c o land/Win 3 -03 ea 4/62,33 6 2_y o5, /10 s , 3/ t it f z 9;>i 0/4,4, I G- s. r yos utfn 32.s /l/ Gil t 4 -Z -e 1-a n .2. _ 3--zec-8? Al Ai/Iw 5- as -larearaby2 /Ar Mk, 10 � 0 0 SS g U4/4 Th cV lL,vtJt, 5g AflU 3, 1cr5' 'r zo,"S. 89 90 12- 93 9N i5 47- 941 101 10'- 103 t/ 10 5 tole /0-?- o9 TO THE COMMISSIONERS Of- GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and the Garfield County Commissioners deny th by Asphalt Paving Company For a special u operate a gravel extraction pit and aspha batch plants on land situated next to the just West of County Road No, 311, South o County, Colorado. No, Name - Signature <fl601.41.2 'ILLY Date Residence Address demand that o application se permit to It and concrete Colorado River P Silt, Garfield Reg, Voter Yes/No ' _.2 `1 5 0; -/�, .s 17 21J0 :' V"%; n e.„:,.. , v 11)4,- cif A 9 /or2L„/ . g f1� )7e4,0 a -Lek. «tele ✓ ( o 3 z (2 9. x ,c, f y� r //ore TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No, 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address Reg. voter Yes/No 10 / II ' y LLIAk/11 )>"e (7: 7; i.J)41/J� 11,.� �a b 6/- lq- F 1�// f a.uaia `U 18Z 333 5 )13 ►l -(24,Abr yLif ��''a ,i, i.�; �.i��11 �:�� l:o OL. ;�Ir (.lC i, / (h / I n ' ? fl' //e,116G� y J YI-1/ $;:9pC -V�1 1/Lr)olZ -�A1C-"" C, /�-�/� 3735 // 3 (L (-6-12,,41.4„e( Cyt% see fri/C,J"-`,(�' .2Z) e/ic/fin //,;('(c, Cg.,1)77/40 *, 4,0 :2 (t CAA A do a. . /.ILII .� nJa, fit `I - c _v z. 3 L /a ii/ ( %u, \ \\$ a�, ; ;1 �,,'LC' , ; cI r , ( - is ' ti Cua. _ LY 31 )57- 33 3Z33 3� 33{. 31- -373, }3a. go w/ `fZ g )43 RN/ ►45 1a& I TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on. land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address //2310-7/1-1 aziK1 Reg. Voter Yes/No '7//D P; e. .,y,e ct u -t G// �/nrpz if/v C'., net '3/4 '7 2 5 z /3/,e, 52-6, tit '0M i SEVio 3 1 S1 i 141 - PIT "41 1So 5:6„,'77 1 51 \--AN\aka Lio 5 z //-,_ei /y'/pvr) M\fr C2z b 4/q_15)-1 / 649/7/� - � .1110„u1/4,6 G..t <I. y- `aa !Dox( Lib's .z) (is iii,\FL((i• lioz-z 0,daivisi .co)( -1. ,r,,IyAA* ij 74 L X12 r ug „ G L �i Sa / C V/ E l//O/� Cor oa Io CI - 52- 153 iso{ X55 I54 157- 15t isq Ito t(4t Iez Rea hog 11,5 I l,L te I(o9 11i ISI TO T COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: \�F We, the undersigned, hereby pet the Garfield County Commissions by Asphalt Paving Company for a operate a gravel extraction pit batch plants on land situated n just West of County Road No, 31 County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature ition and demand that rs deny the application special use permit to and asphalt and concrete ext to the Colorado River 1, South of Silt, Garfield Date Residence Reg, Voter Address (Yes/No 7- y // /( )/ -7 i l r=9�� //�/ 2/,/.)'2- / - 1 d/ /� ,?�/ /?7//�� fir' z 27 //3C/1/11 2���r';s (4 (9562/- -7 9562` l i 90. ,c 747,-„L-7(2.-0//7446e/c-/%7 ,)/ /;. -7-//' nuke rV �/ ( U'' �I I ' , f ti 1 1 I ur1iy'i& ! 2-12 r12, tri ; -5" tyk 7 17 t] No. TO THE COMMISSIONERS Or GARFIELD EOIJWY GREETINGS: We, the under the Garfield by Asphalt Pa operate a gra hatch plants just West of County, Color Name - Signature signed, hereby pet County Comrniss.ione ving Company for a vel extraction pit on land situated n County Road No. 31 ado. 1. Date itlan and demand that rs deny the application special use permit to and asphalt and concrete ext to the Colorado River 1, South of Silt, Garfield Residence Address Reg. Voter Yes/No C l� /�% t` ,� - ii.)1104 F_ I . 4-12-2/ , 2 / ;>>c✓ a/LS //Zz k , Lc_ // 7 / /2 / ,c/ r- " 144 -9)/ 4 ". ifi 2/4- \ 56 L Cfcl 3: QP« iK ` 22/R ' �O5 r hL > fez yes AL,„___ Y� 2 12,1,6y /y/7 ,(14 �i1 Afra• 'II' /4 :,rder 11-1 /% 90 /,S q1 /Ain Ali ' q z .,2 C1 "ct t Y— 62-- 1 3 2 ------_13 17 ;l%,d,-2 (KaLs7Yz-1./ ie :A -11 � � > <<i § S-59 z,,, c be c1 I La eJ (2_3 3 70 y Cc) 1 J &)&6627i (E �2$ � X)4:4_7 76 Fag J cY7 h �r' e 3 y‘,- G G' /2/) / G' 477 // - /2- 9y q5 19 (e iq� V/ Lot, toy Ivy Lot wei aJo 211 z1Z 2-13 No. TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. Name - Signature Date Residence Reg. Voter Address Yes/No ✓/SAI: c/Z4t rcL t '/z- 7 - 67. 33,5 tr* „ 7_2_1-t2 3 ; Z*2,.,� ,/ey ;Le., /21/4422 /J2'7/&43/cc 6701,v,,0/5 h' 23,2t3 1 e A&' 366 l�f' 7 ,g).,, 66(,/c - lc) 1, 7)i,(Y, 4/ /.) `// 5 /L2 -`it 278.2 - 4 7 iL ,Z4 - y7/ I -S77 /14 /✓v q.A.V leo (d - ,i cZ //2 7}y y/) 3/,f i`/ 194 /,,(0 y- 9 4/- K p- t2afP 3 I N �> S Co . K16, lig z_15 Ll Sr 7.19 Lz6 LZI 111. „25 k ace No. TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and the Garfield County Commissioners deny th by Asphalt Paving Company for a special u operate a gravel extraction pit and aspha batch plants on land situated next to the just West of County Road No. 311, South o County, Colorado. Name - Signature Date Residence Address demand that e application se permit to It and concrete Colorado River f Silt, Garfield Reg. Voter Yes/No /f 4 ft...S/ -� -- Z S 2 1(70 Cx 9 b� Ria Irlinfer (leinwor0 Spys, Co, ;etc >) L - �l _(/// 9i - ;,Zc FY�E < <<t / sC v /' 1; � ( LL / (. d (_ A 7J ' i tin' /1 1 3 y - k 1. �1`)11.5S- ti i ' l[> / �. i! 7Lk. (iL (: t_t J('tic t 1 thc. 374I ?-t 83/ a 10, 4-.1 (--:`.s . ari-- z i i no \.rte\s-a 43\--: ;,v 3 - ,;-`71- 1 3-. V-101 C` /).rn -; -ham 2701 ei C� X J� • d t3 -dig • V a -c/D" ,(� 414 ..( _9_y,_(1;<- 6t- 4;,7 /7/C /i- cc, 3 t.1 /L /2 am. C1 235 7-34 3'B 131 allo 2.41 2J4.2- -443 42- 243 ztiy 7J%5 2N(P zHir z4 250 2,5 TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address CS— i/6 awe , Reg. Voter Yes/No l—} (Ve `j7 5 eecueeatt C c, GV a •\ 3>K c 7 S; Cs C\aA 14)0112( (f)V CUA 11(/l/, /11' j SCS 7` f-tt.ems/c AS "11---/r?.- Z � D? SA LI z ayo Cei:c os Inc S (+ Cs 2/� t c// �r re -J6 Lk' CC z 57- O \)( CID 23- z5' 4I111,-J,ma/ lac 155 0 .0-(1 L d5 MbL s' -e -T ) /40/k) , 2-$ ce z fs 261 Lip 0 Z4� ZI9Z 1(03 s /O. 44 .(off Apq 1,09 a-1 .-a-3 No, TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUiTY GREETINGS; We, the undersigned, hereby pet the Garfield County Comrnissione by Asphalt Paving Company for a operate a grovel extraction pit batch plants on land situated n just West of County Road No, 31 County, Colorado. [Varve - Signature Date ition and rs deny th special u and aspho ext to the 1, South a Residence Address 7-.4 _ ,k,A7 3yJ j Z__722( _ l 3 E {117( xt LZ'kt =3,1 E ( 5 demand that e application se permit to 1t and concrei,e Colorado River D Silt, Garfield Req. Voter Yes/No // fz Wit_ _ st« -0 L/ �I 9` :3&'/ /tib NO yc� 33 fez A c^ 2 BIC, _ 70-64 TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS; We, the undersigned, hereby pet the Garfield County Comrnissione by Asphalt Paving Company for a operate a gravel extraction pit batch plants on land situated n just West of County Road No. 31 County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature ition and demand that re cid the application special use permit to and asphalt and concrete ext to the Colorado River 1, South of Silt, Garfield Date Residence Address Reg. Voter Yes/No 4111 %1 X11. c..0 11 '' C7C jtlle it,� �JL11'u "-( LS c)“,976/%4 �;7y 33/ ,€Y• 5-2_ occ.-4- if K 'z- ' Z 0 735- 0-L. /31.- C` Li ?V J �G2 4 .4.4.441 ( f-12/4,1-- o^ i 4402 oot 4670_3(/ lU e- SrcE S??I 3("3 no 1271s- 3<iUa'i Li 14\ Mr) h)3 / J, /bit %Pam 7 3 5 3 -%3 �'/ . '¢�' sa/ 6, > .. I „ow -33i fir(. s,L L(; TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Reg. Voter Address Yes/No (," ,4012 zert 1, -771 //Pi (_'3 /A IA a Vi az ¢066 - J3//C 1 -6 47 3/AckeL 27�� l �� L ✓�w 2 a /21 r` . 716,0 e'etzaiE r 67-2 - 77 4933/ iece s,// "c aiotok faekeIC /68 4tee 0` . 3 -a7-81 /MO/ 4pp6 T ep 3- 26 gg 76j 5» 9 8'Aca NZJ 314 '315 311- s cd -0 cI a Cl - S-1e(3hQ(‘Scrn /4' is A & ,O) 1 o� e.ac i l//(V'2 c xQ13 r.1euJ (o-KQ , Colo a/6 `1 7 /.12V5' a (Oc y /(1,9 9�/-i) �? — TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No, 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No, Nan _ Si nature Date 51 ,p 9 t`//le?.E.i� �/l(1 i tik �g,c� 3/4,j 3w 3 21 322- 323 3 ill 3z5 325. 3zl- 32f 3241 330 331 Residence Reg. Voter of Address Yes/No tis 64/ L anY.c5(0 • Wen glow; c(-44 ,Ham, ow4e, ?•c7 )93A Ciftiat La-r'r-nom? 46-o fi. _3/0j/E. 412. 323 5Z 3-dr- 'Le /% /a /0/S !/ O/C�/l'Gi'C7 IPrIr.LL'Oc� I��9fl1 iv j -'v cn �s 68242 riff g z r 1/11° 31ar Ce/1N,e I 1.--Y�YCi / r 6/ 2 ' No,r ,. ay /,'46) O;,-tti, 6' .,% i"% e. 2253 air J?c( C7'LT- C°. • 1/,') 7 ._.7// /% 1` ) G. , //o/ /'h/;dwc0� ��O Yes u7) 339 3¢0 341 3117-- 343 117343 344 245 3 94 3N? $6o 3GI )52- ,5 3 5L,53 36"1 TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No, 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. Name - Signature Date Residence Address Reg, Voter Yes/No 760 O. ix' . i[w CASrC• t&/0.9371� (J�e(46 Lil-&, 4,,r 383(4 .?71 ,/ 1f14 -G /a j 955 a)6 z 041/0/A/ o-2 2 • .4 '1,.. iY iii4• l i 2 41 ; 65 l //jZ,. % r. 35F s�- 581 e5 No. TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. Name - Signature Date Residence Address Reg, Voter Yes/No ,17:12(77 cu/Ga s7/c 3UD/ /j P�� c_PD� -n ��G /Y /d l/ �7 61tn et Svc 3\:a6 SOSCII W. Ou„y C -Q y_ i�nte 3lel A. VA 5 WS 1 1141 30- 3la$�� 31/9 �a no >/ 3t -t / L i 34L /3/ x.24! 2z .4.4e4J> 321 f 7 t,.& fl •=c l 3/2 s 34 ±.14‘ (GA C6/c Cou»l Pi old 1 6)63 L eq; ; Le /ice .64 roe 6;2,44 S, l4-. (r, y 331 S'll j7 -9Y: '5;3i0771 Co 12,-) ll) 00 ou/kr. Qda 0021/ 0, Rat d? S //fed-- 0021( /fed i. 3`D 3t1 ; �y 5`35 3q4 3(tti 35(40 3`14- asci 3'b 3 q 1 312- 313 315 31(e 5q)- 3 qt q)- 3R$ 3-11 No. TO COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. Name - Signature Date Residence Address Reg. Voter Yes/No 3 `r i����-, w•., r- ��r �j �-li) Lect3 ?ab ooso fro -. c:0 o(r ('.,,S CL,1 rC„��,�_�U, C' S s LO L Z % 7 Aid 22 4kee idea) a& / 7 ditr.4,> 1 Jeer_ yJ 7 3A ' ' Zc 2-/y c)-ti,:�" , � TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and the Garfield County Commissioners deny th by Asphalt Paving Company for a special u operate a gravel extraction pit and aspha batch plants on land situated next to the just West of County Road No. 311, South o County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address demand that e application se permit to It and concrete Colorado River f Silt, Garfield Reg. Voter Yes/No 4o% / 40-5_. 404 t(oS 4o yob' iilo 4(3 415 a�4 411 gig tiw ci ( 761r.1 (di(tii'Lj.. ,l //z.,/,72a 30 sec 6:11. 33 filis /F' b1�A:x / CG ( Ali.; • , `' r ?ii( `71; h z 61, .s s" 2 / Li (17 d y r , Y:, .//e, Nm :-/41/74 ,2/z,t; Y� 369/c -•L 2.. (59 / 47,54/c2 -p& yl c u Z-L4.)- `/ /1y 1 :9i I' ,rill; - .;rt JAY , 2- Lf2f YckR A-4 ``77 3 a a �S Ekt/1 /1r1) %,b 1GCCec1i r7 / 9 ,1„,) HI AA `- c, <,a t . v < I`,„,„, `� 7 (F Q Rk (- ) fj -:()/(1-•-•;z /C K, 76-/: [ Di (-) Nig.412-e,z ,�Cc-) A / wc, 6336 CIi?rJ&`lfi Qc,jlG;<i 4,GS 5— 4€ j'/ E 1— 0,1„ 7C / (2) /4/2-1,e (,_->C./f. ?C.r) 22 .27)-1/11-1.2,1/% Clete • A-2; C6 s/ i. TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by AsphaltlPaving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South df Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address Reg. Voter Yes/No _-1 4 f-/- 47- 5 Sr, 7 5 a • 2 2_ jT2i0/!--- 07,* 4 s, i J037 Y3(44 76%2-- ,2,1 - L- ,2,11 »'�' dtv" H3t, V0, 431 iii IND L-141 1-10- 1-1 43 -10L443 boa niol,vkvA 5 % F a �r -47 Yz s ((o(9vamti .T i/c)74-1-4' ',<;(7 jot m 445 N 'Ili 441- 44r 46o 451 45L 453 4 54 1455 45-1- 45( 969 4ko 4(I �GY Nla3 quit Luis TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS; We, the undersigned, hereby pet the Garfield County Comrnissione by Asphalt Paving Company for a operate a gravel extraction pit batch plants ori land situated n just West of County Road No. 31 County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date itian and demand that re deny the application special use permit to and asphalt and concrete ext to the Colorado River. 1, South of Silt, Garfield Residence Address Reg. Voter Yes/No ms`s • E`Ytya��� 9/2/1 7 ,'Aa/ /0/ zea ‘2b 3J Ji<53/Hy& 01`/ X03 - . fw (7�1 i ye, 3/T/22 39/ if' 674 Si// "In J 3 Wier aft .4t PD,6 67y /I q72,4(. TO'7 7-11- t tics LA 71/14 7nZ(,04 col (\, n • !,[t VC1 S c -C% L�P7 > s YYt ve/9 '.v No, 4tolt 4WW y�3 1144 y u -l-5 !o its/ U al- fli l qty /3 Lief '0 4(L W /; TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY \tI E E T 1NC S-_' ;n— • J We, the undersigned; hereby pet the Garfield County Comrnissione by Asphalt Paving Company for a operate a gravel extraction pit batch plants on land situated n just West of County Road No, 31 County, Colorado. Name - Signature Date -C> y) ition and demand that rs deny the application special use permit to and asphalt and concrete ext to the Colorado River 1, South of Silt, Garfield Residence Address Reg. voter Yes/No (%l. /,;,m 4.74,-/%' / 1) 0 h_A,A�iL� taAka3. f c/ -5b , �ik�� l� w(<<�(E C0-4) V.A,6 '. \-c,k-Q "��),4t 3v6 4 3 z )951) :3 r/ i'c)_ d /✓� G�' � u C 1 V S/ 2 6 967"i'o .r /C/. . // Col- ye s te,47» -7f i�-rze ,1,* J` 13d Cly '7! 5�� r2 atfr., /q qr 9% N 10 -1- i/o • qcsat -1=10 491 49 2— `193 l-tq4 IPS �Iq4 4a� 4919 sob No. TL HE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the and the Garfiel by Asphalt operate a g batch plant just West o County, Col ersigned, hereby petition and demand that d County Commissioners deny the application Paving Company for a special use permit to ravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete s on land situated next to the Colorado River F County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfiald orado. Name - Signature Date Residence Address E_ )k,Atter y <rJNy'a 9 Reg, Uotei Yes/No s .z-92 «.rr✓ -5-AV7 z "2(3/ N yrs 5.- -/ Y -a 757/v a A /7/3/g_z1L ; °# �_7 1 Ci v -a - QB1 /11 a ,4, a4 - C/ )- 9r» 407ru& cui4 2 2/ -ate AriLl a/ac Solt $ Ada Sol S10 s.11 5.12— S -t3 51% S15 51� 5I$ 51q 520 574 512 513 5 2y 515 52+ 527+ 51-$, 521 No. . THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby pet the Garfield County Commissions by Asphalt Paving Company for a operate a gravel extraction pit batch plants on land situated n just West or County Road No. 31 County, Colorado. Name - Signature -see wr Date ition and demand that rs deny the application special use permit to and asphalt and concrete ext to the Colorado River 1, South of Silt, Garfield Residence Reg. Votr-r Address Yes/o Ilelk_40 at_ -- /8z ti a-� 44 -- 3 - IF •�. .4te'�,A / S ,-/ 40 .,1 S2 siga i _m.4' 1? • -tom S Z- oZ 5 2 -80 SW) ) 2o N .T `01-01L, 7 991-_ N L- h ±1.4c io 5 IA 240, X031 i.. < C771i s • 530 55 I 53-L 533 LI - 5 { 5 35 5340 5 3-4- 55t s a� 1, (HE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and the Garfield County Commissioners deny th by Asphalt Paving Company for a special u operate a gravel extraction pit and aspha batch plants on land situated next to the just West of County Road No, 311, South o County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address demand that e application se permit to It and concrete Colorado River F Silt, -Garfield Reg, Voter Yes/No _sifr no) Siej 4---E. 4, -t-vrv/ Z 7-; 5140 Cv=62-(A' 5141 54'3 549 5145 LA? 5 t41 - 5N% 549 £ So o �'1 0 -2-1z Stell ?Si toll J 2-S2 � �S 551 557- 553 S5Lj S55 5510 5st Sst 5sq 52 5(Q1 VoZ- 5113 Tu THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a grovel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado (River just West of County Road No, 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address Req. Uotnr Yes/No '7 5a- 8- -�-ez S a - g� A S Z. y 01/Ll 5R -t 51-3 5 1* -1 5}5 1 -le 5-a- 9v9 ;Bo Sin 5 92- fr-5 4t s ate _. iCg$'b Fav TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and the Garfield County Commissioners deny th by Asphalt Paving Company for a special u operate a gravel extraction pit and aspha batch plants on land situated nexL to the just West of County Road No, 311, South o County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address demand that e application se permit to It and concrete Colorado River f Silt, Garfield Reg. Voter Yes/No 5/2/8 i? (7'8c,g(L/SlyeS a ci-L/t- 39 I L i 2L2 7 e , 1 -/'237(Q zQ ) S% t, / ')-7/--(74 7 asks A 4 Peri' v e 7 5c\-- 7 Qs pp� ce ci -; ,cdti� X- a-r'a s<s/ /i 6. �y GG%. 20 593 594 S95 sql� 594. 597 519 (DUO la 0) (gbZ (Qd"3 (toy 605 1toR- TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby pet the Garfield County Commissions by Asphalt Paving Company for a operate a gravel extraction pit batch plants on land situated n just West of County Road No, 31 County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature � t X ,;7Y1 IV /G'\.F U! r kCgQQ ,� Y, k:,L ) Date ition and demand that rs deny the application special use permit to and asphalt and concrete ext to the Colorado River 1, South of Silt, Garfield Residence Reg, Voter Address Yes/No /7 /4(.1211540-L-1- )(\f- 'Jz"�i l 1 /' 3/8„1 7/ nr- n iLn nit L-ff Lt /��? aCC s/ 1;), s� /_/- 4 e /k. /3/S)* IU 1 „Q Yl %/ % ///7»/t- 1L<r/' sin (Z l 2//1/7(4C /4jn44/'1 L: / G:IL)% 2/7 ,/m6-417' Yr' d ///74V /)r (c >, . y (tot / ( am., < tr // 82 73/ /s't'n !%/✓T PR 6/4) 5»4 lj,I, 2 ref �•J < •1 \\J‘ c -1A c)I„ y-/"7-SY2 c'°8o/1/t".4,71 4122 OI Lt fo44 CT // CL 0/ J TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned the Garfield County by Asphalt Paving C operate a gravel ex batch plants on lan just West of County County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature , hereby petition and demand that Commissioners deny the application ompany for a special use permit to traction pit and asphalt and concrete d situated next to the Colorado River Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield Date Residence Address 3/2%4Z / l.— ? l Reg. Voter Yes/No 'o 22- L" 7L 14 '3 45 ':7 Ve 7 S' Y6 S kr—A 2 i y 1, C ( N 6c,{ hRv-r.^--,-S SAO:'„.\ 01/AS n�> an IS i 9- IY- 8�. sal Huffon i He , Co f 013()7 r%52el/7 0, \o l -0,- � C 143') 3y ,'s5 ABC? 31- 25V 431 Mak LYp �Z qq ;45 •`t4 i fttice s41.—,' oto TO AE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No, 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address Reg. Voter Yes/No n'ON) , �2._)rYv / 'X/f,,r 2 .A // s'iI d /A) i//7/ i; / /n ycj / c7T /91/yt�r 2sgs� 3 r»39-! / %{ ? c7 Lye, - / C/�Q't�>oa;i / /2A i r4 g-2, /C// 317/fi /J y/ 2 yz X20 sz � � TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No, 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado, No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address Reg, Voter Yes/No -SI j: ,5Z 53 /li" ;'r Y i ce- .:� - L h'7'3 -/f r 6/ 25/511),:l4 L/C .z% 1 I i •, 4ia.✓ —•o- - a 3 , v 2 /339 [ g 'Y (lit, ` h -i(E "(4)/t /17-5(2 A ,.,, 1/:7 0 71 //L /\:tt (*/ 4,2J El c e,r,[,. y ,55 c- /ai e3-eo--7z of *7 _.90-.,-.,•,,.72.rsoc5;t7. Ste.' ---tall{--<.12----.2-,%s"-S= s()/: 7/.;./„ e/7K/. 6! l /. 15- )./f.t/=r t; ,< �.( J-7 C- L :> C/ jr(<. � /I -J . j`r ji, • 5i(, ") -e (1/ / ,-6-. <c-_ 3 - .2c -A.:-). 7) .x 2, - / (<,;.(' ,l.o ('3 (9 5 j (1.. ;Lti �. P �' 1/iG ?,9 / /7; '/ >(n.�r • 12 s J 141( 7�G „„ ) l )r, (v1� 218 A_x-- s � `ki. /�� ,/ "<t Lo (Un `3Ata,:rl.Y`Z /(/ f/yI(:1 H' Lam= Co -.tr�i11i4, rcc TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South. of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature //a )11 ter,l,— Date Residence Address Reg. Voter Yes/No c td(2A 4/2_1?) -4-z, 4-72z I s4 ,e as/82_ 0313 .)cieD g{) /CJ eV( 57? g �€ /Lc gest/L:177 72c9 C2rch,cA cs ef-1 o TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No, 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature )19u-�,vi (c_ L- atlAf . z4 w1- 0 Date Residence Reg, Voter Address , Yes/No)35 Sr4 Cyd o;s/d z,e rig,/xve -/// (2,7g/Q&(J,��//, z i/lI < - %! ((Big riAl • U//S ‘AL //. cira. �2 e -tz,z, S ,f-- /�coir G� / 71 X50'—e 6, ti�tZ-L / , 3 lz ✓ Z�.irc�. a G�� TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and the Garfield County Commissioners deny th by Asphalt Paving Company for a special u operate a gravel extraction pit and ospha batch plants on land situated next to the just West of County Road No. 311, South o County, Colorado. No. Name - Si n ture Date 2 2R,2ta ' csat1 g ce n -n / ?11...a -i-7. s -,-9-7d-a- %0 f n Residence Address demand that e application se permit to It and concrete Colorado River r Silt, Garfield Reg. voter Yes/No 10 THE CDMNISSID`:ERS OF GARFIELD COt GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and'di the Garfield County Commissioners deny the; by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use per 1„ operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and c hatch plants on land situated next to the Colorado' just blest of County Road No. 311, South of Silt, an County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address Reg. Va Yes/No_ Ay A5 414 Coq -4—z/ Ogg ST L Q_.J L) IaAerS2, 05mj Ti 4 Ji. Ki etLrr Vi -V (9 f s)a, 717 l rft ;,.. ),,, uvrret t U /0.2) i3iAivo G neer veers •" 2 a TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address (v9q -7ci� � Z/30 fr2 /moi Reg. Voter Yes/No TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and the Garfield County Commissioners deny th by Asphalt Paving Company for a special u operate a gravel extraction pit and aspha batch plants on land situated next to the just West of County Road No, 311, South o County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address ^,-tatter-t_-yet /j o cb Ingc > a/ /(// raj, 40 1 1 14 l; c? k% 5 ,v of <-; Pie /I -4J 11/ _KY }-7o demand that e application se permit to It and concrete Colorado River F Silt, Garfield iU-Jt P f). P>ex A U -/4„ ( Rea, Voter Yes/No 0-1-41 (/l 1) apt 1v1n) 03/.5 6 ea {0,2) tt) ,20 zZ ///-51104W- 4 02l ' A 6-4 5 7 5 Sr,C' % /2 /ad --82 �zz�sz 6661 -lit 125T 23 Szz g 3 TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit anri asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No, 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado, No, Name - Signature Date k AA 62 7 Residence Heg. Voter Address Yes/No /7 (7/ K2 12 7 i '7--4' ``3nkwila n 4A/L1)(, a �/ %%9.2_ Leo, --V/2 -150 dl ' %2-� 4-5' L� rn / iul�- y c; -Z, /- ',i z - 29-(Sz2— � , �o- �-.get, roc Atli � Cdo 3J) l c- SI l 7 10 0 7 HE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the under the Garfield by Asphalt Pa operate a gra batch plants just West of -County, Color -sinned, hereby pet County Comrnissione vin.g Company for a vel extraction pit en land situated n County Road No, 31 ado. No. Name - Signature Date ition and PS deny th special u and aspha ext to the 1, South,o Residence Address demand that e application se permit to 11; and concrete ! Colnredo River) F Silt, Garfield Req. Voter Yes/Nn /J n,a-id_'C 473 4'2 /7:2vCie& _ (72 je / :ie.. 0 ; , / 4 -,. , YZ77Z 34'2 41 r r./ ,, tri laserS ({,lil � /� 5` 3 _81 Ivy 65( • • lLi..._.. 14 ifibrA' L _ / or At, ,A, , 3-. Q 1.= ter - ti y/Z 3�_ t ; 40 41141 . z 10 4 �{ 23 g 2 e o %C,6)C 19 22_(0') a• J - 4tld1a alr 6,151 ttL-cf.,d TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby pet the Garfield County Commissions by Asphalt Paving Company for a operate a gravel extraction pit batch plants on land situated n just West of County Road No. 31 County, Colorado. ition and demand that rs deny the application special use permit to and asphalt and concrete ext to the Colorado River 1, South of Silt, Garfield No. Name - Signature Date Residence Address /41C y/4o/1,) A GI /f/,k/-/)'/ y-,2, 4%Alf Otte Reg. Voter Yes/No /o /& yap/(4.1.� 0 C AR it_ ,l , , , / r') 'r,''>622 1 4t(tit. `\�l �7<.r it az! Rz 9iesn .tea rprCnos latto 6s,1 - Etti u. D_ (a-ente a „Qa/gpd 23‘y C J // ,C0.4.16 0 *7/n /60 6 sdnvo L 2.7182 1(035- f-A23 (D35 cetrni- :'x.>3 FCc444 -T e;wn Ci 3'l 4'%9$/6'89 (aGi /3/s7 c, g, b e- s L ,uco,kiLo n?) j/,). eSLA- 5, 0 - \, ez7Iza rr\osboi-,k.0 YI H)) Lf/ -7/8'2 I o o,S \c) (9 / YAS'Iga-) 1(3i5--- fifvn Ced.e-di ) dL 7173 isL /Oat& 641Don_L(aG 4/2x/ a (PO, gox sow a6o-,,„02a_4, 4L / p (r) CI TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY GREETINGS: We, the undersigned, hereby petition and demand that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a special use permit to operate a gravel extraction pit and asphalt and concrete batch plants on land situated next to the Colorado River just West of County Road No. 311, South of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name - Signature kik z. Cfr BUS s i erlvA-?e,reE,P,1 fgq, Amell y6 4. L . l E' &o R C14P4 A/06 ,J ‘iii / 2 .O7 40/iii P/2K.l r 4' ea Date ,1G Residence Address //4 g -I30 '129 %i.AkGr 41/?� /�9C'Ak/3arvY1f1lF � c/3 a - cl) Ito Ito, g42,4r4 l)f-A. Po1�,��03� 61619 +hay, bi 5/3 SLS cJ. / Reg. Voter Yes/No GS palr GARFLD COUNTY CITIZENS ASSOCI,=ON25 ' '77/,;)!N / April 26, 1982 P. 0. Box 604 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Garfield County Planning Commission 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Garfield County Planning Commission Members: The Garfield County Citizens Association asks that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Asphalt Paving Company proposal for gravel pit operations west of County Road 311 and south of Silt. On Monday, April 19, the Citizens Association voted to oppose this pit because we feel it creates unnecessary hardships and hazards for nearby residents and residents throughout the County as well. Of greatest concern to the Citizens Association are the cumu- lative impacts of gravel mining on residents in the Silt vicinity. We believe that the noise, dust and fumes from the existing four pits, three within a half mile of each other, already cause severe hardships for residents. The impacts of another large pit would create an intolerable situation. A single town or neighborhood cannot be expected to endure the combined effects of five pits. Fugitive dust, noise and fumes are not only aesthetic concerns but can cause health problems as well. Traffic also must be considered cumulatively. The Town of Silt and prospective neighbors have said repeatedly that an estimated more than 2000 vehicle trips per day on the frontage road and through the interchange would result in serious problems. These include safety hazards, potential road damage and conflicts with the town's efforts to attract other businesses and industry to the area. In addition, we believe that this pit is injurious to the existing character of the neighborhood. In a domino fashion, gravel pits in the Silt area are industrializing what has been traditionally ranching and residential neighborhoods. We believe furthermore that the burden of proof must be on Asphalt Paving Company to document that still another pit is needed in that particular location at this time. Within the last couple of months, Asphalt had a large 108 acre pit approved on the Colorado River in Debeque. When Asphalt Paving met with residents, company representatives indicated that it had purchased the Silt site with the idea of bidding on paving the Rifle Airport. We think those con- tracts were awarded a long time ago. The company also stated that possibly it might help pave Glenwood Canyon. The company representa- tive admitted that the proposed operation was a "bit speculative." The company should have proof of contracts above and beyond what its Debegue operation can supply. Garfield County Planning Commission April 26, 1982 Page two The gravel pit industry or the County has yet to produce fig- ures to document that more gravel pits are needed in Garfield County. The County does not yet know the number of existing pits, let alone the acreage and the tons of estimated output for these pits. The gravel pit industry reiterates that these pits are neces- sary for oil shale development, while the future of oil shale ap- pears precarious. The industry has not revealed any figures to show that the existing pits cannot produce the tons of gravel that cur- rent projects require. At a number of pits in the County, residents observe huge stockpiles of gravel. Under all these conditions, prospective neighbors see no reason why they must sacrifice their quality of life, jeopardize their health, have their property devalued, etc. for a fifth gravel pit. The Garfield County Citizens Association supports the Town of Silt. We feel the interests of the town, its water system, its en- trance, its projected comprehensive plan, deserve protection. We share the concerns of the Division of Wildlife. We do not, however, believe that the mitigation measures proposed by the Divi- sion are adequate to protect the endangered bald eagle. Because the communal roose site is one of only four such sites on the Colorado River, we believe a gravel pit here would constitute too grave a threat to this protected species. For this reason alone, we believe denial is the only appropriate course of action. Garfield County needs to remember that its decisions can affect the ecosystem throughout the Region. The future of the Colorado River Corridor must be of grave concern to all of us. The fate of the bald eagle in this Region, again, can serve as an example. The site of the pit which Asphalt Paving just had approved in Debeque also is a wintering ground for the bald eagle. Finally, while Silt residents would be most directly injured by approval of this pit, residents throughout the county would suffer as well. Tourism is still the primary economy in Garfield County, and all of us living here benefit financially from it. It is an industry which can survive the ups and downs, the booms and busts of oil shale development. No one knows whether tourists will con- tinue to want to visit Northwestern Colorado as industrialization proceeds. After all, who chooses to visit Detroit? Oil Shale is not an either/or proposition with tourism but county government and planners must keep in mind the needs of both industries. Gouging up the visually sensitive Colorado River Corridor for gravel will not contribute to our tourism economy. Not only are those tourists travelling I-70 affected, but also gravel pits and rafters are not especially compatible. Garfield Cc .ty Editing Commission April 26, 1982 Page three Residents throughout the County also can be affected by the fugitive dust emissions from these pits (dust also has implications for tourism). We saw last summer and fall that Battlement Mesa con- struction dust was visible in Glenwood Springs. Any rafter here knows wind comes up the Colorado River in the afternoons and the dust necessarily accompanies the air currents. The traffic hazards and congestion which this pit would cause obviously could affect any of us in the County or any visitor. Repeatedly, residents have heard gravel industry representatives say that property values will only be affected in the short term by these pits because once a pit ceases operation, property values will rebound. (When pits are approved for 25, 30 or even 96 years as some in the County have been, this argument does not apply'.) Similarly, the Garfield County Citizens Association believes that prospective gravel pit operators can also wait. The resource will remain. The front pages of all the Garfield County Zoning Regulations contain this statement, "This land belongs to my people. Some of them are dead. Some of them are living. But most of them have not yet been born." We hope that all of you consider the value of this philosophy for Garfield County as you make your decisions. Hopefully, oil shale development will not consume all of the oil shale and all of the gravel that future generations will need. At the least, given that the gravel industry can prove the need for more operations, these pits can be developed in a serial fashion instead of simulta- neously. As one gravel reserve is depleted, another operation can start up. This course would be the most rational and least destruc- tive for all of us. Thank you very much for listening. Sincerely, For the/Garfield Coun !/ itizens Association Friday, March 26, 1982 — Glenwood Springs (Colo.) POST — Paga 13 PUBLIC NOTICE Take notice that Asphalt Paving Company hos applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield Count' ty, Stale of Colorado, to grant a Special Use Permit in connection with: the following described property. situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado: to.wit: Legal Description: SEA. NE'/. Section 10: NE'., NW'. and SW'L of the SE. Section 10: E '4 of the SW A. of Section 10. T. 6 5., R. 92 W. of the 6th P.M. in Garfield County, Colorado. • Proc col Description (location wih reipe'c io higWway, County roods and residences): '4 mile iE6tkbf Sin, on Iwo islands in the Colorado Rivei, Wes? 01 Cbuni914ad 311. '' .).:O' i-.ln)is, • Said Special Use Permit is to allow the Petitioners to develop an open pit sand and grovel mine;and asphalt 8 concrete batch plants on the above described proper ty.• All persons affected by the proposed Special Use Per- mit ermit ore Invited to appear and stale their views. protests or objections, 0 yod connol appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to note your views by letter. particularly if you have objections to such Special Use Permit, as the Board of County missloners will give consideration Po the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected In deriding whether to grant or deny the request for special use. This Special Use Permit application may be reviewed at the office of. the Planning Department looted at 2014 Bloke, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. that public hearing on the application for the above Special Use Permit hos been set for the 3rd day of May. 1982, at the hour of 9:15 A.M. anhe office of the Board of County Commissioners, In the Courthouse, Glen- , wood Springs, Colorado. • Dennis A. Stronger _ Planning Director 'Garfield County, Colorado Published March 26, 1982 In the Glenwood Post. 0074 County Road 225 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Iday 4, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners: I ur e ,;ou to listen to the res is and voters of this county snd prevent :.srh It raving Co, ro;,, t , Heron Island and traumabizolu the surrounding area. Your nain responsibility is to the peopleo3` einifi,ld -Oe-Erne nu'„ industry. By approving this project, you would de:onstr t,; a complete insensitivity to the very reople who put their faith in you when they elected you into office. I :^ill not forget the «,come of this dilemma in years to come. I have read that the Roman statesman, Cicero (106-43 B.J.), said, "Politicians aren't born, they are eviceeb-;1," (Har -liar) lvsonday you have the chance to prove him wrong. y0 IT! In friendship, R Gilbei .Idahl, P.E. Ann B. Hodgson Rindahl 8 Associates • P.O. Box 24166 • 2180 S. Ivanhoe Street • Denver, CO 80222-0166 • 692-0922 April 13, 1982 Town of Silt P.O. Box 174 Silt, CO 81652 Gentlemen: In conformance with the rules and regulations established by the Garfield County Board of Commissioners, the attached notice is being sent to you in order to inform you of the application of Asphalt Paving Company to mine aggregate 1/2 mile south of Silt, CO. Should you wish to obtain additional information regarding the project, you may contact any of the individuals indicated in the notice. Very truly yours, RINDAHL & ASSOCIATES Ann B. Hodgson / Manager Environmental ervices ABH/ln Resource Engineering 8 Environmental Services COMMENTS BEFORE THE GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY 3, 1982 First of all, I wanted to stress that the position that the Garfield County Citizens Association has taken was not directed against Asphalt Paving Company. We believe the Company would probably try to do its best to be a good neighbor. It has indi- cated that it would make various concessions in the interest of residents, wildlife, etc. Asphalt Paving has a 200 acre quarry in Jefferson County. Their County Planning staff described the Company last week as "conscientious". The staff person in Jef- ferson County said there had been problems several years ago, but that since sitting down and discussing those problems the Company has been "one of the best in the County." Rather the Garfield County Citizens Association has taken a stand against this particular pit in this particular location at this particular time. We are against this particular pit because we are not satisfied that Silt's water system and sewage lagoons will not be damaged. The Company's activities after all could result in rechanneling the River. We also are not satisfied that residents will not be en- dangered by the increased traffic. We have yet to see the traffic from the Corn and Frei pits at full operation. There have been a number of accidents because of an inadequate road serving one gravel pit in the county. We also are not satisfied that wildlife using the islands and the river in this location will not be irreparably harmed by this operation. We are against this particular location for a gravel pit be- cause we believe the cumulative impacts from pits already operating May 3, 1982 page three Asphalt Paving Company would not necessarily lose on its investment if that pit were not developed immediately. Several times we have heard that the Company is a taxpayer with the impres- sion being that the Company is contributing to County coffers and getting nothing from its idle piece of property. County records show the taxes for this particular piece of property, 1981-1982, were $248.61 because the Company pays an agricultural rate. The Company cannot mitigate the problem of cumulative impacts. The County can solve this problem throughout Garfield County simply by not allowing all these pits to be developed simultaneously. One solution to cumulative impacts is the serial extraction of gravel from different locations. As one operation finishes taking the gravel that is recoverable in one location, another operation can start up. As our County Commissioners, you have the right and the re- sponsibility to ensure that this resource is developed in a way that harms as few and benefits as many of the residents as possible. This valuable resource, which will be essential to development here, should not be squandered for short-sighted short-term gains by a few. May 3, 1982 page two in that vicinity create too great a burden for residents. Adding another pit would drive some residents from their homes. It would create an unbearable situation. It is impossible for the Company to ameliorate the damage it would do by simply becoming the fifth gravel pit in that area. Dust may be controlled possibly, but the added noise, traffic, unsightliness, odor and general activity can- not be mitigated. We believe the County Commissioners have the authority to deny a pit based on cumulative impacts alone. Jefferson County recently denied three gravel pit proposals in part because of cumulative impacts. For the people who live there, it seems that approving this pit would be like deliberately placing them in a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation. Finally,we are against this pit in this location at this par- ticular time. No one has demonstrated an urgent need for more gravel at this time. (In fact there appears to be a glut right now.) If the time has come for the oil shale industry, which is debatable right now, it will take decades to build the plants and homes for the people it will bring. Union is just beginning the permitting process for facilities that would not be completed until the 1990s. Chevron has yet to get its permits or to decide even where it will build. Mobil has not even started the permitting process. But if Western Colorado is to be industrialized, the 1990s and even 2000 are just the shortterm. The building of this industry would continue on well into the next century.