HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Resolution 82-118STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
County of Garfield
At a re.gula.r meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado,
held at the Court House in Glenwood Springs on Monday the....24.tr day of
Nay A. D. 19..8.2.. there were present:
EkaM.en....,1 C.c.r.ls.e Commissioner Chairman
£S.lgane....prinicho..ua.e Commissioner
Larry tY.eiaa.glle,Z Commissioner
.. a.r.k...�.h.o.de.s County Attorney
L.eannGkek,.an.d......D. P.ut. Clerk of the Board
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION 182-118
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:
SE; of the NE3 of Section 10; NE; of the NW;, and the
SW; of the SE; of Section 10; El of the Sw; 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 question 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 with general principles of administrative
law and §24-4-105(7), C.R.S. 1973, as amended, the burden of proof is on
the applicant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that its land
use application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
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
affected by the possible granting of the proposed special use permit,
and further, 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.
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
and 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
applicant 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 40-50 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
proposal, 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
property may lower the water level at the facility, and there is the
possibility that the mining operation in itself or in conjunction with
a flood on the Colorado River would cause a change in the course of the
river 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
all other undesirable environmental effects beyond 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 5.03.07 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 special 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 gravel pits in the general 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.
12. That the Board of County Commissioners hereby finds
that deposits of commercial grade gravel is of importance to the
general welfare of Garfield County and that there is a need to conserve
valuable resources for future generations. To the extent that the
County has recently permitted a number of other Pits in the general
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
neighborhood of the applicant's proposed use. The Town of Silt has
strongly objected to the applicant's proposal, since the subject property
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 allowing the applicant's
proposed use, at this time, would be harmful to the present character
of the Town of Silt and its orderly growth in the future.
14. That on May 11, 1981, the Garfield County Planning
Commission adopted the Garfield County comprehensive plan of 1981,
pursuant to 530-28-106, 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 similar development already exists in appropriate areas;
and objective seven (page 12): Encourage industrial development in
areas where adequate transportation facilities and public utilities are
available.
2) Part two, management districts, re: Silt urban area of
influence (page 59) provides in pertinent part "the Silt bridge has a
15 -ton limit, and replacement of the bridge is necessary due to the
large volume of traffic and services. Development which would Place
further traffic on this bridge should be required to contribute to its
replacement 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 basis of...(2)inadequate road access which will create
an inadequate road with large daily traffic volumes."
4) Part two: Management districts, re: Silt urban area of
influence (page 58) which provides in pertinent part: "much of the
area surrounding Silt is agrarian. New development should minimize
impacts on the agrarian character of the area."
5) Part three: Performance standards, re: Compatibility
(pages 89-94) 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, odors, and visual unsightliness
as, "hazards to public health and safety," and "nuisances to the
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 County 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 proposed use will cause economic injury to other
property owners in the neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, that the
special use permit application of Asphalt Paving Company for a gravel
pit, concrete and asphalt batch plant be and hereby is denied.
DATED THIS ,/'T day of May, 1982
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
,.
Chairman
Attest:
41-0-1 C14-.414—
ty Clerk of the Board
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
ELaven._J C.e.riae Aye
Eugeae....Drinkho.us.e Aye
Larry VeLa.8.q.uQ.z Aye
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Garfield
Commissioners
I, County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Order is truly copied from the Records of
the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs,
this day of A. D. 19
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners.
EXHIBIT A
A parcel of land located In Section 10, 7ornsblp 6 So h, [Lange 92 Lest
of the Etta L.1;. being tore particularly described as Co s:
beytnr.ino et a point or. tM_ ¥est line of Cl ty Road thence a tleander
Corner 1980 feet Horth of the Southeast Co of sold Sects 30 bears
5, E7'10' L. 540.0 feet and tiorth 180.0 fee
thonee 5. 70'0' L. 310.0 feet;
thence. S. 61'30' W. 850.0 fee
thence S. 7r ZS' V. 450.0 fee
thence S. 41'35' k 315.0 feet:
thence 5. 67 17, W. 511.5 feet;
thence L. 6rIC' 1033.55 feet;
thence h. 2E'47' 229.6E feet;
thence h. 32'20' L. 040.22 feet;
thence horth 640.0 f t
thence 5. EV 40' L. 3 J feet;
thence I.. El'O' L. 600.0 feet;
thence E. 70'4D' L. 400.0 feet;
thence D. 65'30' C. 300.0 feet;
thence F. 83'30' 1. 330.0 feet;
thence 5. ErSO' L. 750.0 feet;
thence E. E5'05' L. 350.0 feet;
thence S. 7:120' L. 230.0 feet to a point on the West line of the County
hoad;
thence South along said West line of County Road 1090.99 feet, cart or less,
to the point of beginning.
COLO OF GARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO
-LKS PRE` -SENT:
ierne Starbuck
ie McPherson
le Albertson, Acting Chairman
hn Tripp
rbara Lorah
Ian Bowles
ck Martin
elyn McKay
EXHIBIT B
April 26, 1982
COUNTY OFFICIALS PRESENT:,
i mnis Stranger, Planning Dir
Lee Merkel, Impact Coordinato
Earl Rhodes, County Attorney
Paul Mannino, Planner
Davis Farrar, Planner
Terry Bowman, Planner
Lisa Williams, Recording :'Seer
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Acting Chairman, Dale Albertson.
Roll call was taken with Arnold Mackley absent for this meeting. Allan Bowles
arrived during the meeting.
There were no minutes to approve from the April 12, 1982 meeting. Lee Merkel address
the Planning Commission on his present status with the county. He has moved his office
to the County Commissioners office on 8th Street. Dennis Stranger will now be the depart-
ment head for the Planning Department.
ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY/SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Terry Bowman briefly reviewed the history of the request for an open pit sand and
gravel mine and asphalt and concrete batch plants 1 mile south of Silt on two islands
in the Colorado River. She stated that a meeting had been held at the Planning Depart-
ment office since the last public meeting on the special use permit for Asphalt Paving.
Included in that meeting were the Division of Wildlife; Leonard Bowlby; Mike Wikoff (Town
of Silt); Asphalt Paving Company; Rindahl and Associates; and Terry Bowman. Items
discussed were eliminating Phase V of the mining operation, and the concerns of the
Town of Silt.
Ms. Bowman went over the concerns of the planning staff regarding the pit. Jeff
Keller, of Asphalt Paving Company, presented maps of the proposed changes to the mining
operation. He stated that the Asphalt Paving Company had addressed each concern presented
to the company, including buffering for the batch plants. The plant area had been changed
to above the 700 year floodplain and also to keep all the intensive activity in one site
rather than spread out. Concerning the truck traffic, Mr. Keller expected owning
roughly 6 to 8 trucks with a total of 40-50 trips per day. The haul road will be paved.
Mr. Keller addressed the dust factor, stating that the pit will be a "wet pit" which
will not contribute dust to the area. He noted that the smoke concern stated by many
people in the area should not be a concern because it is steam, not smoke, coming from
the batch plant.
Mr. Keller stated that the Silt Bridge would not be a problem because hauling would b
kept to a minimum.
Dale Albertson asked if any hauling out would be done, or would the company just haul
in materials until the new bridge is complete.
Pill Keller replied that he could see no problem with stockpiling 'materials, for one
year, and not hauling any materials out. He also noted that the land has very limited
uses. The reclamation plan will actually enhance the area when operations are complete.
Dale McPnerson asked how many feet were included in the buffer zone in Phase IV, on
the lower end. He was curious as to why the lower portion wasn't left as a buffer zone.
Jeff Keller noted that the buffer zone was approximately. 200 feet, however he could
see no problem with possibly leaving the lower portior, as an island.
Evelyn McKay asked the planning staff what other uses could be established on this
particular piece of land.
Mr. Stranger lasted the uses by right in the zoning regulations.
John Tripp asked how many employees Asphalt Paving intended to have during mining
operations.
Mr. Keller replied approximately 30 to 50 people, depending on the market for their
product.
Chairman Albertson asked for any comments from the floor.
Judy Moffat, of the Garfield County Citizens Association stated that Asphalt Paving
should have bought this piece of property on an option rather than buying it knowing they
would have to obtain a special use permit. She also felt that there was no documentation
proving a need for this operation.
Dor, Tnrom, an adjoining landowner, asked the Planning Commission to consider the
total affect of the pits already established in the area. He felt that there was too
much impact on the residents already.
Larry Keller addressed the Planning Commission by stating his property was directly
across from this proposal. He felt that the smell
noise
twouwould
e ibes aextcnsive.
heavy conceniration
John Evans, a resident of Garfield County, stated that
of gravel pits in the Silt area and one has already had to shut down due to lack of
business. He said that if Aspnalt Paving can afford to stockpile materials for a year,
then they obviously had no contracts as of yet.
Fr. Thro: interjected that he had a petition with approximately 450 names, in
opposition of the pit.
;:r. Yeller addressed these concerns by stating that Deming to buffer the noise and
sight of the pit would be used. He said that batch plants in this day and age are much
more sophisticated than the people at this meeting are familiar with. He also stated
that his co npany does have customers ready and willing to buy from him and also they have
their own projects to supply materials to.
"Age 2, Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 3987
Larry Keller was concerned that the berm Asphalt Paving intends to build could
possibly divert floodwaters onto his property, should a flood occur.
Chairman Albertson comments that this pit would not impact the Town of Silt as
much as was being commented on. He addressed the planning staff by stating that they
were "rubber stamping" every concern silt had. In his opinion, silt is =tailing for
time. He said that the applicants have made every effort to be compatible with everyone.
he noted that the Silt Bridge should be built before hauling takes place.
Dale McPnerson also felt that the company had mitigated with everyone to their
satisfaction. He did think that the Silt Bridge should be completed before operations
begin.
Laverne Starbuck asked the audience if there was anyone present who opposed other
gravel pits in the area. several people said that the time limit was too short.
Hrs. Starbuck agreed with Mr. McPherson and Chairman Albertson. She felt that
if the Town of Silt was so concerned about this project, then they •should just buy the
land from Asphalt Paving and be done With it.
Evelyn McKay said the noise from a gravel pit does not carry as much as one would thi
especially next to a river.
Mrs. Starbuck asked what the time limit proposed on the pit was.
Ms. Bowman replied that the proposal was for 10 years.
Mr. Yeller said that since Phase V has been eliminated, 8 years would be sufficient.
Barbara Lorah asked about flood plain study. She felt that documentation was needed.
Mr. Stranger stated that the critical question was what the mining operation would
do to the flood flow, etc.
Barbara Loran also mentioned that the ethics of the planning staff should not be dis-
cussed at a public meeting. She felt that the Planning Commission should trust the staff
to do their job:
Laverne Starbuck was appointed to vote.
Mrs. Starbuck moved to recommend approval to the Board -of County Commissioners with
the provisions that an evaluation he done on the impacts to the Colorado River; all
building structures be removed after operations have ceased; the permat only be for
5 Years; the ouestaon of berms he agreeable to the Throms and the Kellers; stockpiling
c` materials will be utilized until the Silt Bridge is completeu, that the Aspnalt Paving
Company abade by their concessions stated in the letter of April 1, 1987 to Inc Planning
Department; andi that the applicant agree to an island in Phase TV. including the cotton..oc
trees present.
Dale McPherson seconded the motion.
P. poll was taken of the vnf ine members:
EzPi,erson: yes; Albertson: yes; Starbuck: yes; Lorah: no; and Tripp: no.
Motion carried.
COUNTRYSIDE SUBDIVISION/PRLLIMIMA.RY PIAT
Davis Tariar reviewed -the request for 22 single family lots on 4.52 acres located
in Rifle Village South subdivision. This is a continuation of a public hearing. Mr.
Farrar stated that the water question had not been resolved as of yet. The Rifle Village
South Metro District has not filed a plan of augmentation with the Division of Water
Seeources. Tne planning staff recommends tabling this preliminary plat public hearing
indefinitely until the water question is solved.
Clifford sisk, of Countryside Subdivision, addressed the Planning Commission stating
that be has called the Rifle Village South Metro District to find out the status of the
plan of augmentation. He has not been able to find anything out; therefore, requests
an extension of time.
Bob Coloroso, of Coloroso Subdivision, asked the Planning Commission if a letter of
augmentation was in the hands of the Planning Commission, would the augmentation plan have
to be complete
Mr. Stranger replied yes.
Mr. Coloroso mentioned -that individual landowners are obtaining building permits
all over Rifle Village South and being supplied water. He said that he felt this wasn't
fair of the Planning Commission to make his project and others wait.
Mr. Farrar noted that Countryside and Coloroso Subdivisions have both had conditions
placed on them that they have their plans for augmentation by preliminary plat and both
subdivisions have proceeded with preliminary plat without this information.
I:r. Coloroso asked Rr. Anodes if the Planning Commission had the right to question
and challange a water district.
Hr. Rnodes replied that not only does the commission have the legal right, but it is
their duty.
Barbara Lorah moved to continue the public hearing for Countryside Subdivision
indefinitely in order for the Division of Water Resources to send an affirmative reply
ir, regard to the water supply and for an engineer's certification on the capabilities
of the district to supply water.
Dale McPherson seconded the motion.
A. poll was taken of the voting members:
Albertson: yes; McPherson: yes; Tripp: yes; Lorah: yes; and Starbuck: yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
EXHIBIT C
STATE OF COLORADO
County Of Garfield
At a regular meeting of the Board of County Comminionen for Garfield Gounty, Colorado,
held at the Court House in Glenwood springs on Monday the....24.th.__ day or
.Uay A. D. 19.B2 there were present:
I:Laval..L....C.e.r1SE Commisdona Chairman
Eugene...Ari.nkhause Commiacone
Larry V.e.lasq.uaz commission[,
£.arl....Rho.des County Attomey
L.e.aune....Cl.elan.d.....Depuzy clerk or the Board
when the hollowing proceedings, among othm were had and done, towir
RESOLUTION €82-118
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 59.03 of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution, on the following described tract of
land:
SEe of the NE: of Section 10; NE: of the NWS, and the
SW; of the SE: of Section 10; £h of the SW1 of Section
)0, Tp E 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 59.03.04 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 59.03.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
regarding the question 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 with general principles of administrati
law and 524-4-105(7), C.R.S. 1973, as amenoeo, re,e buruen of proof is on
the applicant to snow ny a preponderance of the evidence that its land
use application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
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
mrt •
s
affected by the possible granting of the proposed special use permit,
and further, 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.
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,
uvon the value of adjoining properties and other properties in the area
and its impact on tne •Town of Silt.
7. That there is substantial evidence in the record of
inadequate road access from the proposed site of operations of the
applicant 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 40-50 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
proposal, 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
f2roperty may lower the water level at the facility, and there is tne
possibility that the my ung operation in itself or in conjunction with
flood on the Colorado River would cause a change in the course of the
river 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 beyond 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 5.03.07 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 special 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 gravel pits in the general area of the proposed use
would have an adverse effect on the general welfare of Garfield County
ac a result of the increase in dust, noise, and visual pollution.
12. That the Board of County Commissioners hereby finds
7 that deposits of commercial grade gravel is of importance to the
general welfare of Garfield County and that there is a need to conserve
valuable resources for
tgenerations.
the
extent
thethat
Cgeneral
County has recently pp
ermiteu anumberof otherpits
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
neighborhood of the applicant's
proposed
proposal, sinceotheof Silt subjecthproperty
as
strongly
objected to the applicant's
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 allowing the applicant's
proposed use, at this time, would be harmful to the present character
of the Town of Silt and its orderly growth in the future.
14. That on May 11, 1981, the Garfield County Planning
Commission adopted the Garfield County comprehensive plan of 1981,
pursuant to S30-28-106, 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 similar development already exists in appropriate areas;
and objective seven (page 12): Encourage industrial development in
areas where adequate transportation facilities and public utilities are
available.
2) Part two, management districts, re: Silt urban area of
influence (page 59) provides in pertinent part 'the Silt bridge has a
1S -ton limit, and replacement of the bridge.is necessary due to the
large volume of traffic and services. .DevelOpment which would place
further traffic on this bridge should be required to contribute to its
replacement or approval withheld until the bridge can safely and
.ideguately 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 basis of...(2)inadequate road access which will create
an inadequate road with large daily traffic volumes."
4) Part two: Management districts, re: Silt urban area of
influence (page 58) which provide n pertinent 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 89-94) 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, odors, and visual unsightliness
as, "hazards to public health and safety," and "nuisances to the
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 County 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 proposed use will cause economic injury to other
property owners in the neighborhood.
Irian
w
NOW, T*1EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
;pecissi uers for
the County of
of Garfield, Asphat Paving Company Colorado, or ahat the
gravel
sptcicl use permit app
)it, concrete and asphalt batch plant be and .hereby is denied.
DATED THIS . day of May, 1982
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Attest:
Y
Clerk of the Board
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Reeoludoo was adopted by the following vote:
l.auen...J.._..C.e.rAye
.ise Aye
Eugen.e._.Drinkhause Aye
lag ry....Vel aquez
Comm;ednnet
STATE OF COLORADO las
County of Garfield
........, County Oeh and ea -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commission
................................
" '-- copied from the Records of
1. ...........-.......that the armued and foregoing Order is mWY
Nand for i s of e Board of
ounIYaforesid do booby [artily d Garfield County, now in my office.
Ne Proceedings of the bond of County Co¢miu.oners
16 WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have br eunlo Bei »9d and ffrae the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs,
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION OF
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECORD
In accordance with the Rule 44(3)(1) of the Colorado Rules of Civil
Procedure, the undersigned is the duly elected and qualified Clerk and Recorder
of Garfield County, Colorado, and serves ex -officio as Clerk to the Board of
County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, and in such capacity has the
duty of maintaining and does, in fact, have legal custody and maintain the
official records of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, and
(2) that the foregoing Resolutions No. 79-1, 79-132, 79-140, 80-46, 80-64, and
80-180 are true and correct copies of the proceedings of the Garfield County
Board of County Commissioners and that such Resolutions comprise the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution, as amended, in effect on the 3d day of November,
1980, and (3) that the undersigned is entrusted with the seal of the County of
Garfield, State of Colorado, in witness whereof said seal has been affixed to
the within Certificate of Authentication of Board of County Commissioners'
Record.
Done and dated the _ day of , 1982.
Mildred Alsdorf, Clerk and Recorder
of Garfield County, Colorado, and
ex -officio Clerk to the Hoard of
County Commissioners of Garfield
County, Colorado
GARFIELD
COUNTY
SEAL