Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 06.20.2000REQUEST: BOCC 6/20/00 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Special Use Permit for extraction of Natural Resources (sand and gravel mining), processing (concrete batch plant) and mining in a floodplain APPLICANTS: Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. LOCATION: A parcel of land located in portion of Section 12, T6S, R92W of the 6th P.M.; more practically described as a parcel located south of the River Frontage Road, approximately two (2) miles east of Silt. SITE DATA: 41.07 acres WATER: Well SEWER: Portable toilets ACCESS: River Frontage Road EXISTING ZONING: Agricultural/Industrial (Ail) I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is located in District F - River/Flood Plain Severe Environmental Constraints and District D — Rural Areas / Severe -Moderate Environmental Constraints on the 1984, Comprehensive Plan Management Districts map. IL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site slopes from the northeast to the southwest, toward the Colorado River. The property is located between the frontage road and the Colorado 1 River and has been used as pasture. There are no structures on the property at this time. B. Project Description: The applicants are requesting the issuance ofa special use permit to allow for the extraction of sand and gravel and concrete batch plant on the 41.07 acre tract of land. The applicants propose to mine approximately two-thirds of the acreage, starting from the river and moving north toward the frontage road. initially, the topsoil and overburden will be stripped and stockpiled along the northern boundary of the property, adjacent to the frontage road. The actual mined area will be approximately 25.9 acres and the depth of the gravel layer is estimated to be 22 feet. The pit will be mined in three or four stages varying in size from eight (8) to eleven (1 I) acres. The material will be excavated by using front end loaders and/or backhoes. All crushing, screening and washing of aggregate will occur in the proposed mining area as shown on the application. The concrete batch plant will be located in the same area and moved northward as the pit is mined. The operation will use well water for the concrete batch plant and limited domestic purposes. Sewage will be handled by portable toilets. All traffic will access the River Frontage Road and head west to access 1-70 at the Silt Interchange. The expected maximum traffic will be 180 ADT per day. Hours of operation will be 7 a.m. to 5 p. m., Monday through Saturday. See a copy of the applicant's impact statement. The mining operation will start in the southern portion of the property and work north, creating a lake as a result ofa high water table. The south half of the project is in the area shown as an area of shallow flooding during a 100 year flood event. 111. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS Zoning: The requested land use is a Special Use in the Agricultural/industrial zone district and subject to the supplementary standards contained in Section 5.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. Comprehensive Plan: The following statements are from the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies applicable to this application: A. "Encourage industrial expansion where similar development already exists in appropriate areas, i.e. within or adjacent to platted industrial parks, within designated industrial zones in existing towns, or adjacent to existing similar development." 2 B. "The County may deny development proposals on the basis of 1.) Lack of access to the site; 2.) Inadequate road access which will create an inadequate road with large daily truck volumes; or, 3.) A road which is already at or above its design capacity and due to the terrain or geology of the area, cannot be further improved to safely accommodate additional daily traffic." 3, Regulations Pertaining to Industrial Operations. A gravel extraction operation falls under the following industrial classification, per Section 2,02.31: Extraction: "to draw out or forth; hence to derive as if by drawing out", removal of physical matter in a solid , liquid or gaseous state from its naturally occurring location; the initial step in utilization of a natural resource; examples include petroleum and natural gas wells, shale and coal mines, gravel pits, timber cutting Pursuant to Section 5.03 of the Zoning Resolution, all special uses are required to meet criteria concerning adequacy of infrastructure, access and minimizing disturbing to adjacent properties. 1] Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Environmental Health Officer shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Domestic water will be provided by a domestic well and sewage will be treated through the use of portable vault type units. Electricity and telephone will come from the existing lines adjacent to the public right-of-way on the north side of the property. Portable tanks will be brought onto the site for propane gas. 2] Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide .safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall he constricted in conjunction with the proposed use. All access will be onto the River Frontage road, which has access controlled by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). CDOT has issued an access permit allowing 100 ADT for the gravel operation and 100 ADT for the concrete batch plant. The applicant has proposed 180 ADT maximum for the overall operation. The application will be limited to 180 ADT and to compliance with the CDOT access permit requirements. The County has no direct jurisdiction over the condition of the road serving the proposed gravel pit, since CDOT is responsible for all maintenance and repair of the roadway. 3 3] Design of the proposed use is organized 10 minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect the established neighborhood character. The applicant has designed the gravel pit to minimize the impacts on through the location of topsoil stockpiles on the north portion of the site. The site plan shows these stockpiles being located on the northern portion of the area to be mined, with a processing area within and outside of the pit. It would be staff's suggestion that the topsoil stockpiles be moved further north to visually buffer the majority of the processing area from the 1-70 corridor. No operations will occur at night, so lighting will not be needed on the site. Any signs will have to meet the Garfield County Sign Code requirements. Section 5.03.07 includes a description of an impact statement required as part of the SUP submittal. These Regulations require that the applicant provide the following information: (A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface nm -off, stream flow or ground water; The normal surface drainage points will remain the same, subject to meeting the Colorado Department of Health , Water Quality Control Division , Wastewater Discharge Permit. Dewatering of the pit will have no effect beyond 50 to 75 feet. There are no other water users within that area. Depletion of the water from the pit due to evaporation is being accommodated through the approval an augmentation plan to be approved by the courts prior to the final approval of the gravel operation. (I3) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; The gravel pit will be operated in a manner to eliminate the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, glare or vibration. The proposed haul road will be water and paved in sections to minimize dust. All equipment will be have water spray dust control devices to eliminate dust. None of the equipment is expected to generate smoke or other emanations, since they will all comply with the emission requirements of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, Air Emission permits. Noise is not expected to be an issue due to the physical separation from residential uses to the south and the Interstate to the north. Additionally, all equipment has been tested by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and found to be within acceptable limits. There are no residential uses within a quarter mile to the east or west. Glare and vibration are not expected to be issues for the same reason. (C) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions; The property has been historically fenced and used as pasture for livestock. A a result there have not been, nor is there expected to be any displacement of wildlife on the property as a result of the proposed mining activity. (D) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses and their impacts to areas In the County; As noted previously, the proposed operation will access the River Frontage road, which is controlled by CDOT. The applicant has obtained an access permit from CDOT for 100 ADT for the gravel operation and 100 ADT for the concrete batch plant. The traffic will head west to the Silt 1-70 interchange and onto I-70 to the destination. (E) That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed uses); The property is bounded on the north by the frontage road and 1-70 and to the south by the Colorado River. The property to the east is owned by the property owner and the property to the west has a natural resource processing facility (sawmill). The physical separation between conflicting is at least 300 feet (F)Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for the .standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution The applicant will maintain all permits required by the State of Colorado and Garfield County. (2) Permits may he granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate mitigation for the following; (A) A plan for site rehabilitation must be approved by the County Commissioners before a permit for conditional or special use will be issued; The application is subject to the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Construction Material Regular 112 Operation Reclamation permit. The DMG has approved the permit, subject to the applicant posting the required financial security for reclamation. The DMG is responsible for reclamation of mining 5 operations. (B) The County Commissioners may require .security before a permit for special or conditi instruments, al any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located; The vibrations generated on the site will not be perceptible without instruments at the property boundaries. All equipment is mounted on shock absorption units to minimize vibrations. (3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall he operated so as to comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards; All smoke and particulate matter is subject to the Colorado Department of Health Air Emission permit requirements. Dust will be controlled through the use of water in the operation and the majority of the operation will be influenced by high ground water in the area and any dust will be eliminated as a result. The stockpiles and topsoil stockpiles need to be keep moist or revegetated to minimize any dust. (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heal, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircrafl warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision; None of the operations should emit any heat, glare, radiation or fumes that would interfere with the existing use of adjoining property. The applicant has stated that the operation will operate in a manner so that there will not be any public nuisance or hazard. Any storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas must meet the following standards: (A) Storage offlammable or explosive solids ar gases shall be in accordance with accepted standards and laws and shall comply with the National Fire Code; The applicant has stated that the storage of flammable or explosive solids or gases will comply with the National Fire Code and the Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan prepared for and maintained on the site. Additionally, the storage of flammable or explosive materials must be located outside of the 100 year floodplain. 03) At the discretion of the County Commissioners, all outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property; The applicant is proposing to maintain all processing operations in an area visually obscured from the north. Areas to the south will be able to see operations from a distance and would be difficult to visually obscure. Additionally, the applicant has committed to keeping the outside storage orderly and clean, so that there is no negative visual impact. (C) No materials or wastes shall he deposited upon a property in such farm or manner that they may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces; All stockpiles and other material will be stored on the property in a manner that will prevent them from be transported off the property by any natural cause. Specifically, all storage stockpiles will be outside of the 100 year floodplain. (D) All materials or wastes which might constitute afire hazard or which may be edible by or otherwise be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors in accordance with applicable State Board of Health Regulations; There are no such materials or wastes to be generated by this project. (6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operation of the facilities may begin. The applicant has obtained the necessary Colorado Department of Health. Water Quality discharge permit requirements. All percolation tests or ground water resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers must he met before operation of the facilities may begin. No percolation tests or ground water resource tests are required for this application. Section 6.08. states that any use to be developed in the floodplain shall be required to obtain a Special Use Permit, in accordance with the applicable regulations of Section 9 of this Zoning Resolution concerning the submission and processing of such permits. In addition to the determinations to be made by the Building Official under the provisions of said Section 9, all applications for the Special Use Permit under this Regulation shall be reviewed by the Floodplain Administrator: (1) To assure that all necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State Law, including Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1344. The applicant has submitted a letter from the Corps of Engineers stating that they agree with the applicant's consultant that there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the property. (2) To determine whether proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding, and that the structure will be in compliance with the applicable provisions for uses and standards for construction set forth in this Resolution. There are no building sites proposed by the applicant. The applicant's engineer has stated that the proposed mining activity will not increase the base flood elevation. (3) To determine if the proposed development is located in the floodway. if located in the floodway, assure that encroachment provisions of Section 6.09.01(1) (A) are met. No portion of the development is within the area identified as floodway. (4) To assure that adjacent communities, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Federal Emergency Management Agency have been notified of the proposed watercourse alteration or relocation. There are no watercourse alterations or relocations proposed as a part ofthis project. The areas are identified as being in the Flood Fringe/Flood Prone Areas of the Floodplain and as such are prohibited from doing the following activities contained in Section 6.09,02: The development, use, fill, construction, substantial improvement or alteration on or above any portion of the Flood Fringe or Flood Prone Areas which alone, or cumulatively with other activities, would cause or result in the danger of substantial solid debris being carried downstream by floodwaters. The applicant's engineer has stated that there will be no alteration or improvements on the property that would cause or result in the danger of substantial solid debris being carried downstream. The storage or processing of materials that in times of flooding are buoyant, flammable, explosive or otherwise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life. All such materials will be stored outside of the flood zone, so that at times of flooding there will be no material in the flood zone which will be buoyant, flammable, explosive or otherwise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life. The disposal or garbage or other solid waste materials. No garbage or solid waste will be disposed of on the property. Any obstruction which would adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the flow capacity of designated floodplain so as to cause foreseeable damage to others The applicant's engineer has stated that the development of a gravel pit will not result in an increase in flood levels during a 100 year event and in fact, will result in detention flood flow and, for the period of time required to fill the excavation, will result in the lowering of the flood level downstream. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing. That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of I978, as amended. 4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. All proposals of the applicant and representations made at the hearing shall be considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. That a copy of all Colorado Department of Health and Colorado Division ofMinerals 10 inspection reports shall be submitted to the Planning Department, prior to issuance of any special use permit. A copy of the final decree for the approval of a Plan for Augmentation, Case No. 00CW25 and the approved well permit will be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 4. Water will be used as a dust suppressant in project area and on the haul road on a regular basis to mitigate any adverse impact from dust emissions extending beyond the immediate project area. 5. All activities within gravel pit may occur between the hours of 7 a . and 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday 6. All natural resource processing will occur in an area south of the topsoil and overburden stockpiles. Processing includes crushing and washing of aggregate and the concrete batch plant. All stockpiles will be revegetated. 7. A maximum of 180 ADT will access and exit the property on any workday. One ADT is defined as a vehicle coming onto the property and exiting the property on the same day. Additionally, the applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval attached to their Colorado Department of Transportation Highway Access Permit. All activities within the gravel pit will operate in compliance with the CRS § 25-12- 101, et.seq., noise standards. Should there be a complaint about excessive noise, it will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation regarding the ambient noise levels and the noise levels of the activity causing the complaint, consistent with the State noise standards. Any such documentation will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing noticed in the form required by Section 9.03.04. The Board may amend the permit based upon the documentation submitted at the hearing to bring the activity into compliance with the State noise standards. One sign, permitted in compliance with Section 5.07 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended may be allowed on the property. 10. A copy of the Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan will be filed with the County Sheriff and County Emergency Preparedness offices, prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 1 1 . All activities within the floodplain will occur in a manner consistent with the representations of the applicant. .40701 ,�Jr 2.. Q rtua{ /t S 4' I e r Mi r r vs.4 sG if/ Ca JUN 13 2000 rt& s S ev-S: S-�l--2aod ROUTE ai calm, t v it -. jm c or 0.1 Q t,q q fro r — 4 f r �/j� b�j W4SJetr" /ape 4%,"je. L AA - cry -'p,4 e.�.� ;As' n e S S , r i i, C.o.,k E,c i ?'T 7a @yoely.")- °-Y` QPA1 i s ins -J2 CJs q tj`9.SJ IFv 7 HEcki Cbtv% r `j 4.4 4v 1w` /57 io r /.Jr'es e l.. v e JAn � Er cf�_cro. 11 v ke. r e ''FQ d gi_ CCtt tom_ hrs=_0.r - V Gal T a F= a r 4/� r! i""'o S fJ 1„ r4- — � e.� T e'�-- 5r ❑ M. 1 f. g4z AsC.!y r 4.1s Irl Y1 $ C7 Y" 41"1-t E"' in {nF 1""0 r Q y, • �j /4. Y+ti y" +. ' C .i C7 441101 Ili 4 so.4- ver s 4o g.of w 04, eel rer4+cr~e t cE4t 4-1 c la.yuct-L, ity._3 r A 05. ,fir 1 wilk_ to 1✓ ' A e (Y4 -4--"f' • ,_ v er S . T C.% ke )o W 14-.11j2 r 41117 4 `Frj I�yAo 4 � g e. s Ct-- ` Fra e 0'0 / L 5 EAA.aft. , I„,%;. 1+ +ae_ s i S _Leal 5 e- 1% x j L G- S N #-t , S c %Qt ti..5 a. �4 r r q U. ��N PA, f - se-cHeN tie, s 4- , Y- 4`s o e t 1\ col. L+- 4 h L. s j f tzi-e ` F ‘,.,1 Ls _ G.,. 11.9_r211:1`S''' 6 Cr ra v. t ,_71-0,1e 1--4,._ _-Asr P It - , -r-c- cQ.., I w1, r h - e tr e �.. / .. �/ 4-i c �e, r 0.)1 y�r [ is e° ca - . a r E. S.:1-1•..‘1__ sv1 rk Q e � [ 1- 3 3 r3;tiII �eie 4a- . 9 � 7 Y l c-ki3 ••• t L � CA 119 r 19+1V i sr { ci)iret4 I. Lei qj! C rt v,AcAcrs )ii r + 4/Lt ,R-609- 44-4- %41""I' Q-'11 +' pC �, � y, � - 1r4 � • ll� a �. rrC�? � (jl Lr � s a c�cv�re sem o -dr J a C; ,• a i��S�] /(2 tielv I" e . r KA L6 S)' t 5410 0 6• r ce5 ;Lt /a z- .0 l i+- vxtv-e.1 re S 571Ar c wP Qh a Q5 C7l h GLAA, VP vi tv-xt 1 ..L+ CA ki lay rex _r..,4 Je_0. ale, cre..4e i!a c. A s .'v . Di Q_‘94:11'2, A" AIL 1/414 C3 kR...___Ir•-0‘4.5 ltd)r- tp) a I A : L T 3 t. i'" Q' ' ,t -C9. Ci v r it X71 l % 0%,sip Liti 170. ci 50 , vt R. &ANI 4 k„.tLe 4-1,-L.C___eilkk_h_O , ,' L'A:4-,‘_L_s_ cii,,,L6C), „„,0,,,,. 4-i,-...1, GQ4 iuirie va c: ii --Z j - S les • hQ Ch C. r cr e ►^.. h L d iLegiek c -\.-V 0 , s 4 ,- i s i,„,,k_i V-.1), 40;4;4e. , . r 1-4_(-C.airtt.).-e4 --t-�v^ u.c_• +.wn Y9e caLI..se oC'°'° 6,, h r 1(0-' ”- .._ w01/4S." s<< rnotGL4 G„ -...)A q p.0_ 0,.../ . C-jr-42_,aSAOtryebit 0t. C -r -fl, 5K KNe, CA- 7 Ce S 14 4 C+Pi'' if.a. 5._c—pfti;PJANErd 4 oilig , itIdu _ c4.. /7 ,,,,,ote it,,o, , .e.,_0 _-+I-i.-4) v.7 Li._14 a LI in 5 44,:butc vcs itiPc I, p.,:t3,e.J --cf--- 0, cro_m_e_i r; li-_0„.4.9 rvi) -LpiNN-0.429 7e. i- 1)Q-7.1\4fee % iA:C- 0,,4 s:1- 4-, _16.k_int.c.Lc_olAiial.N.A. v- c vi i A 41,' I.k-e-lcs icks4 s ri ',+ ,„.,,e,„- f L v. a_ -cid- e i [x` e w,.. r f r� r sXc_ -e. p �e .i -i- e. v,, s�.e►f _ ,/� ci—59.°4...,vAl-b—coe'r pi" it,ate.-:.0 ` -�G--1.. -i di Pr,cs+ `�'. [e v -e. �x t 1, 4-- ►�. s. s S 0_ tiLecti a ire e. 1.a► ¢.v, i t,, fie• c` ` 1-+- e 4- .„4-1; 4- S 1 :� c 'S s a.r~_ x,12 r- - w s 03- +/-...;.4 ..\f•-•;, irvt e z 4 u r Gc e r /6w q 5to +lam 141- 17.-1 "v' L J '[r i s 5 M'ta C.) 'T vr- =. r 4L-Q-PeAey co h P - jj {'y 0.1 v% 1 ;J Y tkl .S Sc,a_ (e�o v -i�r._�,. lc .,� e ►•y 4 s h �, ":1 4 s n r o mg r osq I- P s__ am7 cite r64, e Otr-e J s 7 a ew Ca k s� cJ►e .^a ican S D.J�L_P, `0 r - s:� }'' &�lCV`A\/_,r�* S e) i q , A-4 St, Q.6.) S W o4 tk. rP h a4 r ,,,ot-te ver; 0k or ev�.� TTi� �V'1�i�l,Tcah , c. _ % �.�¢ �au� w o� hd lily S oma. ` moo. a l a w h 2 -i- e Aut-42- of fgt.- r 06.1 _O Q vok Ga p he_eGeS k P�y c-4" er e.Ua 0 lca4-1(y e /as S Cs- , S•ftlirvs 4 -elf- �� s ar U v e I- f nn ve1'�ec�w 1 So ePG " ' - csl _k• 6A.k SL•.1 a ►^ 1, 45k -c-or ; Ihr,A4 -crops, a TG2y- e C GYM i4; c�_ro. J e.l y , • S O : .�. L S Q V4 � 7 wr ��id- SLe'-%! J— W_CLs� C�c_1�-2 'Fe; Y�2►� `�v h +l " Ck_.:1-1-k•Vr 'ft' h e f f O h % __vs ► g l'l 1` t1Q V • 1e 34. -Qv vi ek-A '� `-e /_ . j C S vl _ V. 0 L1 T�� _cx;x � 0 r 't- Q v` e& ."-b1/4 ,44,•- - h.ov-e GLC J •v iC',Jn S 7 i•'3, O h "-(2)\.S. q:_5411.194111 5e-sg-Soks&A fiVkiSa wkj-1.4 giztr s e ked aw1�, .i1 _ 1r •4 _ :J„�'�t. -Li_._ Planning Survey _ Aggregate 14eseurees Garfield (trusty. and Portions 14 Eagle and ?titan Counties, Culurt.4u C is LL£. 11Name aid location of your sttradigrdtvcl t eraliun (s): G-vq "` ' �rt Li r70 21 Number of full-time employees. 'V. 4 r e e Part-time employees: 31 Approximate yearly payroll. — / 41 Approximate size of pertained t ration (acres): / i2 7A. r e s 0 L,.r e a sj Approximate sin of actively ruined pit (acres). clr sic res _ 61 Approximate yearly extraction tale of aggregate (tons): Sand: - - ,:., co 0 Gravel; I r btlter`(plar�sc tiryy' 1] i + ]r^ 1+•, �C v e Gtr►. 5 Gt : /!'i, L? 060 71 Given current ratrs naexuuction , lw twig RI r • aro ,ata rsesuuttx 1.ti+t (yr;ar57: W l", tee b.- sok. 'tw 159-.„7e a i, ); r:4 ,2sopock.,.30,,„d o'}�ey5,/s tG hl Do )ou.anticipate c paneling your mining operation. >C Yes Nu Sal 3 vuu answered Yes, hen of uld aruicipate expousiau. 1k5 i r. d2 i' a1 c V^ £' , L° s IY)iv QKjf' Q+S.) 64Gjp Soo Q0 ( r 101 W11a1 its the ;proximate Sirx and location of this expansion (Seaton/Too ship/Range). f 11 i i �x y' operate an m al (ur �g yell pia M. Y s , lila We cr.r $ ,� a r► r epi ire a 6k s..t7 a fir Dvsn orra U ca+.Jh Q 1Z1 Do you turlacipale tltc ne ssrty of an aipltall pi concret batch plant in the future: _ ( prwes e,� )C Yes — No When .0 s e S o r r o e ., a,! ���,Q r,; 7 t, 4 ...4 w 1.31 For the Medi Livae period. clo you anticipate trial the need for aggregate will (circle one) 5 gars lima now ff'Ise Dccn:.a..c nia t the; Same 1U year from u s col Increme Macaw Ketruun the Sa►ue t!, years from now Increase Decrc t,c Runrain !bc Saute 2( y. --an, from crow Inciv.uc 1 Dec:es�tlse Etoniaiut the San:I ---1.-.)ea� .. c9 -co i^ Q r a4 €.. t z � r, at wt : c. -+. e i s o 'tom a Le ,--0.--j c� / Thank you Very much for your time! Jfyou care to offer any additional coauutents, lwsc atl.dcl, :t scptrate sheet. Picea; reiurn the complt cd survey as soon as practical, but nu laws than April 1. 21100 TJX: rt:sults will be tabulated and uriluie4 in the County's comprehensive planning efforts Reim it to Greg &i&r Garfield County Planning Dt pafllmcnl J A9 -t r” Stnccr., S&rite .303 Glenwood Straw. CO. 8I(001 yr e S "#-or t a� U e_ I i`› )e,t 4 +"�L (r' J j � ,�( ,, e th iC1 f/'1 b ello 1,,1 I Yee 1 j� � V G,4 1-0 lkV e ii ud +l e t? r E' 1 �s 1^ (j �d ✓r C Q .-A 0 0 -e ,0 r re 'ey' T le - \Jo,: 1 U lI ektr e. r"crrfnH " o la rJ `'t a` yr hit Wti N ]e? �a 5 eQ �p a K , �� � tA 0�'"`�^ 1 'ul S 4. U p7 ce kI C U3+ t° r. t� e-�eA L")� 4-1, q r n.+ e t ca y% rode Ste ; 3r a l ie r u.ci y de Ale 144 )s. Veie re r G�`i n 4 G.:s Y'fi{f/,r 1.3* oce..tot 5 : M f l be_ f se e/e ( ea{ S ; ,� c,e kg, c. I, e « 31-c. rv-i r e prea a Y w Nokia .a 0..c% q rev/ •u. . 12:41P Plamtinz Survey - Aggregate Resources Garfield County, and Portions of Lagle and Pitkin Counties, Colorado 11 'Warne and Location of your sand/gravel operation (s): 61V01 1^-4 ✓r0 S' `b h S )- 21 Number of full -tittle employees: C„! y e e Part-time entploytxs: 31 Approximate yearly payroll: _ 41 Approximate size of permitted operation (acres): 5] Approxiruate size of actively mined pit (acres): 1' 4.C. res Approxitnate yearly extraction rate, of aggregate (inns): Sand: Gravel: II Other(please specify): r + rtnY\ g-oo rye otos 71 Given current rates of extraction,.h w long ill r •tbgre, ‘tv, 198-0. iZ _,Sisii! N iM e o� 81 Do you anticipate expending your mining operation: 91 IJyou answered Yes. \vhcn uld aatici -} r1) iv.- a kr o , 1- w '- F'.U..3 E-0:4-94 r7) 70000 AII ..,a 0 Doo //}1 ate resource last (years : 1.4 h P, in, re v' r.. eev is Yes S o pop300 od a -kb .,_ No pp r e expitucian: ek S rXe P A.& i v� e v e e s x,250.000 - C10 000 44 S y,e,Ar 101 What is the approximate Sire and location of this expansion (Section/Township/Range): • I n(1 111 1X1,1%you eu�+cntly operate an rave will or cast rete ch pant: Y x No We o.r+2 erN.i`reelc -C' �-s�r p. e0rcre �e I�li�(,� y� a.. 't/ I•t7 e. E'S r / ©Wn 0.4 o�-uu.v.o vJN 0.'. 121 Do you anticipate the necessity of an asphalt rconcret batch plant in the future: 1 Pres e.,.-4 ,K Yes No When 2 s e 5ewce oa , f d iI.Q l,..l c it 4 e\-0 t.,..1 131 For the noted time period, do you anticipate that the need for aggregate will (circle one): / 5 yrs from ruttyt�crree;tse�DCCrLNDIC math the Same 10 years from n 5 0,A I ncrt pct• Decrease Remain the Saute 1 years from now - increase Decrease Remain the Same 26 yu-us from new Increase 13ece.we Remain the Suml �el^t�q�rQ -car ra,4e..1 s braHn< < of o 4 ec.mP\-vv.1 Thank you very much for your time: If you circ to offer anv additio comments, please attach :e �f separate sheet. Mame return the completed survey as soon as practical, but no later than April 1, 2000. The results wall be tabulated and utilized in the County's comprehensive planning efforts, Return to, Greg Butter Garfield County Planning department 109-11”' Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO. 41110 ri�25 mer y-,ue,T � r s4 -1--Q 2-6wes ," 0 � --C- te_ clot- ed& S i - e d c - Q to cx rte)` e 1 1 belw— N o,c4 i:o real u e v,‘.3 e. T L e -e i s 1-..4) r 0 r ASpLa.(4- 0A '1-0 vv..1 1,-e /ecamse r Av,e-et S (h) ' Tt1 Ms-, v ev.), 4 -4 -ie re Gyc-I i ; r,-i-s~;s Vox /4 s 0cc,ure nn -tt' f� be ase oferod ets w,:►,� ce 1e.s 6e.e.�p'�d-e. r- re r0�u-0,L w`e, e a- o. a{ A. w ps^r .e , 5or» evJ a99re9�`(e , -e , r re_ cy, c_i d CI- Co" c vst-ie q, ue"j L w c�rova �JrL cQS, Cr 10 1). o o:hc9 1v9s vev �e w o %S e gr'nve.(oy� roc./c 5,�, sraLie S-ero. vse , From Davos Farrar 9?O-363-7172 To Mark Bean Date ar 191UU Lime 4 03 38 PM Nage 1 at n SILT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT REFERRAL MEMORANDUM TO: GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIt 1\LRS FROM: DAVIS FARRAR - S1I.I PLANNI' R SU)UI!CT: WESTERN SLOPE Atitii'I.ti:\lIS lNC. SPEC1AI.tISEPERMIT APPLICATION FOR PETERSON GR. \V E1. PIT DATE: 6 19 00 CC: MARK 13EAN, CRAIG WILSON, S1LT PLANNING COMMISSION, SILT BOARD OE TRI JSTEFS This memorandum is prepared in response to a special use pemut application referral from the Garfield County planning department to the Town of Silt for an application within the statutory two-mile planning area around the municipality. The subject application is a request from Western Slope .-lggregates Inc. for a special use permit to operate a gravel pit on the Peterson property east of the Town of Silt adjacent to the Colorado River. l'he Silt planning staff received the application on Thursday June 15. 2000. A public hearing on the application is scheduled before the Crarfeld County Commissioner on Monday June 20. 2000. 1 and 1-2 workdays for review by the Silt staff is inadequate time for a reasonable analysis of the application_ The tinting of this referral precludes any consideration by the Silt planning commission or Board of '1'nrstees on the application. The stall' recommends that the public hearing be canceled and republished for a future hearing date that affords adequate time for review and comment by the town. In the event that the County commissioners decide to continue with the hearing on Monday June 20. 2000, Silt planning staff offers the follow ing comments on the application. Access. The application identities a maximum number of vehicle trips from the pit at "one hundred eighty (180) once the pit is in full operation." The State Highway .Access Permit Application further clarifies these trips as "average daily volumes" consisting of 20 passenger cars light 'chicles. 50 multi -unit trucks K0 tandem dump trucks, and 30 cement trucks, The application does not include a methodology used to calculate the vehicle trips, From Daws Farrar 9717-963-7172to Mark Clean Dale 6r19/00 Trme 4.03 38 PM Nage 10113 These average daily traffic volunws may fluctuate substantially depending on demands. l'he application includes no defining parameters related to these; . oluu es. Oii any given day. the number of vehicle trips could increase substantially above the estimated volumes. This scenario could become a reeaiity with the anticipated growth and development in the Mid -Garfield County area. :1 maximum number of vehicle trips per day to or from the site should be defined. Garfield County should evaluate maximum vehicle trips based upon existing road design construction. impacts to areas between the pit location and access to 170 and public input. Truck traffic is proposed to access the Silt 1 70 interchange via a frontage road inunediateely south of 1 70. Current traffic volumes impact this interchange and local access roudw ays. This is particularly true in the morning and evening hours during the. week. The 'Town of Silt, is currently working with several developers in the area to fund and complete a comprehensive third party evaluation of the cumulative traffic impacts to this 170 interchange area. The purpose of this analysis will be to objectively quantify current road capacities, projected future traffic impacts and future improvements necessary to maintain public safety and access. .An additional volume of 180 vehicle trips per day will add to the impact on the interchange and its access routes. Prior to any approval of a special use permit, an analysis must be completed to `valuate at a minimum the following: existing roadway design and capacit►. existing traffic volumes, projected future traffic volumes. current needs fir safety improvements and future needs for safety roadway interchange improvements to ensure the public health safety and welfare. Garfield County recently approved the 1.Ikele Subdivision intmediately west of the Town of Silt. The town commented on the project and recommended that the applicants participate on a pro rata basis in a comprehensive evaluation of the 1 70 interchange and the project impact on the interchange. The County did not include this requirement in the conditions of approval. The town was informed that the County could not do so 'because no intergovernmental agreement existed between the town and County. if the County believes that an intergovernmental agreement is a prerequisite to mitigating traffic impaels assxiated with development adjacent to the Town of Silt. further consideration of the application should he delayed until such an agreement is adopted. Further approvals of land use applications that create vehicular impacts to this interchange area without substantial mitigation will place the cost of future improvements on the backs of county residents both within and outside of the: municipality. Conformance with the Silt ('omprehensive Plan. Subject property is located within the area covered by the Silt Comprehensive Plan. 'Mere are two classifications shown for the parcel. Agricultural. Conservation YID and Consen'ation'Open Space. It is the intent of Agricultural Conservation RD to preserve agricultural land% by clustering development on a parcel. 11 is the town's desire to encourage productive use of agricultural lands and to maintain a critical mass of agricultural lands. ' I "he proposed use of the property as a gravel pit operation will remove approximately 41 acres from agricultural classification, From Daws Farrar 870-963-7172 To Mark Bean pale ei t9/UU time 4 03 38 PM Page 3 of of Clther than the applicant's statements.. the submittal includes no documentation of the qualit or productivity of the subject agricultural land. there is a notation that the water rights associated with the property are senior rights. The County has adopted a "right to farm" resolution for purposes of protecting agricultural interests in the County. The County has a goal to protcd agricultural use. In keeping with this resolution and the County goal, quantatication should be required of the applicant to verify that the lands are unsuitable for agricultural use and to justify a change to an industrial'gravel operation. The areas immediately adjacent to the Colorado River are shown in the Silt Comprehensive plan as Conservation'( )pen Space. This land provides an important riparian habitat for wildlife. Additionally. protection and preservation of these areas serves to maintain this asset that draws visitors to Colorado and Garfield County. The Colorado River corridor is an important asset to Garfield Count and the Silt community and 11 should he protected. 100-lice►l buffer zones from the riparian areas should he required to minunite damage. The application includes no documentation about wildlife impacts. No evidence of corresponde.ncc or communication ►►ith the Division of Wildlife is included in the application. No evidence of an analis of wildlife impacts is included in the application. The applicant states simply that there will be no impacts to wildlife. Garfield County should require that a wildlife unpact analysis be completed and, at a minimum, recommendations from the Division of Wildlife be solicited and adhered to by the applicant. "the reclamation plan for the project does not include sufficient detail depicting final ground contours, reyegetatinn plan or similar information to ensure that the site will he an overall benefit to wildlife and riparian functions upon completion of the mining operations. 1 -he boundaries of the proposed lake are rectangular and do not portray a. natural shoreline. 1,200 cottonwood seedlings are proposed along the riverbank. Seedling trees may have limited survival rates. An alternative would be to specil\• a minimum caliper site for new plantings (1.5'" or 2" caliper) to increase sur i v al rates. No irrigation system is identified. There is no detailed revegetation plan submitted with the:. application. There is no assurance of survival rates on any of the revegetal ion. Under this sc nario. the County has no guarantee that the end result will he successful or achieve the intended objectives. The following section from the comprehensive plan relates to development in and adjacent to Silt. "THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY IS INTENDED AS A TOOL FOR TIIE TOWN AND COUNTY. It clearly shows the area in which urban development can be eiliciently served by utilities and the town's community services. Areas outside the urban growth boundary v►di be primarily agricultural use's and rural in character. Adhering to the urban growth boundary ►1.111 allow the town and county to focus their resources, helping to ensure an adequate level of services and amenities for the community at 3 From Dav"s Farrar 970-:963-71'77 io Mark flew Dale 6119I0D I lme 4 03 38 PM Page 4 of 6 aflordablc public costs. This will help keep taxes from increasing to pay for inefficient development patterns." Impact 11lit7i�atlon Dust control - The application notes "the gravel pit and concrete batch plan will implement extensive does control measures". No specific plat, lylr mitigation of fugitive dust is included in the application, There is a general statement that the applicants will employ methods such as wateri g water spray and paving to minimize dust. The County should require a detailed dust mitigation plan from the applicant so that the staff can evaluate the adequacy of the plan. Noise imparts - The application states "noise from the pit will be less than that created by traffic on. 170 or the railroad." There is no quantified decibel. level information included in the application. The applicant should he required to submit information related to decibel levels generated by comparable equipment or at gravel operations of similar design and constniction. Relating noise levels to decibels generated ha the interstate corridor or the railroad corridor are an insufficient and irrelevant basis from which impacts ofthe operation are evaluated. Industrial J'er or,nance,standards - The application notes that sound generated by the gravel pat etc. will comply with the standards set forth in tate Colorado Revised Statutes. The standards are not included in the application. From the material submitted, there is no basis to evaluate the statement. Eirussron of stoke and particulate matter - The application states that these omissions will comply with all "Federal, State and County air quality laws. regulations and standards." No information is included in the application indicating what the standards are. There is also no indication about monitoring of these standards liar compliance. Screening - The application states. "all equipment storage shall be soured from view behind berming or fencing or combination of the two." However. the engineer states in the April 3. 2000 letter on floodplain conditions. that because "there will he no berms or obstructienis. the development will not increase to flood level." 'file application is internally inconsistent with comments related to floodplain impacts. Hours of operation - The proposed hours of operations are between 7:00 alit) and 5.00 PM Monday through Saturday. The southwesterly portion of this properly Iles very close to the eastern edge of the Stillwater Ranch PUD.. The sound ofcrusher operations. heavy equipment and other impacts tray have an adverse effect on this residential property. The eastern edge of the Stillwater Ranch PI T1 is proposed for large lot luxury homes. Sound from industrial operations during the proposed operating hours may have an adverse effect upon the PUD. The County should consider restricting operating hours from 8 1111 to 5 PM Monday through Friday and limiting hours of operation on Saturdays. In no case should operating hours be extended into the evening or nighttime. The applicant proposes to use no exterior lighting or site lighting. However. during the winter the sun goes down early and. it is dark at 5:00 PM. Page 6 notes that repair and maintenance activities will be 4 From Day Is Farrar 970.963.7172 To Mark Bean Dale 61117!{]U I ime 4 03 38 PM Page 5 of 6 conducted between the hours of 8:00 A.M and 6:00 PM 1londay through Friday. These operations may require; artificial lighting and will generate noise that may impact adjoining properties. staff Recommendations_ 1. The staff recommends that the application be rescheduled for a public hearing after the Town of Silt has been given adequate time to review and comment on the application. This may include comnwents from the planning commission and'or the Board of Trust. 2. The staff recommends that a site visit be conducted with members of the town and County to evaluate access, road and interchange: impacts resulting from the proposed permit. 3. Staff recommends that any conditions considered for a permit should include special use permit renewal provisions based upon annual review and compliance with conditions of approval and applicable Federal,State and Count!, regulations. 4. The applicant should be required to participate in a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts to the 1 70 interchange area based upon proportionate impacts created by the project. the applicant should be re.quirc:d to mitigate any proportionate impacts. S. The County should limit hours of operation to 8:00 AM to 5:00 P41 Xlonday through Friday with limited hours on Saturday. 6. Detailed information should be submitted related to impact mitigation for fugitive dust. noise generated. emissions of smoke and similar impacts. 7. Detailed information should be subrnined on the reclamation plan including specific site revegetation. irrigation to ensure survival, bonding or a letter of credit to ensure the success of revegetation. 8. At a minimum. comments should be solicited from the Division of Wildlife regarding wildlife impacts and recommended mitigation measures. A minimum of a 100 -foot setback from the riparian area along the Colorado River should be required. It is recommended that a third party independent analysis be completed related to wildlife impacts associated with the proposed operation to the County staff and decision -makers so they can adequately evaluate impacts. 9. lntb oration should be submitted that quantities applicable Federal and State regulations pertaining to the gravel operation and allowable emissions. 10. The applicant should rectify the inconsisteenc i in the application related to floodplain impacts prior to a decision by the County. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this application. Please contact the town if the Counts. wishes to discuss the detail's of this memorandum. schedule a site visit or otherwise review the town's concerns. 1 will be out of town tomorrow June 20`" and will be unable to attend the hearing. 1 have tried to contact other Silt officials to see if they are available to attend the hearing. At this time and because the very short notice. From Davis Farrar 970-963-7172 To Mark Bean Date Ertl WOO Time 4 03 38 PM Pap 6 of 6 no other Silt representatives have been able to respond about availability to attend the hearing. Additional time to allow mtuficipal involvement in this process is a reasonable request that I hope can be accommodated by the County Commissioners. 4 231 No. 7th Street / P.O. Box 70 / Silt, CO 81652 Phone: 970-876-2353 / Fax: 970-876-2937 July 3, 2000 Chairman John Martin Board of County Commissioners 109 -8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roberts Special Use Permit Dear John: On Monday, June 26, 2000, the Silt Board of Trustees learned that the Board of County Commissioners had already approved the special use permit application of Bill Roberts on June 19. Apparently, the special use permitted is the operation of a gravel pit within approximately 1500 feet from the edge of our Town limits. County staff hand delivered a copy of the application and related materials to Town Administrator Craig Ohlson on Thursday, June 15, for the Commissioners' meeting only two business days later. Although our Town Planner Davis Farrar worked over the weekend to prepare written comments and concerns, persons who attended that meeting reported that most of those concerns were not addressed specifically. Frankly, the Board of Trustees, the Town staff and the Town consultants had no adequate opportunity to comment or appear at the meeting. We need your help because we are concerned about the short notice we received. We believe that we should have had more time to review and consider the application. We are also very concerned about whether and how a nearby gravel pit will affect Town roads, facilities and residents, as well as the surrounding environment. Knowing what little we do about the Commissioners' approval and the few conditions attached, we need an opportunity to be heard before the Commissioners on these concerns and we want to prevent this from happening in the future. l know that our attorneys have contacted Don Deford to request that the Commissioners reopen the hearing on this special use permit, based on C.R.S. §30-28- 138 or other legal authorities. Please do whatever you can to ensure that this request is granted. We believe that our input will be valuable to the Commissioners. Thank you very much for your help. cc: Karen Sloat Very truly you Thomas Oeltjensruns, Mayor 1 231 No. 7tb Street / P.O. Box 70 / Silt, CO 81652 Phone: 870-876-2353 / Fax: 970-876-2937 July 3, 2000 Chairman John Martin Board of County Commissioners 109 -8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roberts Special Use Permit Dear John: On Monday, June 26, 2000, the Silt Board of Trustees learned that the Board of County Commissioners had already approved the special use permit application of Bill Roberts on June 19. Apparently, the special use permitted is the operation of a gravel pit within approximately 1500 feet from the edge of our Town limits. County staff hand delivered a copy of the application and related materials to Town Administrator Craig Ohlson on Thursday, June 15, for the Commissioners' meeting only two business days later. Although our Town Planner Davis Farrar worked over the weekend to prepare written comments and concerns, persons who attended that meeting reported that most of those concerns were not addressed specifically. Frankly, the Board of Trustees, the Town staff and the Town consultants had no adequate opportunity to comment or appear at the meeting. We need your help because we are concerned about the shore notice we received. We believe that we should have had more time to review and consider the application. We are also very concerned about whether and how a nearby gravel pit will affect Town roads, facilities and residents, as well as the surrounding environment. Knowing what little we do about the Commissioners' approval and the few conditions attached, we need an opportunity to be heard before the Commissioners on these concerns and we want to prevent this from happening in the future. 1 know that our attorneys have contacted Don Deford to request that the Commissioners reopen the hearing on this special use permit, based on CRS. §30-28- 138 or other legal authorities. Please do whatever you can to ensure that this request is granted. We believe that our input will be valuable to the Commissioners. Thank you very much for your help. • cc: Karen Slow Very truly you Thomas Oeltjen'runs, Mayor 05r04U9 aul' tiayl 9702487294 a: 294 libitOLOPAIX1 DEPARTMENT EDF Tl1AMSPO TA STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT CDOT R3 TRAFFIC ;DUI" K3 TRAFFIC 10 411,12l 0007 Pgrrna rax 300042 State-iph*ey JIMSds 070A/099 200,'18 Print 10000 'alit# di trans,fraal 04117'2000 Rimer rSaeronsParw 03/02:1C' Local JendicbOr Gerfie1d Count. The Pennittee(sj, - Applicant Brent L. Peterson 5960 Rider Frontage Roel New Castle, CO 81647 970-876-2685 i wetly premed pernrason to nave an emus Ia the State hrg1i 1y at the Ice -aeon need below The scans ac",.7NtlaAa we the bertha. ind4drlp Yee Stout+ Flighwey *woes Cada end any atuchnriPts *ems =milord. hr the usi:n; SUIrdrrty if at Ivry tare awe Centroid iereer end di we %iota* ars rats of era cern t '-hs aopountn±sgerds anti empfey ee Weil be held hareem against any action for pe+scnal inliy ce prxerey IN parmfl. Western S?ope Aggregates, Inc P.D. Box 910 Carbondale, CO 81623 970.963-2296 Steil be mea hided, ma'rimiled a'4 uamd .r inc *1h,blts. The perm may le rdvckrd mum suthcrfyr. tree De011eccere end thea duty reason d the saerolse d damage susuarneci by Location. Os the sough sr de of 1.70 south frontage. a distance of 1056 feet coat from he 99. I Access to Provide Service to Gravel Pity___ _....,r....,.... IN ADT 50.09 */a _ .............r......._......._________..... 106 ADT 50.00 % _.._. Other terms and ctondRtCrts• • Sae Artached Pages 2 nod 3 sad Other Encicaures far Addinocat items asd Cote',itsons MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL, Required orgy when thaboropratte local authority rotalrts issuing aulnority. $y (*) boo Title Upon re signing of this permit the peat itis agrees to the terns and Conditions arc referenced attachments contained herein Alt construction esti Ors c ompteted r an expeditious and safe manner and shall be eiintshea wrthu, 45 days from In tenet. The permitted mean Vial be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions et the permit prior to being used The permitIee shall notify erten Check with the Colorado Department of Transportation in Rifle at 970425.220 at leant 48 hours prior to catnowenehrg construction within the State Highway right -et -way. The berm icnd'1a *a Ira pd'"rttie eye be tlaa panic or toast rapresenti1ve tit ma ;moan S►Nad by Lha 9innntso wen and hive rL: LAWN N to accept ble permit and ea lama and mediums Perefiee17�iu /(7-le%A.,... 4 Ail --11 '— !9- co This pe mif ,s not gyral d until. signed by a ly within red repress rrtlattve or the Department COLORADO OEPAR_ TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ay {x) D s (or IMM) 0 ° ' Title Acccsa Manager crerr 0 filealorae React 7 Surf iiisem S.oron hale wow ea necosaey'rC' LOCil &et cry lyKyplar ill= Patel Teak crpne+rr Pravraua.derenr ors °ceasla ane may est bs ossa coor Form silt aria 0000030 Bob Regulski 0045 Mid Valley Drive • New Castle, Colorado 81647 Telephone: (970) 625 -2410 -work January 26. 2001 TO: Garfield County Planning Department Attn: Mark Bean Dear Mr. Bean: Enclosed is a picture of the home my father and I have enjoyed for the last 15 years. It is located across from the Peterson property, east of Silt: the proposed Gravel Pit and Concrete Plant. We do not want to see this beautiful stretch of river ruined by the extraction of gravel and the placement of a concrete plant. There are already plenty of pits, concrete plants and permits down valley in our commercial corridor. If -permitted, this open pit mine with 30110 40" high concrete plant silos. will slake a tenrihie entrance from Interstate 70 to a community that has so much potential with proper planning and protection of its natural assets and beauty. not to mention the dust. noise and pollution that cannot be avoided if the pit were to open. I operate a tandem dump truck and purchase thousands of tons of gravel annually from local pits where the service, quality, and prices are great. With more competition. the existing pits may suffer. 1 already have two pits within one mile of my home. The public has no idea of the pollution these pits and concrete plants create. There are usually tens. of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel stored in tanks. trucks, and equipment on site. There is potential for disaster if there is an accident, flood, or a spill in the river. Most of the trucks and pieces of equipment in use will leak hydraulic fluid, oil or antifreeze. When they no longer run or are in an accident. they are abandoned in the ph. The gravel crushers. trucks. and equipment will echo noise across our valley. The dust from this project is impossible to stop. The dust clouds will blow in the wind and could cause a accident on 1-70 or the frontage road. On the whole. this project will have a negative effect on our community. lower property values. and hinder future responsible development. Please do not allow this project to be approved. Sincerely leg( Bob Regulski /Enclosure 1 734 MAIN STREET P.0. BOX 539 SILT, Co 81652 PH: (970) 876.2998 (877) 832-2998 FAX: (970) 876-2833 STARK WESTERN REAL ESTATE, INC. February 26, 2001 Mr. Robert Regulski 28485 Highway 6 & 24 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Dear Bob, Thank you for contacting our office to provide you with a market analysis on the 8 parcels you own on the Colorado River in Silt. Six of those parcels are in the new Riverview Ranch Subdivision. and the other two are located down the road to the east. All parcels are on the river, have irrigation, wells, quality fencing, access roads and views. Below, 1 have numbers for building a home on each parcel without the gravel pit: 3,500 sq. ft. house @ $175/ft. $ 612,500 1,200 sq. ft. garage @ $40/6. 48.000 1,600 sq. fi. basement @ $45/ft. 72,000 Land, well, irrigation. fencing, on the river 350,000 Total per lot $1.082,500 Total for the entire project Listed here are the numbers for each parcel 1,800 sq. ft. house @ $175/ft. 600 sq. ft. garage @ $40/ft. Land, well, irrigation, fencing, on the river Total per lot Total for the entire project $8,660,000 with the gravel pit: $ 315.000 24.000 180.000 $ 519,000 $4,152,000 If you assume a 10% profit (minus the land) as the owner/general contractor. you would realize approximately $586,000 without the gravel pit. Using the same assumption with the gravel pit, you would realize approximately $271,200, or a loss of approximately $314.800 or 46%. Sincerely yours, Nella D. Barker, GRI Broker Associate GRAND RIVER DITCH COMPAN 0564 County Road 223 Rifle. CO 81650 (970) 625-2718 Board of Directors Luther Lewis Larry Antonelli James Carnahan Feb. 14, 2000 Garfield County Commissioners and Garfield County Planner C/0 Mildred Alsdorf,County Clerk and Recorder 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Re: Western Slope Aggregate, Inc.Special Use Permit Dear Sirs: The Grand River Ditch Company, owners of the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch, want to make it known that we have no objections to the Western Slope Aggregate, Inc. propsed Special Use Permit. We do want to make it known that any water owned by the John Peterson Estate and intended to be used in this proposal cannot be removed from the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch except at the John Peterson headgate. We need to be notified of any proceedings that include the use of any shares of Lower Cactus Valley Ditch water owned by John Peterson aka John Peterson. Estate. /i -r Lxither L. Le s, President Board of Directors Grand River Ditch Company SPATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES WATER DIVISION 5 Office of the State Engineer Department of Natural Resources P 0 Box 396 (50633 U S Highway 6& 24) Glenwood Springs CO 81602 Phone (470)945-5665 FAX (970) 945-$741 (call first) h ttp:l./w Ater. state. c o. u s lei e fa tl l t. h tm January 25, 2001 Thomas W. Sruver Stover & LeMoine, P.C. P.C. Box 907 Rifle, CO 81650 Re: Case No. 00CW028 --- Peterson Gravel Pit Dear Mr. Stuver, RECEIVED JAN 2 9 21301 Bill 9wrans Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Had D. Simpson. P.E. Stam Engineer Alan Martdlaro Division Engineer Thank you for making the revisions to the proposed ruling in the above referenced case to address the concerns identified. The proposed ruling, dated January 5, 2001, appears acceptable to the Division Engineer. I apologize for the delayed response on this issue. If you have any further comments or questions regarding this case, please give me a call. Sincerely, Kyle Whitaker, P.E. Division 5 Staff cc: Referee Petre File — 00CW028 RECEIVED SAN 6 ?OM 1 RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2001 DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 5, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 00CW028 RULING OF REFEREE IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS AND PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION OF: BRENT LEWIS PETERSON AND SANDRA HANNIGAN IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO The above -entitled Application was filed in March, of 2000, and was referred to the undersigned as Water Referee for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, by the Water Judge of said Court in accordance with Article 92, of Chapter 37, C.R.S. 1973, known as the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969. The undersigned Referee, having made such investigations as are necessary to determine whether the statements in the Application are true and having become fully advised with respect to the subject matter of the Application, does hereby make the following Ruling of the Referee in this matter, to -wit: 1. The statements in the Application are true except as noted herein. 2. Name, address and telephone number of Applicants: Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan P. O. Box 965 New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 876-2685 c/o Thomas W. Stuver Stuver & George, P. C. 120 West Third Street P. O. Box 907 Rifle, CO 81650 Telephone: (970) 625-1887 3. Timely and adequate notice of the filing of the Application was given as required by law. No Statements of Opposition to the Application were filed. The time for filing Statements of Opposition has expired. Page 2 Division 5 Water Court Case No, OOCWO28 In re the Application Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan 5. Name of structure to be augmented: Peterson Gravel Pit Well No other water rights are diverted from this structure. 6. Previous decree for water rights to be used for augmentation: Lower Cactus Valley Ditch a. Date entered: April 19, 1897 b. No.: 82A in Water District 39; Priority 142B c. Court: Garfield County District Court d. Type of water right: Surface e. Legal description of point of diversion or place of storage: The headgate of said ditch is situate on the northerly bank of the Colorado River at a point whence the quarter corner between Sections 5 and 6, Township 6 South, Range 91 West, bears 47° West 3370 feet, and being in Lot 7, Section 5 in said Township. f. Source: Colorado River g. Amount: 50cfs h. Appropriation: September 14, 1888 1. Decreed use: Irrigation purposes; owned and administered by the Grand River Ditch Company which has allocated a total of 270 shares to the decreed water right. 7. Historic use: The water rights to be used for augmentation have been historically used to irrigate fields and pasture occupying the area to be exposed as the Peterson Gravel Pit (25.9 acres) and an additional area to be used for gravel processing (15.17 acres) . 8. Statement of plan for augmentation: a. Applicants are the current owners of 10.48 shares of the Grand River Ditch Company which equals 1.94 cfs in the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch. The Applicants propose to develop a gravel pit having an exposed surface area of 25.9 acres. After consultation with the Division Engineer it has been determined that total annual consumptive use of the pit is 85.11 acre feet per year, according to the schedule set forth in Table 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. b. Applicants propose to remove from irrigation the following described 41.07 acres: A tract of land in Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, 6 PM, Garfield County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 1-70, whence the North 1/4 corner of said Section 12 bears N 52°02'31" E 1,606.10 feet; thence, along said southerly right-of- way line N 77°03'30" E 1,301.51 feet; thence, leaving said right- Page 3 Division 5 Watcr Court Case No, OOCW028 In re the Application Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan of -way line, S 00°20'44" E 1,827.62 feet; thence West 126.61 feet; thence N 76°46'31" W 613.85 feet; thence N 26°49'54" W 523.18 feet; thence, N 57°24'21" W 386.52 feet; thence, N 00431'02" E 720.63 feet more or less to the point of beginning, containing 41.07 acres more or less. The basis of bearing for the description is N 89°29'42" E from the NW corner of said Section 12 to the North 1/4 comer of said Section 12. A map of the acreage to be removed from irrigation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Applicant initially claimed that the 41.07 acres have been historically irrigated from April 1 to October 31 of each year with 2.8 shares of Applicants' Grand River Ditch Company water from the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch. After consultation with the Division Engineer, it has been determined that 4.4 shares of Applicant's Grand River Ditch Company water have been utilized for this purpose. c. The removal from irrigation of 41.07 acres under the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch will result in a consumptive use credit of at least 82.40 acre feet of water during the irrigation season to be set off against evaporative loss, stream loss and operational use loss from the Peterson Gravel Pit according to the schedule attached hereto as Table 1. d. As indicated in Table 1. during the months of September and October, an additional 1.60 acre feet of water must be provided to set-off against loss occasioned by Applicant's proposed use. Applicant shall provide for such additional consumptive use by contracting for augmentation water from the West Divide Water Conservancy District under Water Allotment Contract number 001213PH(a), copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference. Utilization of water leased from the West Divide Water Conservancy District pursuant to the Water Allotment Contract as an additional source of water for Applicants proposed use will not result in injury to other persons and republication of the Application is therefore unnecessary. e. Since there has been no historic non -irrigation season "call" on the Colorado River, it is not necessary to augment the gravel pit water loss from November through March. f. Applicants' water is taken from the first diversion below the headgate of the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch. Accordingly, no allowance is made to defray conveyance and seepage loss in the remainder of the Ditch. The amount of water historically utilized to irrigate the 41.07 acres removed from irrigation (4.40 shares or 0.821 cfs) shall be bypassed or diverted and returned to the Colorado River at the discretion of the Division Engineer. The amount of water contracted from the West Divide Conservancy District shall be released and administered Page 4 Division 5 Water Court Case No. OOCWO28 In re the .Application Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan in accordance with Table 1. FINDINGS OF THE REFEREE: The Referee, having examined the information submitted by the Applicants, and having completed the investigations necessary to make a determination in this matter, does therefore conclude that the claims in the above -entitled Application should be granted as shown above, SUBJECT, HOWEVER TO ALL EARLIER PRIORITY RIGHTS OF OTHERS and to the integration and tabulation by the Division Engineer of such priorities in accordance with law. The plan for augmentation requested will not injuriously affect the owners of or persons entitled to use water under a vested water right or a decreed conditional water right, and this plan for augmentation is approved in accordance with C.R.S. §37-92-305(3). Pursuant to C.R.S. §37-92-305(8), the State Engineer and the Division Engineer may lawfully be required under the terms of this Ruling to curtail all out -of -priority diversions from Applicants' well at any time when the consumptive use associated with Applicants' diversions exceed the net amount of replacement water available under this plan for augmentation. Special Provisions: a. The plan for augmentation requested shall be subject to all provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Grand River Ditch Company as they presently exist or may hereinafter be amended according to law, Applicants shall continue paying assessments upon their shares of stock in the Grand River Ditch Company as from time to time may be levied by the Board of Directors upon all of said stock of which applicants of like class and shall otherwise comply with all other lawful obligations of the shareholders of the Grand River Ditch Company. Applicants shall install such measuring devices, provide accounting and supply calculations regarding the timing of depletions as may be required by the Division Engineer to facilitate the operation of this plan for augmentation and assure compliance herewith. The State Engineer's Office shall issue a gravel well permit for the subject well pursuant to all of the provisions of this Ruling and C.R.S. §37-90-137(2) and (11). It is accordingly ORDERED that this Ruling shall be filed with the Water Clerk subject to Judicial Review. Page 5 Division 5 water Court Case No. 00CW028 In re the Application Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan It is further ORDERED that a copy of this Ruling shall be fled with the appropriate Division Engineer and the State Engineer. Dated BY THE REFEREE: Water Referee Water Division No. 5 State of Colorado No protest was filed in this matter, and accordingly the foregoing Ruling is confirmed and approved, and is made the Judgment and Decree of this Court; provided, however, that the approval of this plan for augmentation shall be subject to reconsideration by the Water Judge on the question of injury to the vested rights of others during any hearing commencing within a period of years after date. Dated Water Judge MONTH GRAVEL MINING (1) JAN 0.49 FEB 0.49 MAR 0.49 APR 0.49 MAY 0.49 JUN 0,49 JUL 0.49 AUG 0.49 SEP 0.49 OCT 0.49 NOV 0.49 DEC 0.49 ANNUAL 5.88 WASH PLANT (2) 0.00 0.00 0.03 0,07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.55 TABLE 1 PETERSON GRAVEL PIT WATER REQUIREMENTS AND AUGMENTATION SCHEDULE (VALUES IN AFI CONCRETE DUST CONTROL (3) (4) 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.02 0,10 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.10 0,01 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.16 LAKE EVAP. (5) 1.37 1.81 2.85 5.08 7.15 11.58 13.91 13.18 9.95 6.04 3.70 1.55 78.17 TOTAL DELAYED DEPLETIONS (6) (7) 1.86 1.91 2.30 2.23 3.45 3,26 5,69 5.32 7.76 7.42 12.19 11.48 14.52 14.11 13.79 13.89 10.56 11.08 6.65 7.30 4,30 4.70 2.04 2,41 85.11 85.11 OUT -OF PRIORITY DEPLETIONS (8) 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.81 7.42 11.48 14.11 13.89 11.08 7.30 0.00 0.00 66.09 (1) 200,000 TPY © 4% MOISTURE (2) WASH PLAN USING 1000 GPD MAKE-UP WATER (3) 5000 CY/YR ©30 GALiCY (4) 3000 GPD • 22 DAYS/MO. (5) EVAPORATION FROM 25.9 AC (6) SUM OF 1 THROUGH 5 (7) BASED ON GLOVER ANALYSIS (8) DEPLETIONS DURING CALL PERIOD OF APR 15 TO OCT 31 (9) C.U. CREDITS FROM DRY -UP (10) RESERVOIR RELEASES UNDER A CONTRACT WITH WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT C.U. CREDITS (9) 0.00 0.00 0,00 5.85 11.80 15.16 17.45 15.30 10.08 6.78 0.00 0.00 82.40 WDWCD • CONTRACT (10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,07 0.54 0.00 0.00 1.61 • INCLUDES 5% FOR TRANSIT LOSSES fa: N1/ 4 (crown 5ecteai 12 .Ly i f'.6 5, rp 92 WoPtlac 6th PM d alit' 1'�o* t of actoTirr Sec. 12, Tsp. 6 S., Rng. 92 W., 6th P.M. Garfield County, CO Zoo 6 iCG . SOO GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 1904 .506 (FET EXHIBIT A Area to be Removed From Irrigation DATE, 11/27/00 Vitt I' 1 OF 1 DRAWN BY' RWP DRAVING NAME' 99870\BNDY.dw❑ 7 J y, E AREA = 41.07 Acres Western Slatpe Aggregates, Inc. POST 6rTU Ka 116 CANSOCALL COLORADO 15123 (17O) 193-2314 JEROME GA EL& & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mau= BOWS s woman Past Orna. SOS 131 113 worm S•[T - Sl$1F 211 0L01l06O0 SPPMICS, CCLO10O POW (970) 11'0-2750 0L0CW028 Exhibit "A" �I� NI I I I 126.61' N 9p'00'00" W REVISED 7/29/99 Name of Applicant Sr - Quantity of Water in AcrFeet Contract *001213PH(a) Map #361 Date Activated 1/1/01 WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT WATER ALLOTMENT CONTRACT/LEASE arrQ fPot Appliccatt., hereby applies to the West Divide Water Conservancyth rnq a politico aubdivi lion of the State of Colorado, organi7ed pursuant to and ccisting by virtue of C.R.S. 1973, §37-45-101. ctsea,. (hereinafter referred to as the -District-) for an allotment contleculease to beneficially and perpetually use water or water rights owned. leasexl or hereafter- acqui.rtd by the District_ By cxcxaitian of this contract/lease and the atmched application. Applicant hereby agrees to the following terns and conditions: l . Water Rights: Applicant shall own water rigbsts at the point of diversion herein lawfully entitling Applicant to divert water, which will 6e supplemented and augmented by water leased herein. If Applicant intends to divert t roergh a well, it must be understood by Applicant that no right to divert exists until a valid well permit is obtained from the Colorado Division of Water Resources. 2. Ouaotier, Waster applied kr by the Applicant in thc amount sct forth above shall be diverted tet Applicant's point ofdiveasicx from the District's direr flaw water rights„ and when water is unavailable for diversion pursuant to administration by the Colorado Sty Engineer during periods when said direct flow water right is not in priority, the District shall relcwse for the use of Applicant up to said •quantity in acre fot per -year ofstorage water owned or controlled by the District it is understood that arty quantity allotted from dime flow, storage or otherwise, to pie Applicant by the District will be limited by the priority of the District's decrees and by the physical and legal availability of water tion District's srnnsat. Any quantity allotted will only bc provided so long as water is available and the Applicant fully aartplicss+virth all afore terms and conditions efthis conanc,1ease_ The District and the Applicant recognize that some of the Districts decrees may be in -the name ofthe Colorado River Water Conservation District, and the ability of the District to allot direct Sow right to the Applicant Maar bc dependent en the erre:cut of the Colorado River Water Conservation District if at any time the Applicant determines it requires less water than the amount herein provided. Applicant may so notify the District in writing, and the aznoernt of water allotted under this contract/km shall bc TT LF.3 d pcm a'eatly in accordance with such notice. Rates shall be adjusted accordingly in following water years only. 3. f DericCicial Use and Location criBeric6cial Use Any and all water allotted Applicant by the district shall be used free the following beneficial hese or tri municipal. domestic and related uses, or corttmercial (except to the calcnt that Rucdi Reserveni water may not fie available for commercial as that term is defined on Page 5 of Contract No. 2-07-70-W0547 between the United Stam and thc WeKtDiirde Water Conservancy District). Applicant's beneficial use °fray and ail water allotted shall be within or through facilities or upon land owned, leased, operated, or under Applicues cunmnl_ 1 OOCW028 To ,.n ;1-,4 .. 4. Decree and Delivery: Exchange releases made by the Dis rict out of storage from Rued! Reservoir and Gxeen Mbuntairi Reservoir, or other works or focalities of the District. tr from other sources available to the District, shell bc delivered to the Applicant at the outlet wades of said stersgc fscaiiti . or at dic decreed point of diversion for said oilier sources, and rale ce oar delivery aware, at such oak cr points shall c on route pe fo mashce of the District's mal obligation. Delivery of water by the District from Rucd'r Reservoir or Green Mountain Reservoir shall be subject to tate Disuiczs lease corm= with the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Releases from other tixtiities available to District shall bc subject to the contracts, laws, rules, and regulations governing releases therefrom. Furthermore, the District hereby expressly reserves the right to store watts and to make ercchange releases from structures that may be built or =enrolled -7 .by the District in the lunar., so long as the weer service to the Applicant pursuant to this agreement_ is not impaired by said action. Any quantity ofthe Applicant's allocation not delivered to or used by Applicant by the end oFcach watff year (October I), shall revert to the water . supplies ofthc District Such reversion shall not entitle Applicant to any refund of payment made for such waxer. Water service provided by the District shall be'limited to the amount of water available in priority at the original point of diversion ofthc District's applicable water right, and neither thc District tier those entitled to utilize the District's decrees, nasty call on any gm:arer arnoter at new or alternate points of diversion. The District shall request the Colorado Division of Wates Resources to estimate any catrveyartee lasses between the original point and any alternate point, and such estimate shall he deducted from this amount in each case. 5. Ahern= Point ofl2ivvrsion and Plan oflluarrrt n on; Decrees for ahem= points of diversion of the District's - water rights or storage water -miry be required in order for Applicant to use the war service cootemplatcd hcrczohdcs. Obtaining such deer= is the exclusive responsibility of Applicant The District reserves the right to review and approve any conditions which may be attached to judicial roval of said alternate point of diversion as contemplated or nc.7tUry to save Applicant's facilities or lands. Applicant arknowiegg= and afire= that is shall be solely responsible for the proceclurm and legal erigineering costs necessary for any changes in water rigi platted hurt_ and further agretm to indemnify the District frorn any crests or lasses related thereto. Applicant is solely responsible for providing works and favi itics nexxssary to obtain/divie t the waters at said alternate point of diversion sion and deliver them to Applicant's intended beneficial use. lrrespective ofttae amount of waiter Tactually transferred to the Applicant's point ofdiversioc, the Applicant shall make annual payments to the District based upon the amount of water allotted under this aotmacsllcasc Jn the event the Applicant intends to apply for an alternate point of diversion and to develop an augsncntation plan and institute legal proceedings for the approval of such augmentation plan to allow The Applieint in utili;z the water allotted to Applicant 11iieundier. the Applicant shall give the District written notice: of surfs intent. in the event the Applicant develops and adjudicates its own. augmentation plan to unbar; the water allotted hctcun dcr, Applicant shall not be obligated to pay any amount under Paragraph 19 below. In any-rverti. the District shall have the right to approve or disapprove the Applicants augmentation plan and the Applicant shall provide the District copies of such plan and of all pkacdings and other papers filed with the water court in the adjudication thereof 6. Co-a:met/lcase Payment Narretiaidable, talc time administrative charge. in the amount dct:crmincd by the Board of'Directors of the District from time to time, shall be submitted with the application for consideration by the District_ Annual payment for the water service described herein shall be determined by the Board of Directors of the District. The iaiaial annual payment shall bc made in full, within thirty (30) days after rhe date ofnoti= to the Appiioaant that the initial paytnertt is duo. • 'aid notice will advise the Applicant, among other things, of the water delivery year to which the initial payment shall apply and the price - which is applicable to that year. r• 2 - V, • Annual payments for cat=t year thertaftc- shall be due and payable ‘ty the Applicant an or before each January 1. if an • annual is not made try the due date a, flat 150 late f� will he acxcKsed. Final written nonce prior to cancellation will be sent on/afro:1 trtail.:,retren receipt requested. to the Applicant at such addrm as may be designated by the Applicant in writing or set forth in this contraim/lease ea- application_ Water use for any part af a vrater year shall require payment for the entire wan= year. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to prevent the District from :Adjusting the annual rate in its sole discretion for future years only. If part -kat is not mode within Moen (15) days aft the date of said written notice Applicant shall at Districts sok option have no 16.irther right, title or lustenzt untie- this Oxicracrileast without further notice_ and delivery may be immediately curtailed. The allotment of watp=, as harem: made may bc minserred, leased. or °talon -vise disposed of at thc diseretitat of thc Board of Directors of the District. Upon cancellation of this water allotment ccnrtract/leasc with thc District, the District shall notify the Division or Wat.= Re.oureeeoffices in Denver and Glenwood Spring. The Division of Water Resources may then order cessation °fall water use. 7. Adelina-al Feek and Co: Applicant agrees to defray any expensesincurred by the District in connection with the sitiOcriataat °twat= rights hereunder, including. but not limited to, reimbursement of legal and engine=ing costs incurred in connection with any water rights and adjudication riccasary to allow Applicant's use of such aliened water rights. 3 Assizament This contract/least shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors or assigns of the parties hereto. Any assignment of the Appii=ert's rights undcrthis cornracVlease shall be subject to, and must comply with, such requirement% a% the Distria may hereafter adopt regarding assignment ofcormacillease rights and the assumptitan of contract/lease obligations by assignees and successors. Nothing herein shall prevent successors Loa poetical of Applimnt's property from applying to the District for individual and separate allotment cormactsill=ses. No assignment shall be eveogniztx1 by the Diszrict except upon completion and tiling of proper forms for change of owners*. Upon the sale of the real praperry to which this contract/least pertains. Applicant has a duty to make buy= aware of this contractnrase and proper forms for change of ownership nest be completed_ 9. Other Rule= Applicant shall be bound by tt provisions of tire Water Conservancy Act of Colorado; by the ruler and regulations of the Board of-Directcrs ofthe Disarice and all amendments thereof and supplements thereto and by all other applicable maw. 10. Operation and Maintenance deigns:mem Applint shall =der into an 'Operation and Maintenance Agreanent" • with the District under terms and conditions rime -mined by the board 011341=c:tors of the District, if and when, the Board of said District determines in its sole discretion that such an agreernart is required. Said agreffnent may contain, but shall not be limited to, provisions for additional annual monetary consideration for extension of District delivery services and for additional administration, operation. and -Maintenance costs; or for other costs to the District which may arise through services made available to the Applicant. 11. Change crfUsq The District nzerre,t the enclusive right to rovinv, reApprove or disappnavc any proposed change in use of the water allotted hereunder- Any use other than that set forth berein or arty lease or sale of the water or muter rights allotted hereunder without the prior written approval afthc District shall bc deemed to bc a matcnal br=ich of this contract/lease. [ Use and Pince of Use. Applicant age to use the w acrlin tiro manner and on the property described in the dtlaaments submitted to the District at the time this centa-ararlease is exceartesd, our in any operation and maintenance agreement provided by * ` Appliesrit. Any use other than as sex forth then= err any lease or sale of the water or avatar rights herein. other than as per mined in paragraph 8 above., shall be deemed to be a material breach of this agreement_ rY 13. Tin= k is understood and agreed that nothing herein shall be interpreted to give the Applicant any equitable or legal free title interest in or to any water or water rights referred to herein. 14. Cgriservation_ Appliemt shall use conarionly accepted ooascrvatian practices with respect to the 'swat= and water rights t at, and atre,+d,y agrt s to be bound by any conservation plan adopted hereafter by the District for use ofDistrict owned or controlled water ear traces rights. 15. Restrictions: Applicant stall reamer actual diversions to not exceed the CcmtraN[ se aanountr which pravidcs Wilier (on -the formula of one acre foot per dwelling) for ordinary household purposes inside onc single family dwelling, the watering of ticrriestic livestock.. fire protection, and the irrigation of up to 6.000 square feet of lawn and glen. Applicant shall also comply with all restrictions and limitation sct forth in thc well permit obtained from the Colorado Division of Water Resource:. Watering of livestock shaft 6e restricrecl to Applic nt s domestic animals not to be used for commercial purposes unless Applicant obtains approval from the Colorado Divicicn ofWate r Rrsourr to for commercial useflaa3oxk watering at a horse boarding facility, provided that in no event shell actual diversions exceed the amount of water provided by this Contr act/L 5c. Violation of this paragraph 15 shall be dee nwi to be a material brearit of this Contract/Lease. 16_ Well Permit:. If Applicant intends to divert through a well, then Applimnt must provide to District a ectopy of Applicant's valid well permit before District is obligated to deliver any water hereunder. 17. arliaarina Devieesa M Applicant agrees to ptrvide. at its own expense. a totaliaingg flow meter with remora readout to continuously and accurately rnr tsurc as all runes all water diverted pursuant to the term, of Applicant's water right rand the teams ofthis contraerilease. Applicant agree c to provide accurate readings from such device or meter to Dick upon Dirt's rec{ueSz. Applicant atdtrtowledges that failure to ctxttply with this paragraph could result in legal action trr terminate Applitaints diversion of water by thc State o +olorsdo Division ofWalts ftmcur' a, By signing this contract. Applicant hereby specifii=lly allows District, through its authorizixl agern.. heater upon applicauata property during ordinary business hours for the purposes of determining applicant's actual usc of water. 1E. at corrscntata[,?ris: By executing this contractilease, Applicant agrees that it is not relying on any legal or crigiri.fering advice that Applicant may believe has been received from the Distrito Applicant further acknowle dgcs that it has obtained all necessary legal and engineering advice ftaarn Applicant a own sources other than the District. Applicant further acknowledges that the District MEI= no guarantee, warranties, et assurances whatsoever about the quantity or quality of water available pursuant to this contract/lease. 4 uarao r - S1toGld the District be unable to provide the water contracted far herein, no damages ma j be cd against the District, nor may Applicant obtain a refund fsnrrn the Districx. 69_ Cent ofwascr Court Filing and Augmentation Pion -,Should the District, in its own elision, choose to include Applicant's costracsAcase herein in a water court filing for alternate point ofdiversion or pian of augmentation, their Applicant hereby agrees =Ra gay to tate District, when assessed, an additional fee the District's actual and reasonable ossa and feats for A.pp1i nt's share .ofihe proceedings. Applicant stsall be assessed a pro-raca share of the total recast incurred by the District in preparing. filing grid pursuing to -A .the water coon case. The pro -rasa share shall be caiculaucl by dividing sucb total cost by the number of cant-acaeGsllcssees included in tfiafiling_ To the extent Mat the Di-'r-ict is =used additional costs be=use of objection filed specifedly due to the inclusion of A.pplicsuit's car►trtitrlkxtsc in the i ling. such additional casts may be charged specifically to Applicant and not shared on a pro-ra;ta basis by all oorrnacescs./lessers. BindingAg rctt This agrecnota shall not be complete or binding upon the District unless attached hereto is the fbrrn =aided "Appli=:i n and Darn Forrn to miss Warcr Frcen West Divide Watt Conservancy Distnr" fully completed by Applicant and approveby the District's engineer. Said attachments shall by this micron= thea o be incorrpontted into the terms of this agreement. Ali ice frau the District to Applies= referring to or relating to this agreement is by this reference incorporated into this agreement s ' as !limber terms wad conditiaens of this agreement_ 21. W arniraL IT TS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF TI -TE APPLICANT 70 OBTAIN A VALID WELL PERMIT OR $ t R WAth.R RIGHT IN ORDER TO DIVERT WAIL , INCLUDING THE WATER ACQUIRED UNDER THIS C015}7RACTILEASE IT 15 THE CONTINUING DUTY OF THE APPL.ICANTTO MAINTAIN THE VALIDITY OF THE WELL PERM rr OR WATER RIGHT INCLUDING FILING FOR EXTENSIONS OF PERMITS, FILING WELL COMPLETION REPORTS, FILING STATEMENTS OF BENEFICIAL USE, OR OTHERWISE LAWFULLY APPLYING THE WATER TO BENEFICIAL USE ON A REGULAR BASIS WITHOUT WASTE 22. AREA B. CQ}.1'TTtAC1-SrLEASE% TF APPLICANTS WELL OR OTHER WATER RIGHT 11-1AT 1S THE SUBJECT OF THIS CONTRACT/LEASE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE "AREA A" AS DESIGNATED BY THE DISTRICT, THE THIS ' PARAGRAPH APPT IFC- THE AUGMENTATION WATER PROVIDED BY THE DISTRICT UNDER THIS CONTRACT MAY ONLY PROTECT APPLICANTS WATER RIGHT FROM A CALL ON THE COLORADO RIVER AND MAY NOT PROTECT APPLICANT FROM A CALL. FROM ANY OTHER SENIOR RIGHT. NO REPRESENTATION OTHERWISE I5 MADE BY THE DISTRICT_ IF THIS IS AfONCERN TO APPLICANT, THIS CONTRACT/LEASE MAY 13E RESCINDED UPON WRITTEN NOTICE DELIVERED TO TM DISTRICT BY THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE NEXT '30 DAYS FOLLOWING THE ASG OF SIGNATURES ON THIS CONTRACT/LEASE IN WI -ETCH EVENT ALL SUMS PAID BY APPLICANT FOR -n-us CONTRACT/LEASE SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REFUNDED TO APPLICANT_ :rent Lewis ' etersran . Applicant 5 anara ^ann1gan Appliaint Yom. SIAL OF COLORADO • }s.� COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _day of P 20by Snediuti v1)/4-41)Is;?-ni Witncss my hand and official seal_ My asthtmssion t:xpii ORDER Entry Pubic Alter a hearing by the Board of Directors of the Wit Divide Water Conservancy District on the application. ORDERED that said application be granted and this amtraculcasc shall be and is accepted by the District Al thb1: Y WEST DIVWE WATER CONSERVANCY DIS-TRICT PeProu� lJ Scxay f Date this con 'mac u ease hereby This 1c inclucicc and is subject to the trams and conditions of the fallowing documents which must accompany 1. Map showing coition of point of diversion (use *nap provided) 2 Applimuio n and Data Farm fully completed and signed 3. 6 T Contract #001213PH(a) Map #361 Date Activated 1/1/01 APPLICATION AND DATA FORM TO LEASE WATER FROM WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT BRENT LEWIS PETERSON and SANDRA HANNIGAN Address P 0 Box 965 New Castle, CO 81647 Authorized Agent or Representative Thomas W. Stuver Stuver & LeMoine, P.�. TER RIGHT OWNED BY APPLICANT. OR BEING APPLIED FOR ! arnt ofRigitPeterson Gravel Pit Well Type of Structure OT Right Ground Water Ln ofPoint of Diversion (description from deer= or permii) Gravel Pit Well in the SW1/4 of the 3'+W1/4 of Section 12, Township 6 South Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. (See attached maps) ENDED USE OF LEASED WA FER 'oma or Area oftUse (Include metes and bounds legal description of properry on which water right is to be used_ hcd as Exhibit) See attachment Well Perms No. (Attach copy of permit) acreage ofahove-referenced parcel 43_ T-07 acres 4,ddre s of above -referenced property Description. of Use Augmentation of Consumptive Use from Gravel Pit Well Estimated Sq. FL.. ofLawn/Garden to be Irrigated Method: Flood Sprinkler - Drip Other r : tal Nurnber of Dwelling/Conn ncrc ial Units Number of Livestock Watered from. Well of Constructed Units Number of Vacant Lots Total Sq. Ft. of Commercial Units le Water System _ Waste -Water Treatment System ofMctcr or Measuring Device - - Monthly Volume of Leased Water Needed in Gallons: E FIGURES ARE ACTUAL DIVERSIONS OR as CONSUMPTIVE USE ONLY Gyverlsions must be used unless contract= has an augmentation plan) Feb. Mar- Apr- May June. July Sept_332,418 Oct.169aF468 Nov. Dec. Annual Total Gsilons501..$.6 1.6 dx-irnum Instantaneous Dem.. I TIER RFMARKS l e o e- [3 0) r0 ?" r u v -/ -- I 7.7 gPm December 6, 2000 Tr. ewis Peterson Sandra Hannigan cant STUVER ThoraasW.- Studvgr - #1411 120 West Third Street P _ 0. Box 907 Rifler CO 81650 _ ems-. .. �.... • 7' - �.L " . .s ..a . -z,.., -.-. r.. _ r _ r-. _ r ...w Am. • if .7Z-•1- w • vrt • rte r.. .k '•r i.." tn.P. yr A tract of Land in Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 92 West,. 6.PM, Garfield County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point an the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 1-70, whence the North 1/4 corner of said Section 12 bears N 52°02'31" E 1,606.10 feet; thence, along said southerly right-of-way line N 77°03'30" E 1,301.51 feet; thence, leaving said right-of-way line, S 00°20'44" E 1,827.62 feet; thence West 126.61 feet; thence N 76'46'31" W 613.85 feet; thence N 26°49'54" W 523.18 feet; thence, N 57°24'21" W 386.52 feet; thence, N 00'31'02" E 720.63 feet more or .Less to the point of beginning, containing 41.07 acres more or less. The basis of bearing for the description is N 89°29'42" E from the NW corner of said Section 12 to the North 1/4 corner of said Section 12. A.• A.�. Lam•. • f• •� ▪ . J^ •4 •...: 4.•'614 _. • • .4 • • i' r,s • • • • $ .. 44•.2 "'�` • i µ . - T' t •� - • tt .\ x rROCcSS'"k AREA 7- / / / / / / / // / ! / / / / V / / f NK / / ! - / '\/ f / / / / •/ A/ / - / / / / / / / / / o6O Gp1. FU / ! / / / • / / / / / // / i / vs EL 1- _, %� -- z ter/ / 1 / ` 1 , / / /i / /f ! /• / "../ '+' / ! `^ /N:72. REVilt ! 1 GDGlGal % EV / / / / // / rr =Pi Via 4COP 100 GRAPHIC w FEET SIT C 'Preliminary Mining Plan Map [Art 2/17/CG I 1 OF 1 w r ,,......., r\ / `` 1 7i IAC / / / / / f / _ ,• / •C / / ).# !r / ./q. /1/ Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. MIT am= las surr c.+.aooirc o mace 111423 TIM r3 - OE & ASifOCIAIES; !NG . coutemecumois alumnae= "Arra' ! _A x • RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2001 DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 5, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 00CW028 RULING OF REFEREE IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS AND PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION OF: BRENT LEWIS PETERSON AND SANDRA HANNIGAN IN GARFI ELD COUNTY, COLORADO The above -entitled Application was filed in March, of 2000, and was referred to the undersigned as Water Referee for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, by the Water Judge of said Court in accordance with Article 92, of Chapter 37, C.R.S. 1973, known as the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969. The undersigned Referee, having made such investigations as are necessary to determine whether the statements in the Application are true and having become fully advised with respect to the subject matter of the Application, does hereby make the following Ruling of the Referee in this matter, to -wit: The statements in the Application are true except as noted herein. Name, address and telephone number of Applicants: Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan P. O. Box 965 New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 876-2685 clo Thomas W. Stuver Stuver & George, P. C. 120 West Third Street P. O. Box 907 Rifle, CO 81650 Telephone: (970) 625-1887 Timely and adequate notice of the filing of the Application was given as required by law. No Statements of Opposition to the Application were filed. The time for fling Statements of Opposition has expired. Page 2 Division 5 water Coon Case No. OOCWO2S In re she Application Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan 5. Name of structure to be augmented: Peterson Gravel Pit Well No other water rights are diverted from this structure. 6. Previous decree for water rights to be used for augmentation: Lower Cactus Valley Ditch a. Date entered: April 19, 1897 b. No.: 82A in Water District 39; Priority 142B c. Court: Garfield County District Court d. Type of water right: Surface e. Legal description of point of diversion or place of storage: The headgate of said ditch is situate on the northerly bank of the Colorado River at a point whence the quarter corner between Sections 5 and 6, Township 6 South, Range 91 West, bears 470 West 3370 feet, and being in Lot 7, Section 5 in said Township. f. Source: Colorado River g. Amount: 50cfs h. Appropriation: September 14, 1888 i. Decreed use: Irrigation purposes; owned and administered by the Grand River Ditch Company which has allocated a total of 270 shares to the decreed water right. 7. Historic use: The water rights to be used for augmentation have been historically used to irrigate fields and pasture occupying the area to be exposed as the Peterson Gravel Pit (25.9 acres) and an additional area to be used for gravel processing (15.17 acres) . 8. Statement of plan for augmentation: a. Applicants are the current owners of 10.48 shares of the Grand River Ditch Company which equals 1.94 cfs in the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch. The Applicants propose to develop a gravel pit having an exposed surface area of 25.9 acres. After consultation with the Division Engineer it has been determined that total annual consumptive use of the pit is 85.11 acre feet per year, according to the schedule set forth in Table 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. b. Applicants propose to remove from irrigation the following described 41.07 acres: A tract of land in Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 92 West,. 6 PM, Garfield County. Colorado, more particularly described as fol lows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway I-70, whence the North 1/4 corner of said Section 12 bears N 52°02'31" E 1,606.10 feet; thence, along said southerly right-of- way line N 77°03'30" E 1,301.51 feet; thence, leaving said right- Page 3 Division 5 Water Court Case No. OOC'1v428 In re the Application Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan of -way line, S 00020'44" E 1,827.62 feet; thence West 126.61 feet; thence N 76°46'31" W 613.85 feet; thence N 26°49'54" W 523.18 feet; thence, N 57°24'21" W 386.52 feet; thence, N 00°31'02" E 720.63 feet more or less to the point of beginning, containing 41.07 acres more or less. The basis of bearing for the description is N 89°29'42" E from the NW corner of said Section 12 to the North 1/4 corner of said Section 12. A. map of the acreage to be removed from irrigation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Applicant initially claimed that the 41.07 acres have been historically irrigated from April 1 to October 31 of each year with 2.8 shares of Applicants' Grand River Ditch Company water from the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch. After consultation with the Division Engineer, it has been determined that 4.4 shares of Applicant's Grand River Ditch Company water have been utilized for this purpose. c. The removal from irrigation of 41.07 acres under the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch will result in a consumptive use credit of at least 82.40 acre feet of water during the irrigation season to be set off against evaporative loss, stream loss and operational use loss from the Peterson Gravel Pit according to the schedule attached hereto as Table 1. d. As indicated in Table 1, during the months of September and October, an additional 1.60 acre feet of water must be provided to set-off against loss occasioned by Applicant's proposed use. Applicant shall provide for such additional consumptive use by contracting for augmentation water from the West Divide Water Conservancy District under Water Allotment Contract number 001213PH(a), copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference. Utilization of water leased from the West Divide Water Conservancy District pursuant to the Water Allotment Contract as an additional source of water for Applicants proposed use will not result in injury to other persons and republication of the Application is therefore unnecessary. e. Since there has been no historic non -irrigation season ''call" on the Colorado River, it is not necessary to augment the gravel pit water loss from November through March. f. Applicants' water is taken from the first diversion below the headgate of the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch. Accordingly, no allowance is made to defray conveyance and seepage loss in the remainder of the Ditch. The amount of water historically utilized to irrigate the 41.07 acres removed from irrigation (4.40 shares or 0.821 cfs) shall be bypassed or diverted and returned to the Colorado River at the discretion of the Division Engineer. The amount of water contracted from the West Divide Conservancy District shall be released and administered Page 4 Division 5 Water Court Case No. 40C W028 [n re the Application Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan in accordance with Table 1. FINDINGS OF THE REFEREE: The Referee, having examined the information submitted by the Applicants, and having completed the investigations necessary to make a determination in this matter, does therefore conclude that the claims in the above -entitled Application should be granted as shown above, SUBJECT, HOWEVER TO ALL EARLIER PRIORITY RIGHTS OF OTHERS and to the integration and tabulation by the Division Engineer of such priorities in accordance with law. The plan for augmentation requested will not injuriously affect the owners of or persons entitled to use water under a vested water right or a decreed conditional water right, and this plan for augmentation is approved in accordance with C.R.S. §37-92-305(3). Pursuant to C.R.S. §37-92-305(8), the State Engineer and the Division Engineer may lawfully be required under the terms of this Ruling to curtail all out -of -priority diversions from Applicants' well at any time when the consumptive use associated with Applicants' diversions exceed the net amount of replacement water available under this plan for augmentation. Special Provisions: a. The plan for augmentation requested shall be subject to all provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Grand River Ditch Company as they presently exist or may hereinafter be amended according to law. b. Applicants shall continue paying assessments upon their shares of stock in the Grand River Ditch Company as from time to time may be levied by the Board of Directors upon all of said stock of which applicants of like class and shall otherwise comply with all other lawful obligations of the shareholders of the Grand River Ditch Company, Applicants shall install such measuring devices, provide accounting and supply calculations regarding the timing of depletions as may be required by the Division Engineer to facilitate the operation of this plan for augmentation and assure compliance herewith. The State Engineer's Office shall issue a gravel well permit for the subject well pursuant to all of the provisions of this Ruling and C.R.S. §37-90-137(2) and (I I). It is accordingly ORDERED that this Ruling shall be filed with the Water Clerk subject to Judicial Review. Page 5 Division 5 Water Court Case No. 00CW028 In re the Application Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan It is further ORDERED that a copy of this Ruling shall be filed with the appropriate Division Engineer and the State Engineer. Dated BY THE REFEREE: Water Referee Water Division No. 5 State of Colorado No protest was filed in this matter, and accordingly the foregoing Ruling is confirmed and approved, and is made the Judgment and Decree of this Court; provided, however, that the approval of this plan for augmentation shall be subject to reconsideration by the Water Judge on the question of injury to the vested rights of others during any hearing commencing within a period of years after date. Dated Water Judge MONTH GRAVEL MINING (1) JAN 0.49 FEB 0.49 MAR 0.49 APR 0,49 MAY 0.49 JUN 0.49 JUL 0,49 AUG 0.49 SEP 0 49 OCT 0.49 NOV 0.49 DEC 0.49 ANNUAL 5.88 WASH PLANT (2) 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.55 TABLE 1 PETERSON GRAVEL PIT WATER REQUIREMENTS AND AUGMENTATION SCHEDULE (VALUES IN AF) CONCRETE DUST LAKE CONTROL EVAP. (3) (4) (5) 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.00 0.00 1.81 0,10 0.01 2.85 0.10 0.02 5.08 0.10 0.02 7.15 0.10 0.02 11.58 0.10 0.02 13.91 0.10 0.02 13.18 0.10 0.02 9.95 0.10 0.02 6,04 0.10 0.01 3.70 0.00 0,00 1.55 0.90 0.16 78.17 TOTAL DELAYED DEPLETIONS (6) (7) 1,86 1.91 2.30 2.23 3.45 3,26 5,69 5.32 7,76 7.42 12.19 11.48 14.52 14.11 13.79 13.89 10,56 11.08 6.65 7.30 4.30 4.70 2.04 2.41 85.11 85.11 OUT -OF PRIORITY DEPLETIONS (8) 0,00 0.00 0,00 2.81 7.42 11.48 14.11 13.89 11.08 7.30 0.00 0,00 68.09 (1) 200,000 TPY @ 4% MOISTURE (2) WASH PLAN USING 1000 GPD MAKE-UP WATER (3) 5000 CYIYRt@30 GALICY (4) 3000 GPD * 22 DAYS/MO. (5) EVAPORATION FROM 25.9 AC (6) SUM OF 1 THROUGH 5 (7) BASED ON GLOVER ANALYSIS (8) DEPLETIONS DURING CALL PERIOD OF APR 15 TO OCT 31 (9) C.U. CREDITS FROM DRY -UP (10) RESERVOIR RELEASES UNDER A CONTRACT WITH WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT C.U. CREDITS (9) 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.85 11.80 15.16 17.45 15.30 10.06 6,78 0.00 0.00 82.40 WDWCD CONTRACT (10) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.54 0.00 0.00 1.61 * INCLUDES 5% FOR TRANSIT LOSSES to: Nf/4 Carie, 5ecten !2, r. 6 5„ ' 92 W of the bth PM 0l c70:46 � r Prxnt of Darn+ Sec. 12, Tsp. 6 S.. Rng. 92 W., 6th P.M. Garfield County, CO 200 0 =I IS 700 600 600 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 W171 - 700 FEET r AREA = 41.07 Acres EXHIBIT A Area to be Removed From Irrigation DAM SHEET 11 /27/00 1 OF 1 DRAWN BY. DRAWING NAME ROP 99870\BNDY.dwa r 6f?B5 Western Sigpe Aggregates, Tn.c. MST DIVE BOX 910 �. cuteci10ALE.. COL0R#00 61623 j970) 963-7796 JEROAE GAMBA At AS9OCIATES, INC. C0111113110 amen t LAM 5190011 POsr OFFICE Box 1636 113 NINM STREET - 51Plt 214 OLE1.6020 SPO1N06 COLCP60O 61607 12701 $i0-2090 OOCWQ28 Exhibit "A" 126.6!' N 90.00'00" W • �J REVISED 7129/99 Name of Applicant Brerit T Contract #001213PH(a) Map #361 Date Activated 1/1/01 WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT WATER ALLOTMENT CONTRACT/LEASE Quantity of Water in AcrFeee 1 . a f tees Applicant, Ires..l.,y applies to the West Divide Water Conservancy District, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado. organi d pursuant to and tecisting by virtue ofC.F..S. 1973. §37-45-101. etseq.. (hereinafter referred to as the "District") for an allotment contras lle se to beneficially and perpetually use water or water rights owner., leaser., c hereafter acquire by the District. By execution o.` this ccintractilease and the attached application. Applicant Irei=by agree.% to the following terms and conditions: 1. Waite Fights_ Applicant shall own water nghrs of the point of diversion herein lawfully entitling Applicant to divert water. which will be supplemented and augmented by water leaser. herein. If Applicant intends to divert through a well, it must be understood by Appiic:mt that no right to divert exists until a valid well permit is obtained from the Colorado Division of Water Rertaurce"_s. Quainter Watt- applied for by the Applicant in the amount set forth above shall be diverted est Applicant's point ofdiversiort frcxn the District's direct flaw war nghts, and when water is unavailable for diversion pursuant to administration by the Colorado State Engineer during periods when said direct flow water right is not in priority, the District shall release for the use of Applicant up to said quantity in acrei= per year of storage water imvncd or controlled by the District ft is understood that arty quantity allotted from direct flow, storage or otherwise, to he Applicant by the District will be Iirnited by the priority of the Districts decrees and by the physical and legal 1 - � availability of water from District's sources_ Any quantity allotted will only be provided so long as water k available and the Applicant fully complies .Poith all of the trains and condition. afthis certtnt Jlease_ The District and the Applicant recognize that some of the Dis'trict's decrees may be tree name of the Colatado Rias Wates Conservation District, and tiro ability of the District to allot direct flaw right to the Applicant miry be dependent on the consort of the Colca-edo River Water Conservation District. If at any time the Applicant determines it requires less water than the amount herein provided Applicant may so nosily the District in writing, and the amount of water allotted under this cot et lease shall benednood permanently in accordance with such notice_ Rate% shall be adjusted accordingly in following wester years only. 3. Beneficial Use and L:cation afBerrddal Usr Any and all water allotted Applicant by the District shall be used fur the following beneficial mem- uses: municipal. domestic and related uses, or commercial (except to the avert that Ruedi Reservoir water sr:r< ,4, may not be available fixe corruncrcial as that tarn is defined on Page 5 of Contract No. 2-07-70-WO547 between the United Starts and the te Westlaw de Water Conservancy District). Applicant's beneficial use of any and all water allotted shall be within or through facilities or upon land owned, leased, operated, or undo Applicant's cortisol. 1 OOCW02€l Exhibit "8" tel;7 0 1 v 1 of w� 1 r'1 1-4-1 s er . 4. Deer= and Delivery: Exchange releases made by the Dis'irict out of storage from Rttedl Reservoir and Careen Mountain Reservoir, or other works or fneilities of the District, or from nether sources available to thc District, shall be delivered to tide Applicant at thc outlet woe% of said stege facilities: or at the decreed point of diversion for said other sources, and release or delivery of water at sins outlet or paints F.hall constitute perfxmanae of the District's total obligation. Delivery of -water by the District from Rood' Rc avoir or Geed Mountain R aervoir shall be subje= to the District's lease wrrtracts with the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Releasts frrnn other facilities available to District shall be subjec to thc contracts, laws, rules, and rc •latior governing releases therefrom. Furthermore, the District hereby expressly reserves the right to stare ware- and to make =change releases from struauret that may be built or controlled by thc Distrix in the future, so long as the water service to the Applicant pursuant to this agreement. is not impaired by said action. Any gtoiraity of the Applicants aline ion not delivered to or used by Applicant by the end of each water year (October l), shall revert to the water supplim ofthc District. Such reversion shall not entitle Applicant to any refund ofpaymcnt made for such water. Water service provided by the District shall be'lishcited to the amount ofwater available in priority at the original point of diversion of the District's applicable water right, and neither the District, nor those entitled to utiles the District's decrees, may call on any grader amount ar new or alternate points of diversion_ The District shall request the Colorado Division of Water Rrsc,wc s to estimate any corrveyance losses between the original point and any alternate point, and such estimate shall be deducted from this amount. in each case. 5.tLIrinse point c+fivcrsior, and Plan tafAuemsxtt,}tlis; Deuces for alternate points ofdiversion of the Districts - water rights or storage water may be required in order for Appliamt to reser the water scxvio contemplated hereunder. Obtaining such is the exclusive responsibility of Applicant. The District reserves tate right to review and approve arty conditions which may be at,ached to judicial _approval of said alternate point of diversion as contemplated or norracary to serve Apralicant;s facilities or lands. Applicant accricrwlikes and agem that it shall be solely responsible for the procedur= and legal engineering crus necessary fear any changes in water rightsa4rnplaied harcir4 and further ugixs to indemnify the Disuia from any costs ar losses related thereto_ Applicant is solely responsible for providing woc$s and facial= necessary to obtain/divert the waters at said alternate point of div ion and deliver them to Applicant's intended ficheSc ial use. irrespective of the amount ofwater ncaaaily tial sfesred to the Applicant's point of diversion, the Applicant shall make annual payments to the District based upon the amount of water allotted under this contractfleasc in the eve:ra the Applicant intends to apply for an alternate point of diversion and to develop an augmentation plan and institute legal proceedings for the approval of such augmentation plan to allow the Applicant to utilizes: the water allotted to Applicant ii rounder, the Applicant shall give the Distrix written notice of such intent. In the event the Applicant develops and adjudicates its own dam plan to utilize thc water allotted hereunder, Applicant shall not be obligated to pay any amount under Paragraph 19 below. in arty -event the District small have the right to approve or disapprove the Appliie~t.nt's augmentation plan and the Applicant shall' provide the District copies of such plan and of all pleadings and other papers filed with the water extent in the adjudication thereof 6. Contract/lease Paytnaht: Nonseis.a-sdable ale time adrnirustrativc charge, in the amount determined by the Board ofDirecttns of the District from time to time. shall be submitted with the application for consideration by the District. Anneal payment for the water service described herein shall be determined by the Board of Directors of the District. The initial annual payment shall be made in full, within thirry (30) days after the date of notice to the Applicant that the initial payment is dues. Skid notice will advise the Applirrsnt, among other things, of the water delivery year to which the initial payment shall apply and the price whirl is applicable to that year. 2 ,ew'r V ,.•••• 1•ti+¢ Li u i a ♦i • ..... s. ti... ...-'....r Annual payments far each year the ilex shat] be due and payable by the Applicant on or before each January 1. If an .•.annual p rrartt isnot made by the due date a flat 5.50 bur foe will be assesseli Final written notice prior to cancellation will be sett certified Ttaaii: r�Rrr receipt requested. to the Applicant at such nddreas as may be designated by the Applicant in writing or set forth in this centraallease or appliezatioct_ Water uac for any part of a vratc year shall require payment for the entire water year. Nothing here -in shall be constraed so nos to prevent the District from adjusting the annual rase in its sok discretion far future years only. Ifpayrrrcrtt is not rnadc within fiflecn (15) days atter the date of said written notice, Applicant shall at District's sok caption have no fin err right, title or interest under this cornraevicase without further notice_ and delivery may be immediately curtailed.. The allotment of ware, as harem made, may be miner -it -al, leased, or otherwise disposed of at the discretion of tine Board oflirectors attic District_ Upon cancellation of this wilt= allotment contract/lease with the District, the District shall notify the Division of Wee Rescnttr. mo'ffices in Denver and Glenwood Springs_ The Division of Water Resources may then order crssatiorr of all water use. 7. Acktitirna] Fees and Casts- Applicant agrees to defray any expenses incurred by the District in connection with the attenuant ofwarer rights hereunder, including but root limited to. reimbursement of legal and engine Ging oasts incurred in connection with any water rights and adjudication necessaay to allow Applicant's use of such allotted water rights. 8, A.ssi,farnent This asotraedlease shall inure to the benefit of the heirs. successors or assigns of the panics hereto, Any assignment ofthe Applicant's rights under this contract/lease contract/leaseshall be subject to, and must comply with., such requirements as the Distric may hereafter adopt regarding assignment eifc entrnctllease rights and the assumption of contract/lease obligations by assignees and successors. •Nothing hereon shall preresxt ssurzsersors tom portion of Applicant's property from applying to the District for individual and separate allotment evntraetsilascs. Tao assignment shall be recognized by the Distr cs cecept upon carnpiecion and filing of proper forms for change of Sw- Urine the sale of the real property to which this coranactllease pea -tins, Applicant has a duty to make buyer aware of this oac&lea.w and proper forms for etangc of ownership must be completed_ 9. Caller Rule;: Applicant shall tae bound by the provisions oldie Water Cor`nscrvancy Act of Colorado; by the rules and 'egUIadems of the Board of-Directers of the Districts and all amendment, , thereof and supplements thereto and by all other applicable law, 10. Q r uv i and Maintenance Agroarirereq Applicant shall rates into an 'Operation and ivfainte Lance Agreerneru • with the District under tams and conditions determined by the board of Directors of the Distrirx if and when, the Buard raised District dctc mince in its sole discticm that such an agreement is required Said agree 'nein may contain, but shall not be limited to. provisions for additional annual monetary consideration for extension of District delivery services and for additional administration, operation, arid maintenance casts; or for other costs to the Districts which may arise through services made available to the Applicant I I. Change afUsc Thr District rescrvei thccaeii sive right to review, =approve or disapprove any pmposad change in use of the water allotted hereunder. Any use other than that set forth herein or any lease or sale of the water or water rights allowed hereunder without the prior written approval of the District shall be deemed to be a material broth of this oontraa/irase. _ I Use and PInee of Use Applicant agrees to use the water'in the manner and on the property described in the dOeurnents submitted to the Distria at the time this c etract/lcasc is cxc ute , or in any operation and maintenance agreement provided by Appliearrt Any use other than as set forth therm or tarry lease or sale of the water or water rights herein, athc than as pc mitYed in paragraph sbave. shall be deemed to he a material breach of this agreement 13. Tide k is taradcstaaod and agreed that nothing herein shalt be interpreted to give the Applicant any equitable or legal Ice title interest in or to any water or water tights referred to herein. 14. Cyrrservation: Applicant shall tier commoniy accepted conservation practices with respect to the water and water rights basin, and hereby agrees to be bond by any conservation plan adopted hereafter by the District for use of District owned or controlled water r or water rights. 15. Restrictions: Applicant shall restrict actual diversions to not exceed the Contracatesse amount. which prcnridc s waiter (on.the formula of one acne (riot per dwelling) for ordinary household purposes inside on single family dwelling. the watering or • de Heretic liv+cgtcck, fire protection, and the irrigation of up to 6.1100 square feet of lawn and garden. Applicant shall also comply with ail restnetions and limitations sct forth in the well permit obeincd from thc Colorado Division of Water R.caourtxs. Watering of livestock shall be restricted to Applicant's domestic animal's nix to be used for ccornmertial purposes unless Applicant embelins approval from the Colorado Division °Maar Rcsourz for cornm€rcial use/Hs-1==k watering at a horse boarding facility. provided that in no event shall actual diversions exceed the amount of waxer provided by this Contract/Lease. Violation of this paragrlph 15 shall be dexrnedto bea material breach of this Contract/LeLse. 1 d. Well Permit. If -Applicant intends to divert through a well, then Applicant must 'wean c to District a copy of Appiisaru's valid well permit before Distrix is obligated to deliver any water hereunder. 17. M urin Devj a ov. Mix Appii=rrt agremx to provide, at its own expense, a totalizing flow meter with non= readout to Continuously and accur-ately measure at all gars all water divested prusuaun to the terms of Applicant's water right and the teems of this contractile se. Applicant agrees to provide accurate readings from such device or meter to Disn ict upon District's rrqueet, Applicant acknowledges that iiiiure to comply with this paragraph could res-uit in legal sake to terminate Applicant's diversion of water by thc State of olora.do Division of Water Resources. By signing this cermet Applicant hereby specifically allows District. through its authorise agent. heater upon applicant's property during ordinary business hours for the purposes al -determining applicant's actual use of wane.:. 18. Representations; lay =caning this conu-acs/icase. Applicant agrees that it is not relying on any legal or engineering advice that Applicant may believe has been received fon the District Applicant further acknowledges that it has obtained all rimenary legal and engineering advice frau Applicant's own sources other than the District Applicant farther acknowledges that the District makes no guarantees war antiet, or sssuratncsa whatsoever about the quantity or quality ofwatcr available pursaaunt to this cotatraci/lcasc. 4 .1141.WWT ta!lee'YW waTwirr- ppnwDITILMIW Chi= 0.1P=.1, 1C(474/WW W.008 ShooId the' District be unable to provide the water contracted fix- hcsein, no damages may bc assessed against the District, nor may Applicant obtain a refund from the District_ 9.Cceitc of:Waxer Cnort Filing and A ligriCntith Fir Should thc District, in its own discretion, choose to include Applicant's coatractilcusc herein in a watt court filing for alternate point of diversion or plan of augmentation, then Applicant hereby awe= 4to pay to the District, when assciard, an additional fee icptcaenting the Distrix actual and riasonahlc costs and foes for Applicants share 7-?itisfibe proceedings. Applicant shall be assessed a pro -rata share of the total cogr incurred by the Distria in preparing. filing and pursuing to ••• •• • ▪ -:-..deelpe the water court 08.9 The pro -1n snare shall be calculated by dividing such total cost by the numb= of contracu=sliesoes included • "'in tFeiI1ing. To the extent that the District is =used additional costs because of objection filed specifically due to the inclusion of Applicant's corririactficase in the filing. such additional costs may be charged specifically to Applicant and not shared on a pro -rata basis by ail contractites/liessees. 20. Binding Agrcfrncir. This agno=netrt shall not be complete nor binding upon the Dict unless attached hereto is the form entitled "Appliccion and Data Form to I...msr Water From West Divide Water Conservancy Distric"" fully cornpletvi by Applicant and approved by the District's ang;iii=. Said attachments shall by this refcren= thereto bc incorporated into the tents of this agreernem, All correspcndence from the District to Applicant referring to or relating to this agmernent is by this refirrence incorporated into this agreement • as. further terms and conditions of this agreement_ 21. Warn in TT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A VALID WELL PERM IT OR-:MIER WATER RIGHT IN ORDER TO DIVERT WATER, INCLUDING THE WALR ACQUIRED UNDER Ti -ns COACT/LEASE IT IS THE CONTINUING DUTY OFTHE APPLICANTTO MAINTAIN THE VALIDTTY OF THE WELL PER1vITT OR. WATER RICHT INCLUDING RUNG FOR EXTENSIONS OF PERIvtITS, FILING WF/ t COMPLETION REPORT'S, FLUNG STATEMENTS OF BENEFICIAL USE. OR OTHERWISE LAN/FULLY APPLYING THE WATER TO BENEFICIAL USE ON A REGULAR BASIS Wal-IOUT WASTE-. 22_ AREA B. CONTRACTS/LEASES; IF APPLICANTS WELL OR. OTHER. WATER RIGHT 11 -IAT IS THE -1 'SUBJECT OF THIS CONTRACT/LEASE IS LOCALE -10 OUTSIDE 'AREA A" AS DESIGNATED BY THE DISTRICT, THE THIS PARAGRAPH APPT _IFS • THE AUGMENTATION WA iERPROVTDED BY THE DISTRICT UNDER 11-1IS CONTRACT MAY ONLY pRerTEcr APPLICANTS WATER RIGHT FROM A CALL ON THE COLORADO RIVER AND MAY NOT PROTECT APPLIC_ANT FROM A CALL FROM ANY OTHER SENIOR RIGHT. NO RIZPRESENTATION OTHERWISE IS MADE BY THE DISTRICT. EF THIS *CONCERN TO APPLICANT, THIS CONTRACT/LEASE MAY 13E RESCINDED UPON WRITTEN NOTICE DELIVERED TO • TH.i. DISTRICT BY THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS FOLLOWING THE AFFDCING OF SIGNATURES ON THIS CONTRACT/LEASE TN WH1CI-i EVENT ALL SUMS PAID BY APPUCANI' FOR THIS CONTRACT/LEASE SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REFUNDED ID APPLIC_ANT. • Brent Lewes eterson . Applicant - 13;7 _.. • • Aer- 5 anura annlgan App I i cant STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss, COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) foregoing instrument was aeknowledg,ei be forE me on this (day cif , 20L), by S4v1d/ J{7 eitj J %d7F►� Witn s my hand and olrcial seal. My commission cxpircre.„,4/1 60 Ndtary Public ORDER Alger a hearing by the Board of Directors of the West Divide Water Conservancy District on the application, it is hereby ORDER& that said application be granted and this errritnicificasc shall bc and i accepted by the District_ ATTEST: rt Seetierary WEST DIVIDE WATER. CONSERVANCY DISTRICT /,- /3- oD cprou,c,\L Date This contraer/lmsc inchud r and is subject to the tams and a:cultic:ias of the following docurncnts which must accompany this contrarrtllease; 1. Map showing location of point of diversion (use map provided) 2. Application and Data Fo:rn fully completed and signed 3. 5 W T " BRENT LEWIS PETERSON and SANDRA HANNIGAN &Address P 0 Box 965 New Castle, CO 81647 ne 970 / 876-2685 Authorized Agent or Representative Thomas W . Stuver Stuvar & LeM0J.ne, r . L. . Contract #0471 21 3PH (a ) Map #361 Date Activated 1/1/01 APPLICATION AND DATA FORM TC) LEASE WATER FROM WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT =RIGHT T O WNEDD BY APPLICANT OR BEING ING f1PPLIED FOR Name of Right Peterson Gravel Pit Well Type of Structure or Right Ground Water Lotion ofPoiat of Diversion (description from decree or permit) Gravel Pit Well in the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 12, Township 6 South Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. (See attached maps) er Court Case No. nnr-wo2,R ENDED USE OF LEASED WA fER ofArea ofUse (Include metes and bounds legal description of property on which water right is to be r1 lied as E)btibit) See attachment Well Permit No. (Attach copy of permit) acreage of above -referenced parcel 411.07 acres A&dres`s of above -referenced propel -7y Description of ljse Augmentation of Consumptive Use from Gravel Pit Well Estimated Sq. FL ofLawn/Garden to be Irrigated Method: Flood Sprinkler • Drip _.._Other T w tal Number of Dwelling/Commemial Units Number of Livestock Wat red from. Well of -Constructed Units Number of Vacant. Lots Total Sq_ Ft. of Co.tuluercial Units e Water System Wise -Water Treatment System ofMctcr or Measuring Device ted. Monthly Volume ofLr-sed Water Needed in Gallons_ N )FIGURES ARE ACTUAL DIVERSIONS OR xx CONSUMPTIVE USE ONLY &versions must he used un Ness cam has an augmentation pian,) Feb. Mar. — Apr. May June. July Scpt_332,418 Oct.1694468 Nov. Dec. Annual Total Gallons 501.,8Q6 e Feet 1.6 Mhz-imumn Instantaneous Demand 7.7 fpm O4Hi k REMARKS ecisR sx- 'gin --r u / -/-- 1 December 6, 2000 ewis Peterson Sandra Hannigan cant f r STLTVER & LEjSS BY Thomas' W . Stover #1411 120 West Third Street P. 0. Box 907 Rifle, CO 81650 •. e • • • • •••:.•,•-• o =Le E -• ....T YID �' A tract of [and in Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 92 West,. 6•PM, Garfield County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 1-70, whence the North 1/4 corner of said Section 12 bears N 52°02'31" E 1,606.10 feet; thence, along said southerly right-of-way line N 77°03'30" E 1,301.51 feet; thence, leaving said right-of-way line, 5 00°20'44" E 1,827.62 feet; thence West 126.61 feet; thence N 7646'31" W 613.85 feet; thence N 26'°49'54" W 523.18 feet; thence. N 57024'21" W 386.52 feet; thence, N 00°31'02" E 720.63 feet more or less to the point of beginning, containing 41.07 acres more or less. The basis of bearing for the description is N 89°29'42" E from the NW corner of said Section 12 to the North 1/4 corner of said Section 12. • • 1 s ,iPi t' • x: • -� =�.; `err • z PRcCES:Ist'G x .\\ ry N \''....x\ '.--....,...V\N., viVtv / .." 4c / ji_ 7/7:71.1‹ / df / / Z A / r / / r MSCALE IN C '1 r1l , 'j,1 , 14 / / / / /.i`1, / �,' / r f uy r` / f / / / t /• / '' \,,AA l �►,,� ART -4I / / / J f j/ ./ / EXHIBIT C Preliminary Mining Plan Map 1 eArC 2/17/00 11 1 OF 1 nam ,.. ,r. 1 M11.1 .. ....ri ... _ , / , . •••••• SF�-ter / Wes@rII O Ie '1 -� it 5F Aggregates, c. ANT WE= 1St !s XFCILE GM8I kASSOCIAIES, PC. 151.00011101M WO saw= d4.1=:13}7S ?A i ..1 x STEVEN Lt. BEATTIE GLENN D. CHADWICK KAREN J. SLOAT CYNTHIA C. TESTER BEATTIE & CHADWICK ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 710 COOPER AVENUE. SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 February 2, 2001 I-IAND DELIVERED Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County Garfield County Planning Commission 109 8111 Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Application for Special Use Permit Peterson Gravel Pit - Western Slope Aggregates, Dear Members of the Board and Planning Commission: 2. TELEPHONE 49701 945-8659 FAX (970) 945-8671 &6i This firm represents the Town of Silt. This letter addresses the Application for Special Use Permit of Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. ("WSA"). The Application consists of an original Application for Special Use Permit dated Febniary 2000, a Supplement dated April 19, 2000, and a Second Supplement dated January 2, 2001 (collectively, the "Application"). The Application requests a special use permit for extraction of natural resources (sand and gravel mining), processing (concrete batch plant), and mining in a flood plain. The proposed site is a 41.07 acre agricultural field adjacent to Interstate 70, located approximately 850 feet northeast or the easterly boundary of the Town of Silt, and approximately 1 mile east of the Silt 1-70 interchange. In accordance with a Settlement Agreement in Garfieid County District Court Case No. 00 CV 203-A, the Garfield County Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") is scheduled to consider the Application at its meeting on February 14, 2001, and the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County (the "Board") is scheduled to commence final consideration ofthe Application at its meeting on March 5, 2001. Both meetings are public hearings. The Settlement Agreement provided for the Town of Silt to tender any comments, requests or statements concerning the Application on or before Febniary 2, 2001. This letter accompanies Town of Silt Resolution No. 4, Series of 2001, adopted by the Board of Trustees on January 22, 2001 (the "Silt Resolution"). The Silt Resolution adopted and incorporated an attached report of Davis Farrar, Western Slope Consulting, dated January 21, 2001, consisting of 10 pages (the "Farrar Report"). By the Silt Resolution, "the Board [of Trustees] adopts the [Farrar] Report and the evaluations, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated therein as the positions ofthe Board." This letter also accompanies Garfield County Resolution No. 84-66, dated April 9, 1984, by which the Board of County Commissioners denied an application for special use permit of Asphalt Paving Company for gravel mining and batch plant on a nearby site. Resolution No. 84-66 is discussed below in this letter. Copies of this letter are being delivered to the Garfield County Planning Department and Garfield County Attorney, for their use and consideration in preparation L3f stafrreports. Silt expects to have representatives present at the scheduled public hearings. Silt respectfully reserves the right to present additional or supplemental information as may be appropriate, as well as comments or responses to any Garfield County staff reports. slur RESOLUTION AND FARRAR REPORT For the reasons set firth in the Silt Resolution and Farrar Report, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt strongly recommends that the Planning Commission and Board deny the Application. The Farrar Report focuses on the nature of the proposed gravel mining and concrete batch plant operations, applicable zoning and special use permit standards, relationship and inconsistency of the proposed operations to the Garfield County and Silt comprehensive plans, the character of the neighborhood, and adverse impacts including agricultural, wildlife, traffic, visual, noise, vibration and emissions, property values and Silt Municipal water system. GARFIELI) COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 84-66 In 1984 Garfield County considered an Asphalt Paving Company application tier special use permit for a gravel mining and hatch plant operation on a 9.69 acre tract in the vicinity attic County Road 3 i 1 bridge over the Colorado River near Silt. The Board of County Commissioners unanimously denied the application. Virtually all or the considerations belbre the Board in 1984 are present in the current WSA Application - approximate geographical locations, types cifproposed use, character of neighborhood, and concerns of Silt and neighboring citizens. In a carefully -reasoned six page document, the Board analyzed the impacts of the proposed operations and determined that the requested special use permit was not in the public interest. TIIE TOWN OF SILT URGES THAT i;aACII MEMBER OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD, AND COUNTY STAFF, ISI+.AI) ANI) CONSIDER THIS RESOLUTION WITH CARE IN EVALUATING THE PRESENT APPLICATION. Some of the findings and conclusions of the Resolution, as they relate to the present WSA Application, are as follows: Burden of Proof An application may be technically "complete," but still he unacceptable. Citing Colorado law, tate Board noted in Resolution No. 84-66 that the burden o1 proof is on the applicant to show compliance with applicable: standards. The Board went on the find, in denying the application, "that the applicant has failed, in his burden of proof, to show by competent evidence, that the application for a special land use permit for the subject parcel is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution...and the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan..." (Paragraphs 2, 3 and 15) Zoning Considerations As in the present case, the property was zoned Agricultural/industrial. As is still the case, the Board noted, "In this zoite classification, uses by right are generally agricultural and residential in nature. The industrial extractive operation proposed by the applicant for the subject parcel is not a use by right..." (Paragraph 5) Character of Neighborhood The Board placed substantial emphasis on this criterion. The Resolution noted that the Board must, for purposes of considering the application, "establish the neighborhood," which the Board determined to be properties within 1/2 mile of the proposed site. Consistent with the facts in present case, the Board in 1984 found that tate character of the neighborhood was agricultural and residential. Consistent with what the evidence will show in the present case, the Board went on to find, "There has been no competent evidence presented that there has been a change in the basic character oldie affected neighborhood over the past several months. The applicant's land use would be incompatible with the traditional and historic as well as the existing rises of the land and the established neighborhood, including the land of the applicant." The Board also found that the neighborhood "would be adversely impacted by the applicant's proposed use.,, (Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6) Public Input In reaching its decision, the Board placed emphasis on the views of County constituents, noting that citizens "have indicated concern regarding the Oleo of the proposed gravel pit and associated extractive operations on the agricultural and residential nature afthe neighborhood, upon the value of adjoining properties and other properties in the area, and its impact on the Town of Silt." Silt understands that similar public concerns will be expressed at the WSA hearings. (Paragraph 6) Traffic In the 1984 proceedings, as now, access to the proposed indrlstnal site would be from the Silt Interstate 70 interchange. The number of vehicle trips in each case was projected to be about the same (200 trips per day in 1984, 181) in WSA's Application). The Board wisely noted that even if technically adequate access exists, the volume and nature of industrial trailic, in Light ofarea conditions, may pose unacceptable safety hazards, which are a basis for denial pursuant to Section 5.03 I 1 of he Zoning Resolution. "While there may be adequate road access from the proposed special use operation site of -the applicant to the Silt interchange on Interstate 70...tlte applicant's proposed operation would have a substantial, negative impact on traffic volume and safety of those persons using County Road 3 1 1 and the bridge system within the general vicinity of the applicant's site, within the meaning of Section of 5.03.1 1..." (Paragraph 7) 3 Water Sup/ As in 1984, the present WSA proposal involves an extractive operation with substantial de -watering and significant associated mechanical operations. As in 1984, the proposed WSA operation is located upstream of the Town's municipal water system intake. The Resoltuion found evidence that "the public safety and general welfare would be harmed by the applicant's proposal lvith regard to the wate- intake facility attic Town of Silt." The Board addressed water quantity, water quality and flood plain hazards, all of which concern the Town presently. (Paragraph 8) Noise, Odor and Dust The Resolution found "that there is substantial, competent evidence in the record that the proposed use of the applicant would generate objectionable levels of noise, odor and dust." While there may be debate as to achievable levels of mitigation. the most effective means to minimize these emanations is not to permit them, particularly in This agricultural and residential vicinity. (Paragraph 9) Visual Impacts As will be clearly demonstrated at the hearings, the proposed WSA operations will be highly visible to Interstate 70 travelers, as well as to properties located north of the interstate and south of the Colorado River. The proposed site is located within the visual corridor established in Garfield County's Comprehensive Plan. The 1984 Resolution paid significant attention to these considerations. "Furthermore, the proposed use would be out of character with the other uses of the neighborhood, which are ofan agricultural and residential nature, and would be unsightly. The applicant's operations would be visible within the scenic corridor of interstate 70, and would constitute an unsightly situation when viewed from the highway." (Paragraph 9) 'I�Wildtife WSA has submitted a wildlife study tending to minimize the impacts of the proposed operations on wildlife in the area. however, the proposed operations are immediately adjacent to the Colorado River. Silt believes that information will be presented at the hearing contrary to the Applicant's conclusions. in this regard, the Resolution found, "Tate sight (sic) of the proposed uses is adjacent to a critically sensitive and important habitat for river corridor wildlife, including but not limited to the endangered species of bald eagle, blue heron and Canadian geese ...Gravel mining, and its attendant operations, represents probably the most adverse impact to wildlife along the river." (Paragraphs 9 and 10) 4 Lac lc of Physireal Se[rarat ory Section 5.03.11 ofthe Zoning Resolution provides that one basis for denial ofa requested special use permit is the "lack of physical separation in terms of distance from similar uses on the same or other lots." The proposed WSA operation would be located wit]►in approximately'' mile of another gravel minim; operation along the Colorado River. The 1984 Resolution noted and found, "There is another gravel pit operation in the general vicinity of the proposed use, there is substantial, competent evidence in the record of the public hearing which demonstrates that the number ofgravel pits in the general vicinity orthe proposed use woe►ld have an adverse, cttnutlative effect on the general welfare orthe residents of Garfield County." (Paragraph 11) Silt and Garfield County Comprehensive Pians The Resolution noted that proposed gravel mining and batch plant operations were inconsistent with the comprehensive plans of both the Town of Sill and Garfield County. (Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14) The same considerations apply today, with even greater emphasis, with revisions to comprehensive plans strengthening the importance of maintaining neighborhood characters. The Farrar Report addresses the inconsistencies or the Application with the comprehensive plans in some detail. Economic Loss Silt understands that various neighbors believe and will testify that the gravel mining operation will cause economic injuries to their properties. Such considerations were given weight by the Board in the 1984 Resolution. (Paragraphs 6 and 16) CONCI.IISTONS The Town of Silt submits that there are numerous grounds upon which the WSA Application may be denied, and that the Application should be denied. The proposed use is not a use by right., is not consistent with the comprehensive plans for the area, and is not in the best interest of the healthy, safety and welfare of the citizens of Silt and other affected areas. Very ' ily yours, teven M. Beattie SM13/psc cc: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planner Don K. DeFord, Garfield County Attorney 5 TOWN OF SILT RESOLUTION NO. 4 SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE GRAVEL MINING & BATCH PLANT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION OF WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC. TO GARFIELD COUNTY WHEREAS, in or about April 2000, Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. (WSA) submitted to Garfield County an Application for a Special Use Permit (SUP Application), as well as a Supplement to the SUP Application (First Supplement), seeking the County's approval of a gravel mining operation and batch plant on certain real property located east of the Town of Silt, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the SUP Application and First Supplement became the subject matter of litigation encaptioned Board of Trustees vs. Board of County Commissioners, et al., Case No. OOCV 203-A (the Litigation), which was settled - in December 2000; and WHEREAS, on or about January 4, 2001, WSA later submitted to the County a second supplement to the SUP Application (Second Supplement); in compliance with that certain Settlement Agreement executed December 11, 2000 concerning the Litigation and WHEREAS, the Town Board of Trustees (Board) has had an opportunity to review the SUP Application, the First Supplement, and the Second Supplement (collectively hereinafter the "Application"); and WHEREAS, at the direction of the Board, Davis Farrar of Western Slope Consulting prepared and delivered to the Board a Report on Western Slope Aggregates Proposed Gravel Mining and Batch Plant Special Use Permit Application to Garfield County (Report) dated January 21, 2001, evaluating the Application; and WHEREAS, a true and correct copy of the Report is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth; and WHEREAS, the Board reviewed and considered the material in the Report; and WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement provides that the Town, its staff, or its Trustees shall tender comments and requests concerning the Application to the County by February 2, 2001; and WHEREAS, Town staff is continuing to review and evaluate the Application. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO, as follows: 1. The Board adopts the Report and the evaluations, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated therein as the positions of the Board; and 2. For the reasons and upon the grounds set forth in the Report, the Board hereby recommends that the County deny the Application; and 3. The Board directs its staff to continue to review the Application, and to tender to the County such additional comments and grounds for denial as Town staff deems appropriate; and 4. The Board directs Town staff to attend scheduled hearings on the Application before the County, make oral statements and testimony, and take other action as staff deems appropriate. INTRODUCED, READ, PASSED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt, Colorado held on the 22nd day of January 2001. EST: Town Clerk Patty Lambert, CMC TOWN OF SILT Mayor Pro Tem John Evans REPORT ON WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES PROPOSED GRAVEL MINING AND BATCH PLANT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO GARFIELD COUNTY TO: SILT BOARD OE TRUSTEES FROM: DAVIS FARRAR - WESTERN SLOPE CONSULTING SUBJECT: PROPOSED WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES GRAVEL MINING AND BATCII PLANT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO GARFIELD COUNTY DATE: 1/21/0 I CC: CRAIG OLSON, STEVE BEATTIE, .JANET STEINI.BACH Type of Application: Applicant Request: Name of Applicant: Site Location: Parcel Size: Existing Zoning: Proposed Access: Water Source: Sewage Treatment: Garfield County Comprehensive Plait Designation Special use permit referral to the Town of Sill from Garfield County. Special use permit for extraction of natural resources (sand and gravel mining), processing (concrete batch plant) and mining tvii1iin a floodplain. Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. Approximately1150 feet northeast of the Silt municipal boundary in a portion of Section 12, Township 6S, Range 92W of the 6th PM and adjoining the I 70 river frontage road on a parcel of land known as the °`Peterson Property". 41.07 Acres Agricultural/Industrial All 170 Frontage Road On-site Well Portable Toilets Ag/Ag Conservation PUD Silt Comprehensive Agricultural/Conservation/PUD (flan Designation: Project Description: That applicants are requesting issuance or a special use permit to allow for the extraction or sant) and gravel and construction of a concrete batch plant on 41.07 acres or lane). The applicants propose Iu mine approximately 25.9 acres (63.1°,0 in 3 oa fI phases. Mining operations will commence on Ilan: southerly edge of the property and prove in a northward direction. Proposed mining will consist of reproving 1 to 3 feet of overburden topsoil and removing gravel strata that extends to as depth or approximately 22 leer. Topsoil and other overburden material will be removed and stockpiled for later reclamation purposes. Gravel will be extracted using heavy equipment and loaded directly into processing equipment for cnishing, screening, washing and stockpiling. Sand and aggregates will be Trucked off-site for constriction purposes and will be used on-site for production or concrete at an on-site concrete batch plant. The batch plant is proposed to be approximately 40 feet in height. Proposed hours or operation are from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Saturday. The equipment repair and maintenance wilt he conducted between Ilac hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 I'M Monday through Friday. Average daily !raffle volumes ate proposed to be 180 vehicle Irips per day. The stale Highway access permit application notes (hal 20 ("chicle trips Will conisl or passenger cars and light trucks, 50 vehicle trips will consist of multiunit tracks, 81) vehicle (rips will coaasisl or tandem duaaap li nrks and 31) vehicle Trips will cousisl of cement trucks. Aeeording to llic stale highway access permit application. each vehicle "leaving the propel!)" then rcauaning is two counts." Vehicle trips are identified as "average daily volumes" and not "peak hour volumes". Average daily volumes. may fluctuate above or below the 180 vehicle trips per day. According to the application and the Garfield County stag' report dated June 20, 2000, the south half of the project is in the 100 -year floodplain.. This area is identified on the Garfield & the Mesa Counties, Colorado December, 1982 Floodplain Study Map as Zone X and Zone AE. According to the Jerome Gambit & Associates, Inc. engineering report dated April 3, 2000, "the subject area will 1ia11 under the classification of Area of Shallow Flooding because the 100 -year flood depth is less than 3 feet higher than the existing ground level." Applicable Garfield County Toning Regulations. The Garfield County zoning resolution identities the purpose of zoning under Section 1.01 for: "the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the present and fi►lure inhabitants of the state, including the lessening of congestion u: the streets or roads or 2 reducing the waste of excessive amounts of roads, securing safety from fare, flood waters arm other clangers, providing adequate light and aur, classification of land uses and distribution of brad development and utilization, protection of the tax baser, securing eenrroni. in governmental expenditures, fostering the state's agricultural and other industries, and the protection of both urban and non -urban development" The subject parcel is zoned Agricultural/Industrial — Nt. T11c proposed use is classified as a "special also" and is listed in the regulations as "plant lir fabrication of goods from processed natural resources; material handling, pumping tacilitics,. storage areas, water impoundments, extraction and processing.." Under County zoning, there are three classifications of uses. The most permissive classification is a "arse by right". Uses by right are allowed without zoning review or under minimal zoning review. These uses are allowed as a properly right under zoning. The next higher level of County zoning review is a "conditional use". Uses under This classification require review by the County stall' wind commissioners and require issuance of a permit. Such uses may require an applicant to meet certain conditions specified by the County prior to issuance of a conditional use permit. The highest level of County review for a use in a zone district is a "Special Use". A special use requires issuance of a permit, public notice and a public hearing. A special use is not a right granted by zoning but requires au applicant to carry the burden of proof in order to show tlrat a particular request conforms to all applicable County regulations and has been subject to public scrutiny through a public hearing process. Additionally, the board of County commissioners may approve, approve with conditions or deny a sj ecini use pond( rcyraesa. Section 5.03.10 of the Garfield County zoning rewsolution, in reference to approval or denial of a conditional or special use, stales the following: "Approval of Conditional and Special Uses Uses listed as Coruluiorral under the appropriate !,one 1)istric t Regulation shall be permitted based on conapliarrce with lire requirements listed herein; inhere uses are fisted as Special Uses, they shall be permitted only {1) Based on compliance with all requirements fisted therein, and, (2) Approval by die County Commissioners, which Board may impose additional restrictions on the lot area, floor area, coverage, setback and height of proposed uses or require additimud arff-street parking, screening fc+acre"s and hinds -coping, or any other restriction or provision it deems necessary to protect the 1uahh, sarfi=ta' and Ise=1/irre of the population and uses of the neighborhood or zone district as a condition of granting the special use. 3 5.03.11 Denial of Special Use The County Commissioners may deny any request for special use based on the Lack of physical separation in terms of distance from similar uses on the same or other lots, the impact on traffic vohnrae and safety or on utilities or any impact r►f the special use which it deems injurious to the established character of the neighborhood or zone district itt which such special use is prof►used to be located" The Agricultural/Industrial zone district title may imply that indirsttial uses characterize the zone district. Ilowever, upon review of the "uses by right" listed below (taken directly from the County zoning resolution) it is evident that the primary function of the zone district is agricultural in nature. Industrial uses are only allowed under the highest level of scrutiny as "special uses". It should be noted, "single-family dwellings and customary accessory uses" are allowed in this district "only where it is accessory to the uses listed" (sec below). 13y way of comparison, the other agricultural zone district in Garfield County, "Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density — A!'RJRD" single fancily residences are allowed alone and not in conjunction with agricultural uses. "Uses by right: Agricultural, including fiarm, gardens,. greenhouse, nursery, orchard, ranch, small animal farm for prorhwtion of poultry, fish, fur- bearing and other small animals, and customary accessory user including buildings for shelter and enclosure of persons, animals or property employed is: any of the above uses; retail establishment for sale of goods processed from rare materials produced on the lot; Kennel, riding stable and veterinary clinic, guiding and outfitting; Alanalurturetd home as the principal use of the lot meeting standards contained in Section 5.03.01(2); Single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses only where it is accessory to the uses listed above." A special use for an industrial operation (including extraction, processing, mineral waste disposal) under County zoning requires submission of an "impact statement" that must conform to a multitude of requirements related to water, vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare, vibration, wildlife, vehicle traffic, impacts to adjoining property and other concerns. Relationship to the Garfield County and the Silt Comprehensive Plans. On November 8, 2000 the Garfield County planning commission adopted amendments to the comprehensive plan for study areas 2 and 3. These amendments update the comprehensive plan fur the areas in Garfield County from New Castle West to the Utah border. This revised plan includes Silt and the surrounding lands. An important part of this revised plan is the inclusion of a map titled "Lind Use Plan, Town of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado". This map is a County re-creation of the Town of Silt comprehensive plan map. The :nap legend identifies land classifications that are similar or are identical to the classifications"on the adopted Silt comprehensive plan map. The 4 revised County comprehensive plan also includes a map tilled "Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Areas 2 & 3,Garfield County, Colorado". This map shows a "two-mile sphere of influence" around the Town of Silt. These Harps are important because they identify land use classilicalions inside and outside the Silt municipal limits that are consistent with the land classifications adopted by the Town of Silt in the most recent comprehensive plan revision (1999). For the first time, the Garfield County and Town or Silt comprehensive plans are consistent with identified land use types inside and outside the municipal limits. This uniformity is very important to ensure county compatibility with land uses outside the Silt municipal boundary as the town expands into unincorporated areas around town through annexations. The proposed Western Slope Aggregates gravel pit and batch plant site is located iii an area shown as Garfield County "AG/AG Conservation PUD" and Town of Sill "Agricultural/Conservation PUD" and "Conservation/Open Space". It is the intent of Agricultural Conservation PIJD to preserve agricultural lands by clustering development on a parcel. It is the town's desire to encourage productive use of agricultural lands and to maintain a critical mass of agricultural lands. The proposed use of the property as a gravel pit operation will remove approximately 41 acres from agricultural use. The areas immediately adjacent to the Colorado River are shown in the Silt Comprehensive Plan as Conservalion/Open Space. This land provides an important riparian habitat for wildlife. Additionally, protection and preservation of these areas serves to maintain this asset that draws visitors to Colorado and Garfield County. The Colorado River corridor is an important asset to Garfield County and the Silt community and it should be protected. 100 -foot buffer zones from the riparian areas should be required to minimize damage. The Silt comprehensive plan does not anticipate location of gravel pits or extractive operations within this land use designation. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan LainInallre The Garfield County comprehensive plan notes on page I-3 under "issues identified by County resident? that "the relationship between adjacent land uses is considered a cornerstone of responsible land use planning and policies." "Workshop participants consistently identify the need to develop and enforce policies that ensure that proposed developments are reviewed carefully for their impacts to existing and proposed adjacent uses." "Environmental sensitivity" - Garfield County includes a multitude oI' sensitive ecosystems, including riparian and wetlands resources, wihllife habitat and important visual corridors. Many comments addressed the need to ensure that future development balances the need for economic development with policies to ensure minitnum impact on sensitive ecosystems." Page 11-40 & 41 or the Garfield County comprehensive plan slates that the County "provide appropriate locations for industrial uses which have access to major transportation corridors or rail systems, are compatible with adjacent land uses and do not represent visual or environmental intrusion to residents and visitors to the area." Additionally, the plan idcntili's asphalt and concrete batch plant operations and gravel/mineral extraction sites as uses that should be permitted in a "Heavy Industrial District". The Agricultural/Industrial zone district is not a "heavy industrial district"". Page I1-43 states The preservation of agricultural land fosters the niral lifestyle which continues to be a priority for Garfield County residents". Map 3 titled "Existing Land Use, Study Areas 1, 2, & 3, Garfield County, Colorado" identifies the proposed site and surrounding lands as agricultural Iand. Page II -47, 51 & 66 states "visual corridors are defined as open spaces, particularly located along frequently traveled vehicular or pedestrian paths, that contain natural features of sufficient aesthetic quality to warrant their preservation or protection. "'Staff has identified important visual corridors for each quadrangle within the study area, which arc shown on the background data maps." "The rural nature of Garfield County is defined by important visual corridors and land that has historically been in agricultural uses." "Visual resources in the County are defined as those "view shed corridors" that are particularly valuable to residents and visitors of the arca. These areas are typically defined by tlic relationship between major roadways and specific topographic features." ""'1iie following corridors were identified by planning stair as particularly important to the County, from a visual perspective: 170, SII 82, SII 133 and S1I 13." Map 12 titled "Visual Corridor, Study Areas 1,2, & 3, Garfield County, Colorado" identifies the proposed gravel pit site in a "visual corridor". This is defined as "visual corridor definition based upon significant view sheds or natural features, distance from a major travel corridor and topographic conditions that define site distance from a major roadway." Section 4.0 on page 7 under Section 11I identifies as an objective under "commercial and industrial uses" the need to "ensure that commercial and industrial development are compatible with adjacent land uses and mitigate impacts identified during the plan review process." "Encourage the location of industrial development in areas where visual, noise,. air quality and infrastructure impacts are reduced." Section 8.0 titled "natural environment" states "tourism is an integral component of the economy of Garfield County. Therefore, it is essential that the planning process respect the natural environment that brings residents and visitors to the County." Section 8.1 under policies states "Garfield County shall discourage and reserve the right to deny development in areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active landslides, debris flows, unstable slopes, bedrock slices, major mudflows, radioactive tailings, slopes over 25 percent, riparian areas and wetlands and projects proposed within the 100 year floodplain." "Garfield County shall discourage development proposals that require excessive vegetation removal, cut and fill areas or other physical modifications that will result in visual degradation or public safely concerns." Section 9.3 under objectives notes "the County will ensure Ilial mineral extraction activities will not adversely ailed the natural environment, including air qualify, water quality, wildlife habitat or important visual resources." Section 9.5. "Any proposal regarding mineral extraction that cannot tttiligale adverse impacts may be denied based upon a finding of incompatibility, for the following reasons: A. Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate neighborIlood or the entire contmmnity; 13. Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent property; C. Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent residences; D. Showing a lack °equality or function in operational planning and/or design; E. Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas; F. Altering the basic character of the adjacent land uses or the entire community." Section 10 Urban Area or` Influence. "Ensure that development and overall land use policies occurring in the County that will affect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of the appropriate municipality." "Objectives 10.2 retain rural character outside or community limits." 10.4 "County land use policies will be consistent with local land use policies and objectives." Adverse Imparts to the "Silt Area Resulting from the Proposed Gravel Pit and Batch Plant Operations. Agricultural Impacts — The principal land use on and surrounding the proposed gravel pit is agricultural and rural residential. Establishment of a gravel operation and batch plant at this location will drastically alter the agricultural and rural residential land use character of the arca. The 20 plus year projected Iil'e of the operation will permanently remove the subject property from agricultural use. The proposal gravel pit and batch plant operations will be injurious to the established character of the neighborhood and zone district in which this use is proposal to he located. 7 Wildlife Impacts -- The location of a gravel pit and hatch plant operations at the proposed site will destroy habitat t+ar squall mammals and create activity that twill disturb bald eagles, blue herons that utilize the propel ty and areas adjacent to the property, "Ilrc long -tensa mining operation at the site will effectively eliminate usable habitat for a period that will exceed 20 years. Trac Impacts — Average daily vehicle trips are proposed al 180 and peak traffic levels may exceed this number by substantial amounts. The majority of this traffic will access the frontage road to the Sill 1 70 interchange. The approved Stillwater Ranch PU1) in conjunction with traffic increases on County Road 311 to the 1 70 interchange will generate over 14,800 vehicle trips per day by the year 2015. This figure does not include traffic to be generated by the approved Ferguson Crossing P1.11) and other development in the unincorporated areas of Garfield County that will access this interchange. No comprehensive study has been completed that quantifies the cennulntivc impacts of traffic accessing 170 interchange and frontage road. The proposed 180 average vehicle (rips per day that includes heavy truck traffic will adversely affect the roadways and intersections in the 1 70 interchange area thereby creating a hazard to public safety. The applicant has proposed no participation in and overall assessment of the cumulative future traffic generation or mitigation of these impacts. 1IsraelImrrpact — The proposed operation will be highly visible from the I 70 corridor, properties south of the Colorado River and properties north or 1 70. The proposed benniaat; %vitt not adequately the screen storage piles, a 'I0 -Haut high concrete batch plant and other features of the site. The gravel pit and associated operations will create a visual blight to the easterly entrance ofllte Silt area. Impacts Associated rrith Noise, Vibration and Etrrissiorrs — Although the applicant suggests that the application twill e.onliann to local, state and federal requirements, there is no assurance that violations will not occur. Gaarlield County and the State of Colorado are not adequaateIy staffed to provide regular and ongoing inspection and enforcement of these requirements. Assurance of compliance caunol be guaranteed by the regulatory agencies. The reality is that these agencies can only respond lo complaints from Ilrc neighborhood. Even in this environment, there is no guarantee of a prompt response by any of the regulatory authorities. 'there is no way to monitor or ensure that intermittent violations will not occur. 8 Impacts 1a Property Values — Location of a gravel and batch plant operation at the Nike will adversely impact properly values and desirability oI' the neighborhood on surrounding properties. The recently approved River View Subdivision is located immediately south at approximately 42 feel above the proposed gravel pit. 11 is impossible to screen the proposed operation from the .subdivision. Sound ti-oan the operation of heavy equipment and crushing equipment travels upward and will disrupt the quiet rural character of Ilac: nciglihorhood. The general area has not been identified for industrial operations and the expectations of the residents arc for rural agricultural and neral residential uses and lifestyles. Impacts to the Silt Afunicipal Water System— The S yystemt— Tlie proposed site is located upstream from the intake of the Silt municipal water system. Tlac municipal water system pulls wafer directly from the Cataracta River and the adjoining alluvium. There is no assurance that upstreaitt water contamination from the proposed operation will not enter the uuiticipal water supply. State law provides that municipalities and water operators protect community water sources from contamination. A contamination plume emanating front the proposed operation could easily contaminate the municipal water supply and result in a serious threat to public Health safety and welfare. Staff Rccontmcitdatitnr. Tlie Silt planning staff recommends that the I lard of Trustees recommend, by resolution to the Garfield County Commissioners, deiai.at of itis proposed 'Western Slope Aggregates request for special use permit for extraction of natural resources, processing and mining in floodplain. In supparl of the reconunendalion for denial and in addition to the alinemcnlioned information, the sin IFoffers the following:: 1. The proposed application is not in conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Platt 2. The proposed application is not in conformance with the Silt Comprehensive Plan. 3. The project will result in an adverse cumulative impact on traffic volumes and public safety in the Silt 1 7 interchange area. 4. The proposed special use will be injurious to the established rural agricultural residential character of the neighborhood. 5. 'rile proposed special use will be injurious to Ilse established rural agricultural residential character ol'thc zone district. 9 6. There is no guarantee of protection of the Silt municipal water supply from contamination associated with the proposed gravel pit operation. 7. No evidence has been presented showing a change in the agricultural and rural residential character of the arca justifying issuance of a special use permit for an industrial operation. 8. The Colorado River corridor is an environmentally sensitive :area that provides habitat to threatened and endangered species. The proposed operation Would eliminate portions of this habitat and damage the important environmental qualities of the river corridor. 9. The proposed use will seriously adversely impact arnd degrade the visual corridor along 170 and surrounding areas. DEC. 15.2000 la: 2C41 9701116233`r rlo.023 P.2 start OF COLA A CO County oC Cuilild facord.d at ec, o"Block fli. hi APR 101914 .. Reception Ha. 43,1zTt. MILDRED ALSOOTY, Rf: RECORDER OL0° RAD i C GARPIStC COtJ!JO Ala.».........r.:e8filar..,._,,...,............_.,.,...Rlaliiap oI 0A. Load of County Coro&o Onul Ior+OVlfrld C0 JRI,y, Coto Iada, hall al OH COWL 'roan tri Glan+.eod Syetngraahwa. __.r1AnaY..._......,...». ....,..«_...... 1}�a--- qth_.,»,,.....»....._..day o! _—Anus D. 1.._fl _. , (Alto wrra praa.nil Coned......, Cuh►Lrn »:y11ven J. C,r tag_. .„_.,, er...Jd ,on.l [� ty �+ Coan,rAtt./mu, b001{] ! r1cE6[?t3 +ftlldreS..Alado.1171 ,_..cf..r.trAe when Ihr to owing proc.iJinga, man/ oiheiswr.'had and tort, Io..ttt RESOLUTIOU NO, 04 -_¢St RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITU THE DENIAL or THE APPLICATION OP ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY TOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT LOR THE EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING OF NATURAL RESOURCES W}ICREAS, an application ha;, been submitted by the Asphalt Paving Companli for a special use permit for extraction and processing of, natural resources, specifically, an open -pit gravel operation, asphalt batch plant and crushers and a concrete batch plant, in accordance with Section 9.03 of the Garfield County zoning Resolution of X978, on the following described tract of lands A 9.69 are tract of land located in the SE1/4 of the NEI/4 of Section 10, NE1/4 of the tW1/4, and the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of section 101 the sank half of the S1ll/4 of Section 10, Township 6 South, Range 92 Went of the sixth Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado, ii'IIER1As, !the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has reviewed the application and Impact statements which the applicant has submitted and has received the recommendations of the Garfield ,County Planning Commission, as authorized by suction 9.03.04 of thelIGarfieid County Zoning Resolution of 19701 WHEREAS, Vthe Hoard of County Commissioners has conducted public hearin0 s, which have been duly advertised and held, in accordance with the requirements of Suction 9.03.04 of !feu Garfield County zoning Reeolution of 1970, re9ar,iing the .gu.rstion of uliuthur the requested` special use- permit should be granted or denied, and during such hearings received extensive testimony and other competent evidence from the applicant and interested parties, which hearings were held on February 21, 1984 and !larch 26, 1984; wuEAEAs,'the Board of County Commissioners has coneldered said application and impact statements, the recommendations of the Garfield County Planning Commission, the Garfield County Department of Development, Planning Section, anti the testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearings, and based thereon, tha Board of County Commissioners does hereby make the following findings with respect to the application, to -Wit: 1. That all procedural and notice requirements,, set forth In the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 with regard to apucial 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 theapplicant has paid the fee required by Section 9.03.02 of the Garfield County zoning Resolution of 1978; RECEIVED : ..I2.34 "'IJEC.i5.2(i3 10x26;41 110.W3 P.3 aatt 647 60E609 3. That, in accordance with the general principles of administrative law and. C.R.S., Section 24-4-105(7), as emended, the burden of pro'at is upon the applicant to show. by a preponderance of the evidence, that its land uRe application is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amendodi 4. That the Hoard meet, for the purpose of analyzing the subject application, in accordance with the applicable provisions of. the Garfield County Zoning Resoluti',n of 1978, npocificaliy Section 4.03.11, establish the neighborhood which may be affected by the possible granting of the propoeed special use permit and, further, the aoard has determined that, except as othervine noted herein, such affected neighborhood is that area of Garfield County, Colorado, consisting of properties within one halt (1/2) mile of the proposed site of the applicant, which are presently being used tor agricultural and residential purposes, as well as the water intake for the Town of silt, Colorado; 5. The general character of the affected neighborhood of the tract proposed to be subject to the special use permit is agricultural and residential. The subject property is presently zoned, in accordance with Section 3.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1976. Properties zoned, pursuant to Section 3.01, are classified as Agricultural/Industrial. In this zone classification, uses by right are generally agricultural And residential in nature. The industrial extractive operation proposed by the applicant for the subject parcel Is not a use by right within the zone classification, and is a special use in the Agricultural/Industrial. zone. Competent'avidence was presented at the public bearings that the subject 'property and adjacent island Sands of the applicant are presently under agricultural leases; 6. The property, which the applicant proposer' to have permitted for the operation of a special use, has been traditionally and historically used for agricultural and related purposes, including, but not limited to the grazing of livestock. The surrounding parcels of property are also engaged in productive agricultural uses at the pcesont time. There has been no competent evidence presentee) that there has been a change In the basic character of the affected neighborhood over the mart several months. The applicant's proposed land nue would bo incompatible with the traditional and historic, as well as the existing uses of the land in the established neighborhood, including the land of the applicant. The established agricultural and residential land uses in the affected neighborhood would be adversely impactced by the applicant's proposed use, and these uses would be injurious to the established character of the neighborhood within the meaning of Section 5.03.011 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1976. The landowners adjacent to and within the affected neighborhood, and other citizens of Garfield County, have indicated concern regarding the effect of the proposed gravel pit and excoriated extractive operations :on the agricultural and residential nature of the affective neighborhood, upon the value of adjoining properties and other properties in the area, and ita impact on the Town of Silt. Residents of Garfield County, as evidence of their concern, have submitted petitions to this hoard containing over seven hundred (700) signatures in opposition to the application for the special use permit under consideration. Of those County citizens expressing an opinion on this application, these Eleven hundred plus (700+j signatures in opposition represent a substantial majority of the affected citizenry; 2 ---mac. a5. t,: rad' 9700762ov tao. t3 p. a an( Gui ricE61O 7. That there ie substantial, competent evidence in the record which indicates that, while there may be adequate road access from the proposed special use operation site of the applicant to the Silt interchange on thterateLe 70, such access is restricted to a two-lane bridge across the colored° River on County Road 311. The applicant has represented that, during the period` of time in which the rjravel pit and associated operations are in effect, there would be up to two hundred (200) vehicle trips per day engaged In the hauling of :gravel and associated products from and to the applicant's proposed site. Tho applicant's prapoiied operation would have a substantial, negative impact on traffic volumes and safety of those parsons using County Road 311 and the bridge system within the general vicinity of the applicant's site, within the meaning of Section 5.03.11 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; 8. That there is substantial, competent evidence in the record that the public safety and general Welfare would be harmed by the applicant's proposal with regard to the water intake facility of the Town of Silt. The Town of Silt's water intake facility is located within the affected neighborhood of the applicant's proposed activities. The silt water intake facility is immediately =forth and downstream of the proposed use. There has been substantial, competent evidence presented to show the likelihood of harm to the fragile nature of the Silt water intake facility and, more specifically, have the following negative impacts on the facility, a. dater Ouantlty: The mining of ground water on the applicant's property may lower the water level at the Silt water intake facility. There is the possibility that the applicant's operations could cause irreparable harm to the Town of Silt's lawfully adjudicated municipal water system, which constitutes the Town's sole source of water supply; , b. Weter___Dual.iiy: Substantial, competent evidence has been presented that a ,pill of toxic or other harmful substances, contained on or about the proposed pit and plant site, could result in significant pollution to the Town of Silt's water supply and water intake system. Competent, expert evidence was peesented at the public hearings that some contaminants from such a epill at the site could, and possibly. would, enter the Town's water intake system. The applicant hka failed to demonstrate that it would or could install necessaryprotective equipment or other safeguards to protect against this potential hazard, pursuant Lo Section 5.03.08(6) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; C. fined_ k1Ain_JiaZatilAt There was substantial, competent evidence presented at the public hearings that portions of the applicant's mining operation and related facilities could be within the one hundred (100) year flood plain for the Colorado River, as defined in Section 6.02.13 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. Section 6.09.01(1)(A) of the Garfield County zoning Resolution of 1918, as amended, provides that the following uses and activities are prohibited in the flood -way; The development, use, fill, construction, substantial improvement or alteration, on or about any portion of the flood -way, which, alone, or accumulative with other activities, would cause the result of any increase In flood levels during the discharge of the one hundred (100) year flood, or the danger of substantial, solid debris being carried downstream by Boos watora. 10:27141 9700762997 H0.9123 P.5 ern 61? i14E611 There was substantial competent evidence presented at the public hearing that 'the applicant's operations, in themselves, or in conjunction with a flood on the Colorado kiver, could cause a change in the course of the river'u stream, resulting in the Town's Water supply being moved away from its adjudicated point of diversion. The applicant has been unable to show that adequate and appropriate conditions could be attached to the laud una permit sought for the site, which would be sufficient to adequately address the possible pt blems which the applioant'c operations would creato for the Town of Silt's water supply and water intake facility to any significant degree; f 9. That section 5.01.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Repletion of ' 1978, as emended, required Lhat the applicant conduct any industrial, operations so aa to minimize dust, smoke, odor and all other undesirable environmental effect.a beyond the boundaries of the property. That there in substantial, competent evidence In the record that the proposed use of the applicant would generate ol;jectionable levels of noise, odor and dust. Furthermore, the proposed use would be out of character with the other uses of the neighborhood, which are of an agricultural and residential nature, arid Would be unsightly. The applicant's operation* would be visible within the scenic corridor of Interstate 70, and would constitute an unsightly situation when viewed from the ilighWay. The sight of the proposed uses is adjacent to a critically sensitive and important habitat for river corridor wildlife, including, but not limited to the endangered species of bald eagle,.blue heron and Canadian geese; 10. Section 5.03.07 of the Gar!jeld County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, requires' that the applicant file an impact aatatement, which, among other things, requires that the applicant demonstrate that the proposed use will "not have a significant, adverse effect upon (C) wildlife and domestic animals through the greation of hazardous attractions, alterations to existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use paLterne 'or other +disruptions". The applicant hen failed to demonstrate that conditions can be imposed on the proposed land use permit which would prevent significant harm to the wildlife In the Colorado River corridor. Gravel mining, and its attendant operations, represents probably the most adverse impact to wildlife along the river. Specifically, the applicant has represented that it may, at unspecified future dates,' request expansion of the site of operations applied for in the special use permit. Any future expansion of the gravel pit uite,or related operations would create )e. significant potential for severe adverse consequences upon "wildlife in the area adjacent to the pit and related facilities; 11. That Section 5.03.11 of the Garfield County Zoning :Resolution of 1978, aa emended, provides that a basis of denial of a ,special use permit application id the leak of physical separation In terms of distance from similar uses on the nape or other lots. 'There is another gravel pit operation in thu general vicinity of the sproposed use; there is subetantial,.competent evid4ince in the record of the public hearing which demonstrates that the number of gravel pits in the general vicinity of the proposed use would have an adverse, cumulative effect on the general welfare of the residents of Garfield County. This adverse, cumulative effect is the direct result of the operations of the pit and related facilities serving to increase the level of dust and ambient air quality, noise and visual pollution. There was aubetantial, competent evidence preeented at the public hearing that the health, aafety and welfare • d. C.I5.2000 1e:;.'13pP.1 974076 337 NO.023 P.6 Ha 647 rzE612 of the citizens of'Garfield County, particularly those residing in or about the Town of Silt, and their quality of life, would be si nificantly impaired by the operations proposed by the applicant fo the parcel; 12. That the Town of Silt la included within the defined neighborhood of the applicant's proposed use. The subject property is within the Town of Si11'a urban eras of influence, District k, as set forth in the Hanegemint District: Haps of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1981; 1 13. The Town of Silt has strongly objectod, on the record in the public hearing, to the applicant's' proposal. The basis for the obirjections of the Town of Silt have been that the subject property is, adjacent to the. Town of Silt's water intake facility, and is Ideated near the Town's boundary. The proposed use is inconsistent with the Town of silt's master plan for development of the area surrounding the parcel, which has designated this as an area of potential growth of either primary or secondary nature. There is substantial, competent evidence in the record of the public hearing that, to allow the applicant's proposed usu, et this time, would be he/smEu1 to the present character of the Town of Silt and its orderly future growth; 14. Thee on Hay 11, 1901, the Garfield County Planning Commiaoion adopted the Garfield County Comprehunaive Plan of 1981, pursuant to C.R.S., Section 30-20-106, 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 a. 1rt I1 CONCERNS AND POI.ICIE9 RE: INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, OBJECTIVE 6, PAGE 12: `1±ncouia” 1ndu:;trial expansion where similar development already exists in appropriate areas"; and POLICY 5, PAGE 13: "Industrial .development shall occur wijthin designated areae within existing municipalities or adjacent Lo existing appropriate industrial areas". 4 b. Ear?' TI CONCERNS AND POLICIES RE: TRANSPORTATION, PAGE 3, NUMBER 12, which provides: "The County may deny development pr1oposals on the baste of: .2) inadequate road access, which will c aate an inadequate road with enlarged daily traffic volume;.'. c. Part II: MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS RI, SILT URBAN AREA OF IINFLUENCE, 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. Provisions should be made for the continued opportunity for agricultural activity". d. Part III: PERFARUANCE 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, aqd impairment of the stability or value of adjacent or surrounding p opertiea" Further, the plan speaks of noise, dust, odors,' and visual unsightliness as "hazards to public health and safety" and " uisances to the surrounding Community". 15. That, based upon the above findingu of fact, thin board o County Commissionera finds that the applicant has failed, in his burden of proof, to show by competent evidence, that the application 5 UEC .15.2000 118:2041 97C:0762 7 140. Q23 P.7 eaa� . 647' is f6i fon a special land uae permit for the subject paroul 'ie in cowpliance with the Garfield County loning;Rcaoltion of 1978, and th Garfield County Comprehensive Plan,of 1901, and that, furthermore, there is substantial, comppetent evidence in the record of the public hearings to support a denial of the land use requested; 16. That there is- substantial, competent evidence in the record that the allowance of the proposed use• may caube economic injury to other property areas in the effected neiyhborhoodf and . 17. That there is cubatantiel, .competent evidence in the record of the public hearing.) that the proposc.q'apecial use permit is not in the best interestsof the , hes}th, safety, !morals, convenience, order, pr•deperiky. and. :w lfare'j° of the citizen#': , f Garfield County, Colorado. :� • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,, by She Board of County Commissioners for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, that the spacial use permit application of thelAuphalt Paving Company for a gravel pit and'concrete and anphalt',batch plant operations ba, and the same, is depied. . DATED this 9th day of April, 1994. Upon motion duly made and seconded, thee, foregoing Resolution waf adopted by the following vote. L_arrlt V.1 aUes _ , Aya • r fling 41 Ctrige a.ret.1 (j (2,01_,/ .1 4k of the Beard 4' STATE OF COLORADO ) ) se. C unty pf Garfield) I, a'• .'► ' , County ,.Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of th Board of County•mminsione a, in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify teat the annexed and foregoing Rejsolution is truly copied from the Roc ids of the Proceedings of the Board of County Cofnminsioners•for said Garfield County, now in my office. By: Aye . Aye* Commissioners BOARD Or COUNTY cOHHIS$IOt1RS OFF }IRFI E[.D COUNT , COLORApp Chairman Iii WITNESS WHEREOF, I have irereunto• Set fay hand and afflxelh the seal of said County,at Glenwood Springs, Colorado, this /1 --day a April,, A.D. 1984. County Cleric and ex -officio Clerk oC the Board of County C amiurionera. 6 ►� RFC El Y ED JAN 3 0 MI January 30, 2001 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Garfield County Court House Glenwood Springs. Co. 81601 RE: Proposed Western Slope Aggregates Gravel Pit East of the Town of Silt As a home and agricultural property owner on the south side of the Colorado River adjacent to the proposed pit. since 1981. 1 would like this letter to go into public record as opposing this permit approval. Our concerns are as follows: A special Use permit for a gravel permit at this location was previously denied in 1984. This permit will not comply with the Garfield Comprehensive Plan. This permit will not comply with the Town of Silt's Comprehensive. This permit would set a heavy industrial precedent for the 1-70 Corridor, The permit would increase "Heavy Commercial Truck" traffic at the already busy 1-70 Sill Interchange. Visually impact the entrance to the Town of Silt and the proposed Stillwater project, Create pollution: dust. noise. air pollution and vibrate the valley floor. Create a visual deterrent for the proposed RE -2 High School Building. Affect the wildlife, fishing and boating that takes place on this section of the Colorado River. This will severely impact the low-dcnsitti. residential/agricultural use of the surrounding properties. The proposed beryns cannot hide the piles of gravel or the smoke stacks of the concrete batch and asphalt plant proposed for the property. Alarmed to hear there is an option open on the property to expand the proposed pit operation from the present location to land to the east. ( approx. 120 acres) . We have at least five fully operational gravel pit operations in business in the Silt/Rifle area at the present time. With this proposed pit and the proposed Snyder property pit. The area has become the main source of gravel for the entire County. Our concerns have been voiced by many of the surrounding neighbors, so please use sensible constructive judgment in reviewing this permit. We trust you will find this pit as unnecessary and detrimental as we do. Sincerely yours. William & Roanne Bradford — 970876-2631 O071 Midvallev Dr. New Castle. Co. 81647 c� /(00,4-2,_ 1 ci January 30, 2001 Garfield County Planning & Zoning Garfield County Commissioners Citizens of the County To Whom It May Concern: REcavED JAN 3 0 2V91 We are writing this letter to express our concerns for the `Special Use' Permit being considered for the property east of Silt between 1-70 and the Colorado River. This `Special Use' Permit would allow for a potentially huge gravel pit operation and asphalt and concrete batch plants right in the middle of residential housing and agricultural land. We have lived in our present location for more than 12 years, and have been made aware of all of the new developments, which would impact this area, through direct mailings or phone calls from the adjacent property owners. However, this new project, which is being proposed, was `slipped' through the process with little or no input from town and county citizens, and with notification only to the `closest' of neighbors, which included three parties. Our home and property lie within 300 feet of the proposed gravel pit operation. Why weren't we given opportunity to comment on this operation? Many residents of this portion of Garfield County have great concerns for the amount of offensive dust, noise, vibration and truck traffic that will be produced, and for the amount of pollutants that will be expelled into the water and air. (Silt's main water intake is downstream from this land). Yes, this is the same `Special Use' permit that was rushed through, without giving the town of Silt adequate time to review the application. Yes, this is the same gravel pit operation that now has to go through the Public Hearing process, since the lawsuit filed by the town of Silt against the pit was successful. We believe that any `Special Use' Permit that is being applied for in Garfield County ought to be considered very carefully by our commissioners before awarding one. The words `Special Use' mean that the land was zoned differently, and this permit is sought to `change' the zoning usage. This proposed gravel pit operation had huge errors in the original presentation, in. mitigation, in water use, in geological considerations, in dust and noise mitigation, in assumption of the need for gravel (there are 7 pits in a seven mile stretch on the river already), in unsigned permits, and in assuming that this pit fit in with the Comprehensive Plan already adopted by Garfield County and the municipalities Iocated therein. Our property and home are located within a mile east of a growing gravel operation already in place, 'Flag Sand and Gravel', and we already deal with the dust, pollution, noise, and. truck traffic from this one. This proposed new 'pit' would be separated from our property by only the Colorado River. We do not want such an operation this close, nor do we want to see the damage this would cause to the river habitat where geese, ducks, eagles, native fish, raccoons, beavers, owls, deer, elk, fox, big cats, and many other species come for water and food. Let's protect our river environment, since it is one of the only rivers of this size in the western United States. We should not squander the river frontage so easily. One particular item that cannot be overlooked is the proximity of this proposed 'pit' to Interstate 70. It is our understanding, that in the Comprehensive Plan for the county, there is a `Visual Corridor' provided for. This corridor extends along I-70 through the valley. What an offensive sight this would be to travelers along our beautiful mountain corridor. All of us are here in some fashion for the beauty of Colorado. Let's be responsible and keep it that way! Planning needs to be done for growth, and creating a beautiful `visual corridor' is great planning. Keep up the good work, and please consider carefully the people effected when allowing for `Special Use' permits in areas zoned for other uses. After all, the reason for government is people. Respectfully submitted, i<1 zge Brad and Ruth Mollman 105 MidValley Dr. New Castle, CO 81647 970-876-5874 R,EDEIVED JAN O PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch punt proposed for the Peterson property east of Sift This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment,. Print Name _ Signature ‘ . ! G ALV f Address 0,1 ,,(1,,–,-..-,,,7-6::, , G ✓ ,, rS-, 64 d l c a l �� City /ZIP Phone ' 7 ?tr'y t" ti ba 1 c -e,.\ ` 4'1.1 `T` yr LLEWELS kEi'Vl'-ci‘s-•Cc IN? A #-z # £510;1_ &/b4: . e5075 Cole .v JA Q r a'2.e • P ele a) I 140 .R.Qle•1 ejio y rit(- 3"ice J �l�r^lG'lr�s 5 r a A`. 7 o�� / f -/way 671 �i E( 0 6U, . _ / t ' 4. 31 q `` ' z l f7 q -q 1 / L.1ir `► ..L 1.1[Ai/. 'Ciii &Air U/, o • J/601_ ci95-5m IA, f,1 „,iii-, ,, OF ..7°' zz, tkoii /5-4 ro t)! 5o ffi e'l kl\-61ki D b b Imo' fl Di/M i4li Idh G b,e6i w34 li (G /'z- • ,� +�I ,.. ,1=+ 4K .../4„wa-:/.i....4 PO Jp� .219 41 -,.A1s0 gaer ea 1 `W -910 V' --- i, ilAik) S. Le iip...-iirAli,,,,i-- Okg,1) #51rni_ ill" lliii 41R -F1 .41/i 6 IL-2 l'i(,00 ( q-c--s7q' . Cay', co Pr/ ,. , pEi1DON RGMNST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Sift This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City 1 ZIP Phone sole.:-Tasie.,y.7 n 46 ,-7,1. 6,, .. (I, kIL+ (1),./4518lbo 1 494.3-61-2_0( gviA0 Lig 11ar1 c ,ti:r,J11,, CO;t i ,- .I /,' r'%r/ _so_ _ 1/' !' .� ,lr �s - 0 ;r —moi /, 216f / rir - 2577 �■• -� ., , iI +mc. 191 4Aciac 1 kb �. .4.. ,� l . foe-- , 8r .47 _ s7,6 71 ,► � /�A,�,..6,464",r.4_____ e i� 1 f1 Luo 0/D541i4 /) & y )67 e N 11,1/ 7 s'vf 5 7 .. ! - ..4r_. ,o� ru-:. ,% [fid 7/ , _f /6 9'7 ?76-zd3' i 9gq--.204,0 *""" 65-03 c st.2] 'SRO—C-7 ct-0-ed e a I ., T - '. OP (q Sjz� 0t . SLI ' Ll Agro , -' ...-)04.04110.-0. 64011;11 r � ar i. 10 6u ,, 01A,t, or, '616M7 7 3 7;2 -) 2 Z %r • ce ' t 06 7 t lA,Vck J A 1'k1 },,r g r L 0 ,E 76- 2.31 RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2O PETITION AGAINST ME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Pian, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City / ZIP Phone ►dt ix''11. '" G (I. are/fel' /17 v,i" ' -e744411,7 4/ // eV, , 0 -Y-5.7.2,7-0P/‘..2'', t : I?3 //gli7-4 /9 ie it,,,,,9 '1 z a g (;b0"-'4,-,,„0„,/` ‘,..1.5 Pi 17', Ac.", .7-/‘ sizyi '&52, ,74,7w —1" 09 Ggiiin / l '.2 ORT- Rurvienyv� ()C_I-C., .J'' 1C =$i65z '376,-Z777 atu - I,, `,,• 4"- 3/49(147 00 .357D. s y 67,c 6. ., 1AL ( C L __' ti . ILL - Si' -,A-27L-2' ://, --.3 - :;Labk L- . t - -'' . c/ 17�f iG�; L. c- r e i ' 2^tea. (2- ill. v i L.: • 1 ,t) 13 e.` L:...1 L 67-i, 2 75-77 7 ii a , ice / O 3/1 ,( 5)W(7 7,6-t-)6/ T-ee-,__rt_,I, cis --0 it 61 fbi(7 l' a' j/ ..c, 00-43,c Actioisd, -. f) l LA NO D./yf ..? s—/z-e,,e J 0-7 876-- 51.E ir`tS , C ri Imo 3148- Gf- a--iy N f t9.5--. c'h, 0110 iVI14t ►' 4z24 1.I ,t_ brvi --__- ( ( I? rtYpircel (41 V 1C) f c.: -J5- ? pS , .)tin) . - v-�i kti-UPal-apRiA IlLicRjria, z) (oas-4-5 RECEIVED 30 30 2001 PEnnon AGAINST DIE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signaturef Address City / ZIP Phone A =; eJJT1 ! - /CA -C1, /� / =' iz - 77i .e&P 40 ' V � j 2 0 a GrAvAt Art, 2t- 9N *uLIc.E:d 6443 ria 1 F/6.5;2. gif& L] 8800) 74/ Pt, -moi 1- 7c1 //6 i 91s-6,7 ) -, - ,.). . K-LIAL14 DJ r S 1 c . LLl C d ?6.°(1' -11€1CLCI C)±12. dj Ir1rdo elirtt 65ttadet, 461111 111-0-j&' dLi Q146 - } ' �_l r �.C st i , P 73 r1(7)..-1- 2 1021 '1;,--1,„,XC I �C �J /: y J� i„ ,c 1 1 ' 51 0 i as- Co.Atili_ 16 r'>c -?-C 441 6 " r5[c,0 b // l 1J. -53[ 74 s rsein ,r " Lt) Cy t S IC s cy t-iej t cf ic . --dtil ia,c- 6,7Lita,44,66cos-- tigodbP4kPlie'S 15 efska.bor„),0 3//e, 5..AW piety/ P -6-c1( 4&z,-0,/, r'/-o / 9v5---szV 7115fffriF ti).(6.,scse r ph i '.1101r I} il)------ :10 i .�C'477 �- �7r r~tva\r- IS kui,44 ic4z 65 1it (1"/ '._6R4s RECEWED SW 3 0?.' ' PETITION AGAINST ME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signatu' ei Address Cit / ZIP Phone _ f r4I `J -,�'��}et4.� G✓,' 9 I `.Y»JTL 2 Y ii --- 7/r -i? r ii 1776' L- Fe°2 ,7 1 /7/ t 17(u2,133? 0 d 3r/ e•r, i' 01N r 4 ..�, /,/- 116-'7° C SicY] r e- ',743 S.74.-.)..771 :fil 0-4,1( 6 0 d //7i/a.li-i&-fu,%1 i r fro /OX g5_ y ,t! 9i/V2 352a 3 /Vr W l<e n : ,L..�: Li./ v `3- -5 1 `, • I f- v�o ..e LI � / L} Cc, /`/e ,i ' f f ,.i -_L + r` 6'17 / LT:- iii a i 1 c'e'p#., i G . ,+11P4V C n// ' /-_' 7S -/-- Ko ct Kai Si , , .0' +� `lr o l's A- . ► 7r 66,-&c Gepiva me ri DI- 016 1 7:2? -S`97 711-601 ter l oiii 5,4 . R`- ".. Si‘W'QD`A! X1111 \ r_, `j ", � c' ���E', l�-f--�:.L�L„J 3V-25‘-'-' ` .J 4�-=' ' Li, ���. 611,1 - C�?; ��: � �i�ti,J L. f 1,---z). 63K j J— t 46_,td z1.... j' g./;___."# t-7cP74 ---573 / PETITION AGAINST 111E PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City l ZIP Phone Linda_ I a►. .. -c `I' . ! . i, .I1..' -' 3,)-7. . (Y110"-(4--? (lad aw,e, Si( rias eiief fyi 6-7/r i 1 er 6/he tc,,f,, --:(76'1,,,,,_.,t_. tr9 IN04Ittue ect - s i (a.s: la p6O , LiEolr\. Crew-er 1.&Th d loo,g, LA34antttuil.3 3165O 176 1,2s-1 :TO tPV 4, e (e) .4,-x r / Y r / 67/ 6/z ' ie - 70 Y- A j_aNitt c R? P/ir L at cy31k i l 's16Lr2 -- , tbY- 1 liP Jki1`? 0) 1 Lthiat '2 boa Evil dj v. U 1L 3 970%93 A-�` �. �� 1.L d'i,...e•r- -- L 1 Q:,_ e ' c7M3 (0z ,, , �,-. Lam.-= 0 .� h H_ ` i 7 ra.) �, R 1b� 8` - 7 v c -4 r✓'" t-cfrT ---:: — 1 YZMINN. / R i___ �.� ISRMIMPI141_1 r � l��TC"`1Ct ?7'C�fl� > t 3✓r �2 s--_ 7Z .�► \ . 11 -fit_ 4111 e----" ..j/,,»:� s 'l 6 17 9Syr -3 . 7- z,..1, '2 # (-/ •i 703 44 -. -r de�'" 2/ 2- 51'30 • RECEIVED JAN 0 2001 PETITION AGAINST TME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Sign . of Address City I ZIP Phone 1,0;12amin . 111 `/} �..f� .s1, j , _ ► op ac) ilo,x----- ogos— nt ttear by -- �/[jy ,�{// j 1 g/6417 Mak) C,, 3 6 P I cl- n.e.<- Ccs\ -1-4, Co .rtz,i,-1? z0 3 5 ,oie .33,4 IS JI J /r���5�,{/]�////f/} n -e, c -, ?I/6 6i2 ketoeil_111,. g76-234/ ,717.-0,01 , get 11,0i-eflof 1 ( A /[P4_61,_,. Y .._,,_..._,24 ac A.,,fc it),1t �_1 L� l &) c f�rt0 /�5�` / "T 'cam / , Lam. g '� �%' / . ► 1 /. .47431P-1 , ,odeIto 2- 67105/ 2, '- 9 / , J i t 1 s A lr"1 11 L r r UP r P d l 1 goo d+0,4lle_" /rl g , i e [f s % . 4' 1( s 041-A651,1 ( . P r i -4- Lb -r- cc) s! » - 4(od c76 -S-5 L_c,5Ie I \a u I' , ,� rz T �0 � OD F/ ,S d-1 11\D i-/ 7, .-'`-- __S.,47 L ,e) I%'- .' Z 7( / ir.tJ = �r°� �T c`. -^ik: le -2/5--6r�xrt' 7 cel 4 !c _S ‘,,73---,,-e0.3-- , 3 " '.3 LI -s,1 I2 , t fie s( -34)),2-0_ /2._ i la 1.3‘.31-___ /3 it/b 6/157 -Lc 00 gSv-, ecL8 ,J Ar1i FU, /.1 I)/ 4 ,L -c c ce:0 i6d-- 6 z' r, gp3 ,vim -Z L 7Z Sf (te6/ 7 r r ,;r� e C.' V'i (o5 c, C ci,e`/-- a7r L- 0 Q C 1 AC 0 3 S Xi- i ,c. ' -et= 7ct-r, z.. .�,1,4l10` (e2-5, _i(!7 RE CEIVED JAN 3 1 20111 January 31. 2001 Dear Board of County Commissioners We are asking for your help in stopping the proposed gravel mine and batch plant (Western Slope Aggregates) at the east entrance to Silt and in our neighborhood. We are homeowners of Peach Valley Acres Subdivision. This area is an agricultural and residential neighborhood. The special use permit is contrary to the historical land use of the area. There are five existing gravel mines and pits between Silt and Rifle and a proposed sixth. gravel mine and pit for the Mamm Creek area. One of the existing gravel pits is across the river from the proposed Western Slope Aggregate gravel pit. If Western Slope Aggregates is approved we will have seven gravel mines and pits along approximately seven miles of the scenic 1-70 corridor. We feel this would cause additional noise, water and air pollution to an area that is already heavily mined. We believe with the existing pits we have sufficient gravel reserves. Please assist us and the Concerned Citizens Against The Pit to maintain our quality of life in our agricultural residential neighborhoods. We are asking The Garfield County Planning and Zoning and the Board of County Commissioners to deny this special use permit within this area, The Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission will consider this application on Wednesday February 14, 2001 and the BOCC will begin final consideration on Monday. March 5, 2001. Please try to attend these meetings. If you are unable to attend, you can sign a petition, call Ann or David Nicholson at 876-5632 for more information. Our presence and opinions as concerned citizens can make a difference. Respectfully, Dorothy & Ken Else Neva & Steve Hiscock Bob & Mona Koper Ben & Debra Menu Connie & Greg Selvage Michelle & Oliver Whiting CC: Mark Bean, Building & Planning Director Editor fo Glenwood Ind. Rifle Telegram & Daily Sentinel cc\works\ccatp January 31. 20t Dear Mark Bean. FECALNED AN 3 1 2001 ..ng Director We are asking for your help in stopping the proposed gravel mine and batch plant (Western Slope Aggregates) at the east entrance to Silt and in our neighborhood. We are homeowners of Peach Valley Acres Subdivision. This area is an agricultural and residential neighborhood. The special use permit is contrary to the historical land use of the area. There are five existing gravel mines and pits between Silt and Rifle and a proposed sixth gravel mine and pit for the Mamm Creek area. One of the existing gravel pits is across the river from the proposed Western Slope Aggregate gravel pit. If Western Slope Aggregates is approved we will have seven gravel mines and pits along approximately seven miles of the scenic I-70 corridor. We feel this would cause additional noise. water and air pollution to an area that is already heavily mined. We believe with the existing pits we have sufficient gravel reserves. Please assist us and the Concerned Citizens Against The Pit to maintain our quality of life in our agricultural residential neighborhoods. We are asking The Garfield County Planning and Zoning and the Board of County Commissioners to deny this special use permit within this area. The Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission will consider this application on Wednesday February 14. 2001 and the BCCC will begin final consideration on Monday, March 5. 2001. Please try to attend these meetings. If you are unable to attend, you can sign a petition, call Ann or David Nicholson at 676-5632 for more information. Our presence and opinions as concerned citizens can make a difference. Respectfully. Dorothy & Ken Else Neva & Steve Hiscock Bob & Mona Koper Ben & Debra Menu Connie & Greg Selvage Michelle & Oliver Whiting CC: Editor fo Glenwood Ind. Rifle Telegram & Daily Sentinel Board of County Commissioners cc\works\ccatp RP 'EN D JAN 3 0 Mt Becky D. Ross 1210 Charlin Sint, CO 81652 (970) 876-2356 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 January 30, 2001 wanted to take a moment of your time to share my thoughts on the proposed Western Slope Aggregates gravel pit near Silt. For personal reasons, my decision to get involved with the Concerned Citizens Against the Pit (CCAP) was not an easy one. When making a difficult decision, it is common to weigh the pros and cons. 1 listed the advantages to having a gravel pit across from my home against the disadvantages. My list of advantages was blank. Given the cost of maintaining the roads during such rigorous use, even the monetary advantages are negligible. The disadvantages, however, are many. The proposed pit is located near the intake for the Town of Silt water supply. The pit would emit discharges into both the air and the Colorado River. The visual impact to the entrance to the town of Silt is obvious. lam particularly concerned with the impact of the air that my children breathe and the water that they drink. I have seen no documentation to convince me that we would be safe. The current number of active gravel pits and industrial discharges in this county is staggering. Western Slope Aggregates has applied for permission to use that land for a purpose for which it has never been intended. I see no advantages to granting their request. I hope that you all agree. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Becky D. Ross cc Garfield County Commissioners RECEIVED FEB 2001 ALICIA M. BELL-SHEETER &JEFFREY P. SHEETER P.O. Box 3371 • Glenwood Springs, CO.81602-3371 Phone: 876.2759 • Fax: 876.5207 • E-mail: ,jsheeter�'►usopris. net Kit Lyon Garfield County Building & Planning Department 109 8h Street, Room 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 3I January 2001 Dear Ms. Lyon: As residents of the town of Silt and Garfield County, we are writing to urge your staffrecommendation for denial of the Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. f Peterson application for a gravel mine and concrete batch plant at the entrance to Silt. We are greatly disturbed by the fact that land use decisions of this sort, and with such dramatic and long-term effects, are effectively being made in this county with a dart board. First, there is no significant geological survey data for Garfield County regarding this commercial mineral resource. Myriad other jurisdictions in Colorado have given careful thought to development of their mineral resources and have made the effort to collect the requisite data, develop mineral resource master plans, and establish zoning districts for such uses. We strongly encourage Garfield County to undertake the same in order to fulfill their responsibility to the citizens of the county and make wise, considered land use decisions. Second, in the absence of data and planning, it is irresponsible to continue to drop gravel mines willy-nilly along the river, and particularly in agricultural / residential neighborhoods, with no thought to the basic economics of the industry. While it is a given that aggregate resources will be necessary long into the future, there has been no bona fide analysis of supply and demand for this resource in Garfield County. It is possible to acquire this information, and again, we encourage you to arm yourselves with the requisite facts in order to make responsible decisions. Although conversations with operators in the county are obviously anecdotal, even conservative estimates of aggregate resources suggest we are in no way facing an immediate shortage—there is ample time to undertake a geological survey and plan appropriately. Finally, the Colorado River corridor in its entirely is extremely important riparian habitat, but the area between Silt and west Rifle in particular seems to be some sort of "gravel pit magnet." Why is it that 70% of all operations of this sort in the county are situated in this reach of the river? Again, another compelling reason to step back and take a look toward serious planning in the development of mineral resources in Garfield County. Sincerely, effrey P. Sheeter & Alicia Bell-Sheeter cc: Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission Town of Silt RECEIVED FEB 1 20I1 To: Garfield County P&Z Jan. 31, 2001 From: Paul E. Klomhaus 3718 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Dear Sir and/or Madam. Below is a brief list that 1 have compiled containing arguments both for and against the granting of Western Slope Aggregates, Inc.'s request for a Garfield County Special Use Permit, thereby allowing the construction and operation of a 41 acre gravel pit / batch plant along the I-70 corridor between New Castle and Silt. Against: • The quarry would be located near the Eastern border of the Silt city limits, in an area that has been attracting residential development. By allowing a quarry here the property values of Garfield County citizens residing North and South of the Colorado River from Silt to New Castle would be negatively impacted. • Damage to the natural environment in the form of noise, water, and air pollution. • The creation of an extremely unsightly industrial complex along what is now a quite beautiful visual corridor. • An inappropriate use of land strategically located at the entrance / exit to the Glenwood Springs economy that will give visitors arriving via East -bound 1-70 a negative first or last impression of the area. • Lower long-term property tax revenues due to a lack of commercial and residential development in an area blighted by industry. • Increased potential for a high volume of heavy truck traffic disrupting classes at the high- school that may be built in Peach. Valley. • The perception that the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Committee are prepared to turn neighborhoods West of Glenwood Springs into a myriad of industrial sites while keeping the Highway 82 corridor as pristine and attractive as possible, thereby relegating those same citizens and property owners' to second-class status. • A missed opportunity (once it's there, goodness knows how long it'Il stay) for smart growth that would have a positive impact on the area. • The creation of "gravel pit pollution". According to the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, there are already twenty active gravel pits in Garfield County and three more pits pending. The majority of these pits are located from the Town of Silt and points West, but with the construction of the WSA pit, the infestation will be spreading East of Silt. The existing pits are more then adequate to supply the County's needs well into the future. • The pit will require access through populated areas not designed to accommodate a large volume of heavy trucking. For: • None. Sincerely, it CC: All local Newspapers 7w< 11117-4j RECEIVED FEB1 2001 January 31, 2001 (_iarl cid County Planning & Zoning Commission Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Re: WSA Peterson Gravel Mine Permit Dear Sirs and Madam. We are extremely distressed at the possibility that a Special 1 .se Permit might be granted for ,an industrial gravel mine in our neighborhood. fly \VI le and 1 IlrliIt our home here over cj vLNrrs aP.o. One arid ..1 half years ago we purchased [hie adjoining property tapping in heavily to our retirement reserve. The community we Live in is comprised of small ranchcttc lots. Had I known 9 years ago a gra% el mine was to be placed across the riven and upwind or us. I w ould never have purclitrsed these properties to build our home. Now our home. our quality of life. and our financial stability arc all threatened by a proposed industrial aline in our neighborhood. This is not a case where an airport is built and people build houses around it, and then complain about the noise. We were here first!!! This is a residential community!!! If WSA wishes to build a gravel aline please let them do it in an area where it does riot impact a residential neighborhood and the Colorado River ecosystem. I drove by Manual ('reek today and saw a gra\ el pit in the middle olnowhere— No Homes Around!!! Tliis is a good place lilt a mine, not in a residential neighborhood. I do not wish to impede Mr. Peterson's ability to make money off his property, why not subdivide itito small ranchette lots! There is a reason gravel mines necessitate a Special Use Permit. This property is not coned for a gravel mine!! My wi le and I plan to continue to live here and enjoy our retirement on our properly sonic day. We have built our home here and raised our children here. Please do not destroy our quality of life, decrease our property values. and in the words of ['ornnlissioner Walt Stowe "change the established character or the neighborhood" by eradicating the zoning put into place years ago. We respectfully request and expect the KU and the BOCC tc fulfill their liduciary responsibility to their constituents and decline this rec nest for a Special Permit. William H. DuBois. Sr. Donna M. DuBois oLitos- 41, -of iti.ue.,,,./42,..760,-)10. v64 M. pale McCall 245 South Golden Drive Silt, Coloradc 51652 (970) 876-2.508 erikam7Cearthlink.net The Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite #303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 51601 Attention: Planning Commissioners RECEIVED JAN 3 0 January 25, 2001 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the prDposed 41 -acre gravel pit application by Western Slope Aggregates to be located near 1-70 and the eastern edge of the Town of Silt, Colorado. Having lived fora number of years near a gravel pit operation (5&I3 at Edwards, Colorado), 1 car personally attest to the environmental pollution and negative effects such an operation will cause throughout the surrounding neighborhoods. I moved to my present residence in the Eagles View subdivision of Silt in part to escape from the congestion and widespread environmental pollution such industrial operations create. In addition, I do not believe that any overriding need for such a gravel pit operation in this agricultural - residential location has been established which would justify and mitigate the damage such an industrial operation would inflict on the surrounding area.. Please recommend that the Garfield County Commissioners deny this application for environmental and general safety reasons. Thank you. cc: Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 109 Eighth Street Glenwood springs, Colorado 51601 The Town of Silt Board of Trustees 231 North Seventh Street Silt, Colorado 5'1652 rl1 46i(/// M. )ale McCall RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2001 January 27, 2001 Paul and Pam Lauman 0597 335 Rd. New Castle. CO 81647 Planning and Zoning Department Attn: Mark Bean Dear Sirs: We are homeowners in the vicinity of the proposed Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. gravel mine and batch plant and are opposed to the creation of a new gravel pit. We feel there is an adequate number of gravel pits in existence along the 1-70 corridor. The community will not benefit from an additional gravel pit. The negative impact of the dust, the noise, and the scarring of the land of the proposed new site serves to decrease the aesthetic value and property values of the surrounding communities; i.e. Midvalley, Peach Valley, the town of Silt, and the Stillwater project. We are also concerned about the possible impact on water tables affecting local water wells. In addition, living in the area for 16 years, we have observed deer, bald eagles, Canadian geese, pheasant, fox, and elk. Irregardless of an environmental impact study, simple observation would indicate a drastic change in the habitat of these populations. Thank you for listening to our concerns about this matter. Paul and Pam Lauman RECEIVED JAN 3 ti 2001 January 27, 2001 Paul and Pam Lauman 0597 335 Rd. New Castle, CO 81647 Garfield County Commissioners Dear Sirs: We are homeowners in the vicinity of the proposed Western Slope Aggregates. Inc. gravel mine and batch plant and are opposed to the creation of a new gravel pit. We feel there is an adequate number of gravel pits in existence along the 1-70 corridor. The community will not benefit from an additional gravel pit. The negative impact of the dust, the noise, and the scarring of the land of the proposed new site serves to decrease the aesthetic value and property values of the surrounding communities; i.e. Midvalley, Peach Valley, the town of Silt, and the Stillwater project. We are also concerned about the possible impact on water tables affecting local water wells. In addition, living in the area for 16 years, we have observed deer, bald eagles, Canadian geese, pheasant, fox, and elk. Irregardless of an environmental impact study, simple observation would indicate a drastic change in the habitat of these populations. Thank you for listening to our concerns about this matter. Paul and Pam Lauman RECEIVED FEB 1 2801 0029 335 Rd. New Castle, CO. 81647 January 31, 2001 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Committee, We are writing this letter to state our opposition to Western Slope Aggregate's application for a gravel pit and batch plant east of Silt. Our property is south of the proposed pit and less than 200 feet from the proposed pit. We noticed in the supplemental application that WSA uses it Blue Pit as an example. This pit is at least 3000 from the nearest house in Wooden Deer, a big difference. We find it a concern that in the Planning Department's initial review of the SUP, it clearly states there are no residences within on quarter mile to the east or west. We wonder why they forgot to mention the north and south in this review. There are several homes to the south and to the north (Peach Valley Acres). We also can't help but wonder why the county never bothered to tell Bob Regulski about the gravel pit when he was putting his subdivision (Riverview) together, not one word. We also wonder why no one from the county came out to inspect the site, this information comes to us via. Mark Bean. We can't help but wonder who would regulate the pit. We feel this would be a first in Garfield County to drop a gravel pit in to a communtity with such high land values and expect all the surrounding neighbors to deal with it. It seems to us alot of families are being ask to sacrifice a life time of commitment and work to benefit an industry that has an adequate supply of aggregate . It seems a very few would benefit except for WSA and the Peterson family. We feel this pit is overriding not only the welfare of the surrounding agriculture neighbors, but also the citizens of the town of Silt. 1 wonder how any of you would feel if this threat was made to your home? This industrial use of this land would jeopardize the continued use of these lands by the general public. According to the flood plain analysis the land would be one to three feet_oder der the 100 year flood plain with the resulting Silt fence and enviro berm w allow-ddebris to block natural water flow and cause damage to adjacent lands on the south side of the river. In the mining plan map (exhibit C) fuel and the wash plant are in 100 year flood plain. The applicant says there are no domestic wells within 1 000 feet. Our domestic well is within 800 feet, plus many of our neighbors wells are also less than 1000 feet of the proposed pit. It is also stated that the ground water is within 4 to 5 feet of the ground surface which will require continuos pumping (a pump that would run 24 hours a day). This would allow them to pump 2000 gallons per minute which would fill up the settling pond within 2 hours. Combined with the wash plant and overflow, the Colorado River would be subject to large deposits of salts and minerals. The overflow to the Colorado River does not show an easement across adjacent land or the vertical alignment of the overflow (depth of the ditch). We feel there are several issues that need to be addressed. It is stated in the noise report the crusher plant will be at Least 1000 feet from the properties to the south, when in fact it will be around 400 feet or less to the properties to the south. The combined noise of existing uses will create an industrial atmosphere which is out of character for the existing neighborhoods. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Sincerely, Annie Nicholson David Nicholson cc: BOCC PETITION AGAINST TME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed far the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print NameSignature Address 12)1,1 ') r;.. (tt ,1 City � i I 1 ZIP I -e14 a Phone g 1 to - 5',/ 6 %. \ .0 '‘ r\ L• - -e 1 i:, L,._,Ii ((/' o. 10 g/6 t1() )1V 9 1 Ohc(t{( -2$d(? c ., ' &i. ` `",,`, , f z,et.A4, /7/f r --2-z.,•( - e t d'.7f;- -,2 - eff ,,(0._c*.;761 F (}ec,z-, ci ,k, ,S.,it'tL ict' ,P6-s-cs1-2 (dohMI£1 477- ,9'1-4' MI 7/ i, r/ ' - e -u c_ „tbif �76'-3-- cQ,4 / /& 7 e" c?#'1I tICP / 41-:///1- 6": 5''71 , Z AZNAfif / e rX 1 , , � 7 : r 6-. 6" /4 .- c v 74-. c_i 11 /2 Pt 1s S Cj t . c c.- r- /0/6 (?-'7// -4( 4 L i 6 Sa_ P-769 .5-5- e r 4 i 1 •r, I Q it) V193 -I-Lk/ C kar- ti - C .#-- c, e-° 211,c -.).a 'Z(63 S5 `10 c33Siv -I 55th' 1.-2 c. 0)0 5 `3 iltrieo-t-i-fP4 4"`�+1' 715=FZ:z. (----_...$ 7 ,) \'' ,*1_)., 4., (..., E p ._.)_ ......r.... .1%14 �y (13 ------Y ---- `f - . -- +4-'C r • Print Name _ -L �yv—' --C__11-7?-7..---- }`a rte.- (:_. 1116 f31�� (.. ���.. . « i J y %•-. Jj%/ ' r rpt \ Signature s -, Vf �` .,. / 1 (ca .. - �J T ry Pr ,, Km a. a CD Ea 0 k.irN,-�. `' mac•:" `. - `' ,- 1 City / ZIP Phone 'N \ 'R� �. f ^. ti .lam Nsi (NI .y ' .CX r- t,)V ti k! r o m a) 13 /j, m W Z-13 rh co o co mal a m al• co • „ 0 cci co 5 13 C a .4 3 5 1— c D 3 0 m D St MCDcD rT) C O 0 Le o m 4 • ° co CD 5 0 -- {� < a 3 12- � C a E 0 CDco o co o -� a 10 m lld 0J5OdO11d 11111SNIVOY 1101111id PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of SiIt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment, ' Print game Signature Address City f ZIP Phone , -- r" rr 11 Il f L .' i t�r_.1 testi r r 1 .t �,_< < ( dr yl'L •�_ C-' %/1! r 1 r, (' � ' �. � t c 111 1-t'_, L II L 5 •" .• ,t Ifjc fji. ►N(. `� 'tiAt 1' i 07'i ,v 14. . i . s( 4 ` ,j -" h It. - I #Lt. }.a 4 z - .) ` r i � / )4 < < Ji• r4., i t.:1 -c ;I,� (1 •. ,J �' ' (r i. ( di)d' t 1 / 4. , ) '65`i us/7 {�'� 1 - ' i � ~ `( L if 1 11r 1 ,r l ' .� r, ! i' ; I ? , 1 ill-) y , r J , t 1--°, - (- c c...7 -r J t'G{►' ( t (`t - t + (i'-•/1 - ,1.),i.' ff ' yLi? r� —� _ yr r� c � t L\6, (' : � r ..)L, c at j is C. L i I .1 it 1 1 c I # _ �.� l �- 1. I 7 a; -, r ) •car �- 1. r -'(1 e -L. ,; ., ,yam , ti 7. _ le, re.L4z� I _ i , Ili.1_tr t C U f 4, f' ��. )i 43/_-Y // ( „itii 1 lc; 6 1 _� ., �as��e� C-/ ).-/ 1 '�'�'j'; _ �� %� \—�'�"i` ;' -1 i\ kid,_ i t',1�,. r6 . T ll11 -'1G1 1. - " F , i.� f 1 • F , % ' r 1 1, j S / i 1 ' l 1 L' _eI rli^ .JL$. ',/ , r l{ I ji / i r f fl / r //e PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Pian, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City / ZIP Phone LoYY\L, \� 1?F Q i,f' �,] f�Y ��,; 1 (may1Y 1 �_ F 111 f ..� -,,-,./ „Yf4 4 11'-•/-/ /:-4, ,...,(,)-7.(;,..1/4,),. r1.-- ,r FL) . c:7:21: Cii'! riP4i/.4.7 `) L oe / 0`�-- , { it: err:V m-,.. 617_5-- z Y sz> N 160,fsi>3 { `'S )e., - �-.— 'f'.i CL , -, •-4•-r�� - f r " - - - ` •, - k �- 1 a P - t)E:1 . jlI 10 .� k _ '- L f• I tl f -, i �- �• l'_ [1 L•• [ �` 1r 1 C. �1 �•+' ,.+�'. • i L i 1 I L i L {' l a i' [r r (r----- ,— �, k\ ! )LYr e / ,2 I , eft / 71:-;c1- 4 J.- TI h� 15 C 1 Y 39 L1{' y .111 c.,s 1.._,, } c �— � / 1 y c lt.', ) f C' ',r' -* : iii » • J i C k.- Fti.�, 4 L c � .j + L leVJN (-1'Z') 4)1 Z. 1 i f ' ,�'.0 ` 4. i r Ej r' { I �'_1.� lI"'— , + :14.,,,,,,„c Iw w.�`i r �.., + ( �, 1 (c i i 1•1�l/f rid/ 17/14 . '---\---Lok —4 --k 't 2 4356 Lel _.)f.t 4 -61(2,-5 -, )7-5/2,,--) Dr/ y1(.. (\C },fl) ' ' .1 1)., \c. I --'--., i L�� 13'l(f (, / 77/4:,'--0,-',17,1 PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City I ZIP Phone .. S.1 -t.-% L- 1 1 i fi e ` �'. i 1 .. - i f,r/ , A r (_* i Y•�J9 Lam' . ' `Ca, .-€�•9._ .Ic,A...t_tr /3zia ace,1,00 Ade- 414-r6/6S1 Td ta? .i ;� r' (-,z . ,1jl i(./ .• % 'C/ �i,, S,f Lr& / f .1�6..C.§2C 5 , C_ �,/ •7 4f ' 2-.,r , 0 4'V9 * •.7 l i 'l''' I''�0 1(I VI -. P1+41 ' j_ LI. I. ti. IA / . a. /:/' , 1 N^ 4. .' • ^!, t' •i -• - .l•J ` • 1 13.b ,.1 1 v . -• - , c- /� j/I /1' L . L 5.eif r;l _-),-'`i1,� -7Y a ti/'•c.[ j��� n,l •4• • ' ''• r 'tom ��1. 3 s 31 ..CX{ At3 c.,i ;!^ 816t 3`3 `.1 J 618.--&-Q ^r )I1c ` ° 1` . • ") __( . r,17 kI�/'/) ti- t.. .. _ [( -' 11)D 14I/ /el) [f_ti 2- 1S, 2.4') i TL i e'f-L7�.RL'k`i.�, t J/ mo, - - `s s '✓ 5),./ et -`0•�Iy'„13 _ ,-- / 11,•'1�-t-ol l V'�0LL _ t %��'(' f1,---1,---1 - I h1 k'c7;s( 7SJ i -1;Y( LOA VIE /4111211 .-vi«n t_r , -1/1 e G Li.4_ 116 )1 i-ic i iw-e i-1 X 411.1)=) L517 - x %,.,d, .._. ::.— .-..z....4 -N ��; r L"j t "'i...„., a,� Print Name op \ s F.►�, c- • ejl rI � ' — • -1, ,C -✓ t‘ Signature . 1 r __,;,...s, ........,5::..,,, —N ` r,""-ia M ---. 71 14,-4,,z:4 1/4,..„,) V1 v .- J .! 'ice, NN „,..„ -^'— J \ ......J, . j e,. e' • rte, i___4, ,,, , 4 t* cdN „:„. 1., , (---- • y d t,/'-- .�... .l` ::-.\--r - 1 I '� 'a �` �.. —r s Address .-- `,.. '.E-, ,i` • y�-fl }'J `+` LA n ;�, City 1 ZIP mss:,,` ��-^^ �Jj Phone o al 13 •�- iii =- c w -13 Fi CD as a)co . 0• o�m cfi03r+ 3 ro c • m. v iA C C'! coo0 03 P. d Q- F O co Fp' fD D 0 0.0) ca 0 ti: a O cDxa • c3 (15 CT • m u) 3 /�� 03 C • 0. 0- • w m • 5� 3o. 3 07 t►i to PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT PETITION AGAINST ma PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Pian, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Si nature Address City /ZIP ' Phone ---).2 �/ �. p -, irL,Li---: z_. .b. �_ 5 Pct ti &. i ) ft() (bs f!c CAA 7 Cl . 07cy) rail )1,1 a e Ike- .\)\i.t V)e' 3z 3 • `; `, t %.51 (-),,/ 9v7p alrf =L, ,�'v" ( hCA, 0 .4. l_ rtf.t..,..-k. {�� ,oz Oi )rt t LL`!` �.vt .�i{{ • IIrl 6 I(Asa —st.ri/ C Lf i -7/t ( /L i ( - (/( r G' � f t ( '� ‘ `,0 ,..2 �i 'fietc.Iq,� is i .. �d yam- s' iri.,-(4/ 15' 47- '' -LP- rii/ 11 1 4'1202' -- ft,o ec/e ire.Y1,,j.a) / a"761.55-- __, i + fff // a {/ '1i 4. AtT, 'Lt'i,. .� Ittt G .)liL+ ....I1 .I 14 J)i) t t) 1 '1 i •.1Lr '-eft, , _. I. -4Z l i 1 4lici4y g • i Jill - i .21.,1 * f '''S'Y 71i LI t: : et... --a ., PP figs( 11 a IN'A rc( 1 ., • _ L 6,.,0 ,,,_ -).xe c c -A, C - Tho c trl.6`,1s,:Q_ \g's .4 1 c , s ,\-\- L'/ v 1 - )r (_ fr -J L 6 I6-6; r f ') i 1k(n.ilr-i:LL:4t-t.() ( ` ; i i ( PETITION AGAINST ThE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Sig ature, " Address City / ZIP Phone 0 ( kAhk) i tiC r (iiLitq1i /1(&, ,-_1-.),661 l r*' Lail( _ 61 k m'5- -Q707 aoduf, ad (i A )--') L)` Ali f 4 . f . cjt el -3/27 t. t t )- _ k. _ I Mir' / z 1/7 01; , i . 4 ,,... I 56 . (106-i r', cfc,O v..../1.311,.,."0041)4A. rityt ,/ !17 Y v--' 7 mit .,. , 1/ 1 �/, f/lie,gpilr,/ f/ ti K ( ."-L:=f7rr "Z J' e `&r. J/r,//''Jjr ... "�I iILR fI r�C [ i. .?,14./ U 1i l#, Iw� I�r—, �[' fI to 1 � _ ..„--1/ r✓—� e T.CC.ii fl : t ,�j,/' i -z . 3 f '7,, 7 - S •y; `{ Y }• I 'r �. : .w i' . l: . Al -k 11 ► , r ri_ k_ fir" 1 _ 1 f i 5 . t { 3: S I H a / '4 c-, /VI Q 1. A Li ill 1 , ._.�= ���.(.c k- . Irl t{ L. C lr ti 575' PETITION AGAINST 'ME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Si nature Address - City i ZIP Phone bA ( ii--- L ()Pr te -I-- ( __. t• jr -t-SqitiStIO ---- - 1\ -- 1 ..,..) 1V3 NC' I If , i: Liv.. 0 ' &LA -7 981.2 14-' - - • 1 -- ' Im• f /P, i 1-1,.(•,:`,‘•--A-: .,(I. ' 3 . <. ..,.1 // , 1 1 - yylooy.1/4.,.._ ,-i--)c,',,,,4 40,-,,7 du e,. ••^1 j,) Y d. l'!" (.2"' ^. i ) ir / • F k,}S* W 1 rj p .y - - . N 04 11 424 ‘1.1- '' 4* 't ' ' r• - /1 :3 ) i /11 0- e A s'te C3 i 6 /) ---2 . _ ---Di\it) ti 101.1';',-* IT5frfklifrws, .c.-1,,_.-1— 4?ste c,--2... z,s7q ;17 ,,,,,,/, . , , -- 4 '; "! ' S ..,,,,, , re ' • ' A ; ? 1 7:': or; ,-:1":* .e.-. - • • • , i- '''''' . •;.- . . , r .• . r .. i'q.. '';','..r- //V 7Y1 -•:':2'.} •I;',..5% et; _.e. C (flale-j P9 lt / 337.>' Pc" Y /641 7 7 ‘- 36.. , ' f r 4-1 .„.......z_ ' C — '''-' ., — . (2' .)1( 2, e rL.,, v- A. , Al 1 8 ((' Yo 67, .-yl - 1 d (L 1. - So3 ..,d.,, - 3'3 L" A2,1'. RI li 7 PiEgi -3-,i,, i-/- 1 ".71 -AH(--- ,,e- 1 c 1 t 10 • ( t ( i ) IlA 4,---".' -1 -` , y r A p -7 • 7i 'r ; t 1 , ft if I 1 6111 17 ... 4, 117e 51( Pr Lla C •• '• jri ci ,Iti..-C-1`91, CL 1;‘,1„. . i (,.S1_,_ . IY1; e)t j 7 CD as ^` ,Y CD zm toCOID DT (ID cp DI CD CL 0 CO aa c (13 (A - E cadID c3 zr to 0 co Q_ v o. co iD •• � D� cry O 0 ct, o EsQ 0 O 0 W O '0, Q 0 cD ,,• CD 4KZ {D < 0 [? fU a• 3 03 Q rt 8 cD W • 0 ? lj Ild O35OdOtld ISNINDIE NOUil3d ~ .Z., w N. .e*�h. r--- ...r , et - •YV+ 1. 1 r---. ait rt YL-. [ Print Name _ _ 1 f �F a .Y�4 r - i% ...... t� i • , --� sa Signature Y ,_ r r" i,r .4.-...---"'' 1. - _ y I _ _ _ ,1:••:... • V(...,„:::., f- .-• a w - , - l z - ..c r r....-1-- -... i 4....., r J lµ ti ( -s",...J �. CO _ R A .--•,.J ,,,; �' n ~� L _ 4 S } k eea _ t y, e [�` l "a r 'C• �f 'LA ti L' .!A V ti . [�rV r��\J Phone CD as ^` ,Y CD zm toCOID DT (ID cp DI CD CL 0 CO aa c (13 (A - E cadID c3 zr to 0 co Q_ v o. co iD •• � D� cry O 0 ct, o EsQ 0 O 0 W O '0, Q 0 cD ,,• CD 4KZ {D < 0 [? fU a• 3 03 Q rt 8 cD W • 0 ? lj Ild O35OdOtld ISNINDIE NOUil3d 4 ( j - \-.. F- I C r y _ ` �--8- . r, • er = . -... 7, — .. - Print Name r'(;) .4- �` ` 'r-' NJ =�L 1 ,--_- r•-- ,`.. irna - IP - ._. ti . ).......__ ...."4:—.''' R 4— / Signature // d Eqi \ \,11%A -- _4 : A I c1,1 -4-.. {.. Al - _ •`" — - .. 1. . ] Address roti ter, c":-..` r 1 '— ,. i. ` '.+. �� r AI .,E Phone I 0 3 a, a) co CD s MI 0 Go • a) Q3 MI m CO Q {f) D CD 0 . • Q 3 m. C cp c n `� CO m • 0 o o 3 m m N f? 4 n 0) Q [7 to c a 0 Box JIT -- co" • m • rt 8 • o_ — • CU • _a 03 ca IId o]SOdOUld ISMf1[ii! MAUUUlId PETITIOPI AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Cornprehertsive Plan, and would result in nume^ ous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name _ Signature Address City 1 ZIP Phone T � 1J ! it's .) ( 1 �__� v1(� y� •C irL,�'i1 F-, e. L.., c. , lic 7 c, r:),,. ! .%/ - .. iI t /71a/ (t ` i6"..� i 1 . ,/ '+ 57�`N�a 11 i M - 144.1- t: % — 7-- i Ty} / / / 1 Ii! ri% 6'1 rr. ) r- Y°it.fir. (.1' c� � 7 �� �� Z‘ IS./ _ [ t�-4- � ��-�•� a'a � , :e• �r /)?12kY r. �' J' 1 .1 ,117/./A P il. ii4' r 4 r46:43 Sodyu S►z I/A ',' - 1/ e ..., �, I0 PllC, lrl'A 0021 3 3 S .. Ca -C63.2-__ % 4101.0() PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Si , n • e Address City /ZIP Phone CliR 15 0 u191 -4w «K !,. 3 C 3// f%'E� c 15 rLE s 1 47 �7o- B7‘- 5$3z (Olt (&4f5cn zin/40,,A., cy a.,- . ,../e_ ''''6' - 3 7g 885.2 9 it -0 L -Eia..c i 3's pd r k+ ,,. SPR.,: ,�, - $ / 6e) j .228 O6 57 _Sea "14? ti e5/T ! (10Z 3 vd$ . C- S 619roc` �6,gr a 757.h'rd 'RfrirVP, CO aI6, SO -Z 5-026V J.44-m-1,-MIDDIr XJ i).0-7ni-c k , 4 1 4, TFLZit C ig i Me 2d&& VI e gi. et le 0.7 14)AI5� s g/601 '`795-13g'. ewe e4 is, �g.-g157 4 lit cgTi‘,3 ( erycn7x G.,,,_,3 (,,,,._.,44.„ !� 31,6 i„,4,_ S i,r-•.. k Ci,,,, bi .01 ctliccligic 5 -( V 7 i); i�, GL) S c® snail Pail A. L (sit . 243 , g/63 5 ©s4 -i frIO_La . -611X4 0 d . (- / / 7 g h'14 0 OA/ ii Z- jfL 4-h., _ c....0 i 167-•0 Gzs',.7Xa