Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 02.14.2001REQUEST: PC 2/14/01 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.)e76 r ler Are eviopik SITE DATA: 41.07 acres WATER: Well SEWER: Portable toilets ACCESS: River Frontage Road EXISTING ZONING: Agricultural/Industrial (AA) . 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 River and has been used as pasture. There are some larger cottonwood trees near the river and other riparian vegetation. There are no structures on the property at this time. B. Project Description; The applicants are requesting the issuance of a 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 200 ft. north of the riverbank and moving north toward the frontage road. 1 Initially, the topsoil and overburden will be stripped and stockpiled in a portion of the northern third of the property and another stockpile is to be placed along the eastern boundary of the property. The actual mined area will be approximately 25.9 acres and the depth of the gravel layer is are estimated to be 22 feet. The pit will be mined in three or four stages varying m size from eight (8) to eleven (11) acres. The material will be excavated by using front end loaders andlor 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 dredge out an area that will be dewatered during the mining operation, but end up as a lake as a result of a high water table, once the dewatering activities are stopped. The south half of the project is in the area shown as an area of shallow flooding during a 100 year flood event. H. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located in an area identified as privately owned lands with site specific use limitations on the Proposed Land Use Districts , Study Areas 2 & 3, Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. The property is also located within the Town of Silt 2 -Mile Sphere of Influence and identified as an AG/AG Conservation FUD land use area within the 2 -Mile Sphere of Influence, but outside of the identified Urban Growth Area. The following statements are from the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies applicable to this application: 8.0 Natural Environment Objectives 8.2 Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features of the land and design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environrnent. 8.4 River -fronts and riparian areas are fragile components of the ecosystem and these areas require careful review in the planning process. 8.5 Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical wildlife habitats are protected. 2 Policies 8.1 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 slides, major mudflows, radioactive tailings, slopes over 25 percent, riparian areas and wetlands and projects proposed within the 100 year floodplain. 8.2 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 safety concerns. 8.4 The County will require development with river frontage to address the issue through physical design in a way which will protect fragile wetlands and scenic resources and protect floodplains from encroachment. 9.0 Natural Resource Extraction Objectives: 9.1 The County will require ade3quate mitigation to address impacts of mineral extraction on private property owners, without undue burden on the legal rights of mineral lessees. 9.3 The County will ensure that mineral extraction activities will not adversely affect the natural e3nvironment, including air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat or important visual resources. Policies 9.1 Garfield County , to the extent legally possible, will require adequate mitigation to address the impacts of mineral extraction on adjacent land owners. These measures may include the following: A. Landscaping and screening. B. Modification of phasing of area to be mined; C. Roadway improvements and signage; D. Safe and efficient access routes; E. Drainage improvements to protect surface and groundwater. 9.4 Dust, odors and furnes should be contained within the extraction site generating such emissions and should not negatively affect any surrounding land use. 9.5 Any proposal regarding mineral extraction that cannot mitigate adverse impacts may be denied based on a finding of incompatibility, for the following reasons: A. Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate neighborhood or the entire community. B. Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent properties; C. Adversely affecting quality of life of existing adjacent residences; D. Showing a lack of quality or function in operational planning and/or design; E. Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas; F. Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the entire community. 10.0 Urban Areas of Influence Objectives 10.1 County land use policies will be consistent with local land use policies and objectives. Policies 10.2 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Resolution revisions, Zone District Amendments and individual projects with defined Urban Areas of influence, will be consistent with local municipal land use policies. As noted previously the Town of Silt Comprehensive Plan includes the proposed project in the area between the 2 -Mile Sphere of Influence and the Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed land use designation is AG/AG Conservation PUD. This area is described as being an area for low density residential development (1 d.u.l1 Sac. Max.),with agricultural development being the predominant land use. The premise being that the agricultural land owner can derive some income from the development of a small number of tracts and putting the majority of the remaining property in a conservation easement. The intent being that the protection of agricultural land will discourage suburban sprawl. The Silt Comprehensive Plan is silent on the issue of natural resource extraction The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan recognizes the development ofa natural resource, provided it is done in an environmentally sensitive manner and impacts to adjoining properties is minimized or mitigated. All of the previous discussion identifies objectives and policies m the County and Silt Comprehensive Plans that provide some guidance in making a decision on the proposed application for a gravel pit. There is no language in the Zoning Resolution requiring compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for a Special Use Permit, thus any decision on the proposed land use permit cannot be based on the Comprehensive Plan. B. 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, 5.03.07 and 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. The proposed dredging of a floodplain area was originally deemed to be subject to the standards contained in Section 6.00 of the County Zoning Resolution, but after further review, staff has determined that the application does not have to comply with the floodplain 4 regulations. All of these issues will be discussed in the following sections of this report. 2.02.52 (5) Use, special: uses allowed only by permit of the County Commissioners, which permit may be granted or denied. if granted, certain conditions and performance standards may be imposed and must be complied with by the permittee. A gravel extraction and processing operation is classified as a Special Use in Section 3.01.03 and falls under the fallowing industrial classifications, per Section 2.02.31: Processing: "to subject to some special process or treatment, as in the course of manufacture"; change in the physical state or chemical composition of matter; the second step in utilization ofa natural resource; examples include petroleum refining, oil shale crushing, retorting and refining, ore smelting, coal crushing and cleaning, saw mills, alfalfa pellet mills, food canning or packing, creation of glass. ceramic or plastic materials, gravel crushing, cement manufacture; concrete batch plants; 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 bottled water brought onto the site and sewage will be treated through the use of portable vault type units. The use of portable toilets is allowed by the County's Individual Sewage Disposal System regulations. 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 be constricted in conjunction with the proposed use. Ali access will be onto the River Frontage road, which is owned by and has access controlled by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). CDOT has 5 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. Since CDOT owns and controls the access to the frontage road, the County has no direct jurisdiction over the condition of the road serving the proposed gravel pit. Provided the applicants comply with the CDOT access permit, the application can be found to be in compliance with this standard. 3] Design of the proposed use is organized to 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 proposed a design of the gravel pit to minimize the impacts on adjacent land uses through the location of topsoil stockpiles on the north portion of the site and the proposed pit is physically separated from property to the south by the river and 200 fit. of the river edge that is undisturbed due to federal land ownership. The site plan shows the stockpiles being located on the northern edge ofthe area to be mined, with processing areas within and outside ofthe proposed pit. Staff's had originally suggested that the topsoil stockpiles be moved further north to visually buffer the majority of the processing area from the 1-70. The applicant proposes to scrape off the topsoil at south fence line and start the mining operation at that point. The proposal then states that the crusher will be placed within the pit, which would make it visible initially from the southern boundary of the project. Once the pit is deeper, the crusher and all other operations will be less visible to all adjoining and nearby property due to the depth of the pit. It appears form the proposed site plan that the concrete batch plant, loading, concrete batch plant and other operations will be outside of the pit, in an area that is visible from the south and partially visible from the north. It is not clear where the concrete batch plant is to be located on the property, which may have an impact on adjacent property. There is no clear explanation of the time it will take to minimize any visual or noise impacts based on the site application included in the application. 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. The site plan does not clearly define the location of all of the activities and it does not appear to provide the visual buffering of the operation to the south. The mining plan alludes to the reduction of visual and noise impacts based on the placement of the crusher in the pit, but there is no detail to how this will occur or the length of time it will take to create a pit that will mitigate the potential visual and noise impacts associated with the operation. Based on these issues, staff cannot state that the application can meet this standard. 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 run-off streamowor ground water; To mine this area, the applicants will be discharging water from the proposed pit by the use of pumps to move the water to a small detention pond, prior to discharge into the river. The proposed surface discharge is consistent with the existing surface drainage points, subject to meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division , Wastewater Discharge Permit. The same permit also establishes the effluent limitations for discharge from the property, some of which will require monitoring by the CDPHE. The applicant has submitted a surface water management plan that is projected to contain all sedimentation on site that may cause impacts to surface waters. Dewatering of the pit is not expected to have any effect on groundwater beyond 50 feet from the property boundary. The nearest known well on the same side of the river is the applicant and the application states that it will not be affected. The new pond that will be created will have some evaporative loss that is subject to water court jurisdiction. The applicants have filed an augmentation plan with the courts and contracted with the West Divide Water Conservancy District for additional water to offset the depletion due to evaporation. Provided the augmentation plan is approved and the applicants comply with the CDPHE Water Discharge Permit, the application can comply with this standard. (B) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; The applicants propose to operate the gravel pit in a manner that will eliminate the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, glare or vibration. The proposed haul road will be watered and paved in sections to minimize dust. All equipment will 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 have to comply with the emission requirements of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, Air Emission permits. The application includes an analysis of the applicant's existing operation in the Carbondale area. The report states that the existing operation has been run in compliance with all air emission permits without any emissions being registered. A noise impact analysis was included in the application, that was based upon the noise impact of the crusher at the Carbondale operation and a comparison with the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed pit. The study concluded that the noise impact from the crusher will be at the same level as the ambient noise level in the area of the proposed pit, if there is 1000 feet of separation between the nearest house to the south. This also assumes that there will be no barriers between the crusher and the dwelling receiving the sounds. Noise is not expected to be an issue due to the physical separation of an estimated 1 000 ft. from residential uses to the south and the placement of the crusher within the pit and below ground level. Staff is not as certain about the projected distances to the houses to the south and the report does not address the sounds from the other equipment to be used on the property. No vapor, glare, vibrations or other emanations are projected to since the operation is physically separated far enough from the property to the south to eliminate these impacts. While the sound study identifies a no increase in the sound levels of the operation beyond the ambient noise levels, it not as clear to staff that the house south of the operation are at least 1000 ft. away from the operation. As noted previously, the applicant has not done a very thorough job of describing the operation to be able to back up the statements that the operation will not have any noise or visual impacts on the properties to the south. (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; Peny Will, DOW District Wildlife Manager and John Toolen, DOW Habitat Biologist visited the site and concluded that there will be no major impact to wildlife as a result of the proposed gravel operation provided the following recommended strategies are implemented: 1. An undisturbed buffer zone separating the pit operation and river, a distance of a couple hundred feet or north of the existing livestock fence. 2. The pit bottom and shoreline should be irregular to create edge effect and to enhance aquatic life forms. Peninsulas are desirable with the same slope as the sides of the pit. 3. The proposed island in the reclamation plan have a 3 to 1 slope. 4. That over 200 feet of the south shoreline have a 5 to 1 slope to encourage emergent vegetation and create a shallow area for waterfowl. 5. Cottonwood seedlings planted in the buffer zone area should be protected from cattle and deer to insure they get established. 6. The revegetation of disturbed areas needs to include some aquatic vegetation for the pond after pit completion. 7. A noxious weed control plan needs to be developed for the pit during operation and after completion. Also included in the application is an independent wildlife study that concludes that the existing pasture is poor -quality habitat for most species of wildlife, that will be enhanced by the reclaimed gravel pit operation. Based on the DOW letter and the supporting wildlife study, the proposed gravel pit will not have any impacts on wildlife and will result in an improved wildlife habitat. (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 1-70 to the destination. The application states that the maximum traffic will be 180 ADT, which is less than the 200 ADT permitted by CDOT. CDOT issues access permits based upon the projected traffic impacts of an activity. The State issued the permit without any additional improvements , which implies that the roadway is adequate for the projected traffic. Provided the applicants remain in compliance with the CDOT Highway Access permit, they have affirmatively demonstrated that the impacts to areas of the County by truck and automobile traffic have been addressed. (E) That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s); The property is bounded on the north by the frontage road and 1-70 and to the south by an estimated 200 ft. of federally owned land and the Colorado River . The property to the east is owned by the property owner and the property to the west is presently vacant. The abutting property is all vacant, with the exception of the property to the east, which owned by the applicant. The proposed operation will not damage any abutting property, if the operation is run consistent with the proposals in the application. (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 needs to develop a better plan for the operation of the pit, that identifies the location of all of the equipment, how it will be visually obscured and the timelines regarding the when certain pieces of equipment will be located in the pit and the impacts of that location. All of the recommendations of the Division of Wildlife need to be incorporated into any approval. (2) Permits may be 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 In addition to the DMG reclarnation, the recommendations ofthe DOW need to be incorporated into a revised reclamation plan. (13) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or conditional use is issued, if required. The applicant shall furnish evidence ofa bank commitment of credit, bond, certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the County Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation plan in workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications and construction schedule established or approved by the County Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds or check shall be payable to and held by the County Commissioners; As noted in the prior statement, the Colorado Department of Minerals and Geology requires financial security for all reclamation requirements in their permit. The applicant needs to have their reclarnation plan incorporate the recommendations ofthe DOW and estimate the cost ofthe additional reclamation. This cost estimate needs to be reviewed by the County Pest and Weed Department and an agreed upon security placed with the County to cover the cost of the additional reclamation is placed with the County Treasurer. (0 impacts set forth in the impact statement and compliance with the standards contained in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution. As noted previously, the applicant has not provided adequate detail to determine that all of the possible impacts will be mitigated based upon the plan submitted. Section 5.03.08 requires all industrial operations in the County to comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or to hazard, Operations to be conducted in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses are located, in accord with the following standards; (1) Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. The sound generated by the proposed operation will be a result of the use of equipment to mine, crush, wash and process the gravel extracted from the property. All of the applicant's equipment has been tested to meet the Mined Safety and Health Administration to be capable of operating within acceptable operating limits. As noted previously, the applicant has provided an analysis of noise impacts from the crusher and determined that the crusher will not have any more impact on a residence at 1000 ft., than the ambient noise level. As noted previously, the application makes some assumptions regarding distance that may not be correct. Based on the information submitted , staff cannot definitely say that the applicant will comply with the noise standards contained in the Colorado Revised Statutes. (2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at 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 will be mounted on shock absorption units to minimize vibrations and given the physical separation from any nearby residences or other potentially impacted uses, there will be no ground vibration beyond the property boundary. (3) Emissions ofsmoke and particulate matter: every use shall be 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. The applicant will be required to have the appropriate NDPES permits for the equipment on the property. 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 very minimal as a result. The stockpiles and topsoil stockpiles need to be keep moist or revegetated to minimize any dust. Provided the applicant operates as proposed and the stockpiles are properly revegetated, there should not be any impacts form smoke or particulate matter. 11 (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, 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, aircraft 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. (5) Any storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas must meet the following standards: (A) Storage of flammable or explosive solids or 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. The Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan is included in the application. The storage of flammable or explosive materials must be located outside ofthe 100 year floodplain. (B) At the discretion ofthe 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. Additionally, the applicant has committed to keeping the outside storage orderly and clean, to further mitigate any negative visual impact. There is no clear operation plan for dealing with all of the visual impacts from all of the adjacent properties. (C) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces; It is proposed that 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. This may be subject to change if the applicant were to propose to use a portion of the topsoil stockpile to visually buffer the operation from properties to the south. If that becomes a proposal, an analysis of the floodplain impacts would have to be done. (D) All materials or wastes which might constitute a fire 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 a Colorado Department of Health Water Quality discharge permit, which establishes the parameters by which the applicant can discharge water from the site. The proposed surface water management plan identifies the method by which all runoff will be controlled on the site and not affect other areas. All percolation tests or ground water resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers must be met before operation of the facilities may begin. No percolation tests or ground water resource tests are required for this application. 5.03.10 Approval of Conditional and Special Uses: Uses listed as Conditional under the appropriate Zone District Regulation shall be permitted based on compliance with the requirements listed herein; where uses are listed as Special Uses, they shall be permitted only: (1) Based on compliance with all requirements listed herein, and; Staff has noted that the applicant has not demonstrated that the impacts to properties to the south will be net regarding noise and visual impacts. (2) Approval by the County Commissioners, which Board may impose additional restrictions on the lot area, floor area, coverage, setback and height ofproposed uses or require additional off-street parking, screening fences and landscaping, or any other restriction or provision it deems necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the population and uses of the neighborhood or zone district as a condition of granting the special use. At this time staff cannot recommend approval of the proposed application, due to previously noted issues related to noise and visual issues. 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 volume and safely or on utilities or any impact of the special use which it deems injurious to the established 13 character of the neighborhood or zone district in which such special use is proposed to be located. The nearest sand and gravel operation is the Flag sand and gravel pit, which is located approximately one-half mile southwest of the proposed project. The Flag sand and gravel was originally approved in 1981, with the last amendment being approved in 1990. The operation is allowed to extract sand and gravel and process concrete, concrete forms and asphalt. The proposed application and the Flag sand and gravel will share the use of the I-70 frontage road for access to sites to the north of the Colorado River and CR 311 for sites south of Silt. In terms of traffic, the impact of 180 additional ADT to a projected 14,800 vehicle trips per day by 2015 is a very small percentage increase. The old Goldman pit, to the southeast is relatively inactive and traffic conflicts from it will be minimal. Previously, staff noted that potential impacts to property south of the proposed sand and gravel operation due to property devaluation due to negative visual impacts and noise impacts. 5.03.12 Access Routes: All conditional uses and special uses must be provided with access routes of adequate design to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access for the use constructed in conjunction to the proposed use. The minimum design standards shall be the Garfield County Road Specifications. Access to the site is controlled by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), since the frontage road is owned and maintained by CDOT. As noted previously, CDOT has issued an access pemiit for 180 ADT, without any required improvements to the frontage road. The proposed access route is adequate to accommodate the proposed traffic volumes. Section 6.03.02 of the Zoning Resolution establishes the basis for establishing what drainages are regulated by the County's floodplain regulations. It states the following: This Regulation shall apply to all areas of lands within the unincorporated area of the County, which are idented as being subject to the 100 Year Flood in either: (1) The report entitled the Flood Insurance Study, Garfield County, Colorado, Unincorporated Areas and the accompanying flood maps entitled Flood Boundary Maps, Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Garfield County, Colorado, Unincorporated Areas, as the same may be from time to time amended; or (2) In the processing of any application for Planned Unit Development zoning or for subdivision under applicable County Regulations. 14 The proposed Special Use permit is located in an area that the Corps of Engineers has done the preliminary floodplain determinations, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not adopted the study as the official flood boundary map, floodway map or flood insurance rate maps for this portion of the Colorado river. Since this project is not a PUD or subdivision, it is not subject to the requirements of the County Floodplain regulations. 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. While this information is not required for the Floodplain regulations, it was necessary to answer the question of whether or not the proposed operation was going to have any materials transported off the site due to natural causes required by Section 5.03.08 (5)(C). C. Town of Silt : The Town of Silt has submitted a resolution from the Board of Trustees of Town of Silt recommending that the Board of County Commissioners deny the application. Included as supporting documentation is a report from the Town's consulting planner that identifies a number of issues tied to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Resolution. A cover letter from the Town's attorney cites a number of reasons for denial based upon the County's denial of a gravel pit in 1984. The Attorney's arguments are all based on the same find' s used by the County as a basis for denial of the application. (See pages D. Citizen comments: Attached are a number of letters from residents in the area and from the surrounding communities. Attached to one to the applications is a petition withi 78 signatures. The reasons given for denial are reduction of property values, trffic, air and water pollution, dust, noise and visual impacts. (See letters pages -7 0 r 7 IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the public hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing. 3. That the application is not in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution 15 3. That the application is not in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is not in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend DENIAL of the proposed special use permit due to noncompliance with the following sections of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution: Section 5.03.07 (B) and (F); 5.03.08 (1) and 5.03.10 (1) and (2), based upon the lack of addressing the noise and visual impacts of the proposed sand and gravel operation. 16 STEVEN M. BEATTIE GLENN 0. 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 HAND DELIVERED Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County Garfield County Planning Commission 109 8'h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Application for Special Use Permit Peterson Gravel Pit - Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. Dear Members of the Board and Planning Commission: RECEIVED FEB 0 2 213111 TELEPHONE (970) 945- 659 FAX (970 945-5671 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 February 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 of 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 Garfield 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 of the 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 February 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 of the 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 ofstaff reports. 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. SiLT RESOLUTION AND FARRAR REPORT For the reasons set forth 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. GARFIELD COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 84-66 In 1984 Garfield County considered an Asphalt Paving Company application for special use permit for a gravel mining and batch plant operation on a 9.69 acre tract in the vicinity of the County Road 311 bridge over the Colorado River near Silt. The Board of County Commissioners unanimously denied the application. Virtually all of the considerations before the Board in 1984 are present in the current WSA Application - approximate geographical locations, types of proposed use, character of neighborhood, and concerns of Silt and neighboring citizens. In a caretiilly-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. THE TOWN OF SILT URGES TiIAT EACII MEMBER ()F TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD, AND COUNT:' STAFF, REA!) AND CONSIDER TIIIS 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: Barden of Proof An application may be technically "complete," but still be unacceptable. Citing Colorado law, the Board noted in Resolution No. 84-66 that the burden of 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 liar the subject parcel is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution...and the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan..." (Paragraphs 2, 3 and 15) 78- Zoning Considerations As in the present case, the property was zoned Agricultural/industrial. As is still the case, the Board noted, "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..." (Paragraph 5) Character of Neiitiliborhood The Board placed substantial emphasis on this criterion. The Resolution noted that the Board must, for purposes of considering tate application, "establish the neighborhood," which the Board determined to be properties within 'A mile of the proposed site. Consistent with the facts in present case, the Board in 1984 found that the 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 of the 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 uses 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 to reaching its decision, lite Board placed emphasis on the views of -County constituents, noting that citizens "have indicated concern regarding the effect of the proposed gravel pit and associated extractive operations on the agricultural and residential nature of the neighborhood, upon the value of adjoining properties and other properties in the area, and its impact on the Town of Silt." 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 industrial 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, 180 in WSA's Application). The Board wisely noted that even if technically adequate access exists, the volume and nature of industrial traffic, in light of area conditions, may pose unacceptable safety hazards, which are a basis for denial pursuant to Section 5.03.1 1 of the 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...the applicant's proposed operation would have a substantial, negative impact on traffic volume and safety of those persons using County Road 31 I and the bridge system within the general vicinity of the applicant's site, within the meaning of Section of 5.03.11..." (Paragraph 7) ois /foils Water Supply' 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 ot'the Town's municipal water system intake. The Resolution found evidence 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 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, wliicli are of an 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) 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, "The 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) Lack of Physical Separation 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 within approximately 'A mile of another gravel mining 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 ofthe 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." (Paragraph 11) Silt and Garfield County Comprehensive Plans The Resolution noted that proposed gravel mining and batch plant operations were inconsistent with the comprehensive plans of both the Town of Silt 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 of 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) CONCLUSIONS 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 arca, and is not in the best interest of the healthy, safety and welfare of the citizens of Silt and other affected areas. Very ly yours, 1 I 04'4 teven M. Beattie SMBlpsc cc: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planner Don K. DeFord, Garfield County Attorney 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 GARFIEL❑ 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 at., Case No. 00CV 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 ANI) BATCH PLANT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO GARFIELD COUNTY TO: SILT BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: DAVIS FARRAR - WESTERN SLOPE CONSULTING SUBJECT: PROPOSED WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES GRAVEL MINING AND BATCH PLANT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO GARFIELD COUNTY 1/21/01 CRAIG OLSON, STEVE BEATTIE, JANET STEINBACH DATE: CC: Type of Application: Applicant Request: Name of Applicant: Site Location: Parcel Size: Existing Zoning: Proposed Access: Water Source: Sewage Treatment: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Designation Special use permit referral to the Town of Silt from Garfield County. Special use permit for extraction of natural resources (sand and gravel mining), processing (concrete batch plant) and mining. within a lloodpiain. Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. Approxiiiately1150 feet northeast of the Silt municipal boundary in a portion of Section 12, Township 65, Range 92W of the 6th PM and adjoining the 1 70 river frontage road on a parcel of land known as the "Peterson Property". 41.07 Acres Agricultural/Industria i AJI 170 Frontage Road On-site Well Portable Toilets Ag/Ag Conservation PUD Silt Comprehensive Agricullural/Conservation/PUD Plan Designation: Project Description: The applicants are requesting issuance of a special use permit to allow for the extraction of sand and gravel and construction of a concrete hatch plant on 41.07 acres of land. The applicants propxx4e to mine approximately 25.9 acres (63.1%) in 3 or 4 phases. Mining operations will commence on the southerly edge of the properly and move in a northward direction. Proposed mining will consist of removing 1 to 3 feet of overburden. topsoil and removing gravel strata that extends to a depth of approximately 22 feet. 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 crushing, screening, washing and stockpiling. Sand and aggregates will be trucked oft' -site for construction purposes and will be used on-site for production of concrete at an on-site concrete batch plant. The batch plant is proposed to be approximately 40 feet in height. Proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Saturday. The equipment repair and maintenance will he conducted between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. Average daily traffic volumes are proposed to he 180 vehicle trips per day. 111e state highway access permit application notes that 20 vehicle trips will consist of passenger cars and light tracks, 50 vehicle trips will consist of multiunit tnicks, 80 vehicle trips will consist of tandem dunnp trucks and 30 vehicle irips will consist of cement trucks. According to the stale highway access permit application, each vehicle "leaving Ilio property then returning is two counts." Vehicle trips are identified as "average daily volumes" and not "peak hour volumes". Average daily voluines may fluctuate above or below the 180 vehicle trips per day. According to the application and the Garfield County staff report dated June 20, 2000, the south half of the project is in the 100 -year floodplain. This area is identified on the Garfield Sc the Mesa Counties, Colorado December, 1982 rloocipiain Study Map as Zone X and Zone AE. According to the Jerome Gantha & Associates, Inc. engineering report dated April 3, 2000, "the subject area will fall under the classification of Area of Shallow Flooding because the 100 -year flood depth is Tess than 3 feet higher than the existing ground level." Applicable Garfield Comity Zcmin2 Regulations. 'The Garfield County zoning resolution identifies the pin pose of zoning under Section 1.01 tor: "the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the state, including the lessening of congestion in the streets or roads or reducing the waste of excessive amounts of roads, securing safety from fire, flood waters and other dangers, providing adequate light and air, classification of land uses and distribution of laud development and utilization, protection of the tax base, securing economy in governmental expenditures, fostering the state's agricultural and other industries, and the protection of both urban and mon-urbane development." The subject parcel is zoned Agricultural/Industrial — A/T. The proposed use is classified as a "special use" and is listed in the regulations as "plant for fabrication of goods from processed natural resources; material handling, pumping facilities, storage areas, water impoundments, extraction and processing." Under County zoning, there are three classifications of uses. The most permissive classification is a "use by right". Uses by right are allowed without zoning review or under minimal zoning review. 'These uses are allowed as a property right under zoning. The next higher level of County zoning review is a "conditional use". Uses under this classification require review by the County staff and cornntissioners and require issuance of a permit. Such uses may require an applicant to meet certain conditions specified by the County prior to issuance ofa 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 an applicant to carry the burden of proof in order to show that a particular request conforms lir all applicable County regulations and has been subject to public scrutiny through a public hearing process. Additionally, the hoard of County commissioners inay approve, approve with conditions or deny a special use permit request. Section 5.03.10 of the Garfield County zoning resolution, in reference to approval or denial of a conditional or special use, slates the following: "Approval of Conditional and Special Uses Uses listed as Conditional under the appropriate Zone District Regulation shall be permitted based on compliance iritlb the requirements listed herein, )ph ere uses are listed as Special Uses, they shall be permitted only: (1) Based on compliance with ad! requirements listed herein, and; (2) Approval by the County Commissioners, which Board ,nay impose additional restrictions on the lot area, floor area, coverage, setback and height of proposed uses or require additional off street parking, screening fences and landscaping, or any other restriction or provision it deems necessary to protect the health, safety and weifiwe of the population and uses of the neighborhood or zone district as a condition of granting the special use. 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 rises on the same or other lots, the impact on traffic vohnne and safety or on utihiies ar any impact of the special use ,which it deems injurious to the established character of the neighborhood or zone district in which such special use is proposed to be located " The Agricultural/Industrial zone district title may imply that industrial uses characterize the zone district. However, 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 tinder the highest level of scnttiny 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" (see below). By way of comparison, the other agricultural zone district in Garfield County, "Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density — A/R/RD" single family residences are allowed alone and not in conjunction with agricultural uses. "Uses by right: Agricultural, including farm, garden, greenhouse, nursery, orchard, ranch, small animal faun for production of poultry, fish, fur- bearing and other small animals, and customary accessory uses including buildings for shelter and enclosure of persons, annuals or property employed in any of the above uses; retail establishment for sale of goods processed from raw materials produced on the"kit; Kennel, riding stable and veterinary clinic, guiding and outfitting; Mauufrtctured home as the principal use of the lot meeting standards contained in Section 5.03.042); Single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses only where is 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 Carf eld County and the Silt Comprehensive Pians. 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 for 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 "Land Use Plan, Town of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado". This map is a County re-creation of the Town of Silt comprehensive plan map. The map legend identifies land classifications that are similar or are identical to the classifications' on the adopted Silt comprehensive plan map. The revised County comprehensive plan also includes a snap titled "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 maps are important because they identify land use classifications 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 of Silt comprehensive plans are consistent with identified land use types inside and outside the municipal Iimits. 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 in an area shown as Garfield County "AG/AG Conservation PUD" and Town of Silt "Agricultural/Conservation PUD" and "Conservation/Open Space". 11 is the intent of Agricultural Conservation PUD 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 Conservation/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 Garliekl 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 LanQuaQe The Garfield County comprehensive plan notes on page I-3 under "issues identified by County resident? that "the relationship between adjacent Iand 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 of sensitive ecosystems, including riparian and wetlands resources, wildlife 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 minimum impact on sensitive ecosystems." Page 11-40 & 41 of the Garfield County comprehensive plan states 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 identifies asphalt and concrete hatch plant operations and gravellniineral 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 11-43 states "the preservation of agricultural land fosters the rural 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 land. Page 11-47, 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 are shown on the background data maps," "The Hirai 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 area. These areas are typically defined by the relationship between major roadways and specific topographic features." "The following corridors were identified by planning staff as particularly important to the County, from a visual perspective: 170, SH 82, SH 133 and SH 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 Hi identities as an objective under "conurtercial 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 1 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 th.it will result in visual degradation or public safely concerns." Section 9.3 under objectives notes "the County will ensure that mineral extraction activities will not adversely affect the natural environment, including air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat or important visual resources." Section 9.5. "Any proposal regarding mineral extraction that cannot mitigate adverse impacts may be denied based upon a finding of incompatibility, for the following reasons: A. Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate neighborhood or the entire community; B. Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent property; C. Adversely afleeting the quality of life ofexist ing adjacent residences; D. Showing a lack of quality or function in operational planning and/or design; E. Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas; F. Altering the basic character oldie adjacent land uses or the entire conimunity." 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 laud use objectives of the appropriate municipality." "Objectives 111.2 retain rural character outside of community limits." 10.4 "County land use policies will be consistent with local land use policies and objectives." Adverse Impacts lo the Silt Area Resulting from the Proposed Gravel Pit stud 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 hatch plant at this location will drastically alter the agricultural and neral residential land use character of the area. The 20 plus year projected life of the operation will permanently remove the subject property from agricultural use. The proposed gravel pit and batch plant operations will be injurious to the established character of the neighborhood and zone district in which this use is proposed to be located. Wildlife Impacts — The location of a gravel pit and batch plant operations at the proposed site will destroy habitat for small tnannuals and create activity that will disturb bald eagles, hluc herons that utilize the properly and areas adjacent to the properly. The long -terns mining operation at the site will ellectively eliminate usaible habitat for a period that will exceed 20 years. Traffic Impacts — Average daily vehicle trips are proposed at 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 I 70 interchange. The approved Stillwater Ranch PUI) in conjunction with traffic increases on County Road 311 to She I 70 interchange will generate over 1 4800 vehicle trips per day by the year 2015. This figure does not include traffic to be generated by the approved Ferguson Crossing PUD and other development in the unincorporated areas of Garfield County that will access this interchange. No comprehensive study has been completed that quantifies the cumulative impacts of traffic accessing 170 interchange and frontage road. The proposed 180 average vehicle trips 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. Visual Impacts — The proposed operation will he highly visible 11'0111 the 170 corridor, properties south of the Colorado River and properties north of I 70, The proposed hcnning will not adequately the screen storage piles, a 40 -foot 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 oflhe Silt area. Impacts Associated with Nuise, Vibration and Emissions — Although the applicant suggests that the application will conform to local, state and federal requirements, there is no assurance that violations will not occur. Garfield County and the State of Colorado are not adequately stalled to provide regular and ongoing inspection and enforcement of these requirements. Assurance of compliance cannot be guaranteed by the regulatory agencies, The reality is that these agencies can only respond to complaints from the 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. -4F Impacts to Property Valines — Location of a gravel and batch plant operation at the site will adversely impact property values and desirability of the neighborhood on surrounding properties. The recently approved River View Subdivision is located immediately south at approximately 42 feel above the proposed gravel pit. It is impossible to screen the proposed operation from the subdivision. Sound from the operation of heavy equipment and cnishing equipment travels upward and will disrupt the quiet rural character of the neighborhood. The general area has not been identified for industrial operations and the expectations of the residents are for rural agricultural and rural residential uses and lifestyles. Impacts to the Silt Municipal Water System — The proposed site is located upstream from the intake of the Sill municipal water system. Ttie municipal water system pulls water directly from the Colorado River and the adjoining alluvium. There is no assurance that upstream water contamination from the proposed operation will not enter the municipal water supply. State law provides that municipalities and water operators protect community water sources from contamination. A contamination plume emanating from the proposed operation could easily contaminate the municipal water supply and result in a serious threat to public health safety and welfare. Staff Recommendation. The Silt planning staff recommends that the Board of Trustees recommend, by resolution to the Garfield County Commissioners, denial of the proposed Western Slope Aggregates request for special use permit for extraction of natural resources, processing and mining in a floodplain. In support of the recommendation for denial and in addition to the aforementioned information, the staff oilers the following: 1. The proposed application is not in conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 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 I 70 interchange area. 4. The proposed special use will be injurious to the established astral agricultural residential character of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed special use will be injurious to the established niral agricultural residential character of the zone district. �i- 6. There is no guarantee of protection of the Sill municipal water supply from contamination associated with the proposed gravel pit operation. 7. No evidence has been prescnled showing a change in the agricultural and nirak residential character of the area justifying issuance of a special use permit for an industrial operation. 8. The Colorado River corridor is an environmentally sensitive arca 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 and degrade the visual corridor along 70 and surrounding areas. all Iltt.ls. ',H.e6AI1 9708762937 NO.023 P.2 rrATL OF COLARAVO cooar of GuMM Accorded it �+'7� L ?+�4 CIQck i -k M APF 10 1984 F Rtleepton No :MC ZS _ MILDRED ALSDORF. RECORDER {iM111 COUNTY. COLORADO At reltul>tr:�...,r. t..tlnq of At Dattel of County tornrnla.low.for '0.41104 CoyRIt. Cekt.da, h..r4 al the Cow' n.rarr LA Cl.nwod S.*rIttot Ql+ - _. CYl tjl-...«.. LF. _ 9 h •. r.•._w .aay dr —.h. P. 1l1._]t l_..., Ihae4 WWI pr...rt:. , Ce.mwl..r.e/t Ci.drm.w _ - Fliven1,rinR _..„. ». eo...a,a.,n,t £u$enS 'Jim" i''C.10k 30ljie Conu.J,.i.r,.er ,...._—,._,.. Cow.,■ Au.r..ty 1• 1NRldrn_S Alsdorf _� „_�________. Gl•�r.r,n.ls�.r v49121 094 10009.444 ptoe...l4414, ►dun, /theca vete.. Md and !o/t, I0,443 RESOLUTION IrO. 04-_A( boor 647 iiOE C)8 RESOLUTION CO;CERNUD WITii THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION OF ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING OP NATURAL RESOURCES WHEREAS, an application hau been submitted by the Asphalt Paving Compare for a special use permit for extraction and procesuing 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 1978, on the folloving described tract of land' A 9.69 acre tract of land located in the SE1/4 of the UE1/4 of Section 10; 1E1/4 of the RW104, and the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section lo; the East half of the S111/4 of Section 10, Township 6 South, Range 92 Heat of the Sixth Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado; WHEREAS,!the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has reviewed the application and Impact statements which the applicant has submitted and has received the recommendation of the Garfield County planning Commission, as authorized by Suction 9,03.04 of the{Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1970; WHEREAS, the Board of County Cornmiesioneri has conducted public hearings, which have been duly advertised and held, in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.03.04 of the Garfield County zoning Resolution of 1970, regarding) the .question of wIIuther the requested' special use` permit should bo granted or denied, ar,d during such hearings received extensive testimony and other competent evidence from the applicant and interested parties, which hearings ware held on February 21, 1984 and March 26, 1964; WIIE'tEAS,`the Board of County C❑miniseioneru hag considered said application and impact staf'emenpr the SecomMendaticns C: L`t 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, the 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 special use permit applications, have bean mat; and this proceeding is properly before this Board; 2. That, except as hereinafter noted, the application and impact statements are Complete, and the applicant has paid the fee required by Section 9.03.02 of the Garfield County zoning Resolution of 1978; 34 - RECEIVED ;: 1::,!234 boll; G47 r;r 6C]9 3. That, in accordance with the general principles of administrative law aud C.R.S., Section 24-4-105(7), as amended, the burden of pre'ot is upon the applicant to ahou, by a preponderance of the evidence, that its land use application is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution or 1978, am amended; 4. That the Board meet, for the purpose of analyzing the subject application, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, epeeifically Section 4..01.11, eetablieh the neighborhood which may be affected by the possible cjrentine of the propose special use permit aiic7, further, the Doard has determined that, except as otherwise noted herein, such affected neighborhood is that area of Garfield County, Colorado, consisting of properties within one half (1/2) mile of the proposed site of the applicant, which are presently being used for agricultural and residential purposes, as wall 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 1978. 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 riebt within the zone classification, and is a special urs in the Agricultural/Industrial zone. Competent'evidence was preconted at the public hearings that the subject !property and adjacent i::land lands of the applicant are presently under agricultural lease&j 6. The property, Which the applicant proposes to have permitted for the operation of a special use, has been traditionally and historically used for agricultural and relel:ed purposes, including, but not limited to the grazing of livestock. The surrounding parcels of property are also engaged in productive agricultural ur,es at the present time. There has been no competent evidence preaented that there has been a change In the basic character of the effected neighborhood over the past several months. The applicant's proposed land ueo would be incompatible with the traditional and historic, as well as the exiaLing uses of the land in the established neighborhood, including the land of the applicant. The establiahed agricultural and residential land uses in the affected neighborhood would be adversely impacted by the applicant's proposed use, and these uses would be injurioue to the established character of the neighborhood within the meaning of Section 5.03.011 of the Garfield county coning by U uLlee of 1'2'S 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 associated extractive operations :on the agricultural and residential nature of the effective neighborhood, upon the value of adjoining properties and other properties in the area, and ito 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 sue permit under consideration. Of those County citizens expressing en opinion on this application, these seven hundred plus (700+) signatures in opposition represent a eubataneial majority of the affected citizenry; 3r i ucr, CMG y2, N.4 oont 647 '4;610 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 inters;tote 70, such access is restricted to a two-lane bridge across the Colorado River on County Road 311. The applicant has represented that, during the period' of time in which the gravel 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. The applicant's' propoaod operation Would have a substantial, negative impact on traffic volume and safety of those persons 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 1976, as amended; 8. That there la substantial, competent evidence in the record that the pebllc safety and general welfare uould be harmed by the applicant's proposal with regard to the water intake facility of the Town of Silt. The Town of :alt's water intake facility is located within the affected neighborhood of the applicant's proposed activities. The silt water intake facility is immediately north 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. Water` fluant1tyr 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 supp1y' b. H:a.tr`rua1ity: Substantial, competent evidence has been presented that a spill 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 presented at the public hearings that some contaminants from such a ©pill at the site could, and possibly would, enter the Town's water intake system. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that it would or could install necessary protective equipment or other safeguards to protect against this potential hazard, pursuant Lo Section S,03.08(6) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 197B, as amended; 5. .`'t^^n 01.e„ HM,ar,ilr There wau 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 Coloredo River, as defined in Seotion 6.02.13 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. Section 6.09.01(lj(A) of the Garfield County zoning Resolution of 1978, 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 flood waters. 367-w D2EC. 15 . 2000 10;27S4'i 971E13762937 no. FS2'3 P, um 647 r4(611 There was substantial competent evidence presented et the public hearing that the applicant's operations, in themselves, or in conjbinction with a flood on the Colorado River, could cause a change in the course of the river's stream, resulting in the Town's Water supply being moved away from its adjudicated point of diversion. The applicant has been unable to chow drat adequate and appropriate conditions could be attached to the loud use permit sought for the site, which would bu sufficient to adequately address the possible problems which the applicant's aperationa would create for the Town oft Silt's water supply and water intake facility to any 'significant degree; j 9. That Section 5.03.00 of the Garfield County zoning Resolution of '1.978, as amended, requires that the applicant conduct any industrial ,operations so as to :minimize dust, smoke, odor and all other undesirable environmental affects beyond the boundaries of the property. That there is substantial, competent evidence in the record that the proposed use of the applicant would generate objectionable levels of nuice, odor and duet, Furthermore, the proposed use would he out of character with the other uses of the neighborhood, which are of an agricultural and residential nature, arld would be unsightly. The applicant's operations would be visible within the scenic corrider of rnteratate 70, and would constitute an unsightly situation when viewed from the Highway. The sight of the proposed uses ie 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 Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, requires that the applicant file an impact statement, which, among other things, requires that the applicant demonstrate that the: proposed wee will "not have a significant, adverse effect upon (C) wildlife and domestic animals through the sreakion of hazardous attractions, alterations to existing native vegetation, blockade of migration rOUte , use pattern' or other disruptions". The applicant has failed to demonstrate that rronditiona can be imposed on the proposed land use permit which would prevent significant Harm to the wildlife in th• colored* River corrider. Gravel mining, and its' attendant operations, repreoente probably the most adverse impact to wildlife along the rivet. specifically, the applicant hast repreeonted that it may, et unspecified future dalea, ' request expansion or the site of. Operations applied for in the special use permit. Any future expansion of the gravel pit site or related operations would create. la significant potential for Revere adverse consequences upon Iildlife in the area adjacent to the pit and related facilities; S 03,11 of the Garfield r ll Met. :ac w,t County Zoning ..... Resolution of 1978, as amended, provides that a basis of dtnial of a special use permit application iEi the lack of physical separation in terms of distance from similar uses on the ease or other lots. ,Where is another gravel pit operation In the general vicinity of the proposed use; there iw eubeeantial, competent evidence In the record lot 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 reeidenta 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 substantial, competent evidence presented at the public heating that the health, safety and welfare JILL. . claw lueuvi1 .:$1-0Arb.c9dt NO.82"3 P.6 sant 647 rirE6i2 of'the cititens of'Garfield County, particularly those residing in oil about the Town of Silt, and their quality of life, would be ai 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 Silt's urban eros of influence, District A, as set forth in the management District: naps of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 19811 i 13. The 'Down of Silt has strongly objected, on the record in the public bearing, to the applicant's' proposal. Ths basis for the objections of. the Toon of Silt have been that the subject property is adjacent to the Town of Silt's water intake facility, and is loacated near the Town's boundary. The proposed use Is inconsistent with the Town of silt.'', master plan for development of the area seIrrounding the parcel+ which has deuignated this a&1 an area of potential growth of eitherrimary or secondary nature. There is substantial, competent evidence in the record of the public hearing that, to allow the applicant's proposed use, at this time, would be harmful to the ,present character of the Town of Silt and its orderly future growth/ 14. Thai on Hay 11, 1981, the Garfield County Planning Commission adopted the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1901, pursuant to C.R.s „ Section 30-28-106, 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 inter plan in the following respects: a. Part. 71 COUCEkfS Alio POI.IcIE's AEI INIDUSTRIAL, CONHERCIAL ACTIVITIES, OBJECTIVE' 6, PAGE 12: "Encourage indu:;trial expansion where similar development already exists in appropriate areas'; and POLICY 5, PAGE 131 "Industrial .daveloyment shall occur within designated areas within existing municipalities or adjacent tdexisting appropriate industrial areas', b. Part Ts CONCERNS AND POLICIES REI TRANSPORTATION, PAGE 3, NUMBER 12, which provide 'The County may deny development proposals on the basis ofe .l) inadiecuate road access which will creat■ an inadequate road with enlarged daily traffic volumes". c. PArt 1i, MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS REa SILT ORBAN AREA OF INFLUENCE, PAGE 50, which provides in pertinent part: "Much of the area burrounding Silt is agrarian. New development she;old minimize impacts on the agrarian character of the arta. Provisions shr. 11 ^ bele for tii*___Cc ti hu Cad oppoLLjjnii :04.a�/ricuituraj activity'. d. Part ITT! PERFORMANCE STANDARDS RE: COtMPATIBILITY, PAGES 09-94, which Section sets forth criteria, including 'adverse et,fccts to the desirability of neighborhoods or the entire community, alteration of the basic character of adjacent land use, and impairment of the stability or value of adjacent or surrounding p operties'. Further, the plan speaks of noise, dust, odors, and visual ',unsightliness as 'haxarda to public health and safety' and " uisances to the surrounding community". 15. That, based upon the abovelfindinge of feat, this Board o County Commissioner', finds that the applicant has failed, in his burden of proof, to show by competent evidence, that the application 38- DEC.15.200E 10:20AM r t 937 03.023 P..7 • . 6 `?' r1GE61,3 fon a special land use permit for the subject parcel is in conplinnce with the Garfield County ioning;Reaoltion of 1978, and th Garfield County Comprehensive Plan -of 1981, and that, fu thermore, there is substantial, ,ompstent 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 t?le proposed use. may cause economic injury to other property areas in the effected nciyhborhood, and . 17. That there is substantial, ,competent evidence in the record of the public hearing that the proposer 'peciul use permit is not in the best interests of the health, safety, ;morals, convenience, order, preoperity and avclfarell'of the citiz}n•: of Garfield County, Colorado. i. HOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED,. by the Board of County Commissioners for the County of Garfield•, State of Colorado, that the special use permit application of the/Asphalt Paving Company for a gravel pit and'concrete and asphalt°batch- a.ant operations be, and the same, is depied. DATED thio 9th day of April, 1984. Upon motion duly made and acconded, th«; foregoing Resolution wa adopted by the following vote: I ATM?: Larry Yelaseuez Flevfq d, Cerise Eugene "Jia` Prinkbpu4e- i LlLi .iOf1 y C1 k of the Hoard Uy , Aye i Rya Aye. Commissioners noanc or COUNTY CORNI1 IONZRS iSF' ARUM) CO= COLORApo Chairman STI ITE OF COLORADO 1 } on. Cunty of Garfield} r, I. rfL d.- , ' County. Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of th Board of County C, uuaissionere, in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify.ttpat the annexed and foregoing Ra+solution is truly copied from the Reovrda of the , Proceedings of We Board of County Commiassioners'Ear said Garfield County, now in rtd office, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Y soave hereunto° aaet my hand and aftixek the seal of said County, ,at Glenwood Springs, Colorado, this // -- day o April, A,D, 1984. " County Clerk' and° ex -officio Clerk bf the Board of County C mmiasioner$. ' i4 (RECEIVED JAN 3 0 201111 January 30, 2001 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Garfield Count; 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, I 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 Cornmercial Truck" traffic at the already busy I-70 Silt 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-density residential/agricultural use of the surrounding properties. The proposed benris cannot hide iiie piles of gravel or the Maasueri iue txanereie baith 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 — 970 876-2631 0071 Midvallev Dr. New Castle, Co. 81647 January 30, 2001 Garfield County Planning & Zoning Garfield County Commissioners Citizens of the County To Whom It May Concern: R JAN 3 a Alt We are writing this letter to express our concerns for the `Special Use' Permit being considered for the property east of Silt between I-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 lavaaw aww►w tha14% 'T.0 P-' e.rra.aa%.t into the viater OHU air. (i.7111 Wa11.1 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 located 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 1-70 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 he beauty of Coiol IUW. Let's be responsible land 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. dully submitted, Brad and Ruth Mollman 105 MidValley Dr. New Castle, CO 81647 970-876-5874 RECEIVED JAN 3 0 not PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED NT 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. Pant Name Signature Address 11.1 1 ,r envI [/., .GL.�,- ,' S -v a ^ M.r i� /TIC C,yr 1ro �'�d i�r Pity /ZIP Phone t7° r Oci BY;CJ7r J i r cr_ uP kl kl/V /-fikr G hr,4c- 2 . L, .vk."-I ry. - e r7 .sk.�crw ,-,.r-et' � 2 -TAN/1y � At 85/7eR.4rd. AO ccs• ,, 6/1/(767'i 1 Z it' 11,44:1/111/1.4 t7aJ . ..cisl [20 pr ICfri4t, 2-21' >RWS e -to LL. *. g .Q 1 'Jw/' 6fe- /1 rrZLi e-atil,'*5 Cf.) Aci /Ca ra v34 ro_ ei&oA 31:2-”I S/16°) 844:0, ' (a 0/ g16'9 r/ ?4,574/574 607.--6-Vi Ff'- - _ t qg q q95. -9((d qt-- . 001 ,30-z43o ' ,C1Qv 1. a* , -1_1 -EW JAQILG e4. -id 1 , %tite,• . '&11 , /); 5 1 ' ,d,/ 4,1c4 CI ituxmcfn *rboa ~ i 1 Jil6Qi g'f 19 , Vit- 1 I 4 i 1 °V 14' deohr. --If4 ndi r<' i k-1 1 DP416 , p. . _ _ el ' i- c",4411 Jl /ik,-- 410711 i iAtvN re:el--1 4w S Li,L.-civi■ lf, lir,,AMik...,,,,,? b;ii8liAcKvaivAitz4Asti '��+�/ yjI4'1, _ I qr! F . .! cs,10/(7 �[fy,� [jam f�j V �C `� 1 _9E4 -alp, '��7J{5"--14g.d I LL ,1vJ%�/J{� ek,,,,m, eio. Iriti �. � A C ?rt n P IA 3 0`51]1 PE11TION 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 proj+ct 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 /41P Phone 341i/1:1: - AO F\to \\Mark L-r)(1(L Uktct t'a plid U1_ , Or', 3 ::/-1(,?/'-7 (-.6C:laait-et- to, c":2; . `9? -20',s -2i ' tir, %fir' //i' ° .� x i „.,,for - ? I r 7, o - , G, e)/21,+ o/ -63'r'' , d!D ip � I t i CPO 0!,/ I'd y C,^3 -114141Iti fie7 lir N G' az 7 , tL4-7 Pi ii/JVF IC b6 ft7 50,11 _ tf►5``7' `a, 746¢. 8,V0-,5771 ?Td -460°' er ril'Sel �. rZ� I'LL-LiktAti •ri--1-0f---. A r A ff,,_ , 4 0.::4*.. ,[ IL�: , `;--' _ ) aro,_ )-Ra_Kristi , L f i' c y,moi .301104-140,yi , twi (, twiA4N. , jitr .. 1 „.tti • , 1 0 G y + , , . 06,71 vik~c , s N,Ilsfr , 15164,q I 1 L 7 :3 1(,0 Y g-76, Lei, /71,;(4. C -,--e—• i:� RECEIVED JAN 3 Q 2001 PET1rlON 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 nurnerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address /I3iC1'.,; $..>:/.277,(3:-.2.g%6r ‘..-.1/Q,,3y'‘__sty/ 6O.3e)6A_'..,1-7 ° C.2 Ria City 1 ZIP ,rs2 ,d, eVe. --514T-5/65-1-376,-277L Phone ,2/ 4,2,41.,L3 ,e e r'e//yx oix.-r Wi,://$44(0,7 /tiT, i f fir/j1 a...",.c0z-/:-1,;„,..../ Pft A Gizi rn ryi Lia/7-pa,/) ,dc-itn,i_ 7 1)Rf R )7/ hcittr4,ii 'r e.i. , , ,►� II Aridly, , , / ,-/ 11,4,_ 3)70(47 1J' .4,f,/f�y}/J/.+/} yt/f/f-; „_��+(j/JI/ffJ/�//)/////J/// r - r // (/J�/JJ//fes/f,/�.J/y� .416e7 ��-6 W ! . -./ %/j/,/J•4.25-0-)K6 �l e Lr: ALtC-�x_7,f- 4tL- 5! ,..0 Z _ !- .,- (,/ ik)1(11,--CYJce t. i /(15-0 3 G / ( C15-0 L 8 re NO D .? 5 --ri-c° 511,1(7 0(24 7 161-7 C5-7' ' 4O` q76 -a 876.- 513 Tee,a---1A--1-4_, 00..1.) cf 1 / C ricEr[t -e-5‘, \-t4;ii-, 3118'' Cl- D-19 i'l 6 .5D-, ql ‘0—G110 t ' LIM” (1/ / 106711-71 11 q ( 0 ta`,let , 17,35- 6 n) - V -s_. f fix) i - #tel �� r YEI 9 ED 30 3 0 20 PE'i111ON 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 Ns gnature _ 4,P /gyp ../ j rl' 1 Address -. ! _ L. 1 9 P a 67744 Are- , ..-40--_116 cr. tbed tot_gtZ8i01 City 1 ZIP / i i 1 Sa rPhone 19,74-5Yi 9- Y71161 II ]did- /11' - 1 'S JjiPlirWk . =-- vC,C 0-Lkcrd a indi ►.5f rada. ' fly(1,'Jito,y-i d _ I .' +�� r. - 401'/1 Hwij co v d Li 19 kr3 I 1> ` Z:1,. ,_'_L � j 0 ' 1 1 , „..c c1 $10v01 'z to —t1 i'it:5-4: c715 -6e gro '1 •f�..-- '1?..?,94 1)LItb,..' 1 i Cr f—C 1 I r .�fJ 4 , t• i, i r f `i:L141 LOaSts 51 (i.) 1,25-airliA, _,Ictf-„,6 6as ---//4/ 6 LLA y -?_15' S-(‘01 V6e / 9J-g4CV Ais---5709PIA.5.67A.4-t_,__A L►S4 ti`1 ', j .tea % it . �r ' el41.r. r ,, _ ,4 / lirrif 1 JCS 24ts teovilforiloil 3#2 5. 6/W`75 o trot ) / o / 7,23‘ -'id* a2 `ST ct5a 4, r,47.,...,-. . . '.i 'a r If vx I{ a V7S 7 16s Jam- 41 ettei V --bars 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 Signatu>r-e Address /3 .1-7- '. City 1 ZIP - fr/4.s---. Phone r74'X 063 ,2--?0""/1"-�____ -': ea j(L-72-417/(el d a 3 C/ ht.' et,i' j,./ / ! I(.i j ']6. 67,43 1 05 d 533? ,211y gd / 0/Kg 5% l,I3 )4- 5 M 1 goo cc /Hrai cA,i, L, Tv. 110 PAT' - ,Paa.(1)-- r)`Z-,9r AdiC sky? Ilk -61/4<23•2531 cc; d f- AiPezi_ C4sJ/e G , Gifixavcivp...-2,2--7,// g7 -A77i v,-0 %-ke !S le" -z 4S i rjrf'`'aI 1 1/1/0,/e il-R--1 ,• %l if\ "e 0 v v- - -: t"1 '.4(t) t h / o Co //e / t6-, c► -y 1('L ' 4g4 KO I /r s ++' . 8,, r e J o tww5 , f .,.'� ',r= (• [ r} .� . '1,1''_&.. WA: I ' ; '-i.5, ` \:-12(:414.1 , )Y{ 'a. St 3747_ y A- zi 6 6r .__2 '.0-I, !'r ,,,‘R-3 L , .- .1:I.,47) cz)'. 61238` E. A ' , '� . ca%.1 I--7— AZ e (177‘-6-6 ., ,. . 7 i o.5Ert6 A - E bEms'1 I -ir..e.t Lt 't E CE vE0 30 3 0 2t1111 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 i 7I/ _ Address 4,01 766L'40IQ ava, Z6 &-t010/U 9 jJ - /$//'b/ LL - City 1 ZIP Dee L3 I (05a S 1(v. Phone g74.7-93)7. +9,7o)- L i fa a. irk Ad , i CityWific rir\r'-ut6 C„ei0)1 & f- 'f 6b-167- ' C'ezr ?IGS iile � LJe I5reLyer Bit 4 w-th /—e,e____ /ocA /,uur to b3 ,eta . X -r- 1 / Ift 1 iai65D. 676,/z 97c '25-10 i e - 7° -- f r tf ''V . I, C e >zovi-L._ r .T ►'c /2-- 'e)x cr t s %1(2 9,tby ' n 9 . --------- --Lv etzli d f ''. ,cam R ) YJ' Z- ` ' sry /74-1,--- J .+�- 1 7)695 �/�, i '3 / 6 c] 97o6163- -� cj `-e"� ., VeArm.\414-- 1 +G i0 -,1r1 Vs- � -- �'� f �° � 1/ ,IfI'lily l ( L�„ l ir �d Ic ��'`f dv� / {.' r las-- Y aclicsa-:\ CXL?__Fiks) C),_a_w. un)93-ict 0 4,,,,-k-vo„e.„..". _ akv 5 AksAvanis x 'it01-11, p6 1-17 '.-A-10 -4'23-1 10('-le;_i_., 9critr- 3 7---/-/0,77n...50),t, -2"..e..4„, 7c fie,,,,,c;, a 2/ 2_ z5ZC) 9 RECEIVED ,SAM 3 U 2001 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 Sign • tdr: Address o t s nt 4 ()AI.Dom- Cv o 3 D 4! �-- c.± (1 G-5.\-1-‘ co f Lf7 .503, _ne ,3.f.?, 4 ,(S' City ! ZIP A' F 1 Lt.r C...*- b-74 e i ? pectiCkiko" Phone ce7(, 2yzd S ,,9 t tadH iss )4..,,of ., �� J ' /i -�- Ile i 1,01e4 i 7 . l ./ /tile- :tea 090,11 4.-t iti) jet / , 7 16c- .va 6A.r.2-,, esi git(6 2- OA// -y D2 6,L f 63/0S Coxing, (7 a-95/ Dia 41, 1CoS ,r ^} Q cg-gor-;qaa ( i't 1 II. rFee674.Ap-`1 4924,6,1 94•4111 .e. el Alrgoo Java..,"( G ' cIAUPrf1 0I0Tr1 PAO( .F1120--[&--4- ILLA9-ear# .SULT-Cx-, 61(46--) c ,5 .ilk6Z., gr/(43q(og e5le of Q-6(+ 11\D r S �. � 7-s �//7,42.--- f-05-2- 7 `c-� A -/>t) . e.142 77- t. - ' 00 c 4 g- J 41C--,;&137- 3 L-1 1,9-- /2 nit/Vs"( fin. :3124_,2-0_ orc_ ie- J31a 4,6 FFR) m A- ' . )� L o-("#Xdir-ii2,6a- 6 io6 6� si .5qp ei 7 r e G d COSI. `1`.-°' 671 1"kqe Rol 6 La) C .� .1 c c 3 s f 116-' r Tcc c 5a. L.), titp L QA sly - 07 RECEIVED JAN 3 1 2001 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 ttend ... .. a,r .�. .. uu v .Lu 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 & Selvage Michelle & Oliver Whiting CC: Mark Bean, Building & Planning Director Editor fo Glenwood Ind, Rifle Telegram & Daily Sentinel cc\works\ccatp January 31, 20( Dear Mark Bean, \-9 RECEIVED JAN 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 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, }fif19 P1 Rasra try to attrand thApc3 rn t. i nrr T f ynii aro 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: Editor fo Glenwood Ind, Rifle Telegram & Daily Sentinel Board of County Commissioners ccNworksNccatp IRECSVEB 3MM3fl m' Becky D. Ross 1210 Charlin Silt, CO 81652 (970) 876-2356 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 January 30, 2001 I 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. I 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. I am 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 industriai 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. Si erely, torhni Becky D. Ross cc Garfield County Commissioners RECEIVED FEB 1' 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@sopris.net Kit Lyon Garfield County Building & Planning Department 109 8th Street, Room 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 31 January 2001 Dear Ms. Lyon: As residents of the town of Silt and Garfield County, we are writing to urge your staff recommendation for denial of the Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. / 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 iii►iiKaiimic 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, 74/ effrev P. Sheeler & Alicia Bell -Skeeter 4r7 cc: Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission Town of Silt RECEIVED FEB 1 200 To: Garfield County P&Z Jan_ 31, 2001 From: Paul E. Klornhaus 3718 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Dear Sir and/or Madam, Below is a brief list that I 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 1-70 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. • Amissed opportunity (once it's there, goodness knows how long. it'll stay) for r 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. CC: All local Newspapers Sincerely, /kJ RECEIVED FEB 1 January 31, 2001 Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Re: WSAlPeterson Gravel Mine Permit Dear Sirs and Madam, We are extremely distressed at the possibility that a Special Use Permit might be granted for an industrial gravel mine in our neighborhood. My wife and I built our home here over 9 years ago. One and a half years ago we purchased the adjoining property tapping in heavily to our retirement reserve. The community we live in is comprised of small ranchette lots. Had I known 9 years ago a gravel mine was to be placed across the river and upwind of us, I would never have purchased these properties to build our home. Now our home, our quality aide, and our financial stability are all threatened by a proposed industrial mine 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 mine please let them do it in an area where it does not impact a residential neighborhood and the Colorado River ecosystem. I drove by Mamm Creek today and saw a gravel pit in the middle of nowhere — No Homes Around! ! ! This is a good place for 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 into small ranchette lots? There is a reason gravel resines necessitate a Special Use Permit. This property is not zoned for a gravel mine!! My wife and I plan to continue to live here and enjoy our retirement on our property some 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 Commissioner Walt Stowe "change the established character of the neighborhood" by eradicating the zoning put into place years ago. We respectfully request and expect the P&Z and the BOCC to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to their constituents and decline this res uest for a Special Permit. 140ar‘litil;_21111W �� f William H. DuBois, Sr. n'),,,M ,7k Donna M. DuBois QY QS "PO Uck i t e j,,D o f U' Ala() @wI-&7 /0 • V6 ``[ M. Pale McCall 245 South Golden Drive Silt, Colorado 81652 (970) 876-2508 erikam7Oearthlink.net The Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite #303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attention: f fanning Commissioners RECEIVED JAN 3 0 'fit' January 25, 2001 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 41 -acre gravel pit application *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 (6&6 at Edwards, Colorado), I can 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, 1 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.. 'lease 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 81601 The Town of Silt Board of Trustees 231 North Seventh Street Silt, Colorado 81652 zataat M. Pale McCall -56- 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. Midvailey, 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 eik. irregardiess 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 0 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 Pa .. RECEIVED FEB 1 2001 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. I 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 u 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 1000 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 T111 PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravol 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 ! ZIP Phone ., \c6,-,1 7 a -- �`L -r;dI /61 St•560 ill -mea if 062 ` ter g _ 5iitc 6S-') -2E: k,.-,7 i/ 6-17"6 c7)__ h) 91 joir\r\scifti, \ f4/ 1.2_ ( j oa, 0, cf/(0. 4.t14L f f J /r,...,,,`-"„_ 2,36,7;A,A, . .. 7 '---. Q ja/7( ;7..(,, i(ce,_--70 ?")L,/2a1-,, c(,,c_, ,,S; ay ,s14-- � 3 Z �,i�lli. �►,-,� ,c, ,/' X76 /S"' Zhu Derr 4/(7.--- Y. - `0" Y C.� , r ? - - C.� ,/ r! 6-. r,:✓ „, 61 ( 5-Z 876.- ;j ti 5 rt- 12 / r ,s'/ Wits '/6,S - z-0(.1, cL)Lvi pi EcTIP (1-)2 C.l ) 5 5 i —In' 1 ' RA Yl 1 Q io C Karl -Al, itd.c_khqJ 91(c-,) D. 7 "0 c 3vp Am LtP044,491\i P . 'ck-e-1/19. (e--N?oxwei,11g, ] tx i- iv L.& / 0 (3 �_,�.+(..il 49 f 3 S r //43-- '. t) C/II, ,7 of f " !) j __"14 ! ' _ " PETITION AGAINST 1111 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 Name Signature Address i-9c/-ir,1/4c1 ozp--( City 1 ZIP ifyfk/6254 Phone 9*- 3 ,/, d i e at576‘) otri\ ‘ eei(e- i 't k ms. L c) et, 4 ' - 0,:>-41-c,—_ � ! -�- _ ,. _ 516,x .2_ , 5,z . . \')c-'4.,cc:� S►�� rC '� \ r(�� \1, \"`l[ 1r �Z41t." ').7 i C- l,� /(r 7G;- l ► �Y'AO 1/451,2e, e/e ,,A7/p ('r7- C-74, e / Ce (,!-t-4- - /7r' 54/ !flit, /1._7 ...it... .1e/ / ,- Hat es --'==""{ _ irvid-C1 = uL. r 4 VIE e1,u-17 J7 e o han hits La Panaeh?e -Z s-. Q _.4/1(/7/I1 Anr'er'soh �' �ir 1, AA ,_ 6 5 o _or- -to _ i'p. a�`4,D,i[1 , -5163 - �, c, s� �h ,i6a +�`:� [q c.9IL t7 a. r C ctk CA-. 14(t) CO 1e cr 3q -e-q-Z ;441°140 066C6‹ • (0-.e 4/ - : 6R5 --i1{ s a ..-/-.233 £ .. O. 1, b_ -(0.2(.042$7-1)/4 l t 0 (04A—. r �. 4 -- V r r` : r:-. 4.d fij 7 ' , ' �... +-` .� - ip ti i 4- / r (_I 1 ; awe lUIJd _• •, ' `' ,.fir + ^ = . L. 'i-•-•r 4r j .' t. '� i -~-•—� < - _ • ,e1 -s r+ 1 SignatureI Address 1 City /ZIP yy` �C\ "�. r j Q., F �• --�J t- ., v N. •- ti ¶'• i_iR v'1; 7--- r-. i J : - ~• n• ! v %., �. rte- 4 ( ,---- A1 �-- �! 4' ' � - y,, rte. r4 te,` �.� �. !�'4 ti. • _ 1 Phone Ca St osa 3 CD ®{� • ,a eh m m aam s a z m m 0. us • = c0 0 ci 03 a CL CC'S aag 0 'C CD a. a a 'o • v 10 • 0 co v o a o o CL 0 a:= 54.7 a. a m. CO C 3 m r CD tu s c3 rt m o co d alSOdObd purnoN AGAINST TME PROPOS!I 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 / ZIP Phone CtliOti 1)1166 i PO, C:124 Of4 SIP SI& 6Y5-- P '-7;;"111 / ‘' ,lam 4 ------7,,, .44, ,--- /614. ) , - ti, If. /D— ria67,,0j-2Ygz) i tit �.,� �. T - y ii. ----e k ms. t.4j T I . • • a,'J'�+L„ia "-'--4.4„cr 2). •.' c. iL I IINlt I\"1 3 6 J).)1LCIL �,I.}y�.�JLt{�t *ilrt N, 1:T_ t# w /L •kf ,-i. t�. t_. IL, L'7 c • �`1.2 l C�L,lA n�C .-` C^ ji\eA s _ ) --;''-'3 3 1-,f �C t - ilkn 1j;" j 3 -I 1-) 4V/=4)5 () g r d V3 f ..} ri° . r• s (' :z Jr''n L k 3tk iy,, �f ` 1..VYI t -.,N S '�L t -1C' > 1 �.. / re. -. �'' i) c rs >} . . , -71 y-.rn4,1 ;, <- -- -1r :P` ,iZ-e'L.w..__)Av.•3.)"-" 6:., , to 1 C- , iiibtA,,5i'\,l z--) 4! ,. ---v“ N,..r, t' z, �",:--•""."' 1 ' 'CCAci Z ;' L L1 �/` 3.� 1 i e C `: -� �� LL L � t L' = ' • - t P, - ('�.-0 • P\ ('� lvsr4r�+a4 CCL,i{ f , � � c 1 J T/.2-' 1 17 r---V--1A-4 --\ f Jo ' 5 o r ' 4 A (c 4-4 -) c,t)b n ieN) ,P� %� r � . W., -` (I �Pti.'-c� i L sr( �f r Cr r 177/4-b;0-, r 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 Signature Address City 1 ZIP Phone F Eb 6 1 Li..wtF Ire L'' i , /34,167 o _Ale- £m, 916s2 .art -,r -Y .rL O1 s7o? PV. -2c S 1-" ve I- t s c . :; Z• 1 -,1 -,a r y r N' {- w1 t.J - .. ...,.." ••- ' •1 L. -A--1 ,` 'L., ; t_c_c , 1 r-, l 7/3 , [ il.-11.•;'.r1 _ , / c l §r.,:5. } r rG • 55S i Ii •f7 v% - "7 ( .; 'ice'l C;110' - .01f�:' 4 r C�C�LL, i,t� f'Z-_ r ,•.. rd. ,'.' r' ,.f Ii ✓ L.!,2,/ 1 Ph ► Iii.`,-rr ert) -) J - I: F.,, U rel'l r .. , 'C. ' I / . i pi C . / fr ff 6,:ier,1 ? (_ 1 -- r �F f~� r�,Y w r f %1:er..Peu nji. '- it' i 'ill L L7.'icr :t.'7 •' i I� 'i. . r ; . i 1 f' 1 � i •"' ,r. afr 1— . �, fw r J i .� �� ,�. FS, ./r'. • ;/,t-ir -�..�r( j rf� J �: C? 1 1412.'41 / /) :1f i-#':.�) t� it, x- •5f[t: (J71'., i " /1„.1;12.c.' f' I) t 'I4 7 1t l 7111 Z _ a: l ii I.)'.c-Le„ • it,^A...com, Vt.L1-(.. ..1)0:\volk-- 6-11". K.). 1 Ico (3c1Co`5 Oa -CY01 Lour' e IA ,i-Y'tw LQ ,•"fie6. Lu- -/eii 4te es/105'D 1 -3349J M RON 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 Signature Address City 1 ZIP Phone • icy/ fLlC !e � :-.)(;:=(‘-', 7 ‘..,',.14,,-w ', � (--)-- v t✓ . Ii..),i/ Jbtl L 55,,-/t- 33 g/62_, /i Vitale I rk A. $ 7 , c -le Jt” / ,l r'I 4.0„. yP, 4„,.(r -e. 3 15-C- 5C- br'l [ e41-(1,, if p '' I s i f Os - 14s2 57-c 4'.. t72 -7 . e- '' G97,� ^' t.54fC,r 1 ,L, C 11 _1 I-1 -� T) f .-6) - 7 u'''57 I 5; f'+r I, ,sit �u . L \ i[ IF) 0 - 2 -.moi 97 riLtp,m4),Sfiv,,,, /65 C(C.,‘/I°'1/63,,.—. f _ i . v ' P.11::-. .., 1 �- )O( -.7 /,� / b ce.ciArAme, S,A,k r 0 s' ti c Q 94"/ -;i ` "(51-1,1/‘ /11, CA f LG L fl - die / ///'r A. 6 r /"' .(93 5 '-) A'o i6_, , �//may 1 i ci o n tr \ 1 i1 1 �1 13 i C rco/ A, c6.(/5// ..c c --�, C 1)E/ �' ►fr i - (25 i�7• l fi lti-z)ie-Pr-, - / ye :76,7 - ?l 0=' tz ki-------4 z _ c7'I ; l f PINION AGAINST 1111 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 Tom of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Sf nature Address Clt / ZIP Phone L " V 1 50:3 35 Rf 0.3 7.5, rumek At_ 9Acit7 ei P O'7Cf (0 1-b,)'3/ rack , a /�Av4...i--------- ?(..,1- \( i M l L -e) 1.1 ` O----- 3z -5 4E c-- J r01 C7 0/ . 1 in 9, L 'Cho . _ _ 10z 0 c r -A P\ . - \ 4,z7 I751-541,1/ 1 (6 z /6 s:,) , I' �� r �,. -� ��� ,e ; 0r,- 4 /'ua 3, L</IT 0,70 ttzli 1-1qtxtiki S c TAINIA z....Q 1 '., V y -c' 1,-0 LSC C C r1VCJ / I 'tc, oldtc:4 %ILI Ll ;3 f - r' . 1 ' i C754, 'd!t 1 I ,, I31•4 1'�5 0 _ -.1. �. ! '') 6,52 ;:fit( e > A 5 ! (4 4165 4 2 ‘dt--17% f ::1 . ,.lt ,' •,r'C7/(r/• , • . .i IL c.. -r r4 -L• .--- �,�+ C r...l AZ Lc)k •4 C: L,i. Lt. + , Flt1 1-s.]•t I''__ (rld I)/) + /r .r• (L `a IX 1114 1 ksa 1-16.tpitiffr. ° T 1 l Svit ` - ,..I /- +rte ,6 016q6.6 Cat. (C 0/ t. -)...k. lc- cA ecis-s-xt‘.k c&P---1 i9 -'o ---&'A . 4._ -_,__A ---- l+ r/ rlr]//f►�� 1 )1 r-roguLe �WeL; _ ruf ti _. v.•,ak:,,› G1 L40,6, i/6i#iI' `, . fee i `) 45/6r .1-a7e7/ PETITION AGAINST TME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are onoosed 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 /ZIP Phone - —3).(2 -A ,„.40,. ei, te:12., ( AA A, ci 177 ./' 1;0--itc-t7i '3'1 •Its`' affk (i--7e---.72r-: 0 e'07 5 .3227 (1,asictl)rnn i Uer 11 17./llLi& a5& r ly—i- Lane. (10nan t(11 v , ()O 2 qj J. - 4 ,'4,-(R'titMCgo 4 951 17" Kp"71 -mss :mania " f err 7 � rl i i2 1,r 1 spit l � �f �_ ' J � t .f ..� 1 � ►� re'c Id' �r r. � �!1 G'Gc 14u fcc'i'i y 2V-10261 -74 • ��1`1 r "4-1,i/Tit: Sa l /;qt( r i,?(' L V 1. - (//7(�' / 4'r- illi :. -� J oil.;,,, ` L, ' t Cy /?''(/',,/JC -7 A tt C,.A•. . ') -7 4.1„.,,....„/).1, vir ,r'TILit ' :,1 _ 1 't6-1 I ' \ c , 4 x � ] i. ci ... %'i 3 Y G `?14.. ..- -3,1 5.. 7 r+rl 4 ilf4 1 ,. 7'`fL, • S.;... .',1••, /14L, T r{l.` c i 1_,0 11\ t‘.1 1 0C Vi" 1/ -,'t C• 5/ .4I,I t' 5 . ;74 dttC, /Ol e ICI 6,11111-, i W- C Lt- l.. Lii-t ui 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 ature Address • City 1 ZIP 063.0 Phone bar y,Aldi bil t •. L F '` ala ! C ., I { 0 7r- Mitt_e4. I, .,..� s s. st. . •--_.. - kms..._.-�-- - I..�t:3 NI' Di 60r:; i i et4 4 .2,1:.:16, ,'Ir'A'(/list "- n `4(41011-1 , - 411 ' i ..1-'t CT'! -5 ._•--J I't•4 8,i] (\i rI - W it f? c) 0 •Agy)s-.''/ ._i1' 11.-,-''e=.•.0 \Dry i Uo rN.. .. ,--/-70../2)i r? +<; fL v...-' ..) ? ? d,7 . i I r / .1-, �' %` C. .:'-Pr - \ ."' / ltd i '1. fr t4`,.•13)fr(.o A1/'e_ S)6 `P ! S* I/ g f -Z iitt4 _ f r14 .2AT 1 /10 At:7 inrs 2 irZ7/1/1fre:--1 ,r � -�. � /4-...1..-_------e. .0 e...._ ttift Lei rill c I 67 -DE ►kS '-' qj , ..4 Li IbEcli-. _ 1z3 Pio i i w& to I., I -r + a �." A,. 5 ��4} ilei i•',/7�'r J. �7i ,_. 'r '',‚1:IA . to 0 ,r , 1 fir` y f .� Ir / � 4 . '#' C f of 7 3 A'c l i-- .�Y'- f(9W 7 `'e W. LA, f---z"5.6/‘r� --�-�- - ` ` -'. --.-.... er,. r -..•C: 3( f yt ,f ) r 8 (6' Vo Igigi 7 6-"A ! 994 -2).0 � te-, tti '-L � l rt Meice:';.,, 15 S03-3 - 31:.; al. I ./ y�T• � rf �5T V„.rL� I(C Ite L1t e07 d e: (F{ -��, ..... !Au -Li. CL , 1 , 74,.c)r' 7 P111110M RG*1MST TI11 PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the grovel 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 f ZIP Phone /7/17/1Gf T . /_, .2// MA 67652 g-7. . Irv'/ '`a , ''f' :.1 . y ` r �r �t � �.. i _it •' 7 / le: --v_ A-4-,-. 1r 3-6' 4,1C J2i r ( VV .r v d -•. f / f ((1 /t } y 7 ]y ,? J1 �- .' I.' /kV" y • I �:u i `.— ;1 t) iL1 t".5V'/ r '.-�� [ . "t; I1/ t .1 )Cin t,„. {! �k 1,1-10,41,"iru }` l+� �' ►--�` ri�j ` t'a ll� ^- .-L--': 1 L) ';:./ ' r7 `y/‘...5^-), L' 5 .5-"e',.,),„1) * .. Gam.. ... 1�. { .4 ,+,- ii ilY I (16‘'-'; l / ` i' �, t �l 1/1 (IL(' . i C'l 1 .� �' I l;' Lc' � i + � r C_L 'ti] % (� � ' �{.f )N' . J' .r2 ■ g# c 1 l/ i'� r r� G �,) i.•', 2- ( L- L/ r 1, • ii j —77 .t.. l..l+ e' 'rl. L. !( •� 1 ,.......1;_.1l ^..- 1.._.1• . I Cs 1 L �';f ' f 6•-..../,'6...--,--(f /• 'C i J L 'dal i s •. / % L TI.11 . W f -j3Q--- C ) -› (i ! (:')16:7S:2— W j' 2-1 /1",0 1 ''i \ \ LAY'Si 6 ki:C.---LiC C ti r l i rS i I- C 4,Y5 - L-4;' it\v.iAtk \ACj-1- 1 ' ici.k- tit' t ‘`-' MP.) cOP.)_ 1...A. - . .)71r- (./ rt at eh -a it, 5 m w C 3 3 e. m iic • 01. CO CD m. CL a 0 Fr: sti • 0 CAc 5 C ® '3 HI • co • 4 ▪ so• y g• co o c] as C a a o m 5 Q fis . aPF Q. i1V -�.� cr • �g co o r • Q W immp ^'7 lid (IISOdOLId 3111 LSM1VDY NOLLLLId % _ tra P. 7-).\k-----,, -.- rsi .� S` .. - :- i ,. r. ?‘..----...".-;--.'' ---. \ ) j Signature 1 —. \\‘\ `-., ' l a���N. ^� V � -, ;• -•-.,— _ r• s.? ` r _ - 1.. ,� - lr*"."— r 4 • - --7. �a •"-) ti co a j�� ,-i - AV t. /\ =: =' te C O • f 167) , ^ •T _ N zi c--- tri V _ .. !ti CD rt at eh -a it, 5 m w C 3 3 e. m iic • 01. CO CD m. CL a 0 Fr: sti • 0 CAc 5 C ® '3 HI • co • 4 ▪ so• y g• co o c] as C a a o m 5 Q fis . aPF Q. i1V -�.� cr • �g co o r • Q W immp ^'7 lid (IISOdOLId 3111 LSM1VDY NOLLLLId PE1I11ON AGAINST 11IE 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 ofSilt, This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numer ous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City / ZIP/ .�1 Phone • `1,?6 - 01 j •: ((e �, I r e a rc,,u 7 .7 . '�'• ,`� �f4 ,,c-, VC: 7 C A, I ( 7 ,.„,‘:=_e,' v,s- ------- --'6.-r --4/-17 e 2:,4a h 3 5 `X.' 2 3,4 L ,/71 ‘. • (7 fL NC.. '°1 6'ilzor Cm (g- Zit _ •ilei LJ c f7C-J-0 if F{�'.+ c$3: ' ! 6/1///),,Edi'Lif ' J/1 "law �-- . ll�r,, _ , i�,` le1! [ter ( , 74 - ,rr - 1 . R .< / V I�11 , � a)2133sR-)1• . ydi 4 VA)Ca. ts2 rT PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are poposad 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! f_ Address ' City /ZIP Phone cgis 50t�THw1c( 601.3 CI .3// ,81047 %`5-w if ,¢srLE 57v-876- SS3 z r _______,cti,ic,4% arcdi--- a.e,, ' Ic- 57‘z-3 3 7T-ee52 rit--0 L 9,,- P � Z` � r lv4,, ,,. 3 Pi2-1'.1G5 - C- s- -2c, Ft4of 6/66I ,_,28 d6 57 c A 1 -z& zdl liearhq 1,_.:hesin,ei 1/47 e Z,3 rdc5)? G/e/7koocei .-.1"47.1al/fdila-'?L jAzyr___---filvor 7 57.1ier ci. ?IV?, V?, Ev6 5c 6) 5 A) �o } max -c ,.5d0if.An-E ,; '�,,f ailiz.-1 A-c-'� T7, 4I lie ?c64) jerr 4 Vie' € 7' Sp t..c, Maer ,rO.c.lc .c.( ,� . / !3 5 , i 6 ' i ,796-131q 0 ‘wei ( bl4al '9z�` 417157( CFO i ,,6bi;---;4,4-zA ' - - i 644(---- 6-1..a,t 41)66 ot 5^1z, Ke )E- 3 _ a 5 r - -scorn . P L ccs ■. ' '��0 1 ip7� rte C3IL i1 . . 04 ' . 1 S ,)F5 -7/eV? 1 t 'lir . i rREQEI'JED JAN 3 0, 2001 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 30' to 40' high concrete plant silos, will make a terrible 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. 1 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 areabandoned in the pit. 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. /Enclosure