Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 03.05.2001REQUEST BOCC 3/5/01 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Special Use Permit for extraction of Natural Resources (sand and gravel mining), processing (concrete batch plant) and paining in a floodplain APPLICANTS. Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. LOCATION: A parcel of land located in portion of Section 12, T6S, R92W of the 6th P.M. more practically described as a parcel located south of the River Frontage Road. approximately two (2) miles east of Silt SITE DATA. 41.07 acres WATER Well SEWER: Portable toilets ACCESS: River Frontage Road EXISTING ZONING: Agricultural/Industrial (A/I) 1. DESCRIPTION 01' 1 II1L: PIU)I'0ti 1L A. Site Deseriution The site slopes i; om 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. Proiect Description: The applicants are requesting the issuance ofa special use permit to allow for the extraction of sand and gravel and concrete batch plant on the 41.07 acre tract of land. The applicants propose to mine approximately two-thirds of the acreage, 1 starting 200 ft north of the riverbank and moving north toward the frontage road. 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 estimated to be 22 feet. The pit will be mined in three or tour stages varying in size from eight (8) to eleven (1 1) acres. The material will be excavated by using front end loaders and/or backhoes. All crushing, screening and washing of aggregate will occur in the proposed mining area as shown on the application. The concrete batch plant will be located in the same area and moved northward as the pit is mined. The operation will use well water for the concrete batch plant and limited domestic purposes. Portable toilets will handle sewage. Ali 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. Flours 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. D. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS 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 PUD land use area within the 2 -Mile Sphere of lnfluence, but outside ofthe 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 environment. 8.4 Riverfronts 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 2 critical wildlife habitats are protected. 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 Inuit 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. 41.9 Natural Resource Extraction Objectives: 9.1 The County will require adequate 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 fumes 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; B. 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 Amendrnents 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./I5ac. 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 of a natural resource. provided it is done in an environmentally sensitive manner and impacts to adjoining properties is minimized or mitigated All ofthe previous discussion identifies objectives and policies in 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 ofthe 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 regulations All of these issues will be discussed in the following sections of this report. 4 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 following industrial classifications, per Section 2.02.31: Processing: "to subject to some :special proce.ss or treatment, as in the course of manufacture"; change in the physical state or chemical composition ofntoner; the second step in utilization of a natural resource; examples include petroleum refining, oil.sltcale crushing, retorting and refining,. ore smelling,. coal crushing and cleaning, saw mills, alfalfa pellet mills, .food canning or packing, creation of glass, ceramic or plcr.►rrc• materials, a=rea el crushing, cement manufacture: concrete hatch plants: Extraction. "to draw out orforlh; hence to derive as rf by drawing cur", removal of physical matter in a solid , liclraid or gaseous state • from as naturally occurring location; the initial step in utilization of a natural resource, examples include petroleum cruel natural gas wells, shale and coal mines, 1, •avel 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 10 provide nater and.sanituliora .service based on accepted engineering .sicrnc.lcrrds and approved by the Et 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 ace onnnodcate traffic! c volume generated by the proposed use and lo provide safe, convenient act-c.v... to the use shall either he in place or shall he constricted in conjunction with the proposed use. All 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 issued an access permit allowing 100 ADT for the gravel operation and 100 ADT 5 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. 31 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 urew, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect the estahhshed 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 f%. of the river edge that is undisturbed due to federal land ownership. The original site plan shows the stockpiles being located on the northern edge of the area to be mined, with processing areas within and outside of the proposed pit The applicant submitted an amended site plan at the Planning Commission meeting that showed berming along the northern and southern boundaries of the property with the top soil. 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 Tess 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, wash 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 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 mining plan claims that there will be a reduction of the visual and noise impacts based on the placement of the crusher in the pit at a location visually obscured by the proposed island. 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 Section 5.03 (3). Section 5.03.0'7( 1) includes a description clan impact statement required as part of the SUP submittal. These Regulations require that the applicant provide the following information: (A) Edging lau frit use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off stream flow or ground water; To mine this area, the applicants will be discharging water frons 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 proposes 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, according to the applicant's engineer. The nearest known well on the same side of the river is the applicants' 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. The Bureau of Reclamation has questioned the validity of the applicants' claims that there will be no impact to adjacent property. Specifically, the plans available to them to review were inadequate to evaluate the impact to the Silt Pump Canal. Unless the applicant can affirmatively demonstrate that the proposed discharge from the pit will not cause water qualify impacts to the Canal. Based on the Bureau of Reclamations concerns, staff cannot say that the application is consistent with Section 5.03..07 (A). (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. The applicants verbally represented that the same equipment used in Carbondale will be used at this site, since this operation is a seasonal operation. 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 1000 ft. from residential uses to the south and the placement ofthe 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 ofthe 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. The Bureau of Reclamation has expressed concerns about the potential for the discharge of chemicals and other materials such as sediment into the Silt Pump Canal. Based on the potential impacts to adjacent and nearby property from noise, contaminants and sediment, staff cannot say the application is consistent with Section 5.03.07(1) (B) (C) Impacts on wildlife e and domestic animur/.r through the Creation qf hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions; Perry 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 (1)) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic 10 and from such uses and their impacts 10 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 C'DOT. 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) Thai sufficient distances shall at parate such use from ahifttii ig property which might otherwise he 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 11 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 Based upon the previous discussion of the Bureau of Reclamation concerns, staff cannot say the application complies with Section 5.03.07(1) (E). (I)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 ofthe 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 ofthe recommendations ofthe Division of Wildlife need to be incorporated into any approval. The Bureau of Reclamation has noted a number of issues that have not been resolved and no mitigation has been proposed. Based on the issues noted previously regarding noise, visual impacts, water quality impacts and damage to adjacent property, staff cannot state that the application complies with Section 5.03.0r"(t) (F) 1:1 1'd r/ilrt s 11x11' be granted for those uses r-ith provisions that provide adequate !!!fl!gado,' fin. thefiglowing: (A) A ph/Hien-sift. reliuhilitciiioii must he ai/J)rf>>'ed hr the ('oruitj'Commissioners before ca permit fin- conditional or .special use will he issued, The application is subject to the Colorado Division ofMinerals and Geology Construction Material Regular 1 12 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 reclamation, the recommendations of the DOW need to be incorporated into a revised reclamation plan. ($) The County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation plan in u'orkni aiilike maturer and in accordance with the specifications and construction schedule established or approved by the County Commissioners. c•otrurrt►niei11.s. hands or cheek .shall payable to curd held by the County ( 'atilt)! ).sial logs; 10 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 reclanmation plan incorporate the recommendations of the DOW and estimate the cost of the 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. r'( 'i Impacts set frrrth in the impact statement and compliance with the .vtuncicardv contained in Section 5, 03.08 of this 12e.solrrrie n. 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 , staff cannot state that the application complies with Section 5.03.07(2]©. Section 5.03.08 requires crll industrial operations in the County to comply with applicable County, .State, and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise pollution and shall not he conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard Operations io he conducted in .varch a manner as to mitiirnr"ze 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 forrih in the Colorado Revised Statutes al the time any new application is made. The sound ienerated 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 and Section 5.03.08 (1). (2) Vibration generated: evert' use shall he so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible. without irrvt► ar►ucr►ts, at any point of'any houncicat_t • line of the property on which the use is 11 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 of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall he operated so as to comply with all 1'ederul, Stale and County air quality lows, 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. (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation anal f umes: every use shall he so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or filmes which substantially interfere with the existing use nf'adjoinirrg properoi cur which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard Blaring of gases, aircraft warning signals, reflective painting c?/ storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall he exempted.from this provision,- None rovision;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 nrrrst meet the. following .standards: (A) Storage O f flanrrrrerhle rrr explosive .solids or gases sircrll he in aCCordance with accepted .staiidard.s and lass's and shall comply with the National Fire ( "ode; 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 of the 100 12 year floodplain. (B) At the discretion qf the County Commissioners, all outdoor storagelaci hues for fuel, raw materials and products shall he enclosed by afence 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 miti $.4ate any negative visual impact. There is no clear operation plan for dealing. ith all oldie visual impacts from all of the adjacent properties. (C) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such forrn or manner that they may he trans/erred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes orforces: 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 offthe property by any natural cause. The revised application shows proposed berms on the south side of the property in an area identified as being in the 100 year floodplain according to the best available information in the County's possession. There are no specific plans that demonstrate how the proposed berms will be stabilized to insure that there will not be any transfer of material off the property by a flood event. The Bureau of Reclamation has expressed concerns about the potential (1),) All materials or maws which might constitute afire hazard or which may he edibk hy or otherwise be Wink •Iiiv 10 rodents or litsvcis A -Mill be siorechnildoors accordance with applicable Sole Board of Health Regukitions: There are no such materials or wastes to be generated by this project. (6, Water pollution: in a case in ti latch potential hazards exist, it shall he necessary 10 install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations ive the Liivironmemal Protection Agency &five operation of' the facihnes 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 identities the method by which all runoff will be controlled on the site and not affect other areas. The Bureau of Reclamation has expressed concerns about the potential of the proposed operation creating water pollution of the Silt Canal Based on the lack of information proving the adequacy of protection to adjacent property, staff cannot say the application complies with Section 5.03.08 (6). All perculcrtunr k'.s or ground ri ctier resource tests as may he required lrr local or Slate Health Officers must be met before °pentirun of the facilities nza3' begin. No percolation tests or ground water resource tests are required for this application. 5.113. 111 Approval of +Conditional and Special Uses: Uses listed as Conditional under the appropriate Zone District Regulation .►'hall he permitted based on compliance with the requirements h.stecl 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 met regarding noise and visual impacts. therefore that application cannot be found to be in compliance with Section 5.03.10. (2) Approval by the County ('oraunlssioners, which Board may impose additional restrictions on the lot crreca, .floor loor c ire a, coverage, setback and height of proposed uses or require additional off-street parking, .screening jerrces and landscaping, or any other restriction or provision it deems necessary to protect the health, .s'afety and welfare of the Iorpulation 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 Taenial r f' .Special 1 /se'.' The ('comfy Commissioners may den' any request for special use haled on the lack of physical separation in terms ofdistance distance from similar rises on the same or other lots, the impact on tree' volume and .safety or on utilities or any 'input of the ,special use which it deems injurious to the estahh.shed character of the neighborhood or:one district in uu Ju / .such special use i.s proposed to he located. The nearest sand and gravel operation is the flag sand and gravel pit, which is located approximately one-half Haile 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 travel and process concrete, concrete forms and asphalt. The proposed application and the Flag sand and gravel will share the use of the 1-70 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. 14 Previously, statTnoted 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. Additionally, the Bureau of Reclamation has identified concerns that they have regarding impacts to their adjoining property. Based upon the previously noted concerns, the €application has impacts that will be injurious to the established character of the neighborhood. 5. 03.12 .-1 c cess Routes: All wird/howl uses and special use'., must he provided with access routes of adequate design 10 accommodate tral!fic volume generated by the proposed use and 10 provide .safe, convenient access fOr 11w use constructed in conjunction to the proposed use. The minimum design .standards shall be the Caarfreld 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 permit 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 10 all areas of hulls within the unincorporated area of the County, which erre identified as being srrl ject 10 the 100 Year Flood in either: (1) The report entitled the Hood Insurance Study, Garfield County, Colorado, Unincorporatced Areas and the accompanying flood maps entitled blood Boundary Maps, Fioodway 1%'Iaps and Rood Insurance Rale Maps, Garfield Comity, Colorado, Unincorporated Areas, as the same may he. from lime to time amended: or (2) In processing of any application JOr Planned [hnit Development zoning or for subdivision under applicable County Regulations. 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 neap 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 ofa gravel pit will not result 15 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 ofTrustees 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 findings used by the County as a basis for denial of the application. (See pages/'_ 39 1 D. Citizen comments: Attached are a number of letters from residents in the area and a number of petitions with a large number of signatures of people opposing the application. The reasons given for denial are reduction of property values, traffic, air and water pollution, dust, noise and visual impacts. Also included is a position paper from the Concerned Citizens Against the Pit and other attached information. (See letters pgs 40— /() 6, E. United States Department of the interior, Bureau of Reclamation: The Bureau of Reclamation owns the adjoining land and due to the notice being sent to the wrong office of the Bureau, the Western Slope office was not aware ofthis operation until last week. (See pgs /07- /06 ) The Western Slope Office had the following concerns 1. The de -watering of the gravel pit may affect the flow of water in the inlet canal to the Silt Pumping Plant. 2. The discharge of water from the sedimentation pond to the Colorado River may adversely affect the headgate structure for the Silt Pumping Plant inlet canal/pipeline and the water quality of the canal/pipeline. The drain ditch receiving the pond water discharges to the river about 12 feet upstream of their inlet structure. The discharge is over or through riprap installed to protect the structure: the discharge volume could cause erosion of the riprap and potential failure of the structure. The discharge could also cause siltation of the headgate and canal/pipeline. 3. The Bureau of Reclamation office with jurisdiction over the property in question is the Grand Junction office, not the Basalt office as noted in the application. 4 Reclamation will hold the applicant liable for any damage to their facilities. 16 5. Without calculations, Reclamation is not sure the sediment pipe or outlet are adequately sized. 6. There is a need for the development of a weed control plan for the proposed pit IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1 That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing. The Planning Commission recommended denial ofthe application for non-compliance with the Zoning Resolution requirements. That the application is not in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 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 ofthe citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommended DENIAL of the proposed special use permit due to noncompliance with the following sections of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution: Section 5.03.07(1) (B) and (F); 5.03.08 (1) and 5.03 10 (1) and (2), and 5.03.11, based upon the lack of addressing the noise and visual impacts of the proposed sand and gravel operation and the general negative impacts to the neighborhood. Staff has subsequently received comments from the Bureau of Reclamation, that have been addressed in the staff report that could be added to the Planning Commissions recommendation. Those Sections are 5.03 (3) -- impacts to adjacent land, 5.03.07 (1)(E) — damage to adjacent property, 5.03.07(2)(C)- mitigation and 5.03,08 (6) — water pollution 17 STEVEN M. BEATTIE GLENN D. CHADWICK KAREN J. SLOAT CYNTHIA C. TESTER BEATTIE & CHADWICK ATTORNEYS ANO 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 8th 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 U 2 2001 til TELEPHONE (970) 945- 659 FAX 1970) 9454671 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 arc 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 of staff reports. Silt expects 10 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. GARFIEL..D 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 carefully -reasoned six page document, the Board analyzed the impacts of the proposed operations and determined that the requested special use permit was not in the public interest. THE TOWN OF SiLT URGES THAT EACIi MEMBER OF 1".IIIA, PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD, AND Courq`rV STAFF, REAL AND CONSIDER THIS 111\ 1.*44* '4*41 •✓v4• 1 Lf1 11 L1J u lar V11LI 1LJ J RESOLUTION WITH CARE IN EVALUATING TIIE PRESENT APPLICATION. Some of the findings and conclusions of the Resolution, as they relate to the present WSA Application, are as follows: Burden of Proof An application may be technically "complete," but still 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 Ihr the subject parcel is in compliance with the Garlick! 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 Neighborhood The Board placed substantial emphasis on this criterion. The Resolution noted that the Board must, for purposes of considering the application, "establish the neighborhood," which the Board determined to be properties within 'A mile ofthe proposed site. Consistent with the facts in present case, the Board in 1984 found that the character ofthe 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 In reaching its decision, the Board placed emphasis on the views or County constituents, rioting that citizens "have indicated concern regarding the effect of the proposed gravel pit and associated extractive operations on the agricultural and residential nature ofthe 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 oldie 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 311 and the bridge system within the general vicinity ofthe applicant's site, within the meaning of Section of 5.03.1 1 , , ." (Paragraph 7) -1g- 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 oldie 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 Dost The Resolution found "that there is substantial, competent evidence in the record that the proposed use of the applicant would generate objectionable levels of noise, odor and dust." While there may be debate as to achievable levels of mitigation, the most effective means to minimize these emanations is not to permit them, particularly in this agricultural and residential vicinity. (Paragraph 9) Visual impacts As will be clearly demonstrated at the hearings, the proposed WSA operations will be highly visible to Interstate 70 travelers, as well as to properties located north of the interstate and south of the Colorado River. The proposed site is located within the visual corridor established in Garfield County's Comprehensive Plan. The 1984 Resolution paid significant attention to these considerations. -Furthermore, the proposed use would be out of character with the other uses of the neighborhood, which are of an agricultural and residential nature, and would be unsightly. The applicant's operations would be visible within the scenic corridor oflnterstate 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 of the Zoning Resolution provides that one basis for denial of a requested special use permit is the "lack of physical separation in terms of distance from similar uses on the sante or other lots." The proposed WSA operation would be located within approximately 1/z mite of another gravel wining operation along the Colorado River. The 1984 Resolution noted and found, "There is another gravel pit operation in the general vicinity of the proposed use; there is substantial, competent evidence in the record of the public hearing which demonstrates that the number 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 right, t..�ri with comprehensive plans the IS not a use by t ibttt, is not consistent the 4V11iF11l:.SIGItJ1 YC. �lltllt3 for the arca, arid is not in the best interest of the healthy, safety and welfare of the citizens of Silt and other affected areas. Very ly yours, teven M. Beattie SMB/psc 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 GARFIELD COUNTY WHEREAS, in or about April 2000, Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. (WSA) submitted to Garfield County an Application for a Special Use Permit (SUP Application), as well as a Supplement to the SUP Application (First Supplement), seeking the County's approval of a gravel mining operation and batch plant on certain real property located east of the Town of Silt, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the SUP Application and First Supplement became the subject matter of litigation encaptioned Board of Trustees vs. Board of County Commissioners, et al., Case No. OOCV 203-A (the Litigation), which was settled. in December 2000; and WHEREAS, on or about January 4, 2001, WSA later submitted to the County a second supplement to the SUP Application (Second Supplement); in compliance with that certain Settlement Agreement executed December 11, 2000 concerning the Litigation and WHEREAS, the Town Board of Trustees (Board) has had an opportunity to review the SUP Application, the First Supplement, and the Second Supplement (collectively hereinafter the "Application"); and WHEREAS, at the direction of the Board, Davis Farrar of Western Slope Consulting prepared and delivered to the Board a Report on Western Slope Aggregates Proposed Gravel Mining and Batch Plant Special Use Permit Application to Garfield County (Report) dated January 21, 2001, evaluating the Application; and WHEREAS, a true and correct copy of the Report is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth; and WHEREAS, the Board reviewed and considered the material in the Report; and WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement provides that the Town, its staff, or its Trustees shall tender comments and requests concerning the Application to the County by February 2, 2001; and WHEREAS, Town staff is continuing to review and evaluate the Application. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO, as follows: 1. The Board adopts the Report and the evaluations, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated therein as the positions of the Board; and 2. For the reasons and upon the grounds set forth in the Report, the Board hereby recommends that the County deny the Application; and 3. The Board directs its staff to continue to review the Application, and to tender to the County such additional comments and grounds for denial as Town staff deems appropriate; and 4. The Board directs Town staff to attend scheduled hearings on the Application before the County, make oral statements and testimony, and take other action as staff deems appropriate. INTRODUCED, READ, PASSED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt, Colorado held on the 22`"l day of January 2001. EST: Town Clerk Patty Lambert, CMC TOWN OF SILT Mayor Pro Tem John Evans REPORT ON WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES PROPOSED GRAVEL MINING AND BATCH PLANT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO GARFIELD COUNTY TO: SILT BOARD 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 1121/001 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 Deslgnat.ion 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 floodplain. Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. Approximately' -850 feet northeast or the Sill municipal boundary in a portion of Section 12, Township 65, Range 92W of the 5th PM and adjoining the 1 70 river frontage road on a parcel of land known as the 'Peterson Property". 41.07 Acres Agricultural/Industrial— A/I 170 Frontage Road On-site Well Portable Toilets Ag/Ag Conservation PUD Silt Comprehensive Agricultural/Conservation/PUD Plan Designation: Prolect 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 batch plant on 41.07 acres of land. Lite"applicants propose to mune approximately 25.9 acres (63.1 %) in 3 or 4 phases. Mining operations will commence on the southerly edge of the property and move in a northward direction. Proposed mining will consist of reproving 1 to 3 feet of overburden topsoil and removing gravel strata that extends to a depth of approximately 22 feel. 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 off-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. "Ilse equipment repair and maintenance will be conducted between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. Average daily traffic volumes arc proposed to be 180 vehicle trips per day. The slate highway access permit application notes that 20 vehicle trips will consist of passenger cars and light mucks, 50 vehicle trips will consist of multiunit tnucks, 841 vehicle trips will consist of tandem dump trucks and 30 vehicle trips will consist of cement tracks. According to the state highway access penitis itppiio:alion, each vehiclo "leaving the property than returning is two counts." Vehicle trips are identified as "average daily volumes" and not "peak hour volumes". Average daily volumes may fluctuate above or below the 180 vehicle trips per day. According to the application and the Garfield County stall' report dated June 20, 2000, the south half of the project is in the 100 -year floodplain. This area is identified on lute Gaifield & the Mesa Counties, Colorado December, 1982 Floodplain Study Map as Zone X and Zone Al. According to the Jerome Gamba & 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 Less than 3 feet higher than the existing ground level." Applicable Garfield County Zoning Regnlations. The Garfield County zoning resolution identities the purpose of zoning under Section 1.01 for: "the purpose of promoting the health, safety and rr elfare 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 clangers, providing adequate light and air, classification of land uses and distribution of hurl development and utilization, protection of the fax base, securing economy in governmental expenditures, fostering the states agricultural and other industries, and the protection of both urban and non -urban development," The subject parcel is zoned Agricultural/Industrial — AIT. 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, primping facilities, storage areas, water impoundments, extraction and processing." Under County zoning, there are three classifications of uses. The most permissive classification is a "rise 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 commissioners and require issuance of a permit. Such uses may require an applicant to rnect certain conditions specified by the County prior to issuance of a conditional use permit. The highest level of County review for a use in a zone district is a "Special User. A special use requires issuance of a permit, public notice and a public hearing. A special use is not a right grained by zoning but requires an applicant to carry the burden of proof in order to shorn that a particular request cotiturms to all applicable County regulations and has been subject to public scrutiny through a public: bearing process. Additionally, the board of County commissioners may approve, approve with conditions or deny as special use permit request. Section 5.03.10 of the Garfield County zoning resolution, in reference to approval or denial ofa conditional or special use, states the following: "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; inhere uses are listed as Special Uses, they shall be permitted only: (1) Based on compliance with all requirements listed herein, and; (2) Approval by the County Commissioners, which Board niay impose additional restrictions on the lot area, floor area, coverage, setback and freight of proposed uses or require additional off-street parking, screening fences and landscaping, or any other restrielion or provision it deems necessary to protect the health, safeqp and iid/i,re of the population and uses of the neighborhood or zone district as a condition of granting the special use. 5.03.11 Denial ofSpeeia! Use The County Commissioners map deny any request fin- special use based on the lack of physical separation in terms of distance froom similar uses on the same or other lots, the impact on traffic volume and safetp or on utilities or 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 niay 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 under the highest level of scrutiny as "special uses". It should be noted, "single-family dwellings and customary accessory uses" are allowed in this district "only where it is accessory to the uses listed" (see below). By way of comparison, the other agricultural zone district in Garfield County, "Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density — AJRJRD" single family residences are allowed alone and not in conjunction with agricultural uses. "Uses by right: Agricultural, including florin, 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, animals or property employed in any of the above uses; retail establishment for sale of goods processed from rarer materials produced on the lot; .Kennel, riding stable and veterinary clinic, guiding and outfitting; Manufactured home as the principal use of the lot meeting standards contained in Section 5.03.01(2); Single-family dwelling and customary accessory uses only where it is accessory to the uses listed above." A special use for an industrial operation (including extraction, processing, mineral waste disposal) under County zoning requires submission of an "impact statement" that must conform to a multitude of requirements related to water, vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare, vibration, wildlife, vehicle traffic, impacts to adjoining property and other concerns. Relationship to the Garfield County and the Silt Comprehensive Plans. On November 8, 2000 the Garfield County planning commission adopted amendments to the comprehensive plan for study areas 2 and 3. These amendments update the conmprehensive 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 map tilled "Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Areas 2 & 3,Garfield County, Colorado". Tliis 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). Far the first time, the Garfield County and Town of Silt comprehensive plans are consistent with identified land use types inside and outside the municipal limits. This uniformity is very important to ensure county compatibility with land uses outside the Silt municipal boundary as the town expands into unincorporated areas around town through annexations. The proposed Western Slope Aggregates gravel pit and batch plant site is located 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. Il 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 Garfield County. The Colorado River corridor is an important asset to Garfield County and the Silt community and it should be protected.. 100 -foot buffer zones from the riparian areas should be required to minimize damage. The Silt comprehensive plan does not anticipate location of gravel pits or extractive operations within this land use designation. Garfieltl. County Comprehensive Ilan l,nnpune The Garfield County comprehensive plan notes on page I-3 under "issues identified by County resident? that "the relationship between adjacent land uses is considered a cornerstone of responsible land use plan ring 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 inch ks 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 II -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 batch plant operations and gravel/mineral extraction sites as uses that should be permitted in a "Ileavy Industrial District". 'The Agricultural/Industrial zone district is not a "heavy industrial district". Page 1I-43 states "the preservation of agricultural land fosters the mural 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 naps." "The rural nature of Garfield County is defined by important visual corridors and land that has historically been in agricultural uses." "Visual resources in the County are defined as those "view shed corridors" that are particularly valuable to residents and visitors of the 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: I 70, SII 82, SH 133 and S1! 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 delined 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? Src:tieni 4.0 un page 7 under Section IIi identities as an objective under "commercial and industrial uses" the need to "ensure that commercial and industrial development are compatible with adjacent land uses and mitigate impacts identified during the plan review process." "Encourage the location of industrial development in areas where visual, noise, air quality and infrastructure impacts are reduced." Section 8.0 titled "natural environment" states "tourism is an integral component of the economy of Garfield County. Therefore, it is essential that the planning process respect the natural environment that brings residents and visitors to the County." Section 8.1 under policies states "Garfield County shall discourage and reserve the right to deny development in areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active landslides, debris flows, unstable slopes, bedrock slices, major mudflows, radioactive Z9- tailings, slopes over 25 percent, riparian areas and wetlands and projects proposed within the 1110 year floodplain." "Garfield County shalt discourage development proposals that require excessive vegetation rcinoval, cut and till areas or other physical modifications that wilt 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. "Arty 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, 13. Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent property; C. Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent residences; D. Showing a lack 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 ofthe adjacent land uses or the entire community." Section 10 Urban Area of Irltluence. "Ensure !hat development and overall Lmd use policies occurring in the County That will allect a municipality are compatible with the existing zoning and future land use objectives of ilte appropriate municipality." "Objectives 10.2 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 to the Silt Area ResultinE front the Proposed Gravel Pit and Batch Plant Operations. Agricultural {1i .'MI6: a'L�i�u� fIi Isp(tC=fs — The principal land use on and surrounding the proposed gravel pit is agricultural and rural residential. Establishment of a gravel operation and batch plant at this location will drastically alter the agricultural and Waal 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 hatch plant operations at the proposed site will destroy habitat for small mammals and create activity that wi11 disturlt bald eagles, blue herons that utilize the properly and areas adjacent to the property. 'llic long -terra mining operation at the site will eflectivciy eliminate usable habitat for a period that will exceed 20 years. Traffic Inpads — 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 Silt 1 70 interchange. The approved Stillwater Ranch PUD in conjunction with traffic increases on County Road 311 to the 1 70 interchange will generate over 14,800 vehicle trips per day by the year 2015. This,ligure 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 thick traffic will adversely affect the roadways and intersections in the 1 70 interchange area thereby creating a hazard to public safety. 'lite applicant has proposed no participation in and overall assessment of the cumulative future traffic generation or mitigation of these impacts. Visual Impacts — ilte proposed operation will be highly visible limn the 1 70 corridor, properties souks of the Colorado River and properties north of 1 70. The proposed bemiing will not adequately the screen storage piles, a 4l0 -foot high concrete hatch plant and other features of the site. The gravel pit and associated operations will create a visual blight to the easterly entrance of the Silt area. Impaas Associated with lr'urse, Vibration and E,nissJRJJS — 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 Stale of Coloradoare not adequately stalled to provide regular and ongoing inspection and enforcement of these requirements. Assurance of compliance cannot be guaranteed by the regulatory agencies. 1'he reality is that these agencies can only respond lo 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 uitemrittent violations will not occur. w--111-• Impacts to Property Values — 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 Vicw Sutxlivision is Iocated immediately south at approximately 42 feet above the proposed gravel pit. It is impossible to screen the proposed operation from the subdivision. Sound from the operation of henry equilnucnt and crushing equipment travels upward and will disrupt the quiet neral character of the neighborhood. Ile general area has not been identified for iindustrial operations and the expectations of the residents are for rural agricultural and neral residential uses and lifestyles. Impacts to the Silt Municipal Water System — The proposed site is located upstream from the intake of the Silt municipal water system. The municipal water system pulls water directly from (he 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 Conuiiissioners, denial of the proposed Western Slope Aggregates request for special use pennit 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 stationers the following: 1. The proposed application is not in conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2. The proposed application is not in conlbrmance with the Silt Comprehensive Pian.. 3. The project will result in an adverse cumulative impact on traffic volumes and public safety in the Silt 170 interchange area. 4. The proposed special use will be injurious to the established residential character of the neighborhood 5. The proposed special use will be injurious to the established residential character oftlic zone district. rural agricultural neral agricultural 6. There is no guarantee of protection of the Silt municipal wafer supply from contamination associated with the proposed gravel pit operation.. 7. No evidence has been presented showing a change in the agricultural and rural residential character of the 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 I 70 and surrounding areas. le -C. 15- 1k1: [ RI9 yi'i.18Y6L"337 IiO. B23 P. 2 *TASK OF COLORADO tower el Culled nocorde4 st'''`Cr'N o'clock i 1N APR 1 0 1984 "' Raceptloa No....Z )l2 , MILOilED ALSOORF. RECORDER cmnrrito COUNTY. COLORADO M a....—_ regii.1aL..�.._......�..._........�."Jhp ni a. to.e,1 of County Camm4.lcnu" Ear 01411.1d Cattail, Coi.sr.ada, h.14 at On Cam, ll.ute Ln Gl.nwwd SpaItq .w-.�..,i'Iijnt��y[r... «........--�-- 15.a._._.QLl7...............-�...d+} sr 1...—.« ....A. P. If....Y:li.__.. that• WKh p"aMFt: Chat m.n _1. }Maven 3. E:,rrian _.... », comme,d:.nu , Carnrni,J.,n,r ..�•g•C... Rhoden --.... _.._ �., . County Mua,r,.y IIlstldred klaCorf ctuk .r th. Board *Ant nt Lhe fuAa :1ni ptoc.ad4,p, among haw, WWI %n ani item, lo+rfii RESOLUTION 17O. 04— 06 Hu 647 iictt;O8 RESOLOT'TOH CONCERUED WITU TUE DENIAL, OF TUE APPLICATJoN Or ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY TOR A SPECIAL 135E PERHIT FOR THE EXTRACTION AND PROCES$ING OF NATURAL RESOURCES WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by the Asphalt Paving Campaign for a special use permit to extraction and processing of- natural resources, specifically, an open -pit gravel operation, asphalt batch plant and crushers and a concrete bitch plant, in accordance with Section 9,43 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, on the following described tract of lands A 9.69 aces tract of land located in the SLE /4 of the NiE1/4 of Section 101 NEI/4 of the tiW1/4, and the SW1/4 of the 5E1/4 of Section 14; the East half of the SW1/4 of Section 14, Township 6 South, Range 92 Went of the Sixth Principal Fleridian in Garfield County, Colorado; hm REes,tthe Board or Connty Corgmissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has reviewed the application and Impact statements which the applicant has submitted and has received the recommendations of the Garfield County Planning Commission, as authorized by Section 9.03.04 of thejGarfield County Zoning Resolution of 19701 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has conducted public hearings, which have been duly advertised and held, in accordance with the requirements of Suction 9.03.04 of the Garfield County zoning Reeolutioe of 1970, regarding the .question of whether the requested' special use- permit should be ¶granted or denied, And during such hearings received extensive teatirnony and other competent evidence from the applicant and interested parties, which hearings were held on February 21, 1984 and March 26, 1964; WHEREAS,"the Board of County Commissioners has eonaridored said application and impact'. steeemeete Phe recemmendaticee cf th- Garfield County Planning Commission, the Garfield County Department of Development, Planning Section, and 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 been met; and this proceeding is properly before this Hoard/ 2. That, except a* 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 1970i 34' RECEIVED :Z w 1 aa234 . s.'.exp r.a ton 347 At1609 3. That, 1rr accordance with the general principles of administrative law and C.R.S., Section 24-4-105(7), as amended, the burden of proof is upon the applicant to show. by a proponderance of the evidence, that itu land use application is in compliance with thu applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as emended; 4. That the Hoard must, for the purpose of analyzing the subject application, in accordance, with the applicable provisions of Ulu Garfield County zoning Reaolutiun of 1970, specifically Section 4.01.11, establiuh the neighborhood which may be affected by the possible granting of the proposed special use permit and, further, the hoard 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 tor agricultural and residential purposes, as well as the water intake for the Town of silt, Colorado; 5, The general character of the affected neighborhood of the tract proposed to be subject to the special use permit is agricultural and residential. The subject property is presently zoned, in accordance with Section 3.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978. Propertic., 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 uee by right within the zone classification, and is a special use in the Agricultural/Industrial zone. competent'evidence was presented at the public hearings that the subject 'property and adjacent island lands of the applicant are presently under agricultural Lases] 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 related purposes, including, but not limited to the grazing of livestock. The surrounding parcels of property are also engaged In productive agricultural uses at the present time. There has been no competent evidence presentee] that there has been a change in the basis: character of the affected neighborhood over the past several months. The a plicant'a proposed land uvea would be incompatible with the traditional and historic, as well as the existing uses of the land in the established neighborhood, including the land of the applicant. The established agricultural and residential land uses in the affected neighborhood would be adversely impacted by the applicant's proposed use, and these uses would be injurious to the established character of the neighborhood within the meaning of Section 5.03.011 of the Garfield County zoning ilesoleLloo ..f 1275 The landowners adjacent to and within the affected nciyhborhood, 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 its impact on the Town of Silt. Residents of Garfield County, as evidence of their concern, have submitted petitions to this Iaard containing over seven hundred (700) signatures in opposition to the application for the special use permit under consideration. Of those County citizens expressing an opinion on this application, these seven hundred plus (700+) signatures in opposition represent a substantial majority of the affected citizenry; 350 r.a J, tear DCDJ, N.y onnt; 647 rlt(6i..O 7. That there is 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 Interstate 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 aro in affect, 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 prnpooed 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 1978, as amended) O. That there im substantial, competent evidence in the record that the public safety and general welfare would be harmed by the applicant's proposal with regard to the water intake facility of the Town of Silt. The Town of Silt's water intake facility is located within the affected neighborhood of the applicant's proposed activities. The Silt water intake facility is immediately Borth 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. itate_t_iluant1 ,y' The mining of ground water on the applicant's property may lower the eater level at the Silt waxer intake facility.. There is the possibility that the applicant's operations could cause irreparable harm to the 'own of Silt's lawfully adjudicated municipal water cyrtom, which Constitutes the Town's sole source of water supply: b. latsr.__Duelity: 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 end water intake system. Competent, export evidence was presented at the public hearings that eome contaminants from much a spill 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 1978, as amended; I n.1^ elerr kiN.7h1�[�.`t[ There wao substantial, competent evidence presented at the public hearings that portions of the applicant's mining operation and related facilities could be within the one hundred (100) year flood plain for the Colorado River, as defined in Section 6.02.13 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1778, as amended. Section 6,09.01(1)(?) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1970, as emended, 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 -'.ray, which, alone, or accumulative with other activitie9, would cause the result of any increase in flood levels during tt�e discharge of the one hundred (100) yeast- flood, or the danger of substantial, solid debris being carried downstream by flood waters. DCC, 15,[0je iteeek./ 9703762937 r10.023 p.5 Brym 647 rur,EGi1 There was subntantial competent evidence presented at the public hearing that !the applicant's operations, in themselves, or in conjunction with a flood on the Colorado River, could cause a change in the course of the rivet's stream, resulting in the Town's water supply being moved away from its adjudicated point of diversion. The applicant has been unable to show that adequate and appropriate conditions could be attached to the Sand use permit bought for the site, which would bo sufficient to adequately address the possible problems which the applicant's operations would create for the Town °El Silt's nater supply and water intake facility to any significant degree; i 9. That Section 5.07.00 of the Garfield County zoning Resolution of '1978, es amended, requires that the applicant conduct any industrial ,operations no aa to minimize dust, smoke, odor and all other undesirable environmental affects beyond the boundaries of the property. That there is sube;tantial, competent evidence in the record that the proposed use of the applicant would generate objectionable levels of noise, odor and dust. Furthermore, the proposed use would be out of character with the other uses of the ngighborhood, which are of an egrlcirltural and residential nature, and would be unsightly. The applicant's operations would be visible. within the scenic corrider of Interstate 70, and would constitute an unsightly situation when viewed from the Highway, The sight of the proposed uses is adjacent to a critically sensitive and important habitat for river corrider 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, ae amended, requires that the applicant file an impact statement, which, among other things, acquires that the applicant demonetrate that the proposed use will "not have a significant, adverse effect upon (C) wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alterations to existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routts, use patterns 'or other disruptions". The applicant hats failed to demonstrate that conditions can be imposed on the proposed land urs permit which Would prevent significant harm to the wildlife in the Colorado River corrider. Gravel mining, and its attendant operations, repreoentn probably the most adverse impact to wildlife along ttie river. Specifically, the applic_bnt has repreeented that it may, et unspecified future dates,' request expansion oe the site of Operations applied for in the upecial use permit. Any future expansion of the gravel pit bite or related operations would create is significant potential for severe adverse consequencea upon 1 Wildlife in the area adjacent to the pit and related facilities: ii. That Gecticn 5 01.11 of the Garfield County Zoning :Resolution of 1978, as amended, provides that a ba6ie of denial or a ,'special use permit application hi the lack of phyuical separation in terms of distance from similar uses on the sane or other lots. There is another gravel pit operation in the general vicinity of the proposed user there iw eubstantial,•competent evidence in the record lof the public hearing which demcnatratea that the number of gravel pits in the general vicinity of Lbw proposed use would have an adverse, cumulative effect on the general welfare of the residents of Garfield County. This' adverse, cumulative effect is the direct 1reeult of the operations of the pit and related facilities serving Ip to increase the level of dust and •ambient air quality, noise and visual pollution. There was substantial, competent evidence presented at the public hearing that the health, safety and welfare t1tC,:, 1�, uuu 1W6041 yAdbfrE, UJI N0.8Z3 P.6 Boaz 64.7 tiUE6i2 of the citizens of'carfield County, particularly those residing in or, about the Town of Silt, and their quality of life, would be si nificantly impaired by the operations proposed by the applicant fo the parcel; 12. That the Town of Silt is included within the defined neighborhood of the applicant's proposed use. The subject property is within the "form of Silt's urban area of influence, District A, as set forth in the Management District : Haps of the Garfield County Compreherra ive Plan of 1981; 13. The "Town of Silt has strongly objected, on the record in the public hearing, to the applicant's' proposal. The basis tor the objections of the Town of Silt have been that the subject property is, adjacent to the Town of Silt's water intake facility, and is located near the Town's boundary. The proposed use is inconsistent with the Town of Silt's master plan for development of the arca suIrrounding the parcel, which has designated this as an area of potential growth of either primary or secondary nature. There is substantial, competent evidence in the record of the public hearing that, to allow the applicant's proposed use, at this time, would be harm€ul to the present character of the Town of Silt and its orderly fulture growth; 14. That on flay 11, 1961, the Garfield County Planning Commission adopted the Garfi■ld County Comprehensive Plan of 1981, pursuant to C.R.S., Section 30-28-106, ss 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 masher plan in the following respectai a• Part Ti CONCERNS AND POLICIES MEI INDUSTRIAL, COHMERCIAE. ACTIVITIES, OiIJECTIVE 6, PAGE 12: 'Encourage lndu:strial expansion where similar development already exists in appropriate areas"; and POLICY 5, PAGE 131 "Industrial .dsvelapment eha11 occur within designated areas within nxiatinq municipalities or adjacent td existing appropriate industrial areas'''.. b. .Pis rt Ti CONCERNS AND POLICIES RE: TRANSPORTATION, PAGE 3, NUHOER 12, which provider, "The County may deny development proposal■ on the basis of, .zj inadequate road access which will 1 c eats en inadequate road with enlarger daily traffic volumes'. c. keit TTr HAIiAGt'MENT DISTRICTS RE/ SILT URBAN AREA OF INFLUENCE,, PAGE 50, which provides in pertinent party "Ruch of fire area surrounding silt is agrarian. New development should minimize impacts on the agrarian character of the area. Provisions shnir1A be made f the co ti�.a4w Zvi agricultural activity". d. Part TTT t PL'RF(Rh1ANCE STANDARDS RE: COMPATIBILITY, PAGES 89-94, which Section sets forth criteria, including "adverse effects to the desirability of neighborhoods or the entire community, alteration of the basic character of adjacent land use, and impairment of the stability or Value of adjacent or surrounding p operties". Further, the plan speaks of noise, dust, odors, and visual unsightliness as 'hazards tp public health and safety" and " uisances to the surrounding community", 15. That, based upon the above findings of fact, thin board a County Convniesionere finds that the applicant has failed, in his burden of proof, to show by competent evidence, that the application 3g- LCC.15.2000 10:20l1 9769762937 NO.923 P,7 'NA. 617 r 6l8 fon a special, land tare permit for the subject pnrool 'is in conpiiance with the Garfield County Zoning;Reaoltion of 1978; and th Garfield County Comprehensive Plan ''•`of 1981, and that, fa, thersnare, there is subutantial, Qom etent evidence, in the record of the public hearings to support a denial of the lend use requested/ 16. That there Is• substantial, competent evidence in the record that the allowance of .the proposed use. may cause economic injury to other property areas xn the effected.'neiyhborhoodl and 17. That there is substantial, ,cotpatent evidence in the record of the public heacinE"that the proposa•rr special use permit is not in the best interests of the, health, safety, iaaocals,, convenience, order, ptdaperIty and. :wet€are"6•':of the cititanil; of Garfield County, Colorado. " HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,. by the Board of • County Commissioners for the county of Garfield, atato of Colorado, that the special use permit application of ihe,Auphalt Paving Company for a gravel pit and'concrcte and asphalt;batch•plant operationu be, and the same, is denied. DATED this 9th dAy of April, 1484. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the,. foregoing Resolution wap adopted by the following yote; _ATTEST; LirrY VeI><aiS14 _film J. Cerise enc "fim` inkhen9e -e6(.1 4;y CI of the Board Aye ►Ago , Aye' commissioners BOARD or COUNTY COrililssYOHLRS or 'ARFIELf COURT . COLOR). O Chairman I $T TE OP COLORADO ) 1 ss. C unty of Garfield) r i "►- , County+., Clerk and ex -officio Clerk 0f th Hoard of County , mmisaionea, in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify :U t the annexed and foregoing Rej.olution is truly copied from the Aecprds of the , Proceedings of th,e Board of County Commiesionere for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, X have hereunto Det my hand and affixep. the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, Colorado, thio ._// -- day o April, A.D. 1984. ' County Clerk and ' ex -officio c mmiaaionese. Clerk of the Dard of, County e Jae.a l " T.. RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2001 January 30, 2001 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Garfield County Court House Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 RE: Proposed Western Slope Aggregates Gravel Pit East of the Town of Silt As a home and agricultural property owner on the south side of the Colorado River adjacent to the proposed pit, since 1981, 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 I-70 Corridor. The permit would increase "Heavy Commercial Truck" traffic at the already busy 1-70 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 residentiallagricvlturai use of the surrounding properties. The proposed beans cannot hide lire piles of gravel ut i.ire smoke suets of iiia unucrnte 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 Midvalley Dr. New Castle, Co. 81647 40- January 30, 2001 Garfield County Planning & Zoning Garfield County Commissioners Citizens of the County To Whom it May Concern: /- RECEIVED JAti 3 RECEIVEDJAN3 0 Mt We are writing this letter to express our concerns for the `Special Use' Permit being considered for the property east of Silt between 1-70 and the Colorado River. This `Special Use' Permit would allow for a potentially huge gravel pit operation and asphalt and concrete batch plants right in the middle of residential housing and agricultural land. We have lived in our present location for more than 12 years, and have been made aware of all of the new developments, which would impact this area, through direct mailings or phone calls from the adjacent property owners. However, this new project, which is being proposed, was `slipped' through the process with little or no input from town and county citizens, and with notification only to the `closest' of neighbors, which included three parties. Our home and property lie within 300 feet of the proposed gravel p11 operation. Why weren't we given opportunity to comment on this operation? Many residents of this portion of Garfield County have great concerns for the amount of offensive dust, noise, vibration and truck traffic that will be produced, and for the amount of pollutants that we"be expelled into the water and air. (Silt's IlIZ'1,iii 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 IL fashion for t e beauty of lCo cir alum. Let'.S �.lc 1 caponsllllc aiid Amp 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. Resi. ully submitted, Brad and Ruth Mailman 105 MidValley Dr. New Castle, CO 81647 970-876-5874' RECEIVED JAN 3 2061 PE11T1ON AG UNST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address ii..r ?..4...„, a.-..1 L.,. City 1 ZIP Phone / /. ' lepiw,{lt , ..4 F'f Iyer , •!R!: ':7 1M;P►� I� I r _ 2 /Ai c of fr"..ifcmo re 4i / c., -,t/1/2 t lVii-✓ ,19;',/ 4.7 YF -z. v . , LLE ELLVio 1 k I • ZiAL70-.. gy.:4, , V ,` 81114,- _:, r715---1/57 OC77.5-6-1, t#S „,% IVY 461,:w,4 ipoil (1 e__ • eAre.o. - P, Ava): i `fi ta),, , of _ t 8, f I E11n s ,_ i. - -. 60ifei ilv. Ie -'1 I I g/6 -d/ 9f�y 9."r,, 4401 el n„P/ ' '' I el.Z /,`//,, . _vActo :e2.1,I Z2:t to { �T rQ Pd D A � 4Zf (ti 4//14 ra F 1400 A . 2 ''i 1416 6,) I mco fir' k D qgq—Cigtji '1,-9'1:_t"? moo? 41 _V . LM '‘)° Tbrilft7 7 - fe-1 0 flail,: 4f.1 kiedifey, .." -- ,,le.A 1 DiOlOkii r �, . . . /-0 - �i ��i 1 I� .0 it f i fV Sr. � Jr 0 , ... Aiwa' 4' A.,. rr �!.�_. /�i� a Y. .. j'ett L3 ��1 -rr 644- Co RTIECENc:f) 1PM 3 0 20 PE1111ON AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name , Signature Address City / QIP V�,81bo1 Phone 61S-617of .rr..,t4--v I, LVO 17x6. 1h l9 k I` J 'AO cn. iVnark (41Alkia (65' ili ' e'l ' ' br, (.\-o,' dens,+-(t,S;-?0 ,s13)“(' W,•�. ,fir/ -2^ 2i 3 , S� .2/ 7, �- 6eq:61 a1 7 kV/7 -111 i -i6 , e tiri3t Ato 4)-4-11.11-71 .G-sck---. , 4V). ,14, r. 47,< , .� ' i L 1G v 7 2./4 v7 ', )Grd I �,r F7,-,..te../ ,'', 4,3 .....,...: A-11‘61 v-,./' lig- . c.rT 1�k I J ' eCI,T , /ViA's), -� r�ii 0 1(, t =l.c.,.. 11 0A•:.,....:-.-t,y . f 1 f ,A me �i 6s63 c rt ©21L+ sio-!'-7 ci. .9.0144 a I. ii , 1 4. kl.efr. -. ��i, .7 �w- Lei Std s zet g_��-j sl tY `"k ` C?`4 l oo 0 c[ (A+YI , iviollW'iA 1) .1 ..fes r • 14 �Lr.' 5� . - t , 6,;(1 - 0 i(l �y IR ►'T 42_if -41 _ , 06,7 , evA4::J 0 ANar St k '4? g-767243; //eild-4-.. C.a-X. RECEIVED JAN 3 0 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 Mame Signature ' Address City / ZIP Phone l elhie `-- e a,,e/yyx+,.0,/,', i,, `.7 'G-44 0» ii/.i i61 0 c: .3 3'c {-4 . 6 . a, a.fig L 50 c2 ‘ S , .1-%, /2,, /4/5:2 'i// la 52 di k7 .5f SI65' % _'13__I- 47247WW3 ,)7( `37 -2777 v7/5 /9 i 1", /,7 I fill A gin, yYi la,* i' 47fl'l OKI R I`/2 ‘ ,,--- i , , er ra F a 4.1" Iv_ itit,4 60091 335TRO. ooico/i7,64 A 102_ i jac, k, 1.b.0 /f5-0 3(1 eci Cif 50 1( 6,11 k.as1Q. .(\??-6- 76-e ge2-ric ot;it5z 6x1,2-rs -7 5J 7 C-- X -66 rribt( 7 76 7/ I Cif? 876..5z3 6),," ej.e),Lr&f. ,,,,(4.i :,,. AL c t {r3�iL Si .., {.- ': .ice . _ LK_ •► ' , ' 'ke Teo -11,-p4. Vock --iimpuip r., C6-0, , d o.s em . tit dv c.t . 3 5'ftcF C,r(cc-k it t,Skr31 n 13- Coe- ;Lill ?1(0,5--D. .,-, ,y4 44za (�� - (ifI? U $/2/74-0 a al --012-6\ PlucittFle, 66-) vJ - , (0, 5- N.i6n)neAirt-s_. ittkt i RECEIVED 30I 3 0 2001 PITIVION 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. • Pant Marne Signature Address Cit 1 ZIP Phone U � �-1 0 - f .P. ,c)ALi k4 Dior':s. , i 9D a rrnav,41 Art .i.ibr- W 6-iu ch toLatt6 4(»// maxi (pua4 0 05 pgs-,,,). 816.0 1 8/(00,1 , c., - - j / 697 7,47-1 le) 6,0 -cm2 'A ,-, .r)::•4'2'- \.,j C.a. 0 . LLA C ci r eistwukc., d ►,� /I( • 1 5-Le14,-,) . zz;;'`..- . ! ( 1 .',).-•t:1,' (s_ • , 1 fl 1 , f . . I t C ;4! f i t t e r, 1 - EL) fy 1 QS" ,,ray y 1. ---e191---,1 Uja16,5 L., ci tit') 4 4. / i it 1 L° S C3Ps,4 —?-5— I/ 41 6LLAC 1,,„5-6,1•Lte.A__,daveoc. Is''' 6 a e/60,/ Als:suit 9K-sZV AI . tuat-- .... ..401,; 1 /,',:./e- • / . k__. /1- iff. ...---/ 12 Oil lte1514P t• 0 5 126 Cael,),642-40,0 3//' 5. 6,4-1,-.75 g I 6 *Or 6/ Ie.' a o / 1° 7,r, ttntS% Pt/ -3z35 L.54t.54-A) 13 • ,f,/lruN 11)-7--:--1-- j ,, Aie. Ka /- f let Hair.H& aiii /..,z 65 JQn Igitei rf —b /5 RECEIVED gi•ki 3 gee 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 Tom of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Siynatufre Address j City / ZIP Phone ,i, eg, leRcw,,7 e' „/, et,-, c__, e/:3 Zil. VA.779 A4CI °d 3V ,,lEc_cr4 5 33 ? ally Po ,r ox (9:c7 0 S m 1 G'/J C r a17 CA,c)1. 0 Tv, _ ,;)?=:;:f.g7"---__ ,.1,ii- J'j -3.) Air. wo /tic g' ,;) ;11- New 'asJ/e F76 --e;C6'K c)6..dz43 s74-,1,771. 3 2/ v..0 \-te. 7-rr. i i' / /776 L- r) ,C�' 1/2/16-4, 6 U �' i� G / Am/exlly/ t& -R s `% 1\il IQ f. u ,. , _ ,-1 Ade c 1!' Li i id. Co //e / f /,) �Kr 7 1 (:!(._'6,..(7/ 4' l 1 i 1' r r `„,i 00 '' 1 `11Jsv,..,_1n Ka, fr\ ,6 c `1 0T-016 1 r- i } 6}J1 JJ })tom^°wc/�/r „- 7 t r i 141 • `f % z ' C�C�.f, --� i I* '�� 9 %��J ,, G it yp/J ?� ? - D f I,/ (Ix) .a. .11\w' IsLa'Ain '-,c.:- ) - - ' . . 644,1:1)..5-44„q, (.4A\-tvic i,. o es- I 2+k».,s1 '141 Sarni - th1,. .E,ccz1'c e,,g.. &',141,,,47,‘"2,. -, 1-7- _ e2.7-3 E. i, t: • A . - (433 74. -so 6/ . 0 6 6 43.i r “.Z ,fico cis g,T A -c' beer /iLt . / d f RECE E0. t1 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. 0 2t1W1 PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT Print Name - Signature �� Address 4,0,1i 6 d /44 ava, 4 X666 OkLe - In Pt Stlt&L /04A (0 ./5--7. /Pot City 1 ZIP Silo 43 S 1 5 g i65, Phone gi7v -%3 a7X (ioNr e 6F,Z650Z 97¢ W5-JO ; to -7041-F Li rd a- TY7aim 4rJI ( 0,011T -r ei), I EI1rii &,6t4., 1etc Vel t11'aso-er _ rel 1..eLl}Qh 165 6(6 / 2 ,.1 °tr'V h e _ A- t 7-04 te,L /2.---------- "e»,c• I t s, 951(0 Li TbY - 1 n' 1 i 9 A Ju a i f d �. r\-\) Lkytcl ,IA;, 2_Ac14.3 7I 5 Mc] 7 ,� `1 x03`1 q-fuckv-'z., A*AQtri\<QP 1 Vad4, 4L4J f 2./ , f ,g c °"---4(,r3.5' f ,_? 2 5 it,8Ltt fa e t/' -551 7/ 63r Zcr-s---7zyl L--0-----;:::7_, a-C-k.)?17\ C\LbakS) - . 'I .. CCs` \r\\ 11 \ l oLA1 cV% ' 417 '- 0 !0- getV " 3.5--, C e ' 77:;/0" .. ..5 0 "4 ► 1.t.ez7Hze, i-2 f 2.t." 7e. 5 ll e 2/ 2- 855 `-f9 v` � 'RECEIVED JAN 3 0 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 • : tit- Address s at4anth UtIL Dv--� daSfie , S g/641 7 3 6 t' kA, C' - l -4-. C6'5\ -I'4.. Co Ie,LI7 zo 3 3 _ce 33.141.5- _ -y:s o 090f -it—, A A_o_i) C-ctIA-C A}��v e OD 6/6, r i City /ZIP 276'0 (1,u CW*- r c ' ivert/riLsker 't-1- 4"1, 1,6,/ Phone _ 4e7 z3za2t,t) Sp/ -gia 1 'iii- ,.'”, tGIZA)41 ,y,,� ►ci,,,,:d I '-P-f-,+• di Jc., i %:-.4(------ ,ite 1 LO id i 'f.i7 , r' i �„tide_ d ,-) /4 r--e,e64torPT 6.,-2, a) foifcz- 6' L 6105 1L Co_ 6E'46 ('0 F//' ,5 -. (71,05/ Vial -11 S 1&S'? u r 4-24z6- -Kt _ 7( c9 'iv/ ,.., VA d(6 . afa A up1 f1 I1 o7ho PAJ( . P(11-1 luizijaitcor 1_C5 ae A / lar ,1_,, /)2 c7 C"76 - t';',_i5-u ) ; 0: 1\ck,lbe Cr ho r ,-e__. cl:erZ- //7. , -Ea (0 erk5-Z-- q s 6 f y &e, x.-1 Z• s:-/‘_c--c) /c LA' /2 mite / fr 2),)-o_ �! j-L�La 13 g"g1ezvi ,,[%,-.)�. j3T,_,,-c..) / 6 „,„, gc,7,5 64, q 7 qs f z/ ' y1-,9 ?r � ,enl Fa -.j 1,c}- �_o D1 G 17 22 Poly �.) c AC c� i ;��'a f z� to rt\C.�;y 1)4_,l /24,_i e VI C5� 6,2-5 -' 1 6( 7 RECEP/Eo JAN 3 1 am January 31, 2001 Dear Board of County Commissioners We are asking for your help in stopping the proposed gravel mine and batch plant (Western Siope Aggregates) at the east entrance to Silt and in our neighborhood. We are homeowners of Peach Valley Acres Subdivision. This area is an agricultural and residential neighborhood. The special use permit is contrary to the historical land use of the area. There are five existing gravel mines and pits between Silt and Rifle and a proposed sixth gravel mine and pit for the Mamm Creek area. One of the existing gravel pits is across the river from the proposed Western Slope Aggregate gravel pit. If Western Slope Aggregates is approved we will have seven gravel mines and pits along approximately seven miles of the scenic I-70 corridor. We feel this would cause additional noise, water and air pollution to an area that is already heavily mined. We believe with the existing pits we have sufficient gravel reserves. Please assist us and the Concerned Citizens Against The Pit to maintain aur 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 uri.-1,1„ to attend. Irr,11 c cignmpotition. ,,m11 Ann or David Nicholson at 876-5632 for more information. Our presence and opinions as concerned citizens can make a difference. Respectfully, Dorothy & Ken Else Neva & Steve Hiscock Bob & Mona Koper Ben & Debra Menu Connie & Greg Selvage Michelle & Oliver Whiting CC: Mark Bean, Building & Planning Director Editor fo Glenwood Ind, Rifle Telegram & Daily Sentinel cc\works\ccatp January 31, 20'. Dear Mark Bean, RECEIVED 3M4 3 1 21lUi .ng Director We are asking for your help in stopping the proposed gravel mine and batch plant (Western Slope Aggregates) at the east entrance to Silt and in our neighborhood. We are homeowners of Peach Valley Acres Subdivision. This area is an agricultural and residential neighborhood. The special use permit is contrary to the historical land use of the area. There are five existing gravel mines and pits between Silt and Rifle and a proposed sixth gravel mine and pit for the Mamm Creek area. One of the existing gravel pits is across the river from the proposed Western Slope Aggregate gravel pit. If Western Slope Aggregates is approved we will have seven gravel mines and pits along approximately seven miles of the scenic I--70 corridor. We feel this would cause additional noise, water and air pollution to an area that is already heavily mined. We believe with the existing pits we have sufficient gravel reserves. Please assist us and the Concerned Citizens Against The Pit to maintain our quality of life in our agricultural residential neighborhoods. We are asking The Garfield County Planning and Zoning and the Board of County Commissioners to deny this special use permit within this area. The Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission will consider this application on Wednesday February 14, 2001 and the BOCC will begin final consideration on Monday, March 5, 9nn1 P1 Rasa try to Attpnri thacp mpptirgp., T f �rnii area 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 cc\works\ccatp RECEIVED MS 3 20it 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. 1 listed the advantages to having a gravel pit across from my home against the disadvantages. My list of advantages was blank. Given the cost of maintaining the roads during such rigorous use, even the monetary advantages are negligible. The disadvantages, however, are many. The proposed pit is located near the intake for the Town of Silt water supply. The pit would emit discharges into both the air and the Colorado River. The visual impact to the entrance to the town of Silt is obvious. 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 iri 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. 1 see no advantages to granting their request. 1 hope that you all agree. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Becky D. Ross cc Garfield County Commissioners -�52- RECEIVED FEB 2001 ,fix'. G- ALICIA M. BELL-SIIEETER &JEFFREY P. SHEETER P.O. Box 3371 • Glenwood Springs, CO • 81602-3371 Phone: 876.2759 • Fax: 876.5207 • E-mail: jsheeter@sopris.net sopris.net Kit Lyon Garfield County Building & Planning Department 109 8`s 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 cornrnercial 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 racing au ii,y«�edirte 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, der effrey P. Sheeter & Alicia Bell-Sheeter cc: Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission Town of Silt -5� To: Garfield County P&,.Z From: Paul E. Klomhaus 3718 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 RECEIVED FEB 1 2111 Jan.. 31, 2001 Dear Sir and/or Madam, Below is a brief list that 1 have compiled containing arguments both for and against the granting of Western Slope Aggregates, Inc.'s request for a Garfield County Special Use Permit, thereby allowing the construction and operation of a 41 acre gravel pit / batch plant along the 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 ighschool 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. • viuoav'u as kri►ILW.ILJ ILj thcic, goodness knows now ioiig 1L11 stay) for smart growth that would have a positive impact on the area. • The creation of "gravel pit pollution". According to the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, there are already twenty active gravel pits in Garfield County and three more pits pending. The majority of these pits are located from the Town of Silt and points West, but with the construction of the WSA pit, the infestation will be spreading East of Silt. The existing pits are more then adequate to supply the County's needs well into the future. • The pit will require access through populated areas not designed to accommodate a large volume of heavy trucking. For: • None. CC: All local Newspapers Sincerely, /l4&& RECEIVED FEB 1afit January 31, 2001 Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Re: WSA/Peterson Gravel Mine Permit Dear Sirs and Madam, We are extremely distressed at the possibility that a Special 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 srnaIl ranchette lots. Had I known 9 years ago a gravel thine 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 of life, 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 mines 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 re uest for a Special _or'PFdliPriliP4; Permit. —55 #4111.1rai William H. DuBois, Sr. Donna M. DuBois oyos- pewof tv.o,u004-Gz—feei 0 El/6g 7 M. Dale McCall 245 South Golden Drive Silt, Colorado 81652 (970) 876-2508 erikam7@earthlink.net The Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite #303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attention: Planning Commissioners rk'. 0 RECEIVED JAN 3 0 Are January 25, 2001 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 41 -acre gravel pit application by Western Slope Aggregates to be located near I-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 n the Eagles View subdivision of Silt in part to escape from the congestion and widespread environmental pollution such industrial operations create. In addition, I do not believe that any overriding need for such a gravel pit operation in this agricultural - residential location has been established which would justify and mitigate the damage such an industrial operation would inflict on the surrounding area.. Please recommend that the Garfield County Commissioners deny this application for environmental and general safety reasons. Thank you. cc: Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 The Town of Silt board of Trustees 231 North Seventh Street Silt, Colorado 81652 M. Dale McCall �6- RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2001 January 27, 2001 Paul and Pam Lauman 0597 335 Rd. New Castle, CO 81647 Planning and Zoning Department Attn: Mark Bean Dear Sirs: We are homeowners in the vicinity of the proposed Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. gravel mine and batch plant and are opposed to the creation of a new gravel pit. We feel there is an adequate number of gravel pits in existence along the 1-70 corridor. The community will not benefit from an additional gravel pit. The negative impact of the dust, the noise, and the scarring of the land of the proposed new site serves to decrease the aesthetic value and property values of the surrounding communities; i.e. Midvalley, Peach Valley, the town of Silt, and the Stillwater project. We are also concerned about the possible impact on water tables affecting local water wells. In addition, living in the area for 16 years, we have observed deer, bald eagles, Canadian geese, pheasant, iox, 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 ro� 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 RECEIVED FEB 1 L_ � tc& 0029 335 Rd. New Castle, CO. 81 647 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 gavel 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 would 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 Tess 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 VIII 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 cximmunities 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 \ CO+ t t., 7-e 1 ' Qom-.. , 1t • 15V, s, s';tid(a Sia -Ma g -514 -)ha 9 1 je) hriSCh c1 Abtl( O.1 (SkD -7j 871 ,_ 79,. a' Afia 2-0---,m_47/ ,2(.56(;7744: p;:ii ,efrAf 61- Imo P's2d �� /�fJr ���� if Irdr / % la:/'T/�[ �.�.'/� �lL�����[,� /j dry � �,/�i�3 � �ti �r+-,�C�J' / j{u[� f -i(--e'"16--- . N CZ /jell/0141 1i 1 J _ .i-�- _ vy - t', v/ -- d 2&w� g l �' Y T4'• SetS eL (2,447 (.N' ' t ii d $/7�r,// � /'''/� f . va l _Yel / C7 , 7 - 576 5-2 8 74r.2, e� kr ell s , l47 6.--e-,.--- ,o/v /g-e77/aN,'L 4 L •r Si6S-� t b 3 11760 SS 2 a3sip C.,-2 Cr i 0 5 ,5 i 1 Yl P I Q i3 its 9 C Karl I• i Amy Potitiff\i C"Del AR 43 idt RUati'4t� / ou,AA4l z 1 0 t5 1"A Ae4 P at/3 {]— 1 Y1S ,g) )- /c--' w/rvis jadie.:--4-41/4.-0,-- I 0 7 69.-7-i",,,,,_. ez-. sL. ,02.1f4a PlTnum' AGAINST THE PROPOSER 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 FFy_ 3 Edd ; e t7 'er ,: / i C / fiti „LP -4 )W'4 :4'c> 1/4 -c.' -\\,:k)\ A '."4'. - t - ) ''''s" tz U.3 7-`\.‘ , ic.--=\.\\ta \\JN -c -g 1 kk),c c . 1- ( • - )/1 t g.5,',,z5-- ei 4 -\S' - ,Ciik) 6,66-2_ ) e.' V ',PVT') .�"] ��'kl...'y r 7�',2- s, , t l f;' 411(,Y) \•_)C i\( \r�(1 1�1t11^�10-1611 \ Vii { 4,.'.U* � d 0(JI 11: ,i),:' irr C . 76 ,j C Cheroj - (4 /77 54, ,0 P, 7 /2._ 7 Me_,Ciu tine_ � 0/G h rtie n at-ce4, aZ2S/ n A0derSh Ou,ii3 g. (of0rc4(;(D ,4ie - a bo ,c// -9 6.3 ci' o L(-0/ a ,66 1-),A(C 4 eo {- ['T�[ '1 C^ �1 , . ,,_, ( GL CIC (JAM � �, (9-s L t".1 9, 0 pct. k_ G +- 4ett) C ` le I -P" P, iv, o (..: vc• C + ,_, di x -5-"y 0-41, =4., 6,--:-9v3 Lit,iv. 1 ,,' jDr-),-"fz5Qy �^ f J �J�Y. r / L 4/,,, / " 3 it i7, ,. /e/Si / *"^L 5 / 6� fr r g .' -')LJ 4 Y ISZ �5 V V 7. J l)_ , I Y ,JLiLV C I) • C -b • 1 . r� • . r(leo-7 'lt..J�e _J �! LLQ yJet- re.t z--, t i ) Ai/ J AYL c-- ^ V Mr #� -_ —. -� tit •0Z V r Print ams SI! n ure Address ' Mt !ZIP 1 1, - y II -- V ) 'l' r. n ra ti N. � . � `-. _ • '+• �� ' r /tip [ �. -- C y l s y ( 4 ` !i 3 4.- 1 �V tea ," ^; $ Ws -A-.._- ..m....,i - } v J r ` _4 '.. r* - i r. .t „.:1 V '� 4�. '...m..K' •- r L v ti r `�-' y \\ w \ the . �.. Vr-• – N. ~ . 1 +.� ' _�' r/.----....,5 r----fi . �,- /l.•— .rh 7 1 \VV .l j ' i tiv 4r, Phone L a3 co m m mm mr. CD CO D C a 0. m 0 1 go .rAl• a C CO - Q ❑ G) Co 31co 3 el Q 0 Ri 0�.�r. Fr 0 ®1 ❑ 030!I. r+ 0) 46 CD Ell o a CD CD St ocO it ag! Ti 3 CD a 07 M ❑ 0. 03 C 5 MI Sia Q co -15 a lId OiSOdOud aiu 151111VD11 HOUL Ud O tp m a) ID 115 • 0 CO u o oT ▪ N c co co CL Q CDC z`'vm 3 a o • ca C Q Gp U Ln O Q. !11 CD CD © 0 3 ▪ tD O • 3 ) CP O L7cro C CD ® 5 Q o ▪ { Q 72. CA a toa s CD CL ;-31" m a 9 Lid 4111S0dOnd 111 JSMINDY 114011 111d f+ ,. S t �r �". 4; w 1 c "3 5► ,,� , r - IM . --... -4-.- ^ �. ~, f-7, - LJ , Print Name Signature Address City 1 ZIP ,CLITY;k6 • / a •`'Ad'f ;:,/,„1, 4 r(-)r "t` ���-i J" e _ z4') .. te5 r' lJ 3. [ IN r C"' r fi- C" ? A Vf .7'. 1 r ur ,y.., A y 1.+.1 V C'''''%,7,. R �— 1 ,. w. P r .,J n� tf Cot Phone O tp m a) ID 115 • 0 CO u o oT ▪ N c co co CL Q CDC z`'vm 3 a o • ca C Q Gp U Ln O Q. !11 CD CD © 0 3 ▪ tD O • 3 ) CP O L7cro C CD ® 5 Q o ▪ { Q 72. CA a toa s CD CL ;-31" m a 9 Lid 4111S0dOnd 111 JSMINDY 114011 111d PETITION AGAINST' THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City C ZIP Phone t-ITE1> Q 1111.wtE /ER /317i9 gRox 0 hoe- Slur 6„6S en /(,-)) Old sr0 a >' v E 1 l 1 S Cc r - . 9 4 / ,s - . i' c . r i Pi /_-fJ�Yi Iii 5. 2C C... • .5 S C NI it '- % t, l., - • 2 -'.ti/ `;4 ''1 €.-•r._--4.:k .' Lf -t-1 i[•. 1 f /3.' e. , .1 r''.� .1 14 h1 ,..i - i .:` �'''' 116 lrg i '1 �' •--17. I►l.= f r j • [ t L L r.., f 1 - . "r .�' . , :./r'' r' 't3 Y r-. " '' L ' 4 *" ' r/,', f� 'II -47- jy) • `3 `J h r IA r •.. r� . it •1 / '� f`!��` ' c ....! • s� � . 1 e'/�" rJ ,11r`' '' : i" '6. ., � 1�:.11(r'• 110 ' v.' ,•i i ” l (-.1 4.', 4/ ;• ' 10 s „--n-s. —lel oir, es, f 31 eoikkt;LcojA-hE.-- 84(34- (..,j- / E.-- \ ,TTIt ti ---31 r165 z- 6/8 -5 -EN_, (1.,.-7 , )i , l J, IFJ f i 6 r72_c. , , 1 ti b 1 . 'w 1 .1 bi I . t 1 J ;f' cr_ :— f _ • /,.. ,,, i i .>",:- r , )'i, /4! �/ f _' %[_ �G' C..I c11 ill 12. 1iiy /21) it' t0te/i7 c1 %/'1L. , f r �- i ,.f�,� v ,'. 4- ‘, VONJI i". _ rte,- -, -------- i .,..., --AY 2, C 197:5/ 5;71.16.1SZ1.; +''� r ,[off/ v/! V //(] 1J 0' -•, yi vt:LLL.. ailv-01.-- (i , , 1j . 1 104 l'1 SL `'11 'Y)6 �` I y ,�'IL`Y�'t'c_ L --curie lit r'o/V ./roar) is- ►.T(i11&( s 116 h 'Alike 4ue 11(01,5•D ' 77 -fl -a t-' v a r. - +- •� I Print Name i '�_ :///) � N. �'� . 11014i I. ..,, 1! (....,,\' I1 l■ f • ',.. rv�.� ., '� ; -1\ \ ?"\3 ,..1* r } '-..2.1, v4• \Z1/4 1 Ir.... Z4 \\1 [ :1 1 \r co 05 ao �...,i- ti Av ,`"`JN Y .... .--- .-;„..‘„:, f • S L n 'ti, --->-..J } • � r+J " =-.�.`- -r. _. yrs `` L- ` Z ' t big' W co �- t....., \ 1 S, m rill 42.1 IAC \ k l _ { c 1 Phone ®' CD Er, cp to SQ. -0 L3 IV CD 09 co co Fol Q C cA co - Ti • 6R Q' al C a Q 0 03 • c 0 • m ED 0 O 0 CO a ca • m 5t O LU V a3 -p. • ID - ID 8 a• = CD 0 • n- .-� Fn 3 m 1m FC c Q CI! tri0 � 0 IId 03]S0dOUd SILL ISMIVDV HOULLId P11111oN AGAINST TN! PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are oppose d to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. • Print Name SI nature Address City 1 ZIP Phone IDA)CZ. � i (f # r)eti!f Irl (,Ll 7 q 07c0 /22L ma& / i,','-,2`= '- 2?5,- 1'ir ort ► - I1& ' C� - , 3.f ?fit- )u A ' ri- O—: 3z3 C; r�r di so f ti--)- ,r?6 'jj V C k0ArttAi .--R ' Act,„„._ % /// j'c kn. f [\ Nit 511 .6 lijz.._ L1 5,,/,5 U, /6_55- -3 -1 . S la t i 5/,- ,1,, C,r ' iii �P �t ' Olaf ) � ..-71.4 aie .2 ).,,,,:, 1--W2d ,. , 13fhl w\\ ,,1`7, . 41,5;?6/_ a -' ,------ _ O t S L L? -.)66.:2 (5(sO !U[,i Wit, Lt {. Le" k. r' ' ', J L f 1 f l 1,6 i vvsz el6G- - '1, r Lt.t' t -at, Pe liy erd` 1.11 iv1&4iI L , J,JJ- i cc Itt-\. 4.). A\-- -. �`' , ('))l(iI t r- Li LE ) (/ '-) _, r'_ • ,. , tiu t 'f .rCGi� .�'/ 1 C., lei r 1'.•11.. fe /'t ,4; f`.) 45.1/r 14-07;2 PETITION AGAINST INK PROPOSE! PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment,. Print Name Sig ature/': Address CI 1 ZIP Phone z) FM AK .1... t i a a ark 1 Ivo{\itt J tp..r ' / _ r • 2q1 fJ. ma, Fjt„`‘ -/"I27 igot ///tei 9.5 r 7 P /,,,',F, .. /4 56 r kw Po4c ► catfmcita IP- " ? 0161,4x0( gut '1 %/ 2 - t'7 ?e } e• fol 6-LeZ -';: -1 pa (/``'7 / ` � ' 6(.. 2 q rit 1,0..,....,,.. . ... k /-_-? t / 0 ( /id? dell --'1 e' lg. s.-�� J ��sJ tt �+`=`t`. / Ar' 11-T r-r+,� 1t, {{k l - tVi�•' I .s�j�` .1 il l i r+ ti L At "LI Leif{ [1 1 1 a _ + t. ....at\. k LAI' 14-Lj t r I. r 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 SI mature _ Address ` City /ZIP , Phone E) t 1_, L c P , ,t,1 02,7r - p► i t 10' L -4* --1 it iA) Ks' I , v. -xiv: Sr'/63 0 etu.t7 6' S- tic. ' it RV:16 i,ic i',2-'.1css.Aos(NQ r L- .- -.,! -- ii. r oi. irt3 r OC* 410, A , 1� Z et -el .: 'i et.i. a��r• :' 5 (\ .3 T' -t,,, ,' { `'(1 - 'ICA 1 s -14" -so -)A1vco'Y\. f / % r" w fI r n Smarr. •! ) ,... t , f , T./ '"rr S[ / _ t; c) 16 .0 i .r (s -+ " }', la /16-41.1 _/r /J, ! }�'.1 �+', r, 1 )1/4,01 1 /s A1, it- (3 k L'k) ( 4k , )1 .:- A *, 1,4r r;re ,. - "14 IFY/1 . .0 Veche 7 � " �! L� zi-Ce p-2; `i 'TC r?43 -110 173 Mo IWt) 7, .e) ';`;',:e"" Aor 01,x 3 3' /'J.. b,� � _ r , f �8 "h4 5 . ..tea" t l" riz... " (i.4,4,b. '+ rrf)s c I. etweij.. o• b-,._,... 4,-.-----+' y Wt()., V ,+:L L rrt /2/4.4 :,. ,., f 5033 - 3 rr t 7 cr+lf `.D.!Dry ' 1. '� c r ) �M.a,., �, �� rr r `��' r'r gr11z 7 0 t�� e '" rt'il(-::'L 1 -16, -"NJ fi)l1,,t 1,:i. 4, ;,-/i,i(i- AL _ • 1' .,,,,,,, c, , L. 7 rj O SD m lam 5 comm CD = ao O % 0 on -13 0. c co CO Cl rt• 0 C • cD '0 wu„, W C? 0 m o 0. 0 co • m DDS W o 0 0 0 9 D 1.1 C V. co a m co E • Q . �. @ lj• Lid 1f150dOUd 11111 UMW MOULIN f. - . �y - • r \ i `_ -Iv _, \---. A ' t -- . bj -- rt 1 Print Name ir rs , res 71\ \. r I 1 -.• - i " ' A ‘ • \ 1,,._, -•-•••\:.,`. -'""---c,.. _ "� C c.„..... - r L. Signature k t .,,, r.".-, ....% P \• ft.... L .'"m4.•'' w i -t P. :). ( r 4.1 u' , �� ,,r.;"' v1 ` ... ;'�? U 'f 2 N t.. � ZP.•••.. ,' ......ILLk -4 ..c---.. A. 4).• i. Kiel �," 'I; _ St ', Iv 1 ,-J 1W Phone • rj O SD m lam 5 comm CD = ao O % 0 on -13 0. c co CO Cl rt• 0 C • cD '0 wu„, W C? 0 m o 0. 0 co • m DDS W o 0 0 0 9 D 1.1 C V. co a m co E • Q . �. @ lj• Lid 1f150dOUd 11111 UMW MOULIN 3 O cp tD - 5 to w C Fir 0 ID tr4 O. iA 0 CO 0. CDrr ao co ai C w .7-o Cl C • m 0 3 c) C c `2 d1 a C Q•- O SP' 11 m O G go a m CO n 001(0 a co m QCO Cr 3 3•'© C ��i (a 12. w 5 0. O it Cr CD 1:71 0 SI =o 0 CO a P111110/I AGAINST IRE PROPOSED PIT `,1, � `,C � - �t 1! , �.i P. _ l : ewBN Mid 1 it �a S r' y ,,- °" it N. k\I-7•N :r1^ r. , n ' r.I _ 14 ' LAS % f:`. .-.-.+ Signature ) J ,, ;\ L` r` Com. .% IL, ' --.:; .,\ 4 .g. . '''\ -; C•4 e"--1----. N, - '` ' ,1:4. -) r`;. ''"--.. _:. •fir Address '` t y 1 (~ ,Th A r - -, • 1. _ r. r •i. r :- . TA, leeN,r r '. h CA '� tit r ^. (0/ \'''sg . '",,, r`+ i. AN fir, '' '* ti . r.,- r - _(r . c.^ C_?, )".... 3 , , , , , \„ , IL- ' IN 17j43" 3 O cp tD - 5 to w C Fir 0 ID tr4 O. iA 0 CO 0. CDrr ao co ai C w .7-o Cl C • m 0 3 c) C c `2 d1 a C Q•- O SP' 11 m O G go a m CO n 001(0 a co m QCO Cr 3 3•'© C ��i (a 12. w 5 0. O it Cr CD 1:71 0 SI =o 0 CO a P111110/I AGAINST IRE PROPOSED PIT Pirniow *{GMNST 1111 PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit end 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 Nam e - Signature Address City / ZIP ' Phone ' Dcgn el-yY(�l ,,l .'evii.i ip .., 01-/C:7 ci[ c26( 3,‘ 5/01'Cr -;171 - 176` i 574-6 -- fes `'= iL'7!e` ..._.6.. 774fre 6' Q t� 5 6704? ,,,A.- 41L.: fi w - jo ! 1 . !'l uor 04,:.7 7 ' -‘ ( `r Ct �'' 2 /3 1176 -le if -t-.6. 71,.-2'4r r (04)112/2/ nl s� fel ( . g ,,,4 S 114/1 1, 1, - .-. r7 4- 1r /01(1 WI e" . Jr :, I �' 4twite40-1<-.� { �p Lf k&j J�/yl J� S J��7 (D2 3 SS R.L 1 f�� .�� �T/ Ifri1.�'t,.4T fll LYS ^� b 32_, V • PETITION AGAINST ThI PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are ©goosed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse Impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name SI! n = / Address City 1 ZIP Phone CHR 0 uTH vv is 6-6' 3 C,C .3 // w c iiit s r LE 816 47 97°-e7'6— 5832- 832- ".4, �% " IA�r Cho c. 'G1)4 alt. aria.. -,64,/c.- 52 2-3 3 7t -age , L Give 3�roie—s,as - 81,661 928 dd57 S.J24,1L4aL sa0'9 414'c/74 -(i /0.7kiC k Cc 4 i/ 1z� 4t[`._MvUI'C3 J--(-/ R- I?, CO E/6 50 64, j td +? s- XF l/Cs-nuc •fe4 1,0 nc ' S ,, , ,q,d 1 'x`15-13 q iii 3'S dortiLl .5i,, ni.k,`'f ,� ifinrie P o R )&--q 3 5 g /lac1 P41 i`.. ) L35 a4'35 c. g5 -76 7 / `! '4 AI oi/1it - { 6.3,Y # 4 lc if G, 4.. Aid ,f �c, 5' /6,!-0 62-s--- V71 Bob Regulski ie Milos" Mid Val* drive • 1tlw. Castle, Colorado 81647 Telephone: (970) 625 -2410 -work January 26, 2001 TC): Garfield ('cunt], l'huininwg 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 ofa 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 he avoided if the pit were to open. I operate a tandem dump truck and purchase thousands of tons of gravel annually from local pits where the service. quality, and prices are great. With more competition. the existing pits may suffer. I already have two pits within one mile of my home. The public has no idea of the pollution these pits and concrete plants create. There are usually tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel stored in tanks. trucks, and equipment on site. There is potential for disaster if there is an accident. flood, or a spill in the river. Most of the trucks and pieces of equipment in use will leak hydraulic fluid. oil or antifreeze. When they no longer run or are in an accident. they are abandoned in the pit. The gravel crushers. trucks. and equipment will echo noise across our valley. The dust from this project is itrtpossible to stop. The dust clouds will blow in the wind and could cause a accident on I-70 or the frontage road. On the whole. this project will have a negative effect on our community. lower property values. and hinder future responsible development. Please do not allow this project to be approved. Sincerely. se#61L Bob Regulski /Enclosure _.5.� RECENEDFEB 2B.2 0 David dad Renee Miller Joel arta Frances Miller 1577 County Road 335 New Cast14, Colorado 81647 970-876-2205 Dear GarCo Board of Commissioners: February 28, 2001 We are writing to you to voice our concern about a proposed gravel pit operation near our property. We stand with our neighbors in opposition to this development and strongly urge you to deny the permit. We are certainly not against development when it is done in a responsible manner with an eye for how it impacts one's neighbors. We believe this development will negatively affect the people who live in this area, including us. We are concerned that a gravel pit will create the following adverse conditions: —noise and dust pollution --lower property values —visual pollution, i.e. an eyesore —destruction of wildlife habitat - -increased traffic - -a spirit of ill --will among our neighbors These are just a few of our concerns regarding this matter. Again, we stand united with our neighbors on this proposed development and ask for you to Stop the Pit for the best interests of our community. Sincerely, David Miller COMMIS CNS AfJUINST 1111 MT Cummunityt Mooing m Or2) -�Lg % �•'—.'rT - � � •„fir' -+ Ili-. i I 1 0 N w 4 V i �r $ 41 • Y i tet 2 11111 I r k k � ., ,. , fl IIs f g4 , ...... _. COMMIS CNS AfJUINST 1111 MT Cummunityt Mooing m Or2) -�Lg Airy v Ty. a CP •rr rrre to -r1—• • 11.1 �D 1� /14i :on Pi tt 111 cd ie L 7 f CI Co! p L; Y p r. iy a tim ;14.1:i 1 6.;4_,),7_, ,..._ ,.,; 1 M _%1 i.,, is 411Z -CE VED FEB t 8 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 Signature Address City / ZIP Phone J a ne Arles, ctul:kG '15r61 '(- 30fk.e�_1 -1 PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT 1 1 2 {i 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 -4-.7z 7- J�r- 4{7 C7 L.. ► �'/Vii c 2 36' 00/Ai Z)/ ;,rl. T 8/6$2.A. f 70 -7‘..3-8.F. ; Ile -00 Mr? c /y7# 6f•aSv., 5/o &c#01/E4 s 5e- I,/6 9 76 Pe -5 1 .;..._ A, 7 ,A�.A., 5/U atm rho S3e..7 / , v� 5 . "2 ,a( 6),fr �Y7G 74 ,4. , ' sr�-r A R p i ., N. -r,(17 tr ,, �, ,i ' J �& PiLowi,,,xi ..1.-14-2"4 l -i y�z rs PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT RECEIVEUFF.B?9 I' 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 IIC SI • nature ...AL, Address Cit 1 ZIP Phone OW IOW _siLlis giteoz AP S7? c) --6` 0 va 1,v (1.__.) . ,c, .c) 4 06 _5 k 1 PETITION AGAINST IRE PROPOSED PIT Wasp FEB 2 0 1 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 fI"i7 7*-.-) Address /° c" !1 ci' K� S _ City /ZIP S r % / $l Phone �✓ >e......;/c4 L ,,,, 0, rj / *lc dr.fre, cs . ,�. ;Lj _S lI C 114;,';' (L) s" ' * � I i "kJ % fr J , / 7 LIG „,%• O y4'rr�j (Ink.t 7— CA:vt$ t 9 a_ i. ' "4 L ' I 1/1 qv>, al - -17a-14.2-37Z-0(?Z_ hk j vin - ,\,,_ ot- - Rt) r` c` -,,c L# 33 <7 ,1 Co -Fc 8 S. n `5-361 /,I . _ /. rr 4. 1' .- (-j ]--- C 1i ` { d"' ay' G1 / Lam'eri k 0 r 'V tifivi- i,40)Ai . )46/c-- _t -*AN\ \90( 1 _Ai Oct lif--- ■ PETITION AGAINST TME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant prow 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 i 1 / : ,,rj 4 1 �C Kf J • ' 1� t_fi".. �` i / 7 S , , if f'(. Y {+" RJ / ,'`� - P` ! L 00-7 11/ �r-�� I L'A43 C-• li � A14. • l .. v6 1 6o.c G tv�C+ 4Q„v, cl'LT 3' �.. '6 • s'9/F -----D1i , I, Gly o u2, brairt - 105z +$ 71,2•57E '''c---i/A----"\?v\,IllaA.,N --c2e,r:34ic-A, ,44\--- -9 D .., x a ,i, s GZ ,-C: ic c;,,s.- 15'N b(A \,_.-\<C1--,\\,---_---A..a-c&J- - P, o • SO Y i i r li g 2o -7)101 P "'7?in1 13H c v . igx ZD I S r c- Y, , q7 , 2 D5 - - --20,,,I - 'C 7-0 Z fel . 41W irI F76 zS HURON AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT RECEIVED FEB 2 3 2001 We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt, This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name ' Signature Address City I ZIP Phone (40(c -t e hur rIV kE,(4 0/64 Chrili ki4/ r i 311 Oa' a ,e, 0 03 U°1 qq7—W2 1 Acky)., AT y i'_', ,_/. lR!i y (Gf /f CIoL;,,Ja , Sf! f.' C,evf6:;) 20 4$s- il(+'_`/`s 4 . ,,) 3,d_ i._ /01/4..0.42 \ l 0 , i 1,-,--)1/,cd-i-44, 100 Li7 614 Ave -1.1 -I— ..yiAi fArr5"v,-.e"'"'-------igke; 700 - G -,w,1 Co 00(0 0/ 9y) --..00/7y Pli\-6,q 1:1 Plo f /1.,,ti„,, A/ c) 3'1 -ILli fiLD ii,(y ci-es,bw L?flAJ, , 6-4s,-_--/4... Di ,ii [.f' 5t, /T(4 C o d767 9IY--" 5 .�L r/ 2,',,t( La `64 5, • 6 OA '2"-2 j c._ ‘-..i ) ifj 'L q i 6 ct 7 c'i- -?LIC. fy 7 gc-t-ef — _ '--_- I -ix rat 5 fl c_ teL,,,e, r c144,47 e/-7- Il Q.-- 5lit Y A ij rIefE 2: r i :.- - =, ,2 5 Yde44 $ °'3 61 t no L (-,'6,'Y- cYr 111 -,.la HO ilt5Opi ; _ IO5 LIM-- 51E, 1/05 *col rT15000 fp--___, /at 122. --./..--2Ae __ itity40-7L a..)--7-3--- Ae-A- gull+.Aof 95 ri ; G4,,, ,1/2_ Imo-. CA(0. 6(14 Sly _ 674,s--dS fciUt .nc\e, v.i ery-4 D3 C \n Cd gLIA-c-17(0ip' ryn j-7 PETITION AGAINST TUE PROPOSED Pik' ,. We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt z, Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. RECEiVEO FEB 2 8 2001 Name Signature Address City ! ZIP Phone _Print I PL 5piWDtA/ c, _ ;4-7-13 ( 4/ 114/ (l ^ 4 r (It- 5' z 97 B7v - t L� ,.i440 "a*- �.. - _(__c; %=74,/J,4 7:3? -/,',64-,, /e r C 1 '2'.-: -73/-61/-e7:',4,....9 C- ai,04,0 J. xro'o IV Ji.73‘ ' ; 5 -Let -1 876 03 rhe ':' ' '- -P-i--) (\.J i ( IAR Atlr��E,9J6 -516.2_ P1)\PI; C:V? 1/41---7914:44<r- r6( 24+ 3)Li- 1/12 4 t7-4 0.1,5,-.r ei()cz J ii - 5--t)-142 SeRm , I'') -,2)------(4-1N, 0674 Pi‘ Sc,c 5 L:7, e7 -C -02 z ) (-4,-- 44 P A-4 ii moi ,. d 1 +Gt 4i) e:2 2 6 8 Z `�i 1e L r ,il 711-FGI /Cd ii -14f14) / 4, ell ILi i«!se.1d /14/1- /4-/(4---• l J/ (-7. frail_/ill, r1 ,1 S-t'4i11ICi- ',CQ - )).111.4,,c urifyutcity P. (iI 3 3 7- r PETITION AGAINST ITIE 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 �Afil Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the er'fvji � FIB 2 ti Print Name Signature Address 033 i z3 7 City / ZIP Si i -F S1 b3-2... Phone g7L--Sys o c # , ) ) (....INA:. LI '.. ....:;'‘. -, AL ri" ki J.JE it?ri2,0-71 i 4Z. °vie? dr:OteZel.14-C7 47‘4'"C7_'5C-:_.(: ]':/ :) 0 I j12 l`"1 .4-LA.,deog 4kr&:_' � 0 3 / I ' '11` V,�u,.) f] 7 C,--0 C-2,1-4'5 ! / Tom,/ 1t 1' 33/ /t. b2 re', jOblAik , LAIR/6w ,_ / ,' ,`L h ,„, 71 1 ) >.3 / e/ i 1 -, ,ecI ,--elle 1 ( -fri:/r- ' /ISt L iic ave S; l f- ?/661 E A -2791 NI V . r.I) i (5.Ke,1 J , 11 c _ ,I (D 5R ?lb- 5a9 ),.\ X t}/4) A ' 1_5•t\ cc t Af L ,e i-2 e w Ligd77402.,i1 / JJj y /t, 62-d O C 135ee , ...)1 ' Co leed 5/6, 6 ?x 7 -2/Jc LAI (I/ -c x.1=5 4(21 01 f,ffieaCt7h, 0 /35-C. le . X ( rro 31652. ` ?r6 -,x.110 Ch 6 it ilk Iiifli11 5 eco e ci 50, , Z y - Hi 0-3,t s PETITION RGRIWST 111E PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. 291 RECEIVED 1 - Print Name Signature Address `f �c '\3 03 ►^ J '' .+ . R. . CI / ZIP woe ii, i`31oa [ Phone TV(-- S45 -581 6E-kdk-fl A -fo 1u L. NAC itkL . -CNib a .. '110 41, r `) Or ) - 1) ? P4 l /9`" tri 1041 Ca jC 6 w CIEq - o 9 Yr- ? vac 141,9 61,1 ) f, (f- /4/106C-fed&I,,,„ :Ikw041 exex 1 rfq tioot biz 68,ctiZs yko 0(0' sr'' le, a i n&Q- I `l bt- t J} „r „ Si- &LADsco'81 cii "c- f, tel. i' 0,erio,bi# ist,ii 1! f fir, - I ,J [div -)c. icf, -ylr c TitS-GV? ORT HD 1 J4f44, all( il q 6040c06erf 'iol-ie i I JC Wo,\A \ NM" J,JYC9QP , /4*. zoici. 6-45woo Z7 ( k A. . 1 28 `2 '<:-410 A GI' 41044'1"i 67Y 6 6'6'4 ,pir 44re ..-S , 1--Zz 1 - 'PL.- X2/1- IC It= c;;' 1-(7 14,9N. 6//10--fizi /a; 4. i & 5 A listc/e- .---.7' ( z 2 (7.- -75, .„ D _ -A....., VC 6- , c7i s 9e- 291 PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT RECEIVED FEB 2 8 20C N-7111 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 j14-7,0 ?D_ 60)e /691C. 2 / -eZ 6.-7--.3)S ‘S` -1-1)?-)6?- (34D14 Ci.v.,6,11=Plooan . 17) c 1 X V dfd 1414522X. k6 5 *. `lam, ,. \ k 7%'r�' c,j,, 1 CJ _ 4 7 ' f� c /0 " x' 65. , <'�"6- 7'+41 ---R t C ct ctiNci_ _ 5-7- (." , be", -5-d74,ccr,D, 6_57,2r,-, _ 4 drial 54, - ir•- 1.77/F 07-1.24 im 46( YA 6 / Wier' k. `�., ���� lel 1 � � �.0-� �-�'ij6O2;S`-0 /$2 ' 11 86 leg' 5iii glie _Z4 . „4 e9 f - /Z V ,8 q 37; ji 4e.," . S re v JR / 'i --s:;(`',/,'Iver (- - 67b y ‘7(.1,1- 77/ / 47;9: ---ir/31 _12:roil' Cit„,fri t" 11- 5 ir...-a&---p-c : rs Wpss l .��` S R �, e 5 a r �- CA--/C)A , = - Co c t..1b e Sif—co 276 o3,2 -� - r RECEIVED FEB 2 g 20 i PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name S'• ature Address City ! ZIP Phone _�' ,k 75 aa.<, *-- ,--/ a. ---A-2 oce4 COLVIAti 9 4S -le -Ci // 1 /V g7/0 ,#i/ Z etfAT S/z-i— Flop , C16.4 940 ,rn7'v77U3/ /i4g E n! 9.e0 O43•Lo,r? /1/ Gar flu, 1LS2 - 2o31 1 q 1 a C: '�'jY' + c .iciu-61c' ail jar vcr%CPA_ r`7 C7A"�'ieLAW Ft' ii6Y1 " - n _t 1 it , . .= 1 r 0602c„ 0 if /e ei ',� g � � v 11'4 'Sp( -o5 .N4 t� i o U I . �• 1 Itt_ 44&__ C'. Com. (: 6,...A0 C, 5113 $1 to Lt `-) 903 -9+S ` S--) b-2117 o (6 "1 +4/ S x (__Z 1L� �' C.�� w,a r-. q S ,mac A, • A ifIgic S rune"' nAi 77490tt eq50j fasMve, gific Vei, co 6,,,T-ii/o4 RECEIVED FEB 2 $ 2011 PET111OH 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. Print Name Si nature Address , rel rr City 1 ZIP 5r C i 31 forg Phone og , ., • ; ' _ �.k •49)(e— .i f/ f! s'o /x 'J 7,"-!/://:1-0,! Y {f l ��Nie �6 VLC . efAi 2. ,. t)76 ttt dANS T7C/azZ__ r) FJ� 4%ffJ1{ iq.j % /lam_] q+±`I4]�n' /_ g/65 -2:,976-5-q/ RECEJVED FEB 2 Ati FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL To: Donna Daniels ---Post Independent Ben Gagnon—Roaring Fork Sunday Theresa Hamilton—Citizens Telegram Mike McKibbin—The Sentinel FAX: f .C4' FROM: Concerned Citizens Against the Pit DATE: 02/27/01 RE: Information Sheet PAGES: 10 Cc: 1oC-C- Dear Folks: In the interest of fairness and accuracy, we residents of Garfield County would like to provide with our position on the gravel pit and concrete batch proposed at the east entrance of Silt. As you are aware there has been much attention paid to this application and we would appreciate your taking the time to consider our viewpoint. All documentation referenced herein, with the exception of the Aggregate Resources Roundtable Report, is on file with the Garfield County Planning Department and/or the District Court Clerk's office. History of the application Western Slope Aggregates. Inc. of Carbondale originally submitted an application for a Special Use Permit to the County in February of 2000, which was approved on June 20, 2000. At the June 20th hearing and two subsequent BOCC meetings (on July 10th and July 24th), the Town of Silt and neighbors of the proposed project repeatedly requested an extension of the process in order to allow public input. It was felt by those who would be most impacted by the project that insufficient referrals had been made and that more time was needed in order to allow substantive review of the application. All requests for such extension were denied by the BOCC. Due to the lack of responsiveness from the BOCC and the applicant, the Town of Silt was Forced to file suit for a preliminary injunction in order to allow them, and the rest of the public, adequate time to consider the impacts of this project. Due to various deficiencies surrounding the public notice and referral of this application, the 9th District Court awarded the Town of Silt this preliminary injunction (Case No. 00 CV 203 & 203-A). A settlement of this dispute was reached between all parties to the lawsuit in December 2000. Part of this settlement included a rescission of the application by WSA, a rescission of the BOCC resolution approving the application (No. 2000-62), review by the P&Z Commission (which was not undertaken with the original application), and public hearings. Current Status The application was re -submitted in January 2001 and the public process was formally initiated. The GarCo Planning staff has now recommended denial of the application, the Town of Silt passed a formal resolution recommending denial (No 4 Series of 2001), and the P&Z unanimously recommended denial at a public hearing on February 14, 2001. The concern now is that the Board of County Commissioners, who have already approved this application once it took a lawsuit by the Town of Silt to re -open it for public input—will do so again, contrary to the professional opinion of the GarCo Planning staff, the P&Z Commission, the Town of Silt, and the wishes of the approximately 580 residents of Garfield County who have signed petitions opposing this project. Substantive Issues The following items enumerate the myriad ways in which this application does not comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and with the Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended. It should be remembered that this is an application for a "special use," not a "use by right," within the relevant Agricultural/Industrial zone classification, and is subject to the highest level of review. ■ The proposed mine would be located in an established agricultural and residential community. It would negatively affect the desirability of the immediate neighborhood, create a nuisance to surrounding areas, and alter the established character of the entire community. • It would drastically impair the stability and value of existing adjacent properties. One resident has undertaken a professional market analysis of his property to assess potential property de -valuation and the results are staggering. • It would be a heavy industrial use in an area with identified "severe environmental constraints." The project site is within an ecologically fragile and important riparian area. ■ As this mine is located in the floodplain and would pump ground water 24 -hours a day, there is a risk of damage to, and alteration of, the natural drainage. It also has the potential to negatively impact the Town of Silt's water intake, both with sedimentation and by potentially lowering the water table. There is no hydrological study in the public record that addresses these impacts, impacts to nearby wells, or potential ground subsidence. • The applicant has not demonstrated an ability to mitigate impacts from dust and noise to neighbors. Dust from this project, in particular, has the potential to blow significant amounts of "fines" across 1-70, thereby creating a potential hazard to motorists. Above and beyond safety issues, this project would have considerable impact on a particularly valuable "viewshed corridor" (I-70) • The GarCo Comprehensive Plan also states that °[Cjounty land use policies will be consistent with local land use policies and objectives"—this project is neither, and it is in direct conflict with the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan. The Market for Aggregates in Garfield County Everyone recognizes that aggregates are a necessary resource for modern life and the suggestion is not being made that gravel pits and concrete plants should disappear from our horizon altogether. However, one of the primary issues raised in the GarCo Comprehensive Plan process was that the "[C]ounty must be proactive in reacting to market conditions that will impact the level, location and scale of mineral extraction within the County."' With this statement, Garfield County has assumed responsibility for undertaking the requisite research to develop sound, considered land use policies. No geological survey of commercial mineral resources, akin to the Aggregate Resources Roundtable Report prepared for Jefferson County, Colorado by the Colorado School of Mines, exists for Garfield County. No professional studies have been performed to assess not just the location of commercially feasible deposits, but the quality of material that may or may not be available. Unfortunately, Concerned Citizens Against the Pit has been put in the position of assuming the burden of proof about supply and demand of this resource, and attempted to collect what data is available. A report prepared by Half Moon Resources, Inc. an our behalf is also attached here. The results of this research are that there is, in fact, no immediate need for additional gravel operations. Again, this is not to say that future pits will not be necessary, but that there is adequate time to complete a survey and develop a master plan for natural resource extraction. Having this information would definitely allow GarCo to "be proactive in reacting to market conditions," in that the highest quality deposits can be protected for development as they become necessary, and appropriate zoning can be instituted to avoid these seemingly infinite controversies over compatible uses. Designating areas within the County for commercial mineral development, based on sound science and market analyses, would allow more appropriate decision making all around. Based on the same issues currently facing Garfield County, the City of Steamboat Springs and Routt County have instituted a moratorium on aggregate mining in their area and are currently undertaking a geological survey and other appropriate studies in order to facilitate responsible decisions. There are many similarities between our regions and we could do well to learn from each other and share resources. if you have any questions regarding the material included here, please feel free to contact any of the following steering committee members, or our consultant„ Alicia Bell-Sheeter of Half Moon Resources, Inc. at 876.2759. Sincerely, Concerned Citizens Against the Pit Jeannie Long & Rick Locke Ruth & Brad Mollman Ann & David Nicholson Bob Regulski Ham & Donna DuBois ASSESSMENT OF TILE WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PART I: SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATES SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PART II: APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES PREPARED FOR CONCERNED CITIZENS AGAINST THE PIT BY ALICIA BELL-SHEETER HALF MOON RESOURCES, INC, 13 FEBRUARY 2001 Part I: Summary Analysis of Aggregates Supply and Demand for Garfield County, Colorado Introduction In the absence of any formal study of the commercial aggregate resource in Garfield County, the information included in this report represents a "best professional estimate" of supply and demand for aggregates in this region. This analysis is based on data collected from various sources, primarily the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG), the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (APCD), and a study prepared by the Colorado School of Mines for the Jefferson County, Colorado Planning Department (CSM report).' The goal of this analysis is an attempt to illustrate current reserves based on best available data. While interpretation of these results is somewhat flexible given variances in data reporting, even the conservative estimates provided here demonstrate that there are enormous reserves currently available in Garfield County. Supply Of the 26 operations in Garfield County listed with active DMG permits, production limits are available for only 13. The APCD permitted production levels for these current reserves total 6,784,088 tons per year. 2 Much of these data are "self-reported" by aggregate operators and so the assumption is made that these figures are inflated. Therefore, in the interest of making the most conservative estimate, production quantities have been adjusted downward, quite drastically_ All annual supply and demand figures herein are thus based on 25 percent of this figure, or 1,696,022 tons of production per years An important point to remember, however, is that these production data represent only 50 percent of total operations in the county. Therefore current production could actually far exceed the more conservative estimate of 1,696,022 tons per year. As a side note, there are applications pending for 3 additional operations in Garfield County. A secondary issue of concern that is beyond the scope of this analysis is the adverse economic impact that these potential additions could have on existing operations. ' Nassar, Khalil, "Supply/Demand Analysis of Aggregates in the Denver Metro Area," in Aggregate Resources Roundtable Report= Findings and Recommendations. Prepared for the Jefferson County, Colorado Planning Department and found at http:lfco.jefferson.co.usldptlplanninglagg-supply-demand (12107100). 2 See page 5, "Summary Production Data for Selected Operations in Garfield County." 3 This cumulative number represents primarily sand, gravel, and other aggregates (rock, dirt, etc.). No figures are included for cement or asphalt production. Additionally, no figures are included for "single project" operations (111 permits). Demand The CSM report provides consumption estimates for the Denver Metro Area ranging from 8.5 to 11 tons per capita, per year. While consumption pattern in Garfield County are no doubt different than those on the Front Range, the higher figure of 11 tons per year has been used as the basis of this analysis. This figure has also been used as the more conservative option, and there is no evidence available that this number should be further adjusted upward. The CSM report also states that while various factors affect aggregate consumption, the most closely correlated is population. As the most recent census data for Garfield County are not yet available, population estimates for 1994, 1996, 1998, and 1999 were used. Garfield County Population Estimates Population % Change 1994 31,231 1996 35,338 + 11.63 1998 37,627 + 6.09 1999 40671 + 7.49 Population in Garfield County would have to reach 154,184 in order to keep apace with a current production level of 1,696,022 tons per year. Based on the above figures, i.e., an average annual growth rate of 8.4%, Garfield County will not reach this population level until sometime in 2015. Major capital projects and unusual population increases could, of course, cause spikes in consumption. Yet again, data provided here represent only 50 percent of cun-ent reserves, i.e., there is no evidence at this point that such needs could not be satisfied. Additionally, per the DMG there are several currently idle operations with active permits that could be brought into production at any time. Conclusion Based on the above analysis it is entirely reasonable to state that current aggregate reserves are more than adequate to meet the needs of Garfield County well into the future. This analysis, however, is based an very limited data. While this fact does not diminish the reliability of the data, it most definitely illustrates the glaring need for future research into this resource and how best to manage its development. In the interest of well-informed decisions and the public health and welfare, it is imperative that Garfield County initiates appropriate studies to determine what the cumulative needs of this county are. There is ample time to develop a master plan for natural resource extraction, which also has the potential to mitigate continued controversies over incompatible and inappropriate land uses. A U.S. Bureau of the Census, USA Counties, found at http://www.census.gov/statab (02113/01) and http://www.census.govlpopulationlestimates/county/co-99-1199C1_08.txt (02/13/01). 2 Summary of Aggregate, Concrete, and Sand, & Gravel Operations in Garfield County5 Total operations in GarCo: Total operations in western GarCo: Total operations known in Silt/Rifle area:6 Permit Type7 Operator 112 Central Aggregates 111 Central Aggregates8 9 Casey Concrete 9 Casey Concrete 112 Dick Casey Concrete 112 Elam Construction 110 Flag Resources, Inc. 112 Flag Resources, Inc, 110 Garfield County 110 Garfield County 112 Grand Junction Pipe Grand River Construction 112 Grant Bros_ Construction 112 J.W. Earthmoving, Inc. 112 Roaring Fork Sand & Gravel 9 Roaring Fork Aggregates Roaring Fork Aggregates'° 112 Roaring Fork Resources, Inc. 9 Rocky Mountain Redi-Mix 9 Rocky Mountain Redi-Mix 112 United Companies of Mesa Co. 111 United Companies of Mesa Co. 111 Umetco 112 Western Mobile Northern 112 Western Mobile Northern 112 Western Mobile Northern 112 Western Slope Aggregates 110 William F. Clough 26 (+ 3 pending in Silt/Rifle area) 17 11 (+ 3 pending) Mine/Operation Name West Rifle Pit West Rifle Pit 0242 CR 104 0406 CR 104 Casey Concrete Pit Chambers Gravel Pit Goldman Gravel Pit Silt Pit Cattle Creek Pit Grand Valley Pit Una Pit 3794 CR 109 Loesch Pit Ortiz Gravel Pit Powers Pit 14156 Hwy 82 NW SE SEC 32 T5S Union Carbide Pit 14156 Hwy 82 23704 Hwy 6&24 MMM/Chambers Pit Koch Pit Macauley Pit Dere Pit Mahaffey Pit Sievers Pit Slue Pit Mile Pond Gravel Pit SizelAcreage 5. Data derived from Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology operator database (January, 2001) and permit records of the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Does not include asphalt operations. 6. See maps prepared by Western Slope Consulting. 7. 110 permit - less than 10 acres; 111 permit - special operations (usually a single protect); 112 permit - regular operations. 8. Counted as a single operation. 9. Data incomplete or riot available. 10. Possibly same as previous facility No included in count of total operations. 22.00 5.00 68.10 53.10 8.50 170.70 8.00 3.00 162.10 511.30 49.00 93.90 81.80 119.80 9,50 25.40 16.00 58.00 122.90 82.70 6.30 Summary of Aggregate, Concrete, and Sand, & Gravel Operations Pending in Garfield County" Total operations pending in GarCo: 3 Total operations pending in western GarCo: 3 Total operations pending in Silt/Rifle area: 3 Permit Type72 Operator Mine/Operation Name Size/Acreage 110 Asphalt Paving Co, 112 Roaring Fork Resources 112 West. Slope Aggregates Silt Pd Mamm Creek S&G Peterson Pit 11. Data derived from Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology operator database (January, 2001) and the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health and Environment 12. 110 permit - less than 10 acres: 111 permit - special operations (usually a single project): 112 permit - regular operations. 9.70 320x00 41.07 4 Summary Production Data for Selected of Aggregate, Concrete, and Sand, & Gravel Operations in Garfield County''' Total annual production permitted in GarCo: 6,784,088 tons/year Operator Mine/Operation Name Tons per year Central Aggregates West Rifle Pit 70,000 Dick Casey Concrete Casey Concrete Pit 60,000 40,000 60,000 Subtotal 160,000 Elam Construction Chambers Gravel Pit 50.000 Flag Resources, Inc. Silt Pit 600,000 200,000 Subtotal 800,000 Grand River Construction 3794 CR 109 100,000 Grant Bros. Construction Loesch Pit 350,000 Roaring Fork Sand & Gravel Powers Pit 555,000 Roaring Fork Aggregates 14156 Hwy 82 250,000 190,000 250,000 70,000 Subtotal 760,000 United Companies of Mesa Co. MMMIChambers Pit 600,000 900,000 Subtotal 1,500,000 United Companies of Mesa Co. Koch Pit 209,088 Western Mobile Northern Sievers Pit 80,000 Western Slope Aggregates Blue Pit 500.000 500,000 650,000 Subtotal 1,650,000 William F. Clough Mile Pond Gravel Pit 500,000 Total 6,784,088 13. Data provided by the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Heatth and Environment Not all operations In GarCo have reported data or been inspected. 5 Summary Production Data for Selected of Aggregate, Concrete, and Sand, & Gravel Operations in Garfield County" Operator Tons Tons Mine/Operation Name 100% 75% Tons 50% Tons 25% Central Aggregates West Rifle Pit 70,000 52,500 35,000 17,500 Dick Casey Concrete Casey Concrete Pit 60,000 40,000 60,000 1 60 , 000 120,000 80,000 40,000 Elam Construction Chambers Gravel Pit 50,000 7,500 25,000 2,500 Flag Resources, Inc. Silt Pit 600,000 200,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Grand River Construction 3794 CR 109 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 Grant Bros. Construction Loesch Pit 350,000 262,500 175,000 87,500 Roaring Fork Sand & Gravel Powers Pit 555,000 416,250 277,500 138,750 Roaring Fork Aggregates 1 41 56 Hwy 82 250,000 190,000 250,000 70,000 760,000 570,000 380,000 190,000 United Companies of Mesa Co. MMM/Chambers Pit 600,000 900,000 1,500.000 1,125,000 750.000 375,000 United Companies of Mesa Co. Koch Pit 209,088 156,816 104,544 52,272 Western Mobile Northern Sievers Pit 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Western Slope Aggregates Blue Pit 500,000 500,000 650,000 1,650,000 1,237,500 825,000 412,500 William F. Clough Mile Pond Gravel Pit 500,000 375,000 250,000 125,000 rota/ 6,784,088 5,088,066 3,392,044 1,696,022 13. Data provided by the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Not all operations in GarCo have reported data or been inspected. 6 Annual consumption rates at 11 tons per capita Tons Annual Surplus at Consumed 25% of Perrnitted Production Year Population + 8.4% Population Annually (50% of operations) 1999 40,671 3,416 44,087 447,381 1,248,641 2000 44,087 3,703 47,791 484,961 1,211,061 2001 47,791 4,014 51,805 525,701 1,170,321 2002 51,805 4,352 56,157 569,855 1,126,167 2003 56,157 4,717 60,874 617,727 1,078,295 2004 60,874 5,113 65,987 669,614 1,026,408 2005 65,987 5,543 71,530 725,857 970,165 2006 71,530 6,009 77,539 786,830 909,192 2007 77,539 6,513 84,052 852,929 843,093 2008 84,052 7,060 91,112 924,572 771,450 2009 91,112 7.653 98,765 1,002,232 693,790 2010 98,765 8,296 107,061 1,086,415 609,607 2011 107,061 8,993 116,054 1,177,671 518,351 2012 116,054 9,749 125,803 1,276,594 419,428 2013 125,803 10,567 136,370 1,383,833 312,189 2014 136,370 11,455 147,825 1,500,070 195,952 2015 147.825 12,417 160,242 1,626,075 69,947 7 Cc;o. P57 Part Il: Application Deficiencies Application for Special Use Permit—Peterson Gravel Pit—February 2000 including April 19, 2000 Supplement and January 2, 2001 Supplement The above documentation was reviewed for completeness and the following thirty-eight items represent documentation not submitted, issues not addressed, and/or internal inconsistencies in the application as submitted. These items include only those representations made by the applicant and are not necessarily inclusive of Garfield County Zoning Resolution requirements or compliance with any Comprehensive Plans). Given the extent of these omissions it is unclear why this application is under consideration by Garfield County at this time. Infrastructure/Structures: 1 No plans/specifications or permits submitted for construction or placement of scales or control/sales house. 2. No plans/specifications submitted for construction of street improvements. 3. No approved Access Permit submitted. 4. No traffic impact analysis and/or mitigation plan submitted. Water: 5. No approved augmentation plan submittedi.e., no "dewatering permit" issued. 6. No documentation of "change of use" adjudication from dedicated irrigation and/or domestic water to industrial use submitted. 7. Conflicting water rights documentation submitted—documentation of augmentation rights listed with an 1897 priority; documentation of "shares dedicated" for augmentation purposes are dated 1956 to 1958. 8. No well or other permit submitted for process water or concrete batch plant. Application does not include a, "[Djetailed description of any use, other than evaporation, and method of diversion, rate of diversion, and annual amount of diversion of any water withdrawn from the pond." 9. Gravel Pit Well Permit addresses evaporative losses only (and only for mining area). 10. No approved Gravel Pit Well Permit submitted. 11. No augmentation plan submitted for the two additional ponds for recycling of process water (see "Stormwater Management Plan"). 12. No domestic well permit submitted in re repeated references to "domestic well water" for gravel pit and batch plant operations. 13. No permit submitted for "limited domestic uses." 8 Water quality: 14. Incomplete permit submitted ----not possible to accurately assess compliance with CDPHE WQCD requirements. 15. No baseline documentation submitted of water quality (Discharge Monitoring Report submitted is illegible)----NPDES Permit requires salinity (TDS) monitoring. No monitoring/analysis plan submitted. Noise/Dust/ Vapor/Visual Impacts: 16. No impact analysis and/or mitigation plan submitted far any impacts to adjacent* property owners to the south. 17. No impact analysis and/or mitigation plan submitted in re cumulative noise impacts 18. No impact analysis and/or mitigation plan submitted in re noise from continuous, 24- hour pumping. Does not comply with mining pian hours of operation. *Note: Adjacent. Lying near or dose to; sometimes contiguous; neighboring. Adjacent implies that the two objects are not widely separated, though they may not actually touch... while adjoining imports that are so joined or united to each other that no third object intervenes. [Blacks Law Dictionary, 5d. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1979).] Financial Warranties: 19. No evidence submitted that requisite warranties have been posted with Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology, i.e.. no reclamation permit has been issued. 20. No warranties requested for construction, maintenance, and use of state highway. As signatory to CDOT Access Permit, Brent Peterson, not the applicant, is responsible party. Wildlife/Habitat: 21 No weed management plan submitted. (Note Thistle has been identified on the property.) 22. CDOW recommendations not addressed: a. Setback from the Colorado River. b. Redesign of mining operation for habitat improvements. Reclamation: 23. No success benchmarks submitted. 24. No monitoring plan submitted. 25. CDOW recommendations not addressed: 9 a. Redesign of final reclamation for habitat improvements, b. Incorporation of aquatic vegetation. Floodplain/Spill Prevention, Control & Countermeasure Plan: Garfield Planning staff have suggested that this use is exempt from county floodplain regulations as it is not an application for a PUD or a subdivision. As this use specifically falls within the definition of "Development" found in section §6.02.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 (as amended), and is located within an "Area of Shallow Flooding" as found in section §§8.02.01, this use is not exempt from floodplain regulation. Note: In re staff comment that §6.03.02 specifically exempts this use from regulation. per FEMA, existing flood boundary maps were incorporated by letter on 04/01/87—pending confirmation. Applicant states that "[A]II fuels used in the development will be stored outside of the flood zone... [I]t is probable that in times of flooding the portable crushing plant may be inundated...." 26. The crusher is within approximately 325' of the Colorado River. The 1,000 -gallon fuel tank is within approximately 450' of the Colorado River. No impact statement and/or mitigation plan submitted for high water events that address flooding (versus spills and/or leaks) of the fuel tanks. Applicant states that, "[Slime there will be no berms or obstructions, the development will not increase the flood level." Applicant further states that the following obstructions will exist: 27. "[1]nterception ditches will route the flows around the mining and process areas." No plans/specifications or mapping provided. 28. Applicant states that "Onsite runoff will... or be captured and conveyed through stormwater collection swales." No plans/specifications provided. 29. Site Plan indicates that EnviroBerms will be installed at four locations on the site. Sales/promotional literature submitted by applicant is inadequate to address capacity, performance, and other specifications for this product. 30. Applicant intends to construct 1.5' dikes as containment areas for fuel tanks. No plans/specifications or mapping provided. 31. Inadequate provisions in "Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan" for handling of spills and/or potentially contaminated storm water (see no. 25). No evidence of what emergency training will be conducted or by whom. No documentation of what constitutes "competent facility personal [sic] in re "visual inspection... for the presence of any petroleum product." Applicant states that "[Ai dry -run drill shall be conducted for an on-site vehicular spill." No long-term safety/emergency training plan submitted. 10 32. No responsible individual designated for implementation of/compliance with. Stormwater Management Plan. 33. No emergency plan submitted for high water/flood events during operating hours. 34. No details submitted in re location of control/sales house, i.e., it is not possible to determine hazards to fixed or mobile structures, permanent or temporary, for the purposes of human occupation.. 35. Applicant has submitted the State of Colorado "Groundwater Monitoring Guidance" as part of the "Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan." No monitoring plan submitted for compliance with such guidance. 36. Applicant has submitted the State of Colorado "Petroleum Product or Waste Sampling and Analysis Project Plan" as part of the "Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan." It is not possible to assess compliance with state guidelines by applicant's operation as this guidance appears to be directed at operators that utilize underground, not aboveground, storage tanks. Miscellaneous issues not addressed: 37. Applicant intends to lock front entrance gate. This is public (Bureau of Reclamation?) access. No evidence of a permit/permission to restrict this access submitted. 38. Applicant intends to pave a portion of an existing dirt road for use as a haul road. No evidence submitted that this road is not public (Bureau of Reclamation?) access. No evidence of a permit/permission to alter this access submitted. 11 U(.., SU, V1 pt {_l1 1 V .J Y Ln.. �-' V1J11 11 AtllVa 'AO ti vaJi United States Department of the Interior BUREAU Or RECLAMATION tapper Colorado Region Weatem Colorado Area Office 2764 Comparg Drive. suite 106 835 E 2' Avcnue, Suite 300 Durango CO 81301-$475 Grind Junction CO 11566-8785 WCG-ASchroeder PRJ-15.00fLN77-6.00 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 51601 R`'/ED FEB 2 8 2001 Subject: Special Use Permit, Western Slope Aggregate, Peterson Gravel Pit; NW3/4,. Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, 6th PM (Silt Pump Canal, Silt Project, Colorado) Dear Mr. Bean: We have reviewed the plan for the proposed gravel pit and have the following concerns and recommendations: 1. The de -watering of the gravel pit may adversely affect the flow of water in the inlet canal to the Silt Pumping Plant. Recommendation: Utile de -watering of the pit is shown to have an adverse effect on water flow in the inlet canal, the pit operator should be required to line the canal. 2. The discharge of water from the sedimentation pond to the Colorado River may adversely affect the headgate structure for the Silt Pumping Plant inlet canal/pipeline and the water quality of the canal/pipeline. The drain ditch receiving the pond water discharges to the river about 12 feet upstream of our inlet structure. This discharge is over or through riprap installed to protect our structure; the discharge volume could cause erosion of the riprap and potential failure of out structure. The discharge could also cause siltation of the headgate and canal/pipeline. Recommendation: The pit operator should provide this office with plans for protection of the pump canal riprap and headgate structure from the proposed discharge. No discharge should be allowed without the concurrence of this office for such a plan. 3. Item #2 of Exhibit 0 for the Application for Mining and Reclamation Permit is incorrect. This office, the Western Colorado Area office, has administrative jurisdiction far the United States lands immediately adjacent to the gravel pit site. Our address is 2764 Coinpass Drive, Suite 106, Grand Junction, CO 81506. 4. Reclamation will hold the pit operator liable for any danlage to Reclamation lands, facilities, or operations which occur as a result of pit operations. This includes fences, unauthorized use of Reclamation lands and reductions in canal flow. The operator will be expected to repair damages to Reclamation's satisfaction. 5. We are not convinced the sediment pond and outlet pipe are adequate. There were no apparent calculations to support the sizing. Recommendation: The operator should provide the appropriate calculations to support their design. 6. Reclamation agrees with the need for development and implementation of a weed control plan on the pit area. Recommendation: The pit operator should not use any pesticide which could be washed into the pit's drain channel which discharges into the river immediately upstream of the headgate structure for the Silt Pumping Plant inlet canal/pipeline. Thank you for the opportunity to camraezrt. We will be glad to work with the operator to resolve any of the concerns identified. If you have any questions, please contact Alan Schroeder at (970) 248-0692. Sincerely, Ed Warner Resources Division Manager cc: Mr. Scot Doderro, Manager Silt Water Conservancy District Box 8 Silt CO 81652 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATI©N Upper Colorado Region Western Colorado Area Office .2.764 Compass Qnve. Stuv 1 f16 Grand Junction CO 83506.8785 WCG-ASchroeder PR]-15.041LND-6. i10 Mr. Glenn Harsh Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. P.O. Box 910 Carbondale CO 81623 835 1= Z"' Avenue. Suite 368 Durango CO 81301-5475 lagErifra MAR Ll 2 2001 MAR 22011t OPTIONAL FORM ea n -sol FAX TRANSMITTAL incork -Bea, 36 Subject: Special Use Permit, Western Slope Aggregate, Peterson Gravel Pit; N'WP4, Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, 6th PM (Silt Pump Canal, Silt Project, Colorado) F' x"jyySar _„ Phone' /„,248 -06 Dear Mr. Harsh: As a result of your March 1” and Bob Pennington's (Gamin. and Associates) March 2"a phone conversations with staff from this office regarding our letter of February 28, we offer the following: I. Possible effect on water flow in inlet canal, The Silt Pump Canal has a decreed water right of 36 cfs which is held in the name of the Silt Water Conservancy District. This water is carried through irrigation delivery facilities held in the name of the United States and administered through the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation has a responsibility to look after it's facilities and related interests, including the water rights which they carry. We believe the de -watering of the proposed gravel pit may cause some decreased flow in the Silt Pump canal. The potential flow decrease may or may not adversely affect the ability of the canal to deliver that water right. However, without extensive calculations we cannot quantify this potential impact. We understand that Western will take appropriate measures to correct any canal flow reductions duc to pit operations, if such reductions significantly affect our ability to provide the full 36 cfs commitment. Measures to be taken will be determined jointly by Western and Reclamation at the time such a significant flow reduction is identified. Appropriate measures may be as simple as installing a PVC liner in the canal. 2. Effect of water discharge on the Silt Pumping Plant inlet headgate structure: Western has indicated they will take appropriate measures to prevent and repair potential damage We have agreed that Western vigil provide us a plan to mitigate the potential effect of United States Department of the Interior BUREAU of RECLAMATION Lipper Colorado Region Western Colorado Area Office 2764 ConiPass fh{ve, suite 106 Grand Junction CO B1506-8785 WCG-ASchroeder PR1-15.0O!LND-6.00 Mr. Glenn Harsh Western Slope Aggregates. Inc. P.O. Box 910 Carbondale CO 81623 635 E 2"' Avenue, Suite 300 Ourmgn CO 81301.5475 ' illeurkED MAR 2 2001 MAR 2 a1 OPTUNAI Ft]145.M 99 F+-901 FAX TRANSMITTAL Ie' p; r 3 /+ tl+ - kLI ALI Frcni 11,SCI4roezt. ea(' q -a6 Subject: Special Use Permit, Western Slope Aggregate, Peterson Gravel Pit; NWY,, Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, 6th PM (Silt Pump Canal, Silt Project, Colorado) Dear Mr. Harsh: As a result of your March i H and Bob Pennington's (Gamna and Associates) March 2nd phone conversations wth staff from this office regarding our letter of February 28, we offer the following: 1. Possible effect on water flow in inlet canal. The Silt Pump Canal has a decreed water right of 36 cfs which is held in the name of the Silt Water Conservancy District. This water is carried through irrigation delivery facilities held in the name of the United States and administered through the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation has a responsibility to look after it's facilities and related interests, including the water rights which they carry. We believe the de -watering of the proposed gravel pit may cause some decreased flow in the Silt Pump canal. The potential flow decrease may or may not adversely affect the ability of the canal to deliver that water right. However, without extensive calculations we cannot quantify this potential impact. We understand that Western will take appropriate measures to correct any canal flow reductions duc to pit operations, if such reductions significantly affect our ability to provide the full 36 cfs commitment_ Measures to be taken will be determined jointly by Western and Reclamation at the time such a significant flow reduction is identified. Appropriate measures may be as simple as installing a PVC liner in the canal. 2. Effect of water discharge on the Silt Pumping Plant inlet headgate structure: Western has indicated they will take appropriate measures to prevent and repair potential damage. We have agreed that Western will provide tis a plan to mitigate the potential effect of the discharge quantity, volume, and duration on the headgate structure. We will review said plan and work with Western to develop a reasonable plan which satisfies our concerns and protects our facilities. We will monitor the effect of the discharge on the headgate and appurtenances and request additional measures, as necessary. 3. Iters #2 of Exhibit 0 of the Mining Permit Application:. This remains a correction to the application and the permit. According to the Garfield County Assessor's Office, they did not have an address of record for the adjacent US parcel, until supplied by this office on March 1, 2001. The Western Colorado Area Office at 2764 Compass Drive, Suite W6, Grand Junction, Colorado, 81506 has administrative jurisdiction for these lands; the Basalt office listed in the exhibit does not. 4. Liability for damage to Reclamation lands, facilities, or operations: Both parties recognize and understand that liabilities for damage can work both ways, and each party has legal recourse to recoup damages caused by the other's actions. 5. Sediment pond and outlet pipe sizing: We are willing to accept the pond and outlet sizing based on the State's permitting process. 6. Weed control plan: We understand that Western will comply with the Garfield County weed control p That is acceptable to us. In conclusion, we believe that our concerns have been adequately addressed. We look forward to working with Western as indicated Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our concerns and reach a reasonable solution. If you have any questions, please contact Alan Schroeder at (970) 248-0692. Sincerely, Ed Warner Resources Division Manager cc: Mr. Scot Dodero, Manager Silt Water Conservancy District Box 8 Silt CO 81652 Mr. Mark Bean Garficld County Pluming Department 109 $t' Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Mr. Bob Pennington Jerome Gamba and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1458 Glenwood Springs CO 81602-1458 IIRECEPFi3 MAR a 2 211111 NEVA HISCOCK 3720 County Rd 214 SILT, CO 81652 March 2. 2001 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Attn: Mark Bean Re: Noise pollution and WSA Gravel pit 876-5320 .5P/ p/v) wee! , (17&C( Please read the following article from Smithsonian magazine March 2001. It explains how prolonged exposure to noise: is annoying, effects hearing, learning abilities, raises blood pressure, changes blood chemistry. "Good Neighbors Keep their Noise To Themselves". Lets all be good neighbors. Thank you for your time. Respectfully Neva Hiscock its ECRET LABORATORY OF DR. DECIBEL," READS THE HAND -LETTERED SIGN TAPED TO LES Blomberg's office door at the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse. in Montpelier. Vermont. It was inspired by a Boston friend's telephone call, suggesting the organization create its own comic book superhero. College and high school interns put up the sign. Blomberg, the nonprofit orf tniz,t- tion's director, was inside his office at the time, oblivious to the tittering outside because he was fine-tuning sound levels on a CD recording he had made—ultra-large dump trucks, construction -site air compressors, jackhammers, that sort of thing Blomberg's CDs go ro noise -beset citizens so they can show officials their precise daily dose of acoustical irritant. Combating noise is not the usual cartoon -hero derring- do But in our society noise often is a protected monster Regulations may be weak Or noisemakers argue quieting down would be too costly Sufferers desperately searching the Internet stumble upon the clearing- house's site. wvvw.nonotse org. They call or write or e-mail—"I am writing to you at 230 Awe because I was awakened by leaf blowers and I am so angry " "I am dealing with a large lumber com- pany om-pony which installed a new drying kiln a few months ago. and operates it 24 hours a day„ 7 days a week. I live in a wry rural area . . —Recently the level of airplane traffic over our home has increased to an intolerable level I have become depressed "Now. the interstate has J constant roar that comes toward the school Wr can't teach outside The children seem to have trouble with attention. They also seem to be agitated all the rime - "Over rhe past four months our home has been assaulted by the throbbing bass of our downstairs neighbor's stereo Asking, pleading. and mediation have not worked - The clearinghouse responds with data and noise -fight- ing information. such as how to approach officials, or how to organize a neighborhood- To rhe beleaguered, at seems as if a huff dude in blue tights flew in, red c.,apc hallowing A typical reaction: "Just to know that someone has taken the time ro do research such as this allows me to feel not so alone " So think of Les Blomberg as the brainy, physics- savvy, but vincible, protector of the noise oppressed. Think of him as that limited -budget battler of rogue sound waves. Dr. Decibel! Right now our superhero is standing at the exirner of Lexington Avenue and 42nd Street, in Manhattan, aiming Noise what looks like a TV remote control toward the: Chrysler Building, more or less. It is smoggy and humid this alter noon. and wilted New Yorkers hurry by oblivious ro Blomberg, although the sound meter he holds larks Iikc, maybe, a detonator- hey. this is New York And Blomberg, who is 39, his remaining dark -brown hair pulled back in a ponytail. wearing a pine -green shirt, khaki trousers and hiking boots, looks unthreatening In fact. Iii` trimmed beard and mustache frame an engaging grin ih,it es +resses the good-natured cxubcr.incc normally associated with, say. .a Labrador retriever He adfusts a knob as a corrections department bus with becomes really annoying at about the 55 to 65 decibel range. And every 10 - decibel increase represents a doubling of the loudness. NI , prisoners inside whooshes by. then peers appraisingly ata Glial. -OIC. that was 78 decibels," he announces. Noise, most people find, becomes really .annoying, he says, .it about 55 to 65 decibels Every in -deci- bel increase represents a duuhling ol the loudness So this Manhattan corner's loudness is four rimes the annoying level, a real pain in the tympanum. Blombergis counting decibels today in the city that is arguably our national noise pollution capital This `xamer's 78 decibels, for instance, makes it louder than must chocks- But now ,i moving van's driver hits the brakes. Blomberg checks his meter: "That's over go decibels.- It is like putting your ear next to an exceptionally loud vacuum cleaner To be heard above the eumer's engine whine and hissing air brakes and bicycle - tine hum and siren whoops. Bloomberg finds he i com- pclkd to raise his voice. "We advise people every Jay. but usually hoof alar, so it's incredibly valuable to visit these people and cape• hence their problems," he yells. somehow maintaining his benevolent grin. "Let's get on the subway down town- I have to check on a new kind of noise ,pollution that we are calling Internet Buzz " As the 7th Avenue Express rattles southward through its tunnel, Blomberg. hinging onto ,i metal strop. switch - T H i ,l . 1 4 ttt� Psychologist Arline Bronzaft, right rear, chose P.S. 98, still located adjacent to elevated tracks today, as a site for noise research. es on his sound meter with his free hand "lt's 8o deci- bels. just riding along in here," he says A passing train registers tt5 decibels sustained exposure at that level. he says, can induce hearing loss Blomberg can cite Tots of unsettling noise data. Accord- ing to the U.S. census. for instance, Americans number one neighborhood complaint—above crime. traffic and poor public services --is noise Every day more than t 3 million Americans experience noise levels the U S Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) rates as annoying and disruptive_ Among city dwelling Americans, 87 percent are exposed to noise so loud it has the potential to degrade hearing capacity over time But you will not necessarily find peace m the suburbs or countryside either. not with the onslaught of leaf blowers. snow blowers, lawn mow- ers, chain saws, snowmobiles, powerboats and all -terrain vehicles Because of airplane and helicopter overflights. the natural quiet is now preserved in only 7 percent of Ari- zona's Grand Canyon National Park and nowhere in Hawaii's Volcanoes National Park Meanwhile, researchers have demonstrated that noise can raise your blood pressure and change your blood chemistry. For instance, adrenaline levels can rise. indicat- ing die imposition of stress. Noise is also the leading cause of hearing loss in the United States, exposure to excessive noise has made some 10 million of us at bast a little deaf 4 Tom 8ernardin displays earplugs he uses to fend off noise, such as the roar from computer -cooling vents (grated windows, right). Noise is unwanted sound." Blomberg points out. "And 'noise' comes Irani the Latin word for 'nausea— Most nausea—Most sources of annoying noise arc increasing. Blomberg cites recent U S Department of Transportation statistics. For instance, ,recording to certain calculations. in twy9/ per- sonal autcrrnohilc traffic was 36n percent of tgfio levels, and large truck traliic was 4 i percent. Airliner travel in tgg13 was luau percent of icino levels, and air cargo was up a .•hopping z,46ta percent. Meanwhile, Blomberg says. we have new noise sources: In igtio there were no boom Iso.xtz, no herrn tars. no leaf blowers. no jet skis, no car alarms .and hardly any snowmobiles Vanished noise sources? 1 can only think of the doorman's whistle," says Blomberg. America's revulsion with its yawn increasing racket. he says. led to his orga- nization's founding in tggf+, funded by such contributors as the Rockefeller Family Fund Blomberg exits the subway in lower Manhattan in his guise as Dr Decibel, armed with a high-tech sound meter. "Burl have to be Miss Manners too," he main- tains That is because he sees two underlying noise -pol- lution issues. "Sovereignty—who owns the air? And eivilrty—how del we treat our neighbors?" Internet Buz: waddles both issues Blomberg strides along Hudson Sneer to .t salmon -colored building. Last night he camped In an apartment facing this building to measure how much of its noise ;assaults neighbors. He also plotted strategy with neighborhood residents and their attorney. because this building emits a constant Erin:. "See, on the first and fourth floors, every window has been replaced by vents, all making notse," Blomberg says, aiming his sound meter Inside the building. telecommu- nications multinationals and dot.corns have installed cam• purers that control their operations Each computer room requires a big cooling unit, which is blowing its exhaust— and its buzz—out the window "It's 70 decibels here on the sidewalk. and that's how loud it is outside the apart- ments across the street. all day, all night." observes Blomberg. A normal home reading is about xs decibels. City ordinances are unclear. Do proscribed noise levels apply to individual cooling units? Or do they apply to the building's collective noise? Also, the banned decibel levels vary according to the sound's frequency "People sly, give me one number and tell me if it's a violation or not. hut regulations often have variable numbers and different scales, and the complexity hinders enforcement," Blomberg notes. "Yet, if you had just one decibel level, you might have a buzz below that number, legal, but still unbearable" Blomberg and his sto,00co noise meters are helping Hudson Street dwellers decade whom to file complaints aglow Firms leasing space inside the budding? Or the buildings owners? Next stop the 7th Avenue and lath Street apartment 01 author Tom Bernardin (The Ellis Island Immigrant Cook- book), founder of Friends Against Noisy New York 0 N S • H (FANNY) Yesterday Blomberg alibied sound meters to the facade of Bernardin's building to record za hours of New York noise Now he peers at the digital readouts as Bcrnardin looks on The background here is 73.3 decibels," Blomberg says. That is about the level of a ringing tele- phone. Blomberg's meter-bras stored za hours of dara m its built-in computer. both background noise and loud spikes. "Here's a spike of 1U4 decibels at z:30 A.M., probably a siren or car alarm," Blomberg points out. "Here's one off my screen, louder tlrtro decibels!" I3crnardin, who buys earplugs by the boxful. will pre- sent Blomberg'saziaceao city officials. He warns ro convince thein to beginotise-cutting steps For instance, the city could specify reser-buses. Blomberg notes that in Europe. trucks and buses can be only hakbaloud as vehicles con- forming to U.S regulations Next on the agenda, he adds, should be noise limits for air conditioners If the background din dropped, police cruisers and fire trucks and ambulances wouldn't need such loud sirens," he says. Sernardin, a former teacher who was a National Park Service guide at Ellis Island, where he relished th.c silence. gazes sadly out his windows ar the Greenwich Village traffic roaring by "This apartment has wraparound sound," he laments In a guidebook, he finds a reference to an early igoos socialite who founded the Society for the Suppression of Unnecessary Noise. "What was almost a century ago," he muses "And the unnecessary noise is still unsuppressed Walking to a meeting, Blomberg and Bernardin spot a blue-suited executive clasping his hands over his ears. "Even in a wealthy neighborhood, we're creating slums," Blomberg says &rnardin points out drivers oper- ating remote car-door openers, making their cars toot. But here is a hitherto undiscovered noise source: a trailer truck offering curbside document shredding, accomplished via a churning and a Thumping. "That's over go decibels,,, Blomberg announces. les louder than a " Bui the churning drowns him out. They arrive ar rhe restaurant designated for the meet- ing Blomberg calls a New York Anti-Noise Summit Economist Charles Kornanof, who coauthored a Noise Pollution Clearinghouse study on jet ski noise, reports he recently asked an audience. Noise pollution, or air pollution, from cars --if you could ger rid of only one,. which would it be? "A majority said noise." he says. "In my analyses, the cosrs from automobile air pollution are higher, but people arc more bothered by noise from cars Also at the meeting is noise -consultant Arline Bron- zaft, professor emerita of psychology at Ctry University of New York and an adviser ro the city's league of the Hard of Hearing She authored a groundbreaking study on noise's impact on children's learning Bronzaft, appointed by the mayor's office to a commit- tee on transit complaints, decided to test a public school next to the elevated train tracks at zuth Srreet and Broad- way "A train went by for Lio seconds every 4 5 minutes, the noise level in classrooms on that side of rhe building reached tag deci- bels," Bronzaft recalls. By the sixth grade, students in these noisy class- rooms, demographically identical to students on rhe school's opposite--- quiet—side, lagged a year in reading ability Bronzaft's report prompted the installation of noise -hushing rubber pads on tracks by the school and acoustical ceilings inside. Result- noise inside the affected classrooms was reduced by 6 to t decibels. "When we did the study again. to my great sur- prise and happiness. the children were all reading at the same level." reports Bronzaft, (Tciday noise levels at PS 98 again present problem~: the trains, older by mare than zo years, have grown creakier. and noisier, over time.) Two hot issues are on this meet- ing's agenda—Internet Buzz :and pro- posed new federal airport noise poli- cy. The discussion becomes—is it fair to says—noisy. A few hours later, en route to Grand Central Station and his train home, Les Blomberg stops for soda In mid -quaff, he says: "Make noise unto others .is you would have others snake noise unto your" Even if the Norse Pollution Clearinghouse's three full- time staff members, and five part -rime workers, and assort- ed interns. and all the noise -troubled people who call for help. actually wanted to move to a deserted area, they would be our of luck_ Specialists who trek to remote sites to record birdcalls and other natural sounds report that not even the North Pole or Antarctica or the Amazon is now free of unnatural noise. such as the roar of airliners or the buzz of chain saws. Specialists who trek to remote sites to record phenomena such as birdcalls report that not even the North Pole or the Amazon is free of unnatural noise. acoustical } R 1 A Les Bromberg, born in 1g61. igew up in the suburb: of St Paul. Minnesota, where his parents owned grocery stores In high school. he recollects, he took "boom box speakers outside to entertain myself I wasn't overly polite," he confesses 1 was a teenage boy, which shows there is hope, that people can learn." He completed a degree in mathematics at the Universi- ty of Minnesota and went on. graduating in 1993 from the University of Colorado with a master's degree in environ- mental ethics In 1994 he and his partner. Brenda Haustuer. took on a joint assignment for the Stare of Ver- mont, writing a state energy plan They were living in a downtown apartment in Vermont's tiny capital when Blomberg fume a noise activist On many a morning at .♦tier, down Blombergs narrow Line, the town's solitary street sweeper roared. Blomberg campaigned to .xrnvince officials that a uty of 8,00u did not need wee -hours downtown mechanized street sweeping. Marshaling volunteers, he proved brooms outperformed the machine. Finally—the clincher --he offered to record the downtown sweeper's noise and,, at the appropriate hour, precisely reproduce it outside the officials' suburban homes. News of Blomberg's work reached Harriet Barlow, direc- tor of the Blue Mountain Centex, an artists' retreat in New York's Adirondack Mountains. She disliked noise With a s5o,000 grant, she starred the Noise Pollution Clearing- house And she decided that Blomberg, trained in mathe- matics, physics and environmental philosophy. was just the fellow to head the new organization Dawn on Nantucket Island. Les Blomberg stands on a lawn, aiming his sound meter toward the Atlantic He stands among gray saltbox cottages, some dating to the 25cxrs, burred in blue hydrangeas and yellow sunflowers, pink roses growing over their roofs. Nantucket is i6 miles long and about 6 miles wide, bigger than Manhattan. But Its population is only 9.0on. expanding to 50,o(x) in the summer Noise? There is the ocean's rhythmic whoosh Song sparrows Goldfinches Mourning doves "OK.' Blomberg says. "Here comes the first one.'. Ar 6:03 A.M an airplane flies over -That's 508 4 decibels," Blomberg reports. At 6.07 A.M. another plane flies over. and another ar 6.0 and again at 6:u. and at 5:1er, 6.17, b:t8 . . Lacer, Blomberg drives to the epidemic's source, the island's little airport. with his host, Wade Greene, for - Daimon Meeh, 14, corresponded with the governor to protest speedway noise near his New Hampshire farmhouse. M 1 x merly a New York 7imei Magazine editor. now an environmental consultant to philanthropies. Greene also operates Wade Cottages. a vacation compound he cre- ated from has grandfather's summer home He believes that airplane noise is going to hurt Nantucket tourism. Island stays are expensive. Vacationers value quiet So do those who can afford a summer place here, where houses :average s75o,000 or marc "Mainly we're dealing with two -engine Cessna 402 shut ale planes that fly to Hyannis, hut there are p11 'J a planes, too. and corporate jets." Greene is explaining. He points out a panted pickup's bumper sticker "It Used To Be Nicer In Nantucket - Right now 26 airplanes are taxiing or writing. Their noise is, literally, deafening "You can get ter this island only by ferry or by plane. and air traffic here is doubling every five years," says Greene "This little air- port is now the second busiest in all of New England. and sometimes the Island of Nantucket has more flights com- ing and going than Boston's Logan Airport." Blomberg is here to study Nantucket's noise dilemma Greene contends many pilots ignore an agreement to fly one mile offshore Blomberg shrugs. He calculates one mile is not enough the planes should fly five to ten miles out. Usually people affected by airliner noise have little polit- ical clout, Blomberg observes. "Bur here you can actually talk with aviation officials, and here the solution is sim- ple—push the airplanes out to sea." He maintains: "Tf you can't do it on Nantucket, no place can do it " Blomberg has also invcstigatred the plight of the noise - beset residents of Loudon. New Hampshire Today he sets up his equipment on a tripod in an immaculately kept gray ranch house's macadam driveway "That's 78 deci- bels," he announces Tom Early, the house's owner. a wired airline pilot. gray haired and gray mustached. looks on glumly From his driveway you can see only his pre- cisely trimmed lawn and whine birches and one other home But the roar from the New Hampshire Intcrnanonal Speedway, a stock -car racetrack. seems to blot out every- thing. "7"h.it just hit tar decibels," Les Blomberg says, eye- ing his instruments i k notes th.it a typical city noise restriction for daytime t.5 about 5u decibels, more than four times quieter. "At night they'll have rock hands," Ton Early says, shaking his head. "Louder than hell And the have fireworks. And they lire off cannons." TAKING THE MEASURE OF NOISE tits Deeibets osttA feorbeds any unprotected exposure r 1sa Dedisela Typiral daytime ordtnrnre name limit SO Dedaeu Typical nighttime o mance noise :unit From the deep stillness of the Grand Canyon to the ear-assaultin complex range of sounds underlies our everyday experience. Mufflers might he .t solution. But Blomberg believes the real issue is that noise can increase the secretion of adren- aline in humans, perhaps because our distant ancestors associated loud sounds, like a lion's roar or a baby's scream. with danger The &n -eater the sound, the greater the adrenaline rush. Blomberg theorizes that racetracks prefer to be as loud as possible because it excites the fans. -That's why exercise classes crank up the decibels, and rock bands. and action movies," he observes. "In effect. noise becomes a drug they're pumping out and into you " Later, Blomberg visits Daimon Meeh, t.i, who shows hire a letter he sent to New Hampshire's governor. along with a CD recording he made just outside his farmhouse of the racetrack's roar. "I don't remember a time when I didn't have to listen to the noise of New Hampshire International Speedway (NNIS) in Loudon," Daimon wrote, noting the track's growth. "As the noise of the racetrack grew increasingly louder, people in my town got more and more an- noyed." He analyzed for the gover- nor the noise's steady increase over the years and the economic effects. Despite his efforts, a solution has not yet been achieved. Letters to the governor seem to be in the air Stopping back at Tom Early's house, Blomberg finds the retired airline pilot irritated. ___"I'm just sending a letter off to the governor, and 1 told her I vote too.'. Early says. "Last night we were in here with the windows closed, trying to watch My Farr Lady on TV, and sometimes we couldn't hear it because the noise from rhe track was so Loud " When the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse's communications director. attorney Vicky Parra Tcb- bctts. checks the a -mad, mainly she finds messages like this "Finally a thread of hopes 'Thank you so much for your help!" Or a New jersey mayor seeks .assistance deciding about eco -decibel alarms g din of a rock concert, a the volunteer lire company has ser up in residential neighborhoods From jardn comes a request for help—U S. fighters flying low over Hiroshima suburbs A musician writes from Hawaii "it's the worst of situations—here in paradise Five days a week we pay 2 gardeners to use an artillery of weed-wackers, lawn mowers and blowers. powered saws etcto drive us nuts" From California. the Hollywood Heights Associa- oun seeks help dealing with news helicopters hovering overhead during movie premieres And there is this: "We have been battling a neighborhood noise bully who has about 25o roosters on his z acre lot " As mottoes go, the watchword adopted by the ckannghouse seems benign. "Good Neighbors Keep Their Noise To Themselves." 2 Richard and Joyce Wolkomir write from the peace and quiet of Ver- mont Richard Howard is based in WInchester, Massachusetts. i[AN wisrNsAIPGHILirocRtk L CALVIN LEE Attorney at Law 811 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE 970-S4S-8571 FAX NUMBER 970.945-49B1 ASPEN TELEPHONE 970-920-439d e-mail: blakelaw@prof net RECEIVED FEB 1 2 2001 February 7, 2001 Garfield County Board of Commissioners and Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Members of the Board of Commissioners and Planning Comrnission: 1 represent a citizens group called the Concerned Citizens Against The Pit{herein after referred to as CCAP). CCAP was recently formed because of neighborhood concern over the application for a special use permit for a gravel pit submitted by Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. This letter addresses the concerns of the citizens and an analysis of the legal issues involved with the a pplication. CCAP adopts the legal analysis set forth by Steve Beattie, the Town of Silt attorney. in his letter to the Board and Planning Commission dated February 2, 2001 and incorporates by reference the arguments set forth therein as though fully set forth in this letter. CCAP expands on some of the points in Mr. Beattie's letter as follows: Character of the Neighborhood The board must establish the character of the neighborhood within one-half mile of the proposed gravel pit site. In aid of establishing the character of the neighborhood, below is listed all properties within one-half mile of the proposed site. Brad and Ruth Mollman 105 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Dave and Ann Nicholson 0029 County Road 335 New Castle, CO 81647 Thomas Bradthe 011.7 County Road 335 New Castle, CO 81647 Robert and Edward Regulski 287 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Fred Frie 0287 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Rick Locke and Jeannie Long Letter to Outfield County Board of Commissioners & Garfield County Planning & Zoning Februaly 12, 2001 Page 2 Leno and Shirley Montover 1914 County Road 311 Silt, CO 81652 Glen and Karen Wallen 230 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Conrad and Donna Meade 0245 County Road 335 New Castle, CO 81647 Shelia Rew and Jeremy Castle 35445 Highway 6 & 24 New Castle, CO 81647 RE2 School District 839 Whiteriver Avenue Rifle, CO 81650 Mona and Robert Koper 3708 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Kenneth and Dorothy Else 3712 County Road 214 Silt. CO 81652 Roy McPherson 2197 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Glen McPherson 2299 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Pamela and Paul Lauman 597 County Road 335 New Castle, CO 81647 Jose Daniel 286 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Leon and Sherry Padia 196 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Edward and Mary Harper 35795 Highway 6 & 24 New Castle. CO 81647 Barry and Patricia Sovern 421 County Road 235 Silt, CO 81652 John Courier and Laura Beattie 3706 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Edna Jane Ridlon 3710 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Oliver St. John and Michelle Whiting P.O. Box 1321 Glenwood Springs. CO 81602 Louise Barker 2045 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Todd and Tina Collins 66 Mid Valley Drive New Castle. CO 81647 Lillian Hill 38090 River Frontage Road New Castle, CO 81647 Letter to Garfield County Board of Commissioners & Garfield County Planning &. Zoning February l?, 2001 Page 3 Connie and Gregory Salvage 3716 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Steve and Neva Hiscock 3720 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 John and Ann Marie Reesee 3726 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81 652 Paul and Christine Singleton 3718 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Jane and Lee Gilbert 3724 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 The historic and current use of all the properties listed above is agricultural and residential. There has been no dramatic change in the historic use for many years. The applicants 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. Economic Loss The gravel pit will cause economic injury to the properties of neighbors within one-halfmile ofthe proposed pit. People will testify at the hearings about their expected financial loss if the pit is approved. Zoning. and Private Property Riehts The property owner in a zone district has certain uses that are guaranteed and other uses that can only be granted if the property owner proves that the proposed use meets numerous criteria designed to protect the general public and the neighborhood. What is possible in a zone district may clash with expectations of the property owner and create a feeling in the property owner that his private property rights are being violated. In the case of Western Slope Aggregate's application, a denial ofthe request for a special use permit does not involve a violation of private property rights. The land owner may sell his land at a profit to a buyer who wishes to use the land as it has been historically used or sell his land to someone who will pursue one of the uses by right allowed in the zone district. Western Slope Aggregate is applying for a special use permit, which is not automatically granted and there should be no expectation on the property owner's part that there is a right for this kind of development. On the contrary, it is a given that any application for a special use permit is subject to the must rigorous scrutiny and is fraught with the risk of denial. Letter to Garfield County Board of Commissioners & Garfield County Planning & Zoning F hruary 12, 2001 Page 4 Silt and Garfield County Comprehensive Plans I--luge amounts of time and public input are required to draft and adopt comprehensive plans. The request to place a gravel pit on the proposed site is incompatible with the recommendations of both the Silt and Garfield County comprehensive plans. As for the Silt Comprehensive Plan, there may be some sentiment by the landowner and the applicant that they had no representation or influence into the drafting ofthe Silt Comprehensive Plan since they are not Silt residents. However, the Silt Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for the uses desirable for the property is consistent with the Garfield Zoning Resolution requirements for the property. The area has always been agricultural and residential in character. A gravel pit can only be permitted ifthe applicant can show that there is a dramatic change in the character of the neighborhood so that a gravel pit would not adversely affect the neighbors or change the character of the neighborhood. The adoption of the Silt Comprehensive Plan does nothing to change what should have been the expectation ofthe allowable uses for the property under the existing county zoning. Noise. Odor and Dust Even if the levels of noise, odor and dust comply with applicable county, state and federal standards, the levels generated will change the character ofthe neighborhood. Industrial pollution is incompatible with an agricultural, residential neighborhood. Visual Impacts The Colorado River is the most important visual, economic and recreational natural resource in Garfield County. The Garfield Comprehensive Plan recognizes this fact. Approving the gravel pit application would add to the destruction of this resource. Burden of Proof Western Slope Aggregate, Inc. has the burden of proof of demonstrating that all the criteria for a special use permit have been met. Given the arguments and facts stated above, an approval. of the permit would be arbitrary and capricious, would be against the best interests of the county. would be contrary to the requirements of the zoning code and would fly in the face of the recommendations of both the Silt and Garfield County comprehensive plans. Leiter io Garfield County Board of Commissioners & Garfield County Planning & Zoning February 12, 2001 Page 5 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Calvin Lee xc: Concerned Citizens Against The Pit Steve Beattie Western Slope Aggregate OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEE. Mr. Don DeFord. Garfield County Attorney's Office 109 Eighth Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. DeFord: February 14, 2001 Mr. Brent Peterson and Western Slope Aggregate, Inc. respectfully request herein that Garfield County cease and desist from making any reference to or sanctioning any reliance upon, whether for guidance, advisory, or otherwise, any Comprehensive Plan, Master Plan and/or other conceptual plan or regulation that has not been duly adopted through legislative process by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, as review criteria for Special Use Permit applications. Western Slope Aggregate, Inc. has applied to Garfield County, on behalf of the property owner, for a gravel pit Special Use Permit in accordance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, adopted and enacted by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners on January 2, 1979. The subject land is zoned A-1 wherein said zoning allows for said use upon the approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. The criteria for the evaluation of said permit is specifically set forth in said Resolution. The Zoning Resolution does not require Comprehensive Plan compliance for Special Use Permit applications. The Comprehensive Plan has not been duly adopted as Special Use Permit review criteria in accordance with due process including proper notice and hearing. C.R.S. 24-68-102.5 mandates that an application for approval of site-specific development as well as its consideration and review, shall be governed only by the duly adopted laws and regulations in effect at the time of application. Hence, the General Assembly forbids the consideration of any regulation not duly adopted and therefore the County's Comprehensive Plan should not be considered in any fashion for review of Special Use Permits. PO. Box 910 •Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (970) 963-9424 The General Assembly in C.R.S. 30-28-106 (3)(f) makes it very clear that a Master Plan of a County or Region is advisory only. It is likewise very clear that the statutory scheme of Titles 28 and 30 restricts Master Plan use to the legislative body for the purpose of enacting and adopting zoning regulations consistent with the constitutional standards of due process. We urge the County to embrace the principles of due process and recognize that a Master Plan is advisory only to the legislative body for the limited purpose of guidance in adopting zoning regulations and that a Master Plan cannot be used by any other body nor utilized for guidance in review and consideration of applications for site-specific development plans, Special Use Permit. The general rule is that zoning should be enacted in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. If a Master Plan is used to control the use of land instead of being used as a guide to future zoning, it is used. in effect, to rezone property and such use is impermissible. Vick v. BOCC, 689 P.2d 699 (Colo. App. 1984). In order to have a direct effect on property rights, the Master Plan must be further implemented through zoning with proper notice and hearing. Theobald v. BOCC, 644 P.2d 942 (Colo. 1982). Only the legislative body charged with zoning can individually apply broad planning policies to specific property (through zoning) and must afford affected Landowners "due process" including proper notice and hearing. BOCC v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996). Simply stated, if a Master Plan is utilized for any purpose in reviewing an application for site specific development when said Plan has not been legislatively adopted for that purpose, the real and actual effect of such utilization is to deprive the landowner of some of the sticks in his proverbial bundle without constitutionally protected due process. Statements in the planning staff reports that the Comprehensive Plan may provide some guidance in making a decision on the application is wrong and unconstitutional. To state that a Comprehensive Plan can be used for guidance but not as a basis for decision making, elevates form over substance attempting to create a hyper- teehnicial distinction that does not have any practical remedial effect on the due process violation whatsoever. Wherefore. we respectfully request that the planning staffs report to the Board of County Commissioners not include any reference to a Comprehensive Plan and that the Board be advised not to consider Comprehensive Plan compliance in any fashion when exercising their quasi-judicial function in evaluating the merits of our site-specific development proposal, Special Use Permit. Re ectfully, tt Glenn M. Harsh Attorney at Law Cc: S. Beattie. Esq. C. Lee. Esq. Page 5 Division 5 Water Court Case No. 04CW028 In re the Application Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan It is further ORDERED that a copy of this Ruling shall be filed with the appropriate Division Engineer and the State Engineer. Dated Copy of iri : taFsgeipt mailed to all Counsel of record_'-Wat Egg nee!=_a ata: x-' OerAtiv Clerk Water OIv. No. 5 BY THE REFEREE: er Referee Water Division No. 5 State of Colorado No protest was filed in this matter, and accordingly the foregoing Ruling is confirmed and approved, and is made the Judgment and Decree of this Court; provided, however, that the approval of this plan for augmentation shall be subject to reconsideration by the Water Judge on the question of injury to the vested rights of others during any hearing commencing within a period of years after date. Dated Water Judge �' .- \. \ ty te{,y, _- e ti` - 'k... r -I / c r - ^- 3 t (- --, _- L ' .. s /"- L 1 1 - Print Name 4 t -� \ Imo`- Ya \- f • ':.: r a. a„ ,-- ` •. - ri ,. Eji (-.yam Signature %� .a f { CC�. j c ,�_ r - 1�� t,,,' , a 4 C q ru,Cr- -y\ 1_, ".. r j r lL,3 1j1 ,\ r Address r, : '-',,,7 C1:�y;V` --... / "Pm + C ' om ,__.• „l C__H- yf ---.- J s+ r ,. VI, i -. _ � � \J'. \ JO --- • s CFr ,11 { `; '� ti... C y.�. y L],t J',/,:' j ; 1 J 1 ?i l i - LII '. .... ' r i - - —L` ,',...L., Phone (:14 1 Q CD CD C @�,c D CL a GI 5 oD c� CL c : 1:0 EL Q CD Co (0W a 4 o w D 0 O CD CD cu 0 0 0 0 CA c v o CDCDa 0-5 X. 1 CC] 0 rtg,< o D cp o 0 cp Cr 133 ap =- iU G7 'L7 1130 g, lid alSOdOUd TILL ISNfVDV MOLLLINd -1-1 r ---- P, _,--:_.,,,j_;' ----' 2_'' r _ _.. +,1 + i\-- 4 ,Pe- —_, -N.,- r Print Name ,....i. ....7:_. ri 1 fj., _r ,..) F. , c -r 1, 1..7 v., .,,2 } F''' , '.,.. -f '. ' _ A Signature k 2`` .a 1 C 'ter i rs‘ t `c.` F.7-'..4 ,,. .-. Address s ,J --- �-- n ..- c I f+, Cry c..'LL. V t. �: L-- �v ',� '''.7; t S' �. r tjv l'3.-.:". `� Phone O CDco 5 - CD (D c N g m CD -CVO ci) CD CD ca CU CD Ct Q c 0_ CD 0 0 S • c 0 - • CD G7 � O � c m n v a c� (n 0 (-) d Cl_ 1 • CU @ '•C d] UJ � CO 0 4 • f0 2D CU n o OCD C) to 0 0 Ll O� 5'- 65'xo Ul - (C C D f� f4 O O co 3 cu iu C o_ = 0 ▪ (D O [D CD co O • 0) 3 O n O g CD te'„ 8 0 CD a. PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT MINOR AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant pr"r,po».eui �E the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of SiIV Comprehensive Pian, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City / ZIP 7,-,0.{/I Phony? ///))) 0 . zii �� Ei , r 'A�-r� /02/7 T-7---ir Ave -_ , // ! �/"Y1r]-� / `� I'1 i � � ! /C� Ir'fr' J%"�--wCz ( / 4 S� r�/-y377 ft / '(-1Ciinc 1)e, o. f,,►t kkete, 9 I g farr(� if:, X 11- 4 R i IC ( c_ ?5- - 567 f l l,r 1 ;� elT I - VI., C r-) C.' -r I) .14 / k. r t CwI L 575-,,/, CG -�, il.(L s 1 -I & C lit t / ' g 2 O2 , Smv5 T (kik (ccc 1 { ( Alit -12 725 -Jo -7 GIOVi ctn. ,SIlrOui`5( ' 305 a12h'd• Dire • 2JL( \. I ,c Lec, {' 12 -tie k ¶jhejcc ,,---4 I le ) c ' ' c(-2 1 /7-6 • 6,5? Dee S arsX 204 [ SZ S.J 9 -d L/ i 3 J , _ 3 A ) CCA i& 6 P V ' 3c . LV--; V - IA ,i 1.0 90 U h 2 Iii ia_c Li t- el gG ` L/ iC e \„o e {- (> LiC k mil 'n i -1 0 CI), VA (_, (1/4(7 c, \.. 2 Yr e - t' t_aq-ik L� e,i "lQcLcC& .)&02A1, 2L5)'fl, H(u1-ii arc -in { utrza e-\- 310E h street P,S. 4 1 PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City / ZIP Phone f ,n -7c. ,t r, cCc �+ Li . -1-1E-y 4.3, :7 r JCS' f i- "� t } 5,14 ,.tlC .. �' i rfl . /(z ` 1&-5)4' Z-1• -- ' r. _ � t 411 } L. C i , r 10 d Z` Y ( Y 3 /� / / n 1 i S.F I 4/65 )5-,76tai L^ 1/41 l'Aj i fil CC 1.- 21.4_p.i0L,c/(.‘ _____ t761-1 e 6 S+-- f if 16 5Sillta 2,)-. 113-2– •J e ssi La_ k.1 t r ,2 4/9 4061044— ila t' S" 1 d. -.4'S- .21-, awe,— ,,-- c,ct )-\ CV\alitim-,-. ---1 Pc (hte,/, 0/ , . F 147-0 1: S ct C in rn t -f - tom'Sr'11 7 2 -ii 6(c C'e e C- - R, C l( gl , ? 6 7 5"i'`f6 fil ci ) G, i� i n C.'�'l6: 7J J "" ` 'Gf fit z_:,,,..„, 1'i? L i OF iO I1 L.s �.l_ 1S"' -awl '' jf�} d/ 1.i`'`C4 4eitaOu ,„ ! b‘,/vic.,.fri JJ1cC ' fk� ea-,--2--)ea l.� ,=Ar_2L j1/4) L\ t. �� _/3 13 L _ f V6, r_ Ga s 1nraft. 111(7c i mai& i`1ti 1 ,Occ_i_oc e[ f,: -s- f, rii 4 1 neon e tiitcffiio. Li er ruca_;-C'Mr..tat --0 34 ,5 E 7-- Ala , a c.X CA.- ',_: a u_,„ ') r 1 ?, PEnnON 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 haracter 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 J ZIP Phone / Pt 0 k L P ) ,))/(l r': . - J,_,„ rI/G, it). ., /4 '7 919(- - )2) 1- 0 1k.1 0 L klz1)1/L7Z- ii ,c' ) 6/ 4) ,,3 . I -T ','3,; Y -t_ L)Z17-' he9i i.0�. t-rL . I106 x ' cf/iP --cZ ' / , y -:`-''c ? 7:Z -,__6*; f71--1,r�/r; . l i (I I-, 1.-S P)) o 4)',/,-/A!c'� j) (tA y ':pul- , ___ V �T -::''),<:;. 1'1 ----t.'L:7--" . 4.' s.• ,i ;2 1 'e"..--7ic - ,- .C6:1-1-,14.-,!--,-, )-2-s.....-0-....,,, C ( e Lt +'# L r 1 .1 Z' )16/ Alar -DF ‘-ev k a ae 7 '\,--1--1,17-44-4,t44-06/776V_ fCI' E,r`! /I Cs 3 /ick `b'`L- \‘A±)Q '' ' nr� , --_ 3-- Cd A NiZ t c ?(c' .1o, roe -_-, 'Pt -I -No C,7' -'-H ...'aii ore,„ icOtp Ft(057,)- -3;111 - -I ,1_ I4saj ff?6„-dus ,Ne - ,L„,' - L .4 0 R. 0 !"AP, 404.0_4.4.--1-2-0, ma .,,,, C372 061 Ai Ai i r Jr, c r C' a NALL) RS 1c( c. 30,7 e torpi 1Q,/1l �3-2 -0z/ 1E,ve. q/6 2_876.--2.51 � 5.)) 4_229 4,VO/E/ -- PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We. the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name nature Address City 1 ZIP Phone (;-fil21( i's4P 00 vt(t-(- it .0 601.6We 't �' et Ii' %% k e ,, l► A J f,:�"! ' it aite+(> z- ei;QCn�l�,� 4i .445- 5 ' 120 1. E"} '---r --�'� 8'6 kJ<4,�. -t b/w) mi,,, c'---(7- ��`` c'c i�+ . r� i S csc _--� Z I t R.I i i C�.Wre,i4r( t 62 3 X183 4Z`Jt CakitAr 1)5"),D 1(1'i- .5?, 6 -,,pc4 c -,_„4--c_ %Lot \ Ljivic,c,v‘ 7///atfik P I Itu q- dti c 5/23 fli Eli c''ct_ga- Rt2C'inji Ng K\cv:V'41A, Sc-,--, Ni...I.P-44( (19 c%.\() 7(1'2,0 1166, + l,G' LI,Lu diVAJA1640itC.r{ Co gra Xo /0 29, c' /i ` 610 Moo / 9Y)_/Y JL i L L , ,,.� I (cvL ul 1.---\\;�'� M �I I �� . Lf `3 k1'LL c\\4q-1 ../V51*1/411 o M ['a • 6 244' Si E. ---r eiL6z fd-` e. OA f av 1S 77- ao 614,yle0114- t, , Si (4- - PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City I ZIP Phone ',.: j =AA -7) lor'"A ', J t: ,,,,,, a ,fe4',IL,t,,,,t,..._ 'iL[-` f 3 '-( 5-- .�4t.,(G S 0 fki1/44 Vl yr-si-er l.. . ) yil c -c.. 41Ci2e.1 _ P, 1(.7 k 11. 6-(1 , rZ L 4 rVtie , Cill 9 -(47-7.; l - °! rile e",, ---71S - i5/<.Y/� f`tz-.) Ge. .' tt.,ac' ._ 7l (f, ,C� rS�i'r '/L) / 1 . }? 7 hey kit' 'le ' (//44‘t4"%- Cc 3 iii, r 3 (' V4 gtti -lam`* le -+/A- I V°, x Eat / . C 1 , -7 Ct '. .g L i `L= - .. tit id P 1/ 3ra Gle_/tey fys JJ// � fJ // ? y/ Al / (r ...-fit' A� ''�^` f rZ `' " iff/'// ,t_ 4,, A _, /414 ,L.L_ - 4.14,1,-.4-- /II it.f/, 1. ___ //1/1"ae( 1:12- 7 —114 119 :)-f 5417 /fO' i' &V/, '1°Y, Lei i t 6 6n $ r (4'4; (i)fii- ( :tabb �, (1u' �. ' r t s Irk 1, (1 t (I- 94-553 PETITION AGAINST ME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name 'g ature Address City / ZIP Phone ...‘ Ore() jko ' p - "C‘ikTe,r44 c - 1 14 Ci-sg61 4/5.--0703_ All ski hii { c J is s aI 1CA,„.; CT0. s.L4c-1 3c #errrt O2 Gt71. je { �n-Zi--- 02.•2‘)S- 64i kg AZA?' e)enw ..I 9 `7-? 12crellAet 1/61 -14j2A, if-tircil, ,-31 Aid- „i-li4- -Wt. 3j1F-2 c67‘,206i , t Li aililAi°\---- "-g41.4 '' 6. : =74 ,/ j' (-�, y 6 c -e ` y' s icf -7 V7 C a- 113 t:S C -Y7 Cit T c7 c /I E? YT]5 + , :J Miryelrr, FA 2. E r r ti ��tr _ v7:i.)c ,fit e,\.. 3Z-4 t) Llf-11 . );1 co Y76, -Z6737 e14 id R �Ios --ir;:,1L j 4' c L&jc k` A 3$ kI y 4-, 5/ • 511-, (r 57(0-1901 01 KeirKerry Ny1,601504l'/;2',,,• ,57;1 3,/ /'- l .s . sari - 6X76. (,, 4, ?c n rc c:3,wt.. SY V Ai. Y -sl- 11- ems. ?6'-. o?6 PETITION AGAINST T#!E 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 / ZIP Phone rr\e, \L Ssol_. ' \0_<, ►s\C•, a._. Qd\ 2_2_ v) St- (34, Vs' S'052 87(4', .53 Ail f14:- e , Il [ t._. +tom _,i,Arycx? f7' 3 ) \ 1 7 r1 i L- I L?5 Z Si . -i-419. J i.e 1 1 a k3 i o. v\ C c-' f- t l �: , A.17-4 :-e fU P ` j c',' `' -i 4.3 Si i + 6,s1_, t _ •* % !' `t 1:/^ -e (C7/15/1.1 -5)4 (' 1.40-g Ii` .,2 02 / /VI 9i4 _5,',9-F,,,,--01 g la --,2s-jet rk.g. tC t 1' -Ljti UT /edit q7-224- 3 5t K4. (LTti+6 ,---6-- e4vn45-2,, TO- ea/ 3-.? 3 5:k 17.--C-3 -:>( ?)11-14€ T _____7.6/7-r-----,i-te:C..--; • 1 lb �l,`:r :r q°' \ 12c1 ST t .. XL ta a S 43 / ,reAvy; a :- tV, i i? 7)- C3 , tz,.J C V_ r -o-11Z cic/ _S0 A N u') , CAPtel...-t rrLf� �j'[ /_" ' 4{f S 7Ns� � C b'/6 a1 - - 2336 L0 1rrtT- IAA I -€ I36.7 f6C4�`-/ (da Z X63"734 1, -6A-cc 61+.. tc .. L_ Y pie (44 1.4 e •-- _ /1 8 / 6/a y 6,5gisi,di it- 0 641 yr' ;1 1;--i--7. , 9-',/ & Ate/ Ale SI/ g3;-.2 ,a,'"*- PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City / ZIP Phone 0 e.t, 0.-LeSN. b IM -0-A. 1 "'- 4... • cl_P fr.-7/75€1 et,isi-zi- -si6.3 )--1-s'cir.- 1 'S6-) S,, a ,2 tv • 'tit:- - I6 l 665).,,,d/ C Si =r- e, H‘ - G� cJ e - Wn- /ro tClpeaf, f76S040 te;PZ 7 / • .. 1d if. 4 // a1/ �ri,� f, GleAzu.,,:clii S' ;>1 q.,/-- 97J6 t 94,„, _,a, 4 /r) (7 ,6.4 Zlif-il .4)J /Nc-444-f, / 5 -419i -�� h I'i _. 1 r,,.� i •ai.�.. � - ' _ t� . vl�aol. .p r, C� � S 814va �j45--�2�5&e VOC1461?- (4A149 f 1 5k, 6f -w .'-----1f2k 60- q7. 2.1t 43t(0,41 q64--O5(,r Pq mdiciauoka'h la_ , 05511 335 e_ei sg16y 9 n4.-_1 3L. ��i Cec� 2..es, 1.(../ H IA) , c2L ''7' fel) a7-1(1 ,De c3 ficoJ fr(6.7 - «.5.4 frp—a*i \•{1.-4) (1-4/ c--(1/ j ver;c1 le y , 4 - ozie-69/-i / ,3,5- /01Terci: c 0 _ q 4" , i 7J -R6/1. la( M (MO i<n Per/i . /. 3 ?a if -(WRcZ 811502 $7 --.2 7/7 vL 1^1- 1 <019-ek, / es- P , - e ) `� Av -370 r - 9- 1 SII K((S :,z 7 HURON AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. • Print Name Signature Address City / ZIP Phone Lore. ISe,o,i+ie. Ccurev- C `Ss\, 'z' 370(0 CoNv4,(RogC! Z14 14 - 211o5a- 2740-0177 , r\iTht-.1-,,e_ a.:1\ 10;,,,, 0--)3 3-?isr) e0 cgit. ))1 Gas , 9q.s-aSgy 0 zake fi Vit. Wl 55; n ►�, °�1 iii/iw ^A,.GG6-��� 91L5-92 'le r 6���y Fr d </<A_&./L - 0 . lJ 6Z&Lre46/ /ad' -6 C L2ah -6u145cOofill Leg% i%i ' ,_kLdg � � O?, 66doua5 6 61110' 9q�-So4 oO h v1 i e_ -o , `0 )c -►ems-- 7 q os imti -�c�_.- Gck) 3' AA/ 3 ti -t ( a3 )J9b;e _ C31c6c P' - 4 _► ' poq 6(..j3R164 ass-6q?3 n i +-a a r kr - //".4. w5-5- 44/ Cd st Dr- 4tivs gym/ 3gz/.. 027 514 5a n eie C )4t o,2 Ge) 0 1,1_3- 1/.�, - 3' C WS 8160/ . 's Kareh /_Dm(115 T� 4 Y75 61 VA,60-0-)t. 8(6o %3-217 --TUd -ii i ac< .0 JeA:tia-etS3 i -7 /5-4/eat 7.� (-2(.5e60/ 7�5---9.J �� r reeri &a..4s1,ka.).1 ri m L + / 7 L • ,,, `3h - 6 S No)) ci'yS-v/S 1r ' G'z-abefti 19, /7Qrt (5 /jXiaA-e----- -773 Pei') Uak4,, GWS po/ 945=7077 )E PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name 1 Signature Address _ City f ZIP Phone j r I .71( 6 1v.c.4S 'L31, g*I-;45. - , , 1, -, , , ..++7+ 11/// 1(,E 7( ;263? / 7t r ' r t{ . . • - 'j'I. ) 4 „! _ '�fJ -1 1�}- (. !1 moi' / / ' J J�. 17 ,- ) ! r „i 0.- . f 1. ice% / fv j /�f ` L -4j 1 '7%; ''''''' '-' S . . 0 6.'--. _) Li 1 141 ii -Ai IN/ c_-_-. (.- .4 '71 0..:'). -- - ` IL L 1 _rt 1 t' \ • rr 1 U,--- . \ — s(.4 \ • !� S 1.h.) 4 (. % L 1 -') c '1St' - "47'--t. I tX •y� _. r� (�� \A '� if97 . .... -�'t ,c�.. -��. ric (/r5i's / --, ‘.. -'-ciI 9 flit, I, 6,2 46:7(iii zf i. ,' te at/WV igiumelemilheat • • Welk 74 1 PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name -Signature _ Address - City 1 ZIP Phone c kC 1 us(e Nr ` :')L/f} � SGC L n L ? l�. � !r � �� l ._ �};' � L � �I.� � L � �� v� �� � 'NS -6170e h;li 1 Ilrc ry �( L4 � �, .Th �.-r C+ .... + ` _i ); I -.,-L_L j l ". i E i C xjek. f�„ Y1- S 7)-i .5n, j Y " ".4t�, ,n I 7 e = ^ I .64 f4r �' 713 ill 1- - C.-. lYl o..., 1.-:tifi . 9 ti 7 '/ ;,`- 0 ` _ C. 11 Lam; . off 1 , 'clllre 04 G"rC 5 ,,2 / Lt ; .L.i' , P ., : ) TV 1 a 0-- ' c'*,. `- A a i 0 7a eilez,d4 464 gr6 y 7 g76-265 f '1/4C.-------‘ \'(- k,- je''' - - -- ' I , '1 ' /r) c's C'i 0 Y,./l \ M i' ,-,-1 , JLi a C S J L M"t c.f'jC 1 -,-C i,_ Li 4.1 -- - - '.c� Tai Lt1_COL r L - � ,/ tit C, y ,�k° t � SOS '�ftit . e� lC 1 l G IlS-- � L � n c[*:.,,ii -01 ,(46) j ► . an -f-t1cA.,0 moilwa.,A c,;0_6 ,--th '. 1 s 04.A,301(&), i,1r. 31 6 (-f 7 3 I,) -)j3x`f r % `—. (',&‘,.,), 00?I Wick d 1Jr E-1►G Li? E-76-24 l 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 • nature Address Cit / ZIP Phone IIMMENIMMINBIMMENEMIN. t 7. ... __..;s _ _. -r 2 7 /3u ,- . T• ez '1121 , r- ... ii.2 a 7". ;'c Mill 7,17' -0 r ui Lr . Ai ► ��r_.A.....•‘_ y M! E ! of / Y 6 C Njam. 1 _ E. 42.. r/ RIMMENII 6 ? Lei/ IJ' MIIIMMI 8:1/ / f(1fIs5 111 r.divt1M"o 146(f CO. Rci Dte RXte l tiw 6' / MUM 016.a/ WA Yes -9J 2" 61 1, 11 Ai. • mai r j_ . „,,, id 1 2 q ..r( g i J160 cit/59e0 1Z...r lefir- ''w zz‘ fa 4 ro 87 0 lilt I dJbw MIME" . 1 -2,3 vfi60 to I _ � l ti) � It X111 71+1E, 0 32-` G1,nwee & 10 Mio f r 4 �., Emig m `/R.?), , . r! : a r ,� 1.1 PETITION RGAINSY nu 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 / ZIP Phone it &, a5eC4-- i 76-4 4 eA e c l wysIfe /770 _:-'1 EI('le- lefgLi/1/4)e 0' -- So 53 Crib a. �4r l �f �v id1`84-00,1( 5 NE�cRSi 47b - 9r e,_..5- -v im 1/. tA i6 -66b6.-Ade — rr !3_d /4t 4 4_c --"^---mac- _ 0,, cai...-� c_ ca L ((I CQ g! 43 't--) M 1)0 a 1, PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City /ZIP —1 Phone 4,4 ,,,ie,/7 1. j d//I /'5/ // : ///j/�,/ j)n)Adof tOL)6di / ''-'`-' c 0 Y t C ill ci }A 114, x „0,e rue,,(!e:3714P6 --'3 elY jr-6.1nit Aµrile, .5C/1. Eeln � s C ,�,�� 3.i cam. --(2, 0- 0-t-- 42,--4 () ''1...—,T. 62 r76s cfr E 7f ce \ AL W. a ". 1 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. Print Name S' . re 4 Address - City / ZIP Phone c r ,m e V 1 fi c- ' eiAlir l i t L -t _Scc -----7-14/ ii((N / // k (a 466' 6 , o -6l 1),Y` ileit.ko ----- eio ey AO 41-656 al Sa 61 c_,rp-t:?, 4,1 I trI O "1. Zt4- 2,) PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City I ZIP Phone ----) —, /L i',:-:-- 1.-(. ,- c .. Z/0 ' cl (•-• _ i<1, /:- - Z-----,...---":".1/ -...---::,,,,7-1,1,- r "7.7.3 '',7,e:_ -,t,,L_ __ '`- , --L . l,17/ / / _5 2 1.7i-21 3ALF V i)1(610 (-7 . A_ -, ,f,,_ , '_ , ,L,. „ iie"-;- /-2,k-.._.•.-.'-)L,,— , C: S-- ,C/ 9'17-,Lics--) 6-1 V ‘. \/'7' id). e. ku , e,!..2.,z_/7 r, 1- ,ii / 2 ,,, „: Pt' , A/ il..6t5-*_ 5./4/7 /Y2/ -27i -q ,-? , /I ,:-.-.:;(4 _ , ' . - /!:-1- 4. -:, rf) _ t_f - -I Li fr-___ C C3 /b' R- & / - i I t'/--' / c,'„> 12-y- 1 Print Name Signature Address City /ZIP Phone ell1fT(lclCa.4 U 5 LV '. k. -1 ti 55 - (t ,lLr_— 7 _?\,-...J a --s-+ i'-, -iia N\, c , ,: 1 — ,,�- .._ ,. , r f. ..,.; 51,4 r i c r r`1 -`4' rf� / -3c -3c- r r y J , �i , e i ! I —c c.,.. A, i I,/f _ `14.iFs 1 1 %1'i , - r ( /67 i. ---_S' 1" [� l� '"! cr •;---- 4'”1-1/ �i Me .4 -et 02,si'7—Cif 335" �J6 '� ava G / r AA t4 A 267i .y , 173c 0.,(46„teC di/7 qva " e17, AJ ID + t_ t c - _ -4 :r i51-7 , � 4fJ, *� C s�r' i 31.(-/7 '7 -- Z& ifi,tt- i(tr- (0),:k- , , 7 -7 r�C t ) �ryLL�` — 6E_ L (4 - 14I L L6-_,/ /57 7 GP 555 Co PI64'7 c'--e4ae-i2._ ,, J� 'f% ...:. C �. r : _ 26.7 ! --CJ S c 5 !` 4vj tri .' , aP LIi( '�' - ZS6 , ! 5',..208 cf,„,., "G .,[A ./LIr _ f u PETITION AGAINST IRE 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 Pan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. PETITION AGAINST TETE 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 Cit /ZIP Phone ,%j 5,,,,,,,t r 7 , q 1 .--.i3' RID G, c !�_ YI 6-4--- q7 Ci (44,4_—, o y c ���47L s `� ire -7- 3.% / h r �s�c c - k 7,4.),/„.? a 0.1� . ``''i 2, C` /e i1 ,4 &/2/./7 H' / G e ,5 A , / /i X 76. - z c y `. %,» r A'.19 s tr r9" //t4 4—kms .. s'/ 'S '76- 547e4 ICI ./-/A g L- 6-- -5 "7 / ir5J-C. a_ -271a_ef.: 0 2 i.f av 0 reA fr, , e 1-7,,, 771(4..5-• gq& •5--5" l,,.// C/. M /2 50-, 6514 4"e d:47,rr/t /J, `5/;'+' L ,97(75 6.(/ e GzGt'/ adickC'--- K Illivir/ } a_:-L,'IL h 's 3 ( nai V. G' S'+ 45",,9-, e74 `` 1�' 7iA,V7/ /-i vvie7 -� _ + " r t i?.37' f -' '47C K. ) 4 fL 1., ( 6b k 47.-'5-77 -"?:>':.;th197+l..7 cS''%(3 S''''s - �TC1`'1 {`\(\j L' 6 \ 4 ' Ail 711 1J1 t� 0, 4 c 1 is. ( -3 4ks- Q ft oi ,• lj� X (4i e 14k e/7 -)-!e A/7 al -05-3 illiitic 't , r4.- PETITION AGAINST nu 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 / ZIP Phone x 03079/04i CIGLI,2k2/49 ) i L1 rau..:R1 .t- i- R''&60. g96 3k, ?Au k e_L w.e4 • c z 3/9e,., eiA_ Zz6 /6 s.--0 R 24 z i - -6,k 144. r?£ "c4,0fici \ k i 6 A �' /1 I it t, 3- 2 S ] 6' 5 C; i Illv`r`C, r.,..64„„.._ ,) 7Lk) Na, ,51. :5, ft sth52 n='i6 -.372 ..S - Pt • r-- C C\---- I t. ' s ,---___ Ipto, -0 C._ 0---\,\\c-Lc- _ _ � C , lE'` '0 _,/ � 1 � .1- k� l t'e \Lh i, J1 Lti. `� s7 � r ��� '� �i : i � 6 Ltd ` 1 �� orn ) 'ter rte- .� �_-� -tet _ 7 P3 r C i 7 Ci 7i 14- Si 14 CoLc;8-IL . r` 1 - i I 14.1._-(.-) or z Chi 3'6 .1 pe_ . ,e 7 5t -,Ca C7C 3 e( 10 + C (Kyr 11 (c 1 4C_ 1/6N`E Aof Sift of - J- fe.-�;�/'3 1 ► L'1,-;;) /,ic,�7 1 1/0 /V545,71, 51,4- ) 1:2 'ea,,r —; - kI4fm(` 4/ti— ;' 0; 1 a .. 4(3 .'-ii coii" .. rvy) e tcJii 1(A ,'fir O /3,.. 4,- // 77,5 (J PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City / ZIP Phone � 4Ct-NL- r ./ `f-6 0 .41 ‘:.c,-,i,S7O, 6 I 1:- v4 ..p,„40 Ig....„.„._ , -'/6, 0 A/ 4-(1-- 8765-L a - mit/f _,� .. r . & 'k1,;� �� � w w: _ .7,,E-4,-(- / b4 // � 77\f 7 i g I � V (o 5j c??../g.s 2, 74)-- 0517/ S'I4-1 17 cP."b 6,96 _ ,,, L , .LI f l a'..i ('lig 7 r ;.lk 7 f (1-7-_, ? _/ (4 oc,„ 4 ! r L. -e ...? /--e_ 5-? / ` L/ ' .. Si 5` 5 ? /J_ V .T (0,,,,_. 46))/9- LI) rieimnweym 7 7pyverek4/0.440-hpikn 6 .66' Al *4/9/7 d71--- 5/0;2- sw-c537 Atm 6i . 4A, . / L.,, -- .5-5 b 6z'`-, s'` Y// 2 •7.6 55.--f V d es f i- et+1_0 i jouv[i GC' J' "(C102.- /1 otm c D f O .- ..._ ;S' / J/ff 0SWni 3, ni PIONS IU'Va,_L ) uN07Z ,3,,I,2 60767. vE g/P,3-2 Ek,/ -6-0", PETITION AGAINST ME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Salt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City f ZIP Phone 60 Mk., Seldat_iy_ i)1.,61:__ :aci . c a -3,71, deQ.ci 90.11i2, (4 Sd-i- gipsz .E(.76,- 5t4q 7 �-- T ' RI 0 (---CW2, f i- t - Z7\ 3 C , .2v-1 - � /' r • `, . r "9 JDe_im 0--)'2i-11 Il j i f th-t ( :244,ethif v44 -ch.___ '&3 76'5/ ife,47ida Jed fi S -°L 71- i IS -- 5 i?// . t lith e(i le s . --h f.9 \--/PLei itil,-, iz wc.ird Sdi , ,/r6e.s-2. g:45'3'92 _ --.1-444,Le (---21A-&-,0,- 1 i I ii? -4/002-a-, AV& (4' .8/601 q 'if 'D ci -r) (Ad' i lid r 1�+ A -Lai Pa. 3 ar,_„c'i'c'-' 34---L49(4_ Y , fir AUL �1 t L.. ci-if� � �( t., V C i j N a— 1 a r)- ii'� S) ,,,,(,,i--1„.-.. f'M. ? - As+)•„? ?„,,, - a"Y ! . ` 4 .'Jr . 4 - AC..'. --- •Z 1416-i- 67)(6K_ 'a t r 1 R, /973 3 .I/ VLa 7/656 6,15---6-i,,1 } 0(1.4'Ma), I GLa.'"1 � / j,�f � �( a%c .//Z.4,e-e C` •rc fo%6 �j, P4 s. 2 II PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City 1 ZIP Phone Rte\r\ S'e c fir- 4 _sq5caa-A.-4'-R--. 'Au{ Viis -lD 2.5:c..1 924:eiti--/ . 5-97-4o f,+ --r-ex 1 k_2( 0 . -t- 91-Lti-civJ tatx.: /711/ , Ctlrr> hb r_ --- - ,:t-, 2.2c LD__ frIrl tI` 1i C �`" (e:{1,.'UA:1 cr!-L 1 ) [%i f�' 71q Ca'-' (. F III IILLLLL/////.ii..s.+i __ i -L 40— /'7 3f%J _ J ,(5/.7e(. 1, r ',1 0,./(1,1i, i -34 474e -fa; e �! �eap) I �Cy�y� T '' .I 945- PEnnON 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 Si'lt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address • City / ZIP ' Phone r 1 ✓t d at ' cam- r- ' LI l %., Pi,,,,....„,6L D ,: IP i 'ic6. + / so f .4ki4/ . c)636 lj`5 „,„u/(+L7u it) i f I 51-'6/is,:;n ._-/1f15 (c,„(- IC c , 0)- f2 ct'- .i 5,!/ F ae rt1 f mum AGAINST nu 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 ±haracter of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse irnf.acts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Si nature Address City / ZIP Phone I` -�-f ,a h-_ a(..0— +—L i✓ -) 7 -2 T s-5- ( ! I .. ,n A-- ,&_. eNi,�'o` ° - ga '7'4 - T L- (2---6,/, ' ,'mo h d I l L"1 U s e/d) / I tbe- SCUli + b,--„i411/11-1-da 4;;5 (LIT:, # r/_ k4 o % .y /,22 ;---4))/ Me.L l ,' � c c � � 1 � , L t '1111 � C / 3 ' /6 i--) 'r. � Q PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City /ZIP Phone %� c�.� e �, G�{� , , . _ •i:., >� - �,. ��-• Gnu` �—�'y jam" {�•7 � Vr } d "`� 944 `a I `} ' �/j i �,2 1' t . .(`'�: .�i T V CI LPL/ 1 1 q` L1 - C ' z..) DI, l'-, 1_,,___T C h. �� L'.cif i i -)a, i F 34.4 /4:--, o; 6 //'` ' ,rC 1/.1) kV & pie_ ,g/ el ? X76 -zc ' PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City l ZIP Phone 6154' `L.1 kar a \r‘i,61, itjato % Y l .i . 61,5 i -o, ■ 51 4.c...4 v;fie. 11iG5a /_ s- 4r6 5-Iz_zs' tio Y ,, < '��{(- clii,-,-,,t.,k_ (4,-.,s„„.,..; e&Icc 2 71 errn,fiir-/r)r) PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant pi )or:ed f' the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Comprehensive Pian, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. F'rint Name ` Signature Address City / ZIP Plii ria., -- . _ r_au yta_EkAc. fizarLar, g.,-,(--)4, Nl '+:1, -,&r-- -2/is` 11 611 /H . 1'r i --7e Sic,,s- i _ 6 5-30 5 f _r ' i ).r4 Lack, e t rr C Z, a i ff/�_,4�v,�' Ri cA , a.i j - i 1 �[ yn . he (/ i ed (e_i ` ua�r 9,9% z). �;,�y`'L'C{ a ' o �. /212 Sksto )61!./E P/6S6 i s(/ aJ/rC" `k - e r4-. . S-13 ?0,3 �4�` ` � `J ''-'cdi" ,taifdd h_ .y e,--L.,./_e_. )-JZ . , (-e. ,-)0 rz,19IS/ * do L/7417 C r L-1 7 �- -✓ :6/Z -Z,..- C-517-3 - c eLa0-h loat, X17. -. i -: �►� . 1. �r� g0 rCJ . r!' s�,, 7 " _ Garfield County Planning Department GIS Resources: Colorado Division of Wildlife WRIS Data Checklist for: P Pc POS 15A- kt 1 oe- s Rob Hykys, GIS Analystroupin@ ot.nal970-945-8212, FAX. 9704457785 01/0310010 35 RM Note: For interpretation of this data, contact Pam Schnurr, Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, at 970-297-1192. Wildlife habitat lies: Entirely Partly Within Out in Area in Area 1 Mile of Area Bald Eagle Active Nest Site Bald Eagle Winter Range — Black Bear Overall Range — — Black Bear -Human Conflicts Black Bear Fall Concentration Area Black Bear Summer Concentration Area — — Bighorn Migration Patterns Bighorn Overall Range — Bighorn Winter Range — Bighorn Winter Concentration Area -44 Bighorn Summer Range — Bighorn Production Area,/Boreal Toad Canada Goose Brood Concentration Area Canada Goose Feeding Area Canada Goose Production Area Canada Goose Wintering Area Canada Goose Winter Concentration Area Chukar Colo River Cuthroat Trout EIk Migration Corridors Elk Winter Range EIk Winter Concentration Area Elk Severe Winter Range EIk Overall Range EIk Summer Range EIk Summer Concentration Area Elk Production Area Golden Eagle Nest Site Golden Eagle Nest Unknown Status Great Blue Heron Nesting Area Kitfox Potential Habitat Kitfox Field Sightings Lynx Mule Deer Migration Patterns Mule Deer Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Overall Range Mule Deer Summer Range itriVIule Deer Resident Population Area Mule Deer Highway Crossing Native Fish* Osprey Active Nest Site * UJFr .2 3 -62 Wildlife habitat lies: Peregrine Falcon Active Nest Peregrine Falcon Nesting Area Peregrine Falcon Migratory Hunting Habitat Pronghorn Antelope Overall Range Pronghorn Antelope Winter Range Pronghorn Antelope Winter Concentration Area Ptarmigan Potential Habitat Raptors Razorback Sucker River Otter Overall Range Sage Grouse Brood Area Sage Grouse Overall Range Sage Grouse Production Area Sage Grouse Winter Area Wild Turkey Overall Range Wild Turkey Production Area Wild Turkey Winter Range Wily! Turkey Winter Concentration Area Wild Turkey Roosting Sites Wolvenne Possible Sighting Entirely Partly Within 1 Out in Area in Area Mile of Area Ron and Karen Nadon 2675 Cty Rd 335 New Castle, CO 81647 February 12, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed gravel pit east of Silt on the Peterson property. We're concerned that none ofthe property owners or the town of Silt were notified in order to make comments before the original approval. The purpose of the board of commissioners, we thought, was to represent the interests of the majority of the people, not the interests of one party. It's a travesty that it took a lawsuit to ensure the right of property owners to be heard when their interests, quality of fife, and property values are being threatened. In addition, it's a serious breach of voter confidence that this elected board didn't consider the property owners' rights or interests before granting, out of hand, the gravel pit approval without even researching the implications or impact of the gravel pit. There are many reasons why the gravel pit shouldn't be approved, and only one reason why it should be approved. Reasons the gravel pit proposal should be rejected. 1. There is already an existing gravel pit just west of the proposed site. To have two pits, one after another, would destroy the natural beauty ofthe area. 2. Wildlife would lose yet another habitat. 3. The dust, noise, and pollution would drive down property rates of all property owners in the area. 4. Property owners would have to live next to the dust, noise, pollution, and ugliness that this industry would produce. 5. We don't need any more gravel pits. Reasons the gravel pit should be approved. 1. One business owner would profit. We sincerely hope the board will right their wrongs, hear what the homeowners have to say, and reject the proposal for the gravel pit. Sincerely, 4*)) 461°A Ron and Karen Nadon 3-5 Cannot attend the meeting. Want to go on record though as being in opposition to the gravel pit. 1. Lisa Bracken Realtor from Rifle PIs deny proposal. The Pit would adversely affect property values and the eco system. 2. Michelle Whiting 876-2587 3. Mary J. Wright 302 Grand Silt Vote No. BOCC better listen to what the citizens are saying. 4. John & Lorie Beattie -Courier 5. John Lee 6. Patrick & Laura Crews Native of Silt CO, registered voter. Keep our land. Vote against the pit. It is an eye sore, too much dust and noise will be created. STEVEN M. BEATTIE GLENN D. CHADWICK KAREN J. SLOAT CYNTHIA C. TESTER BEATTIE & CHADWICK ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 710 COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 March 5, 2001 BAND DELIVERED Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County Garfield County Planning Commission 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Application of Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. Procedural Matters for Hearing Dear Members of the Board: RECEIVED MAR 13 5 NV TELEPHONE {970) 945-8659 FAX (970) 945.8671 This firm represents the Town of Silt. We talked with County Attorney Don DeFord last week regarding several procedural natters relating to today's hearing. The purpose of this letter is to address procedures, and submit several suggestions for the Board's consideration. As a threshold matter, indications are that this hearing will create a substantial amount of public interest. The hearing before the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Planning Commission") on February 14, 2001 started at 7:00 p.m. and. concluded not long before midnight. Today's hearing is scheduled to start at 1:15 p.m., subject to other matters which may occupy the Board's attention first. The establishment of procedures at the outset may streamline the proceedings and assist all concerned persons. 1, Time for le.,:ring m If the Planning Commission Hearing is an indication, today's hearing may well not be finished by 5:00 p.m. Will the Board go on until everyone is heard? 2. Applicant's Presentation - Time At the Planning Commission Hearing, no limit was imposed on the time for the Applicant's presentation. With experts, the Applicant took around two hours in its direct case, and more time in response. Recognizing and acknowledging that these matters are entirely within the Board's discretion, will there be any limit on time for the Applicant? 3, Applicant's Presentation Evidence At the Planning Commission Hearing, the Applicant presented written "supplemental information" which had not been included in the original Application, the Supplement, or the Second Supplement. Copies were not provided in advance (or, for that matter at the hearing) to the Town or other interested parties. Although receiving the supplemental information, the Planning Commission Chairman correctly noted that this "eleventh hour" submittal of new materials was inappropriate and unfair. The Town does not know WSA's plans for today's hearing. However, based on the Planning Commission hearing, it is reasonable to expect that WSA may attempt to introduce new information, not a part of its Application, and not provided in advance. If so, Silt objects to the introduction and acceptance of any such new information. WSA's application submittals spanned nearly an entire year. The original Application was filed in February 2000, and the Second Supplement in January 2001. To allow new information, if offered at the hearing, would change the Application, would deny interested parties the opportunity of meaningful review and comment, and would violate the principles of due process of law. 4. Silt's Presentation At the Planning Commission Hearing, the Town of Silt as a responding agency was afforded 15 minutes for its presentation, which was given by Davis Farrar of Western Slope Consulting. Several Town officials also spoke in three minute increments, with a few being somewhat longer based on "donated time." As discussed with Mr. DeFord last week, the Town requests that Mr. Farrar and 1 have 20 minutes and 15 minutes each, respectively, totaling 35 minutes. if necessary, required time in excess of allotted time might be accommodated by donated time. The Town respectfully requests that Mr. Farrar be allowed to make his presentation by no later than 3:00 p.m., even if Staff and Applicant presentations are not entirely finished. The Town's primary spokesman is Mr. Farrar. He has a prior commitment, out oftown, which requires that he leave the hearing before 3:30 p.m. The Board's accommodation would be most appreciated. As was the case at the Planning Commission hearing, one or more Town officials may wish to speak briefly as members of the public. 5. Applicant's Response The Board may provide the Applicant the opportunity to provide response comments at the end. If so, the Town respectfully requests that such response be limited to clarifying matters. Neither new information nor attacks on matters presented by other speakers (who will presumably not have the chance to reply) should be allowed. 2 Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Very SMBlpsc cc: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planner Don K. peFord, Garfield County Attorney Town of Silt Davis Farrar Glen M. Harsh, WSA (By Fax 963-2412) S even M. Beattie 111111101lI Fill 111111 11111 111110 1111111 lI X 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P 61224 P258 11 ALSDORF 1 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CASE NO. 00 CV 203-A THE PARTIES to this Agreement are the Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt, Colorado, a municipal corporation., (hereinafter "Silt"); The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, (hereinafter "BOCC") ; and Western Slope Aggregates, Inc., a Colorado Corporation (hereinafter "WSA"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement are currently engaged in litigation entitled, Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt, Colorado, Plaintiff vs. Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. a Colorado Corporation, Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan, Defendants, Case No. 00 CV 203-A, as filed in the Garfield County District Court; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned parties desire to resolve all claims, counterclaims, issues and allegations currently framed by the Complaint, Amended Complaint and Answers in the above -captioned matter, which resolution shall be final and complete; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned parties have agreed to the following terms and conditions leading to resolution of such claims, issues and allegations. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 11, all terms and conditions set forth herein shall be mutually dependent and conditional upon each other. The failure to complete or fulfill any of the conditions set forth in this Agreement shall cause the entire Agreement to fail, become of no force and effect, and shall permit any party to this Agreement to reinstitute claims and defenses as asserted in Case No. 00 CV 203-A. Additionally, this Agreement shall be void if not fully executed by all parties on or before December 11, 2000. 2. On or before December 15, 2000, Defendant WSA shall tender a written request to the BOCC to rescind and repeal Resolution No. 2000-62 approving a special use permit for the benefit of WSA. 111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111 574.171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 P259 11 RLSOORF 2 of 19 R 0.00 0 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 3. When the foregoing written request to rescind is tendered by WSA, the BOCC shall act upon that request, approving such request, and rescinding Resolution No. 2000-62. Such rescission shall occur at the regularly scheduled BOCC meeting of December 18, 2000. All parties hereto agree that the action of the BOCC rescinding Resolution No. 2000-62 shall not require any notice or public hearing. 4. If the BOCC has properly rescinded Resolution No. 2000-62 on the 18th day of December, 2000, the Plaintiff, Silt, shall file a Stipulated Motion and form of Order dismissing Case No. 00 CV 203-A with prejudice, all parties to bear their own costs, fees and expenses. The Motion shall be in the form attached hereto as "Exhibit A". It shall tender a form of Order as set forth in "Exhibit B" attached hereto. Both shall be filed no later than December 26, 2000. 5. If the Court executes the form of Order attached hereto as "Exhibit B" dismissing this case with prejudice, such Order shall be considered a final resolution of all claims, defenses, counterclaims, if any, cross-claims, if any, and all issues raised in the litigation captioned, Silt v. Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, WSA, et al., Case No. 00 CV 203-A. If the Court refuses to execute such Order, this Agreement shall become void. 6. Subsequent to recission and repeal of Resolution No. 2000-62 as set forth above, WSA may proceed with consideration of its pending application for a special use permit to conduct gravel mining operations on the subject property. To that end, WSA shall have until January 5, 2001 to tender any alterations, supplements, additions or deletions to its pending application. All proceedings pursuant to said application shall be de novo proceedings, and the BOCC shall cause all notices and publications to be given as required by the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. The date on which WSA's application shall be deemed submitted shall be January 5, 2001. 7. On or before the close of business on January 8, 2001, the BOCC shall tender a complete copy of the application of WSA, including all additions, deletions, amendments or supplements, for consideration by the Board of Trustees and staff of Silt. 8. No later than the close of business on February 2, 2001, the Town of Silt, its staff or trustees, shall tender any comments, 2 1 111111 11111 111111 11111 11111111 UM 111 ERNA AAAI 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 P260 Mr ALSDORF 3 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO requests or statements concerning the applications and supplements of WSA. 9. The Garfield County Planning Commission shall consider the special use permit application of WSA at its meeting of February 14, 2001, which shall be a public hearing. 10. The BOCC shall commence final consideration of the WSA special use permit application at its meeting of March 5, 2001, which shall be a public hearing. 11. In addition to the foregoing, the BOCC agrees that it will execute and approve an intergovernmental agreement with the Town of Silt and other municipalities within Garfield County relating to zoning, subdivision and other land use issues within all entities. Such agreement shall be in the same form or a substantially similar form to that set forth in "Exhibit C" attached hereto, and shall be executed by the BOCC after such agreement has been approved by each of the incorporated municipalities within Garfield County. If any incorporated municipality within Garfield County fails or refuses to sign such an intergovernmental agreement in the same form or a substantially similar form to that set forth in "Exhibit C", the BOCC shall have no obligation to execute that document. Should the BOCC fail to execute such intergovernmental agreement for the failure of all municipalities to participate in such agreement, this settlement shall remain valid notwithstanding any provision to the contrary set forth in paragraph 1. 12. The parties to this Agreement shall treat this document as a public record subject to full disclosure upon proper request. 13. The parties recognize that they have entered into this Agreement freely and voluntarily in order to resolve all outstanding claims, allegations, issues, counterclaims, and cross- claims that have been or could be asserted in the case entitled, Silt v. Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, et al., Case No. 00 CV 203-A. The parties recognize that they have undertaken and entered into this Agreement after consulting with counsel concerning the contents of this Agreement and the desirability of proceeding with litigation in the aforementioned case. The parties hereby voluntarily relinquish any right to proceed on any of the claims and issues set forth in Case No. 00 CV 203-A, and further agree that under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement they shall request that the District Court dismiss with prejudice all such claims, allegations, issues, counterclaims and cross-claims, if any. However, nothing herein shall preclude any party from asserting any claims which may arise 3 111111111111111111E1111111111111111111111111111# 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 P261 M ALSDORF 4 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO out of the future proceedings on WSA's application as described in paragraphs 6-10, inclusive, above. 14. This Agreement constitutes the complete and entire Agreement between the parties. Unless set forth in writing herein no statement, writing or other communication of any kind shall be considered binding in relationship to settlement of claims and issues set forth in Case No. 00 CV 203-A. 15. The undersigned have read and reviewed all of the contents of this Agreement, have had an opportunity to discuss the contents of this Agreement with counsel and have undertaken lawful action to approve this document and approve an authorized execution of this document by their lawful representatives. The parties to this Agreement do hereby represent that by signing this document they intend to and are fully bound by all of the terms and conditions set forth herein. 16. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and same instrument. The undersigned do hereby covenant and agree to be fully bound and abide by all of the foregoing terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreernen ATTEST: By: BOARD OF G UNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY, COLORADO erg to the Board' Chai. ;_]ated- . 111114H, Town clerk Dated: By: 4 TOW OF SILT Mayor 1111111 11111 1111111111111111111111 ILII 111111111111 Il11 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 P262 M ALSDORF 5 of 19 R 0.00 'D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO out of the future proceedings on WSA's application as described in paragraphs 6-10, inclusive, above. 14. This Agreement constitutes the complete and entire Agreement between the parties. Unless set forth in writing herein no statement, writing or other communication of any kind shall be considered binding in relationship to settlement of claims and issues set forth in Case No. 00 CV 203-A. 15. The undersigned have read and reviewed all of the contents of this Agreement, have had an opportunity to discuss the contents of this Agreement with counsel and have undertaken lawful action to approve this document and approve an authorized execution of this document by their lawful representatives. The parties to this Agreement do hereby represent that by signing this document they intend to and are fully bound by all of the terms and conditions set forth herein. 16. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and same instrument. The undersigned do hereby covenant and agree to be fully bound and abide by all of the foregoing terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO By: Clerk to the Board. Chairperson Dated: ATTEST: TOWN OF SILT By : Mayor` Town Clerk Dated: 1111111 IIIA 111111 11111111111 VIII 1111111111111 IIM1111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 P263 M ALSDORF 6 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ATTEST: WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC. By: D tecl �6 --00 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Don K. DeFard, #6672 Garfield County Attorney 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 ATTORNEY FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Karen J. Sloat, #23914 Steven M. Beattie, #6289 BEATTIE & CHADWICK 710 Cooper Avenue, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8659 ATTORNEY FOR BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO Glenn M. Harsh, #17828 Office of General Counsel Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. PO Box 910 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970)963-9424 ATTORNEY FOR WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC. 5 1111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P 61224 P264 M ALSDORF 7 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ATTEST:. Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: /A Lai* ./ +ion K DeFord, # • 672 Garfield County Attorney 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 ATTORNEY FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC. Karen 3. Stoat, #23914 Steven M. Beattie, #6289 BEATTIE & CHADWICK 710 Cooper Avenue, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8659 ATTORNEY FOR BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO Glenn M. Harsh, 4417828 Office of General Counsel Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. PO Box 910 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970)963-9424 ATTORNEY FOR WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC. HIED 111111111111111 11 1 Ell dull 1111111111111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P 81224 P265 M ALSDORF 8 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ATTEST: WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC. By: Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Don K. DeFord, #6672 Garfield County Attorney 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 ATTORNEY FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO K.ren J .loat, #23914 Steven Beattie, #6289 BEATTIE & CHADWICK 710 Cooper Avenue, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8659 ATTORNEY FOR BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO Glenn M. Harsh, #17828 Office of General Counsel Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. PO Box 910 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970)963-9424 ATTORNEY FOR WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC. 11111111111111111111111 111111 II (1111111 111 1111 1111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P 81224 P266 fit ALSDORF 9 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO CASE NO. 00 CV 203-A MOTION TO ENTER AN ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC., a Colorado Corporation, BRENT LEWIS PETERSON, and SANDRA HANNIGAN, Defendants. COMES NOW the Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, State of Colorado, and Western Slope Aggregates, Inc., by and through their designated attorneys, hereby jointly move and stipulate to this Court as follows: 1. The parties set forth herein have reached a full and amicable settlement of all claims, issues, counterclaims and cross-claims, if any, as set forth in the above -captioned litigation. 2. The settlement referenced to above is set forth in full in "Exhibit A. . 3. Pursuant to the provisions of the executed Settlement Agreement attached hereto, the Board of County Commissioners has rescinded Resolution No. 2000-62 withdrawing approval for a special use permit issued to Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. 4. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of "Exhibit A" attached hereto, these parties jointly move this Court for an Order dismissing with prejudice all claims, allegations, counterclaims and cross-claims, if any, in the above -captioned matter, each of the parties hereto to bear its own costs, fees and expenses. EXHIBIT A -Settlement Agreement -Page 1 111111111111 IIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 P267 11 ALSDORF 10 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 5. Defendants, Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan, although properly served, have failed to appear or otherwise respond or plead in the above -captioned matter, and the Court entered their defaults. WHEREFORE, the parties to this Motion do hereby request that this Court enter an Order dismissing with prejudice all claims asserted iri the above -captioned matter. DATED this day of December, 2000. Garfield County District Court The Town of Silt v. SOCC Case No. 00 CV 203-A MOTION TO ENTER AN ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE Respectfully submitted, Don K. DeFord, #6672 Garfield. County Attorney 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 ATTORNEY FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Karen J. Sloat, 423914 Steven M. Beattie, #6289 BEATTIE & CHADWICK 710 Cooper Avenue, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8659 ATTORNEY FOR BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO Glenn M. Harsh, #17828 Office of General Counsel Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. PO Box 910 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970)963-9424 ATTORNEY FOR WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC. EXHIBIT A -Settlement Agreement -Page 2 1411111Hill 11111111111111I1111111111111111111111111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 F268 M ALSDORF 11 of 19 R 0.00 0 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO CASE NO. 00 CV 203-A ORDER OF DISMISSAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, VS. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC., a Colorado Corporation, BRENT LEWIS PETERSON, and SANDRA HANNIGAN, Defendants. THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon request of the parties, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Silt, Colorado, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado and Western Slope Aggregates, Inc., to dismiss the above -captioned matter with prejudice pursuant to the terms of a Settlement Agreement, and the Court having reviewed that. Motion, together with the executed Settlement Agreement, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, does hereby find and Order as follows: 1. A settlement under the terms and conditions set forth by the parties to the Motion is in the best interests of all parties to this litigation and will fully and finally resolve all claims and allegations in this matter. 2. The Defendants, Brent. Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan, have failed to appear in.the above -captioned matter and would not be prejudiced by dismissal of the above -captioned cause. EXHIBIT B -Settlement Agreement -Page 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P 81224 P269 M ALSDORF 12 of 19 R 0.00 0 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO WHEREFORE, THIS COURT ORDERS that the above -captioned matter should be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice and that each party shall bear its own costs, fees and expenses incurred in this matter. DONE AND ORDERED this day of 2000. BY THE COURT: District Judge APPROVED AS TO FORM: Don K. DeFord, #6672 Garfield County Attorney ATTORNEY FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Karen J. Sloat, #23914 Steven M. Beattie, #5289 ATTORNEY FOR BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SILT, COLORADO Glenn M. Harsh, #17828 ATTORNEY FOR WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES, INC. Garfield County District Court Silt v. BOCC Case No. 00 CV 203-A ORDER OF DISMISSAL EXHIBIT B -Settlement Agreement -Page 2 .DEC; -07-2000 THU 12:55 PM BEATTIE AND CHADWICK 970 945 8671 P. 02 1111111 1111111111111111111111111 "1111111 "11111 11 111 574171 12127 / 2000 04 : 35P B1224 P270 M ALSDORF 13 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ("Agreement") made and entered into effective the day of , 2000, by and among THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD, hereinafter referred to as "County"; the CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS, hereinafter referred to as "GWS"; the TOWN OF CARBONDALE, hereinafter referred to as "Carbondale"; the TOWN OF NEWCASTLE, hereinafter referred to as "Newcastle'; the CITY OF RIFLE, hereinafter referred to as "Rifle"; the TOWN OF SILT, hereinafter referred to as "Silt"; the TOWN OF PARACHUTE, hereinafter referred to as "Parachute"; alt of these entities are created under the laws of the State of Colorado; and the towns and cities, when referring to them as a group, shA1l hereinafter be 'the Municipalities". WITNESSETH. WHEREAS, each of the parties to this )ntergovernmenta] Agreement has ibe authority and responsibility to provide for the panning and regulating development of land within its jurisdiction on behalf of its residents; and WHEREAS, there exist certain areas of land which, by virtue of their proximity to each of the parties. require review and coordination among the parties in planning for the development of these lands; and WHEREAS, significant development is ongoing throughout Garfield County in which all parties to this Intergovernmental Agreement are located and, in particular. is ongoing outside the boundaries of each of the M1►niripalities; and WHEREAS, the development will impact the County as we]1 as the Municipalities located m its vicinity, particularly affecting the costs of providing additional services such as sewer, water, emergency services and transportation infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the development may have impacts on the tax revenues and viability of each of the parties; and WHEREAS, certain Colorado statutes provide for some preliminary review by the Municipalities and by the County of proposed development or annexations near their corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature has already established mandatory time frames within which the County must refer certain types of development within a certain geographical arca outside municipal boundaries to those municipalities, and within which the municipalities must complete their review and forward comments to the County (see, e.g., Sections 30-28-110(5) and 30-28-136 C.RS., as amended); and EXHIBIT C TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - (IGA) DEC -07-2000 THU 12.55 Pfd BEATTIE AND CHADWICK 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 P271 M ALSDORF 14 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 970 945 8871 P. 03 WI-IEREAS, GWS and the County have heretofore executed an agreement on May 19, 1981, related to the review of proposed development within a certain distance from GWS's corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 29-20-105, C.R S., as amended, the County arid the Municipalities desire in this Agreement to formalize the joint review process, expand the statutory requirements to provide joint review of land use applications in addition to those addressed in the above referenced stanutes, and increase the geographical area necessitating joint review; and WHEREAS, the County and the Municipalities agree that materials submitted to their respective staff for review concerning certain types of proposed developra.>ent described in this Agreement shall be forwarded to the other party for review before the party to whom application was made deems the respective development proposal complete or in technical compliance. NOW. THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AMONG THE PAA 1 IES HFRETO THAT: A. By the execution of this Intergovernmental Agreement, all parties agree that the statutory requirements for referring materials involving annexation to or development im municipalities or counties are hereby expanded as described hereinbelow. In this Agreement the following definitions shall apply: i. "Mayor Development Application," for purposes of this Intergovernmental Agreement , means any application for development, however denominated, submitted to the County or to one or more of the Municipalities, that would create or has a potential maximum density of at least 50 residences arid/or 20,000 square feet or more of commercial building space and is a development that requires or potentially requires a change in the underlying zoning, a special use permit, the submission of preliminary p1sns, or the creation of a planned unit development. "Major Development Application" does not include final plats, but shall include sketch plans. ii. "Other Development Application," for purposes of this Intergovernmental Agreement, means any application for a conditional or special use permit under the Garfield County Zoning Resolution (the "Resolution"), except applications for accessory dwelling units, home occupations and any other modified use of an existing residential facility; any other application for approval of any industrial operation as currently defined in Section 05.03.07 of the Resolution ("including extraction,, processing, fabrication, industrial support facilities, mineral waste disposal, storage, sanitary landfill, salvage yard, access routes and utility lines"), and as that Section may hereafter be amended; any application for rezoning involving a parcel of property two (2) acres in size or larger; and any application for commercial development, however denominated, with 5,000 sq. fl or more of 2 DEC -07-2000 THU 12:56 PM BEATTIE AHD CHADW 1 CK � h 111111 11111 1111 PIN I111I 1111111111111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P 131224 P272 11 ALSDORF 15 of 19 R 0.00 D 0 . ee GARFIELD COUNTY CO commercial building space. 970 945 8671 P. 04 iii. "Application" means either a Major Development Application or Other Development Application. 13 A copy of any Major Development Application received by the County for development within Garfield County and outside of the corporate boundaries of any of the Municipalities, which are parties to this Intergovernmental Agreement, shall be referred to the Municipalities between which the proposed development is to occur before the County deems the application technically complete. The term "the Municipalities between which the proposed development is to occur" shall mean the two (2) Municipalities closest to the proposed development's point of access to the closest state highway or interstate highway. C. A copy of any Other Development Application received by the County for development within Garfield County and outside the corporate boundaries of any of the Municipalities, which are parties to this Intergovernmental Agreement, shall be referred to the Municipalities whose boundary, or any portion thereof, is located within two (2) miles from any port ion of the proposed development, before the County deems the Application technically complete. D. Likewise, any Application received by one or more of the Municipalities shall be referred to the County for review and conmient before the respective municipality deems the Application complete. b. The Application shall include any and all exhibits, reaps, plats, studies, and any other information received with the application and important for the complete review of the proposed development. F. The Municipalities Tecogrnze and agree 10 comply with the County's statutory deadlines for application review and action, as set forth in Section 30-28-136(1)(6) and (2) of the Colorado .Revised Statutes, and the County, in return, recognizes and agrees to comply with the deadlines fru- application and action of the respective municipalities. To the extent possible, it is agreed by all parties hereto that the respective Municipalities conducting a review ofan Application shall have twenty-one (21) days in which to conduct their reviews and provide comments to the County for its consideration. The parties understand that, for certain development Applications, the 21 -day deadline for review and comment is imposed by statute, and failure to comment within the prescribed time must be considered an approval by the respective municipalities. Likewise, the County shall have twenty-one (21) days in which to forward its comments for consideration on an Application to the referring Municipality or Municipalities. 3 DEC -07-2000 THU 12:56 Phi BEATTIE AND CHADWICK 970 945 8671 P. 05 I II111111111111111 11111 III Ell 1II111111I11111111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 P273 M ALSDORF 16 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO G. If for any reason, the referring party fails to forward to the appropriate other parties as required herein, the referring parry agrees to postpone acting on the Application in any manner until such time as the appropriate parties have had sufficient time for review and comment, to the rnaximurn extent allowed by state or local law. 1-1. Within the time constraints imposed by Colorado statutes or herein, the parties agree to review and comment on any Application covered by this Agreement. After such review, and at least one (1) public meeting, if desired by the reviewing party, written comments may be forwarded to the referring party's staff for ir►clusion in the development package reviewed by the referring party's governing body. 1. All parties agree to consider each other's written comments in good faith before making a decision on the development Application. .1. The parties agree to implement this lntergovernmenial Agreement inornediately upon execution by all parties. 1 The Agreement executed between the GWS and the County on May 19, 1981, and all other intergoveratmental agreements between the County and any municipalities addressing these sane issues (i.e., land use referrals) is hereby rescinded, as required by Paragraph 8 of that agreement. L. The municipalities agree to provide to the County, and the County agrees to provide to the Municipalities, all updates or amendrnents to their respective comprehensive plans promptly after adoption. M The County and the Municipalities shall remain obligated to provide referrals pursuant to Sections 30-28-110 and 30-28-136 C.14._ S.., and any other statutes providing for referrals to other governmental entities. Nothing in this intergovernmental Agreement is intended to rescind, waive or release any such statutory requirements. N. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until rescinded by vote of the County or any of the Municipalities, such vote being preceded by a 30 -day written notice to the other parties. 4 111111111.11111111! 1111111110 11111 1111 III 1111111111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 P274 M ALSDORF 17 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereof have set their set their seals and signatures, as required by law, bereinbelow, this Agreement being effective from the first day after the last party has executed this Agreement. ATTEST: Mildred Alsdorf, County Clerk ATTEST: Robin S. Clemons, City Clerk ATTEST: Town Clerk 10 'd GARF'IELA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS John Martin, Chairman CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS Sam Skramsiad, Mayor TOWN OF CARBONDALE Randy V and erhurst, Mayor 5 1L98 9I76 0L6 N3I MOVHO 0NV 3I 11439 ud 0002—LO-030 1111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P 81.224 P275 Fl RLSDORF 18 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ATTEST: Town Clerk ATTEST:. Town Clerk ATTEST: City Clerk ZO 'd TOWN OF NEW CASTLE Steve Rippy, Mayor TOWN OF SILT Tom Oeitjcnbruns, Mayor CITY OF RIFLE David Ling, Mayor TOWN OF PARACHUTE John Loschkc, Mayor 6 1L98 96 OL6 NO I M J H0 GNU 3111;338 Wd zO : I C I1HI 0002 -L0 -03O 1 11111 Hill 111111 11111 IIU 11111 11111 111 111111 111 101 574171 12/27/2000 04:35P B1224 P276 M ALSDORF 19 of 19 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ATTEST: Town Clerk EO 'd 7 1L96 SP6 0L6 XO I MGVH0 ONd 310338 Wd 20:10 IIHJ. 0002-L0-030 ,.s II o Y • • • Top of Bluff E1.5519' - • ` f So River Edge E1.5465' No River Edge E1.5465' • lr. `" ._ F k---. I.N. �7._t- I� r 4 ---*77:-:::.-J r y q i to ...1'':?:.-"Ai''l • lq�,.I'v,,.,• .. am i, cyrr.. d • . 1,1 7 • 4. • Frontage Rd. _ E1.5478' _ I-70 E1.5480' 1/4 0 0 0 0 u Tv £Q, 2)a .i 1,41; \--;4 - 4 04!10/2301 15:35 9709632412 CDPHE—iJQCD Fax :3037820390 111 f3WeiTS, C v rncr Jane f. hSDi ov , Etocutive ciir ror„ EARTHWORKS Apr 10 21301 S;4? P.01 STATE :Of DM/eared so p orvctrrrg ar i'mprWrisAipgitifkaiiiiisvfranmear of the pew'e of aloha,* 4300 Cherry Crerk Dr. 5, r ry al►d Rtijiatiott Serviews ivrr On Derives, Colorado 502-46-1 530 '810 4 911,ii Ph rvir (3[73, 592=2000 Penyrr " n,.80230-/1928 'MD (303) $91.7?c 1 1301 A92-3CP0 Located in.Gkrxiale, Cowdry hrro://www.cdohe soli1tx0: 3 Water Quality Control Division WQCD-PERMITS-B2 (303) 692-3500 FAX (303) 782.0390 April 10, 2001 William M. Roberts, President Western Slope Aggregates P.G. Box 910 Carbondale, CO 81623 RE: Verification of Facility Description Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. -Peterson Gravel Pit CDPS Permit No: COG500378, Garfield County Dear Mr. Roberts, PAGE 01 I am writing in confirmation to our phone conversation that you and 1 had this morning regarding your Peterson Gravel Facility. I appreciate your cooperation in clarifying any changes that were Made, if any, to your operation that may affect the conditions of your discharge permit (COG 500378). We the Division understand that there have been no alterations to your site plan, Storm Water Ivranagement Plan, or treatxnerst (settlingpond), which will affect the quality of the receiving stream. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (303) 692-3539. Sincereiy, Christopher L. Environmental ' n Specialist Permits Una, Protection Section WATtik QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION xe: Local Health Department District Engineer, Technical Services Unit, WQCD MS -3 Filers Aiicia Bell-Sheeter, Half Moan Resources, P_D. Box 224, Silt CO, 81652-0234 Post -its Fax Note 7671 Dale/E7/ 9L1°. I From eo.l,.:, tr e, , / Co. ',° Phone # 9, r � l „= Fnr e / Fax %,/"-. -4_ ',_ Gy s FaY # 04/18/2881 15:35 9789632412 EARTHWORKS PAGE 82 APR.18.2001 ?:29Pi' DIV/MINERFLS&CEOLOGi' NO.558 P.2/2 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Dapartmtlntof Natural Resoarcre 313 Sherman 3c,, Itonrrm 2 1 5 Danvr+, Colorado 80203 Phonic OW: b66.3567 FAX; ;303) el32-0' Ce April 10, 2001 Mr. William M, Roberts Western Slope Aggregates, Ina P.O. Box 910 Carbondale, CO 81623 RE: Peterson Gravel Pit, Technical Revision Approval, Permit Pio. M-20004129 Revision No, TR -1 Dear Mr. Roberts: PIV13ION 4F 'MINERALS GEOLOGY CLAMATION MININO.SAFE Bin aWIN% COY*/ rot Grog 6. W ithe+ err,dtie nitaao MOwl B. Lang{ Divi,iw, Ci c On April 10, 2001 the Division of Minerals and Geology approved the Technical Revision application submitted to the Division an April 10, 2001, addressing the following: Add Maud Berms to permir area - The terms of the Technical Rev;siot; No. 1 approved by the Division are hereby incorporated into Permit No, M-2000-029. All other conditions and requirements of Permit No. M-2000-029 remain is full foirx and effect If you have any questions, pig contact me at (303) 866.4062. Sincerely, r Gregg lt.. Squire Environrncntinl Protection Specialist MAGS3valttrumfrA14.4.V43 iv2000429ORS OalAster 2.5s2PM.duc Apex Consulting Services, Inc. 502 West Arrowhead Court 0 P.Q. Box 369 Louisville, Colorado 80027-0369 (303) 665-1400 April 4, 2001 Mr. Bob Regulski P.O. Box 9 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Re: Review and Comment, Peterson Gravel Mine Special Use Permit Dear Mr. Regulski: Apex Consulting Services, Inc. (APEX) has completed the review of the Peterson Gravel Mine application and supplements for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a parcel of land located in Section 12, Township 6 south, Range 92 west of the 6th principal meridian. The parcel is located approximately two miles east of Silt, Colorado. Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. (WSA) of Carbondale, Colorado submitted an application for a SUP for the extraction of natural resources (sand and gravel), processing (concrete batch plant), and mining in a flood plain. in February, 2000. Four supplements to the SUP have been submitted since February 2000. This letter presents a summary of APEX's review of the "Dewatering" portion of the SUP. Ten (10) domestic wells are located within 1,000 feet of the gravel mine. It is our understanding that during mining operations the dewatering will occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The estimated dewatering rate of approximately 1,944 gallons per minute is recorded on the Authorization to Discharge Under the CDPS Industrial General Permit for Sand and Gravel Mining and Processing General Permit. Based on the pumping rate, these wells may be impacted by the dewatering of the gravel pit. Specifically, water Ievels may be depleted over tune, specifically during periods of low flow in the Colorado River. Additionally, the dewatering may impact local vegetation in the area (specifically cottonwood trees). The Colorado River is located between the gravel mine and the wells and the SUP indicates that dewatering of the pit is not expected to have any effect on groundwater beyond 50 feet from the property line. However, the SUP did not contain any documentation or baseline data that would support this claim. APEX recommends requesting that WSA initiate a groundwater monitoring (baseline) and modeling program to determine what impacts the dewatering may have on groundwater levels in the area of the wells and on the surrounding vegetation prior to gravel mining. Additionally, WSA should prepare an action plan to remedy any impacts to the wells that result from dewatering the gravel mine. Please call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely,. APEX CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. Michael D. Hattel, F.G., P.E.S. Principal MDH:mh MICHAEL DEAN HATTEL, P.G., R.E.A. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEER GEOLOGIST EXPERTISE Environmental Assessments, Environmental Monitoring, Geology, Groundwater, and Hydrology Turn -Key Remediation Projects, and Operation and Maintenance of Hydrocarbon Remediation Systems EDUCATION R.S., Geology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1986 M.S., Engineering Geology, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, 1993 REGISTRATION PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS EXPERIENCE SUMMARY 2001 to Present 1991 to 2001 1988 to 1991 1985 to 1988 Professional Geologist, Wyoming Registered Environmental Assessor, California Professional Environmental Scientist, Colorado Member, Association of Engineering Geologists Member, Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers Member, Colorado Groundwater Association Apex Consulting Services, Inc. Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. Fox Consultants of Colorado, Inc. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Mr. HatteI has worked on numerous environmental monitoring and groundwater remediation projects, underground storage tank (UST) and above ground storage tank (AST) projects, and phase I and Il environmental assessments (EA). His responsibilities on these projects included design and analysis, feasibility studies, project management, and construction. Mr. Hattel has extensive experience in subsurface sod and groundwater assessments and remediation, and installation of monitoring and recovery wells, and underground storage tank removal. His experience includes turn -key project management, excavation plans, contaminated materials handling plans, compliance monitoring for Colorado groundwater standards, preparation of spill prevention, control and counter measure (SPCC) plans, installation of free product recovery systems, and design and construction of air sparging and soil vapor extraction systems. Mr. Hanel has designed and installed monitoring and water wells for numerous groundwater investigations. The design included evaluation of existing geologic and groundwater conditions, and the development of applicable monitoring programs. His responsibilities also included well development and maintenance, and evaluation of the aquifer and the well. Using the evaluation data, Mr. Hanel has developed and implemented monitoring methods and instrumentation which includes QA/QC of all aspects of monitoring. Mr. Hattel, as Senior Project Manager has designed and has designed and implemented groundwater dewatering and remediation projects. His involvement included the direction of site investigations, design, modeling,implementation of groundwater remediation, and governmental agency reporting. Mr. Hartel has also prepared operation and maintenance manuals for dewatering, UST/AST and hydrocarbon remediation systems for use by site personnel. He also provided system training to contractor and site personnel. APEX CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. c. -t G1/ {GGl 4 Half Moon Resources, Inc. P.O. Sox 2'14, 8114 Co 81662-0224 nLr rl�u1`v Kt�U Ir t ,6'174/1 C.k'Jl Tot: 1170 -676.27541 • Fax 070.1176.6207 To: Mark Bean—GarCo Plarrr#ing j_ETR4NsurrrAL FROM: Alicia Bell-Sheeter RE: FYI: WSA permits E -gnat!; h&fineeneeeprta.nel Fix: 384-3470 DATE: 04/09/01 PAGES: 7 Cc: CCAP Calvin Lee Steve Beattie Dear Mr. Bean: What follows is a copy of the let of Public Health and Environme attached) questioning WSA's m April 2001 he expressed concer supplements to WSA's propose County since their discharge pe disturbed by the fact that no up amended Storm Water Manage Additionally, 1 spoke with Greg April 2001 and he informed rile WSA's mining plan since their Mr. Squires, WSA cannot pr such time as the appropriate to the DMG. r sent by Chris Gates of the Colorado Department CDPHE) in response to a fax sent to him (also ung plan, In my conversation with Mr. Gates on 2 that CDPHE had yet to receive any of the four mining plan that have been submitted to Garfield it was issued on 24 March 2000. He was also {ed information about this operation and/or an rent Plan has been submitted to his office, quires of the Division of Minerals and Geology on 5 t his office has received no technical revisions to it was reviewed in June of 2000. According to with construction of any berm or drain pile until nical revision has been reviewed and approved by WSA has repeatedly stated thatrilheir proposed operation complies with all requisite permits However, commentsm both of these agencies suggest that this may, in fact, not be the case. Furthern14 , this lack of diligence on the part of WSA regarding their compliance wit i3itiate water quality and mine reclamation requirements should cause Geld County concern about any future operation undertaken by this operator. C riffs Gates can be reached at (303) 692-3539, and Gregg Squires can be reached i (303) 886-4062, if you would like to visit with either of them personally about this p itiosed operation. CJY(U7/LUCI1 lY, JL 7rocto LUr rU-lLr mRJUIY t -1 -Vat !J STATE OF COLORADO Bill carmen.. Corvaernor Fane L. Norton, bit -votive Director Dedicated to proleYtrnW, and imnmrinp the health and er 4.100 Cherry Crrek Or. 5. Denver, Colorado 81714E-7530 Phone 0011692-2000 1131) Uric 1303) (191.7700 Located in Glendale, Cnki+arta itapA ww.t4ihesrarrcuua Water Quality Control Division WQCI3 PERMITSB2 1303) 692.3500 fAX (303) 782.0390 Laboratory and Ractiat' 8100 Lowrn Blvd. venue-, Grim -ado 602' i3031692-3090 April 3, 2001 William M Roberts, President Western Siope Aggregates P.O. Box 910 Carbondale, CO 81623 RE: Verification of Facility Description Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. -Pe erre COPS Permit No: COG -500378, Garfie Dear Mr. Roberts, I am inquiring/informing you about a concern you could provide us with some information about your futility. Attached you will find a copy of a fax received Inc. in Silt, Colorado. She had some questiv imperative that any charges that may affect the Water Management Plan, need to be relayed to Please reply to this Division in writing, within you have or will be taking address this situ situation If you have any questions regarding this loather,, Sincerely, Christopher L. gates Environotmenstal Protection Specialist Permits Unit, Ptvtect on Section WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION xe. Local Health Depetteaut (wl pp. I-5) District b rower, Tec raeai Sa+ies Unit, W MS -3 Files wI pp 1-5) Alicia Blit-3hecter, Neil Moan Ro owces, P.O o$ the people of Colaradn Y.+ t7ivis,iun 26 'Gravel Pit County Colorado �r of Public and Errvi[oeme r Ian individual might have regarding your Peterson Gravel Facility. If vkiu1d be helpful in answering some questions that the Division has 1M March 30a 2001, from Ms Hell -Sheeler from Half Moon Resataees, concerns regardmg some chartgcss made to ycnt operatics). It is charge point, characteristics of your discharge, sate pian, and Storm Water Quality Control Iii viai on days atter receipt of this letter as to what action and measures e appreciate any information you can provide to clarify this ase (wf pp. 1,5) 224, Silt CO, 81652.0234 (off pp. 1-5) me at (303) 692-3539. 474/!7/kaf7t 14; JL PbSzepe Half Moon Resources/ Inc, P.U. Box 224, Sat CO 87652 4 To: Chris Gates FROM: Alicia Bell-Sheeter RE: C0G500378 CC: Dear Chris: On March 24, 2000, WQCD issued a Aggregates, Inc. ('WSA) for a sand a application has undergone rnynad that WQCD has not received any of I also wonder whether there are addit application. Please note on the new ntrrung plan proposed. One is a 10' continuous be abutted on the north by the second, al for this "drain pile," but it is assumed like. Are there any concerns with le exposure of groundwater? Second, 1 but do these sedimentation sources proximity to the Colorado River? Fin when sediment washes off of the ber The second 2 pages of tate attached detail about intake structures located that any of the documents referenc amended to reflect changes to the m operation and 2 intake structures (on Bureau of Reclamation has stated th river is located 12' upstream of their i understanding that the Town of Silt's "vegetated earth berm" is referenced This application goes before the Ga 2001. If any or all of these suppleme quality standpoint, would your office those should be addressed to Mark Springs, CO 81601. his fax number P-1ALk FNULJit Kt�ULpk'' t 670.$7+12769 • Fax: 970.17114207 E•mall: herfmoonOsop .net TRAI1! 1/L_. FAx: 303.782.0390 DA- : 03/30/01 PAGES: 5 5 permit (no. COG 500378) to Western Slope ravel operation just east of Sift, Colorado. This since the initial approval date and i am assuming supplements that have been submitted for this project. 1 water quality concerns as a result of Manges to this 12/01) that there are now 2 "new obstructions long the southern penrneter of the site, which is .drain pile." No specifications have been submitted rt will be used to dry out process water, slurry, and the hg of these contaminants, particularly given the unclear if your office addresses floodplain concerns, any potential water quality problems given their in a storm event, are there water quality concerns car "drain pile" into groundwater and/or the river? a letter trorn WSA's engineer (02/1401) which provides roximity to the proposed protect. There is no record orrnwater Management Plan, etc.) have been g plan. Also, the distances cited from this proposed unrcipal and one for irrigation) are questionable. The e drain ditch receiving pond water discharges to the structure, not the 100' mentioned. It is also my ke is within 1,000' of this project. not 1.4 miles. A there is no vegetation plan in the record. Id County Commissioners for final decision on April 10, changes to the project present concerns from a water fnmunicate such concerns to the Commissioners'? If so, n, Garfield Planning Department, 109 e St.. Glenwood (97D) 384-3470 Thanks for your attention to this matter. O9/ UW . 00i 14:.jz �relnrn]tar F -i r muury NL -t :L.t • • • • Po • • s . tp. F.1. .r tri• .I • 1i r Ny\ • f r I L 'r. i I, 0' Nr .'. CII f • '1. Ir PLAN 04/09/2001 14:32 9708765207 HALF MUUN HEbULJNU. 71-1 H tk1 t•I 49 4 t11 T' 4 03/1210 N iztia coct sto1fS HAbE Lit _ F gRAProc WALE DI Fal PerT 54Pwp Card raid S Ppe Lim Named F era ( M40 LI) God U/ GCJW. 1 fl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14..?4 7f GG t A:Jat..Gf r -Lr I OJA MtJi.JUML,t7 JEROME GAMBA & AS 1A COMM -MG ENGINEERS do LAND SURVEY 41 914 9114INT. 5JTE 214 PO 80X 1-131 OLDAYO00 PRIAM COLORADO rte07-1451 ma* MC) 945-2560 FAX riiD) WA -1410 Supplemental tnformatio Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. Peterson Pit, Garfield County, Color WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION Several engineering reports (and St and environmental protection measi • Spilt Prevention, Control and • Stormwater Management Pia • Colorado Discharge Permit: Operations; • Flood Plain Conditions (see I • Opinion Letter (May 31, 2000, & Pipeline; Copies of the above documentation portions have been attached to this Two major water intakes are located nearest water diversion is the Silt Pu irrigation water to the upper bench a intake structure located approximate pipeline buried 10 feet deep located road). II permits) supplement the Application regarding water supply These include: untermeasure Plan: harges Associated with Sand & Gravel Production r dated April 3, 2000, Jerome F. Gamba, P.E. & L.S.): erome F. Gamba, P.E. & L.S.) regarding the Silt Pump Canal r -AUL kir February 14, 2001 re submitted with the Special Use Permit Application and ort tor reference, he immediate area of the proposed gravel operation. The Canal intake. The Silt Pump Canal project delivers fields north of the Town of Silt. The Intake consists of an 100 feet south of the proposed pit boundary and a gravity feet away from the property boundary (along the canal Proposed mitigation measures inclu+ : he construction of, an earth berm with vegetated slopes and silt fence placed at the bottom t icti the slope (Colorado River Side). The berm will be constructed using the topsoil and ovurden materials and will serve to provide an additional buffer zone of the mining activities fr••the canal pipeline. The silt fencing will minimize sediment transport to the river during Storm : •;its while the proposed vegetation is being established. The crusher has been relocated dire Supplemental Mining Site Pien. This provide noise and visual mitigation t site. The gravel stockpile area will be GA998102-14.01 rneeting\Suppiemerltai int Page 1 of 2 North of the "island to remain" as depicted on the ()cation, in conjunction with the vegetated earth berm, will e existing and proposed residences South of the proposed uated near the crusher and "Island to remain" which should 04/09/2001 14:32 9fUUtbb2N/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ f SSil rnent l information Western Slope AQgregates, Irrc. Feb/vary 13, 2001 further serve to decrease the level of the bottom of the excavated area tha noise level and visual impact even fu I The second water intake is the Town Silt Municipal Water Treatment Facility located approximately 1.4 miles downstream Ism the proposed gravel operation along the Colorado River, Water for domestic use is withdrawn the river rota a sedimentation pond located on the facility grounds. Raw water is withdrawn dir=•Itly from the pond or from the subsurface drain structure that surrounds the pond, where it is furth- heated and pumped to the Town's 800,000 -gallon storage reservoir. The Town's water treatme acility rarely (if ever) withdraws raw water directly from the Colorado River utilizing the surroundi ti subsurface soils and gravels to prefilter the raw water, ed gravel and batch plant operation includes the spill levention, Control and Countermeasure Plan) for the fuel ransport control measures (see the Stormwater Scharge Permit Discharges Associated with Sand & Gravel I't-500000) that is incorporated within the mining area E7;:ter containment improvements. These improvements perimeter of the site, effectively protects the receiving HAL- MUUN RkSUUh UL HAUL N r' to noise impact, Additionally. the crusher will be placed in ill conservatively be 10 to 12 feet deep, decreasing the Proposed onsite mitigation of the pro containment structures (see the Spill storage tanks and the onsite sedime Management Plari and the Colorado Production Operations, Permit No. C dewatering, gravel washing and stor together with the silt fencing around t waters from degradation. The accompanying Supplemental groundwater pumped during the dew or storm water runoff is captured by t sedimentation pond located at the so are ErrviroBerm0 Sediment Control i along the way to the pond. g Site Plan illustrates the above improvements. AH ring efforts; overflow from the gravel washing operations: various surface water collection swaies aid diverted to the rn boundary of the facility. Within the collection swales 0llations that capture and control sediment and erosion Prior to the spring runoff each year, be cleaned of trapped sediment to pr events. Additional cleanings shall be storm events during the operation of Sedimentation pond and EnviroBerm® Installations shall ide adequate capacity in anticipation of major storm rformed on an "as -needed" basis following significant facility. Ail fuel storage tanks and mining equi storm elevation), Trucks and other rn in use. The electric pump used for th will be mounted on a trailer that can event. The proposed berm will not im ends and does not create an encroac nt are located above the Base Flood Elevation (100 -Year le equipment will be parked out of the flood plain when not ewatering operation is equipped with sealed bearings and caved to higher ground prior to the major storm flow t downstream flood elevations since it is open at both ent (or a constriction of the flows) within the flood plain. The proposed lake, as depicted on t an irregular edge to appear more natii Page 2 of 2 upplementai Reclamation Plan, has been reshaped with and to enhance aquatic lite. JEROME GAMBA & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINES & LAND SURVEYORS 4 CALVIN LEE Attorney at Law 811 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO TELEPHONE 970.945-8571 ASPEN TELEPHONE 970.920-4395 April 9, 2001 Garfield County Commissioners 109 -8th Street Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 b1B41 RECEIVED APR 1 0 2001 FAX NUMBER 970-945-4981 e-mail: blakelaw@raf.net ROUTE 0 John 0 Larry El Walt re: Western Slope Aggregate, Inc.'s application for a special use permit Dear Garfield County Board of County Commissioners: I represent the Concerned Citizens Against The Pit. There is some indication that Western Slope Aggregate, lnc.(WSA) intends to rely on the provisions of C.R.S. 34-1-301 et. seq. for the proposition that the county is required to grant them their application for a special use permit. WSA's reliance is misplaced. The statute only applies to counties which have a population of sixty- five thousand inhabitants or more according to the latest federal decennial census. The latest census for Garfield County shows a population of approximately forty - six thousand. Even if Garfield County were subject to the statute, the statute requires that the county planning commission develop a master plan for the extraction of mineral deposits and that the master plan for the extraction of mineral deposits take into consideration the quality of life of the residents in and around areas which contain commercial mineral deposits and take into consideration other master plans of the county or surrounding cities. See C.R.S. 34-1-304( 1)(d) and (e). The Garfield County Planning Commission has not developed a master plan for the extraction of mineral deposits. And furthermore, the Garfield County Master Plan already in existence and the Town of Silt Master Plan both designate the area of the proposed WSA gravel pit as inappropriate for mineral extraction. The neighborhood within one half mile of the proposed pit is entirely residential and a gravel pit would destroy the quality of life of the residents. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Calvin Lee cc: Concerned Citizens Against The Pit lec,‘ _J,A. APR .f i i J13482 _ ,,,iLDRED ALSDORF, RECCRGErc QUITCLAIM DEED v r4R 3 1981 sPrimp pilf•Revrir The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Grantor, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, hereby quitclaims and conveys to JOHN L. PETERSO.' and MILDRED A. PETERSON, Grantees, for the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) . 4 other valuable consideration, the following -described property . larfield County, Colorado, to -wit: A tract of land situated in part of Government Lot Two (2) and pact of the Northwest. Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section Twelve (12), Township Six (6) South, Range Ninety-two (92) West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 70, and from whence the North Quarter corner of said Section Twelve (12) tears North 52° 03' East, Sixteen Hundred Six and One-tenth (1606.1) feet, and considering the North line of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of said Section Twelve (12) to bear South 89° 29' 42" West and all bearings relative thereto; thence North 77° 04' Eas, 1301.5 feet along said Southerly right-of-way line; thence South 00° 21' East, 1827.6 feet; along a fence line;thence West, 126.6 feet, thence North 760 48' West, 613.9 feet; thence North 26° 50' West, 523.0 feet thence North 570 24 West, 702.9 feet; thence North 80° St.' West, 849.9 feet; thence North 13° 49' East, 214.0 feet, to said Southerly right-of-way line; thence along said Southerly right-of-way line the following three courses and distances: North 77° 04' East, 68.7 feet; South 83° 39' East, 106.0 feet; North 77° 04' East, 912.2 feet; more or less to the point of beginning. Said tract containing 51.08 acres, more or less. WITNESS the hand of said Grantor, this 23rd day of march , 19 81 • UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 44-t- By Regional Director Water and Power Resources Service s Aro GRAND RIVER DITCH COMPANY 0564 County Road 223 Rifle. CO 31650 (970) 625-2718 18 Board of Directors Luther Lewis Larry Antonelli James Carnahan Feb. 14, 2000 Garfield County Commissioners and Garfield County Planner C/0 Mildred Alsdorf,County Clerk and Recorder 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Re: Western Slope Aggregate, Inc.Spec.al Use Permit Dear Sirs: The Grand River Ditch Company, owners of the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch, want to make it known that we have no objections to the Western Slope Aggregate, Inc. propsed Special Use Permit. We do want to make it known that any water owned by the John Peterson Estate and intended to be used in this proposal cannot be removed from the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch except at the John Peterson headgate. We need to be notified of any proceedings that include the use of any shares of Lower Cactus Valley Ditch water owned by John Peterson aka John Peterson Estate. Idtither L.. Le is, President Board of Directors Grand River Ditch Company WEMPFIT APR 03 =I PITT11ON MAINS? 1111 PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch dant 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 Noma /:-/�, ' ` Signature .. City ( ZIP Phone r� ii r.. s :• l # ! - 514 a. —r+rf7r 011hrt r� i�er*m- m, r,�, � 4 -- --M.raw � ..,"—a!4.1 ! tri e. SIMMS=I. * r orf•! i nail 1%4/7 �'W 3 r Rtc it 4,.-A(4 ,.._ 4/ toe, el,--)' • . c.aL.5 tx 65(7 Q?lietivwdV/45-61 5'--320 P411/11) Jameer- f � / IA wit /<'-e if i % finR''r;> S Grp ' C " ' L as l� 1 % Si;?,\ ‘11)(- Nth Cto3, to 6019 /tee uoid e Or- 3(04'7 10-s 0 g 3i 5- --- 274 I ' ) &) k .4u'rel. ' C 0-...._ i . "5--041 Y5 zAkKa-4-.,e4 e el -1,440/ ,,)/5--c6 f 7 T00Z/E0/h0 LOZ59L80L6 S3D8n0S38 NOON f3VH MEWED E VED APR 0 3 2001 PETITION AGAINST 11! PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Si . nature Address C 1 ZIP Phone .. Al I. `-PI " ire` 23 el 2,56) P j _ OE' Th 1, .1 0/3 t L. Cu''! 2.`=i rl„ ttif, 4 aZ 9 -Atop k, I:6S •4c04 ,ii 4 �rs/lr� �..... as-�N=om:r. m'..�.+�`�i� VIZI !, ---- �� -. rf " � r�� r�.r==i , .r l+w_ 0i earrai �_ � =1 MI_ �— `� . . 1 M TSO/E@/h0 L04759LGOL6 Tl Czt 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 7 Z 1 Address . i t` '=2 City 1 ZIP l --L g Phone 625-294i. AMCS "1 r VEZ a ii 'TPE Ct rl . ` J 6 C (- Pc' /= �fi - �. c f 4 943/ qts --s- C.IF r / o- 3-(-1-Ki( c_ e.. C� i _ A /Ida, , vcik,ilf ,(_, : / /e 1 ;,/i) .c--. , 2 6 , "---- , t '-- i -y L- 1, • ""'C..- .`-, }}"lr v I,k• 4 43 --,21C - ri. _,.J f CCC „, y \ r ' , c) t„, iv, A -,-„,. , , } 1 , - , I 1111.:. 4 — 41 LS F r � f et, 93 Qs psc CALVIN LEE Attorney at Law 811 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 61601 TELEPHONE 970-846.8571 FAX NUMBER 976-645-4961 RECEIVED FEB 1 2 // 2001 ASPEN TELEPHONE 470-920-4398 February 7, 2001 Garfield County Board of Commissioners and Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Members of the Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission e-mail: hlakela+rof.net I represent a citizens group called the Concerned Citizens Against The Pit(herein after referred to as CCAP). CCAP was recently formed because of neighborhood concern over the application for a special use permit for a gravel pit submitted by Western. Slope Aggregates, Inc. This letter addresses the concerns of the citizens and an analysis of the legal issues involved with the application. CCAP adopts the legal analysis set forth. by Steve Beattie, the Town of Silt attorney, in his letter to the Board and Planning Commission dated February 2, 2001 and incorporates by reference the arguments set forth therein as though fully set forth in this letter. CCAP expands on some of the points in Mr. Beattie's letter as follows: Character of tht. Neighborhood The board must establish the character of the neighborhood within one-half mile of the proposed gravel pit site. ] n aid of establishing the character of the neighborhood, below is listed all properties within one-half mile of the proposed site. Brad and Ruth Mollman 105 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Dave and Ann Ni wholson 0029 County Road 335 New Castle, CO E 1647 Thomas Bradthe 0117 County Road 335 New Castle, CO 81647 Robert and Edward Regulski 287 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Fred Frie 0287 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Rick Locke and Jeannie Long Letter to Garfield County Boarc' of Commissioners & Garfield County Planning & Zoning February 12, 2001 Page 2 Leno and Shirley Montover 1914 County Road 311 Silt, CO 81652 Glen and Karen W,llen 230 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 8- 647 Conrad and Donna Meade 0245 County Road 335 New Castle, CO 81647 Shelia Rew and Jeremy Castle 35445 Highway 6 & 24 New Castle, CO 81647 RE2 School District 839 Whiteriver Avenue Rifle, CO 81650 Mona and Robert Koper 3708 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Kenneth and Dorc.thy Else 3712 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Roy McPherson 2197 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 1r 1647 Glen McPherson 2299 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 1,1647 Pamela and Paul :.auman 597 County Road 335 New Castle, CO 81647 Jose Daniel 286 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Leon and Sherry Padia 196 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Edward and Mary Harper 35795 Highway 6 & 24 New Castle, CO 81647 Barry and Patricia Sovem 421 County Road 235 Silt, CO 81652 John Courier and Laura Beattie 3706 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Edna Jane Ridlon 3710 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Oliver St. John and Michelle Whiting P.O. Box 1321 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Louise Barker 2045 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Todd and Tina Collins 66 Mid Valley Drive New Castle, CO 81647 Lillian Hill 38090 River Frontage Road New Castle, CO 81647 Letter to Garfield County Board of Commissioners & Garfield County Planning & Zoning February 12. 2001 Page 3 Connie and Gregory Salvage 3716 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Steve and Neva Hiscock 3720 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 John and Ann Marie Reesee 3726 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Paul and Christine Singleton 3718 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 Jane and Lee Gilbert 3724 County Road 214 Silt, CO 81652 The historic and current use of all the properties listed above is agricultural and residential. There has been no dramatic change in the historic use for many years. The applicants 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. Economic Loss The gravel pit will cause economic injury to the properties of neighbors within one-half mile of the proposed pit. People will testify at the hearings about their expected financial loss if the pit is approved. Zoning and Private Property Rights The property owner in a zone district has certain uses that are guaranteed and other uses that can only be granted if the property owner proves that the proposed use meets numerous criteria. designed to protect the general public and the neighborhood. What is possible in a zone district may clash with expectations of the property owner and create a feeling in the property owner that his private property rights are being violated. In the case of Western Slope Aggregate's application, a denial of the request for a special use permit does not involve a violation of private property rights. The land owner may sell his land at a profit to a buyer who wishes to use the land as it has been historically used or sell his land to someone who will pursue one of the uses by right allowed in the zone district. Western Slope Aggregate is applying for a special use permit, which is not automatically granted and there should be no expectation on the property owner's part that there is a right for this kind of development. On the contrary, it is a given that any application for a special use permit is subject to the must rigorous scrutiny and is fraught with the risk of denial. Letter to Geld County Board of Commissioners & Garfield County Planning & Zoning February 12. 2001 Page 4 Silt and Garfield County Comprehensive Plans Huge amounts of time and public input are required to draft and adopt comprehensive plans. The request to place a gravel pit on the proposed site is incompatible with the recommendations of both the Silt and Garfield County comprehensive plans. As for the Silt Comprehensive Plan, there may be some sentiment by the landowner and the applicant that they had no representation or influence into the drafting ofthe Silt Comprehensive Plan since they are not Silt residents. However, the Silt Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for the uses desirable for the property is consistent with the Garfield Zoning Resolution requirements for the property. The area has always been agricultural and residential in character. A gravel pit can only be permitted if the applicant can show that there is a dramatic change in the character of the neighborhood so that a gravel pit would not adversely affect the neighbors or change the character of the neighborhood. The adoption of the Silt Comprehensive Plan does nothing to change what should have been the expectation ofthe allowable uses for the property under the existing county zoning. Noise, Odor and Dust Even if the levels of noise, odor and dust comply with applicable county, state and federal standards, the levels generated will change the character of the neighborhood. Industrial pollution is incompatible with an agricultural, residential neighborhood. Visual Impacts The Colorado River is the most important visual, economic and recreational natural resource in Garfield County. The Garfield Comprehensive Plan recognizes this fact. Approving the gravel pit application would add to the destruction of this resource. Burden of Proof Western Slope Aggregate, Inc. has the burden of proof of demonstrating that all the criteria for a special use permit have been met. Given the arguments and facts stated above, an approval of the permit would be arbitrary and capricious, would be against the best interests of the county, would be contrary to the requirements of the zoning code and would fly in the face of the recommendations of both the Silt and Garfield County comprehensive plans. Letter to Garfield County Board of Commissioners & Garfield County Planning & Zoning February 12, 2001 Page 5 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Calvin Lee xc: Concerned Citizens Against The Pit Steve Beattie ✓ r yeirmr__. - r.„_.F-•- Er I._ ,.�� — r' ' IMr"-. R .— r-- r r. I — r W- 1 — In AI— EN▪ ^ a--• Mr r = r — Al- : r _.r— — Western Slope Aggregate OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL Mr. Don DeFord Garfield County Attorney's Office 109 Eighth Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. DeFord: February 14, 2001 c cl Mr. Brent Peterson and Western Slope Aggregate, Inc.. respectfully request herein that Garfield County cease and desist from making any reference to or sanctioning any reliance upon, whether for guidance, advisory, or otherwise, any Comprehensive Plan, Master Plan and/or other conceptual plan or regulation that has not been duly adopted through legislative process by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, as review criteria for Special Use Permit applications. Western Slope Aggregate, Inc. has applied to Garfield County, on behalf of the property owner, for a gravel pit Special Use Permit in accordance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, adopted and enacted by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners on January 2, 1979. The subject land is zoned A -I wherein said zoning allows for said use upon the approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. The criteria for the evaluation of said permit is specifically set forth in said Resolution. The Zoning Resolution does not require Comprehensive Plan compliance for Special Use Permit applications. The Comprehensive Plan has not been duly adopted as Special Use Permit review criteria in accordance with due process including proper notice and hearing. C.R.S. 24-68-102.5 mandates that an application for approval of site-specific development as well as its consideration and review, shall be governed only by the duly adopted laws and regulations in effect at the time of application. Hence, the General Assembly forbids the consideration of any regulation not duly adopted and therefore the County's Comprehensive Plan should not be considered in any fashion for review of Special Use Permits. PO. Box 910 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (970) 963-9424 The General Assembly in C.R.S. 30-28-106 (3)(f) makes it very clear that a Master Plan of a County or Region is advisory only, It is likewise very clear that the statutory scheme of Titles 28 and 30 restricts Master Plan use to the legislative body for the purpose of enacting and adopting zoning regulations consistent with the constitutional standards of due process. We urge the County to embrace the principles of due process and recognize that a Master Plan is advisory only to the legislative body for the limited purpose of guidance in adopting zoning regulations and that a Master Plan cannot be used by any other body nor utilized for guidance in review and consideration of applications for site-specific development plans, Special Use Permit. The general rule is that zoning should be enacted in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. If a Master Plan is used to control the use of land instead of being used as a guide to future zoning, it is used, in effect, to rezone property and such use is impermissible. Vick v. BOCC, 689 P.2d 699 (Colo. App. 1984). In order to have a direct effect on property rights, the Master Plan must be further implemented through zoning with proper notice and hearing. Theobald v. BOCC, 644 P.2d 942 (Colo. 1982). Only the legislative body charged with zoning can individually apply broad planning policies to specific property (through zoning) and must afford affected landowners "due process" including proper notice and hearing. BOCC v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996). Simply stated, if a Master Plan is utilized for any purpose in reviewing an application for site specific development when said Plan has not been legislatively adopted for that purpose, the real and actual effect of such utilization is to deprive the landowner of some of the sticks in his proverbial bundle without constitutionally protected due process. Statements in the planning staff reports that the Comprehensive Plan may provide some guidance in making a decision on the application is wrong and unconstitutional. To state that a Comprehensive Plan can be used for guidance but not as a basis for decision making, elevates form over substance attempting to create a hyper- technicial distinction that does not have any practical remedial effect on the due process violation whatsoever. Wherefore, we respectfully request that the planning staffs report to the Board of County Commissioners not include any reference to a Comprehensive Plan and that the Board be advised not to consider Comprehensive Plan compliance in any fashion when exercising their quasi-judicial function in evaluating the merits of our site-specific development proposal, Special Use Permit. Re ectfully, Glenn M. Harsh Attorney at Law Cc: S. Beattie, Esq. C. Lee, Esq. Pugs 5 Division 5 Wats Court Case No. f}OCWO28 In re the Application Brent Lewis Peterson and Sandra Hannigan It is further ORDERED that a copy of this Ruling shall be filed with the appropriate Division Engineer and the State Engineer. Dated Copy pt ilia tr,>=aq€3i mailed to all Counsel of record- -'Wat •efereo—Dig.. Epginee State... PT Orwry Clerk Wnler Div. No. & BY THE REFEREE: s 'AIIP Iii._, er Referee Water Division No. 5 State of Colorado No protest was filed in this matter, and accordingly the foregoing Ruling is confirmed and approved, and is made the Judgment and Decree of this Court; provided, however, that the approval of this plan for augmentation shall be subject to reconsideration by the Water Judge on the question of injury to the vested rights of others during any hearing commencing within a period of years after date. Dated Water Judge PETITION =MST 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 projel 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 1 Lit k. . 1'-C 4..4 ji, '` - ------ :2c,- - r " 2 y,.5- // , C 1ST 92 ‘1 -CI ? .` "Di-i-Nj i>?,/i Hilrlinik_k-15-1,-wr .".t '4I - 6,14,1.0.-- if.; 6 (,7 Otilie.A-4/5 _ at/305i ei.1_, 2_2_0, -i, 4-6,- G(f`L. I r ` ! %i e ' t(.i ' ' „,..--,1„--(_.2___, E [ f e `i ! v1-�C,+�..',�,,:f --�- �,_ r '',k L -r*- (1 ^' • :fir X61 6 i {� -'� c Jr 4.t1 *' `' ��-' , rr .fly ' -6'd;4:(. =, M -i ,�- 7 /5) I6 6 `/ ; 74. :5 \\'-,-v ci.' ,v,...,,.:-‘,..1, ' _z , .? . - tij- i(v.i(ik '-;11 ''''Zife: CM' g 71? -::/.77-1( . ' t . /4/41''." `Lc �.. � 3 i4: -:-i, .11 ..:" ' 7-) :jk::-., C .'..t�` `S '-,5 --1-:.., ..' : 76'.:: -i-------1741, & – / ill k/ ) --J—YL' Y1 Cei (d; 7 'i Sic -2-.6:1- 1 _4 . _._ --c- ./ : ' ! [//j//fi,, i G / 1 _1,.. 4,--4 i! '5 i 'b Z) ! .�.+> > s s ,t'Id r sc-i - it fi p -(i . iiia),/ 1 L-1 A(, t.ct 4- • C . qi6447 ( 4`5j Lii( v:i1-,-\, -, , a, i fir, - ' i C F, L/z. 1 -_' (� c .\`''S r '- y 4 'N'' - _ ' i , r-= b 1 F' rt 1 r {, �) m. a a , ):-_--; r__, 5 .., %'-- r / % c. ,fir� ,_ r. tz,... „:...___ .,...„ 1 r_.:, os. t: I 1 ‘',. \ 4 [�., \ \ ,„ VI . . ,I.c,.) --,c, b.. ,) .... rte,._ ' �`� ) `` _ ,._..: ll '-‘-:'= N „tp,,,,,, , N cel .,.., N 47. l f,/', y :cam e-1 �,�. c� , c �t -, -A r, 5:-. yf. rte' -C}"-— (•• -�+ ,..4. �`� r, -..i r ' `• -,- v f G." i k C ?co --- t_r1 - �,� -... �._ �.n \[``�� ( w ....NA Address. , _ C-'1 ter, c...e. 0 �' %tom i '� _,. s 7 u•. t 4 � N N, vim" r:, ..a ,PQ `� N 7 ``20 ,; -3 o LD a m at 0 Go • z m� co, -10 c13d Q. cD • cnc zi zea CD CO b 0 < LD m w a 0 D7 • 5g. C! rt 0) 40 O ED7 Q4 o ® D. 54. t�:ti 3 co C E 3 's. O 310 c z to 8 • CD 0 CD 0 0) ° ? D N CO -0 0 Ln lid Q]SOdOUd 11111SIMIDIE Mt1LLLLId PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant prnpo;;ed the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City I ZIP Phono ii6r4 l j�, p.S je ,r ,r 1' 1 --t1 r sr 4, 7L a, fe Mc&,, 12 dd u er elRiSfe_ 1 - 567 ( ��_ c.�, -1 / r . - . �'' ew. -- 55. 4) 1°»-' ,� r 1. SS' -1-357 ri.). l? a r /Zeledz._ G 1 g2O2 seir !ss ,- c j 6/cc 7-Cf5z; Glo‘'r` cL, .4 Yo u se 3 0 / iz• i ' - to 2-5 -3e7 l&zzde,C2teeli„, jhei R ,4 I ler) iozo' ca.2s,-- e_ /261(-€ ?:-.).- 6,6 3 ; Dee S 4 i ex s a 26 4( as'D ___ IA i t3U Ili_ 3c VicaML� 1c) . Goy, Li F, a C y\ Q_ Cc er —Li,s1-A.likQit 'Ai - Q o, ea-Pc&eciLl.uSe- Ri \i CIL .H e fir, - :I • k 44 3 C,ille iivo Y Z of SSC s `1 L1 aitiA, ev‘ 9L44Ck >d,kiLeht.) - - - - - - - 12t k, HoniicuL. Hanna antra /-"A--3 � E 5h s eat- Ole 625- Lt 91 1 PETITION AGAINST 111! PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City I ZIP Phone 7-77ornin411, r; r _ ,z.)1.. S1-14--1 1 br s l# Pllosz Fitip-GEW - a Tr ''or, 3a Al .Y1 iic I,; ze r16-?po' 1,1 rt 03 73 ()Ai n r se bie d ,E., -Q26.7 , NI )1\4.4+il f`,l q6A-t,tti s -4-k-- . r ,rte $ J! 625 ( g Jessico {? 1 er +��� �� 2 449 4 eta— 4-1/e. 1!e. W Ci64. tiS--, ,- C -00,r 1l G' Y'`-' -1 defr-p-,___f..11` (4-el,e,,, et J4 SI410 ------ --LSh1 L. I s a 724 Bkcire c -RI' -FIke.S!' 625---`7'�! V",.\ 'e-- kn P)4.- "-/Y7 625--031. 'Ginn" � itiOho L, .11QtY11317 ..,/e49:1 6-C4L411160: Ar.6i j r'M n , i 1:-(,e Ja[ " 2-7.' - .F ,; " .._i JUL\ 43 1 c-5735-14/21 c►%' r'_ In r,r rc, ) U (?o-- •, • rnaock J 14' 6 1 ocuo0 -IL C . - n7 �r,eati e . moi' io+1`7f_i L! er i1.lai,,,Q___Eaeic`L .30i•C_ -1---.Md rc c CA.... f Lzc-ctcb ii.. ill MINION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature - Address City 1 ZIP Phone 1 Oil 0 k L. f)iAtM.i) P R ax )V A).5'64( )di.4.1.14c/7 i tiii,4)S ,_3;? ik'`"" - e I 2,47 t%s`2_7 9?G/_3 ' 9,ry- � -Gr; 1I -PI POL/iii_E„i.1 1,-P g I s kliy liz_ i 1 / -,- . ' f 2. 2/A .S. -/L 2 S76,--32/2 J/2 413 - .-- _ . CF1 , -," r '. 4„ o - CJ .+t 'o + tJ ► 'Fi (,V.-- % `cZ o.ik/ Fey t•k_ 6 e2- aLeidA+ 0 j V(s 2r {-z 3, -C C\, ( / • C -3(; 6r-at.td A )4. Vo 7(.0,6 ----r-o,y-ne_5 t-P(5-nd ii a cbiro,A/id Au FU0 5- c) crhP ..1m LA o n.,¢ ClibiR. 40 1 • p,1 ...,.,e d) 4,5-4)- ‘ - a P Tr CfriA2 /orti - Z2 / att4 (2/2)-JU 30,2 447774 i22.fri 2452- Fac2 c069-- 2._ M- ,57 -2,9 c4 -75-2_2511y q4A/ R°Sa/VNd j47: 3 OP\ E W I-- /L. 6 6,40 (1/141/VAXV -3 ° 2. /-16f4 & A Vi----:- A PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are °noosed 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 Signa ure � _ Address . � � , �u„ it City 1 ZMP Cir `G �' Phone r �.�" `�! �{ 61,4211 ad),,� � � L4791fflF4U2Z4)1I4PJ.6,tioeti o z_ & Wreit f1-57426-Y ii2 o b 4- 1,r%/. 1j/Z.-- ki'L t- b /L41) e/p C'‘,Irl /136 tO ( AKARt_CAIS ' ►ZII CR•III 6-4419 k 431673 pf63-53iz49. E ► c a t\IpA),5\4C.1 A IMO &II4► - L, it ,$1613 q 1-80 10QE.f1-. 1-- ... il 3G-2, tviu$14t (\(9 7(7,03 -filavtLblios% ,SA 'Adz ii*Jairi66 ,37.7J)7J$ET?), 11-77- ne 3zD 29/ C,e- not 4iJg 1?l60 i9.3 _ e" ,'DArv'ia ,Ko AJ Lilttif IL , L,Ackte / (Li L. ul ; �.r 1 u l li' lu_' ALIC I 'o q ,YJ' L-6 � Ar r- 42Q. 4- c.-ekv2.1 PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment Print Name _ - Signature , Address City 1 ZIP Phone fes- n E.L, (& D . _ ' - - )Z- c -c -54-1"--Pr levv\44 5 , ,_1:-.) tb----, (16; I 01 4---t,LA---„ �0 5. c7 ick1/44 til ur s� - _e6 -#Z ul l gull- ?\cA W--12,..kcies, L + 5 -Li Lo. fJe 6vtk ?'S9 -� Gei: S SOLitrk7) ~' jL( �'' /it e".751..-vf� LJ ',! 0 / T l F7 1 ,1 /t 1', r,— 61,e6q.r/,,i /dgblei It/ p,/y igz.4./1/aP 3,,a .1,e i ( 1( _ _ ,6-14.,, <=.) .Q4/ 5"-c,/:_-3; 71-ec,/ •,Javd,/ (Li 4.. - 6,,,,i,/ ? I 7 a /7' - c: 6 Lite( --1"-- (.,;14;47 6,17;ve 61/121-7447, ...er.i.d.,. _ jiliii ‘41re AV j // �dr..� Gl GSL " //r3 .,�(Lyc-=c. - .(f/_; t,� //�i1�;���f"�2�� _ 942? /'&(//.•c I<-t(4,�✓ ,t y`G` 6-4Y(51/V d"."''-'.0 i' 62--/)-- '.'1,462--/)-- ff 610c`{� l ( if � &-ed, i -I s ai ( n fr d : ( -I-- - 9 7A-553 PE11'11ON AGAINST T1IE 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 Nameiii ature A Address City / ZIP Phone (Orec3tela 46A, :�I►''� 1a6--ett Id r44 L-1 6;-68 &31 "4/5--0,9-731 ,, 1�=4-41 � c Oil i s s 'A~64, S i - &V3S. d len k''40.1 'mss— 7S-3 C 9C/7-9wg gcite ; #ernl eA f"...z.24,5-84&,44.e. R671,144/- /414.QA- . / '''31 LIC- /)'4t- �A „ `� 'D 06 I _ ;.U.Ifry t "' '�3 ��zlC r �c l d -.4, `` -Lt7C. ' Yy Fsf , v%J,iltN /11(/ IT 05er ,1:,. Cj 9-1-{o s&y.‘ c`12- Ire, ehoe rr , Jaw►es A -LC ,,j 1%':+k- AMSZ 3C^z- fl' -z A;I/,7? 8' 7e:F.3e) fv,iviacy An" eh . '313(3'-) 'fr'' °-rk-A-raiv---J-Q-is. ' i 3 4 Lir, a-,--6., 5- i Ifr -.1 29 ,2 2.. r ser 4 _ N, 3Iii--, mak. $I1.z$Z Silk co es- 37 twjd, f ,, 1 / 32/ Al. G/ #4.5-2._ s ler _,.677, act --, oi t---re„.4yL off- -\ iji iu' ( 5 i , e b /7(0- f c/0 /etry Mr eisxi,i ,0//,e,,7,7 4: /J 4/3,i21 .s74' i' L o g-76 26 f delcdricol.c Le -rot 0 G*P, - 1 J-1 ,u. VI si l/- Co. "761-3~6?G PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address _ _ City / ZIP , Phone P e.V sso. CZk tftis \4-,r 2_2_ k u y w► S. iti.\\- g L(.52 874, -.Z3 q mf 41/464N -co � P0. , 0n 7L 3 _ Sits Si6sz SiL,..Y4I°i• . e.iia 3 lavlco 242/..).),„" .i p013,07 74,3 S'Ilt rr.-L ?7e... &rq k - (49/4/5/ MI,/ ..).),„1 r J ' , � /j� .st' ,2 / AA D 'A 5, if gyz.r.., g i ---a25-3. `-' CO �R. i ► U - [T' r/ / L' ..÷ 9 2--1/ Rcl 5; c,- 452 674 5O(' e-----, "-----" el/Y/145w r 11.'4F7L✓ -60451 /? 3 5,-k f/ s 47-5-3 ‘ 1}1r_eE A a ?V.—, '� 120 E ,t o QR? c L. C,1 pile,A taaS.ga Sof `04z is 1) rsiZ, CIE. S L otPa't4j 6-- eis ►�► f � 4r15.ac771J— CS 9166/ 9336 ,/+r lent ' i -e_ 04 Vie.. A / 3 417 4464 e 41Y.1 87 /7/4.,9/2_ y17,16, (eit6, We, `'/ '63 -73/3 .S (e cc. rt. plc tc f/1 " ii)fri 5 1 0G/&/ ,X' _ 91.2 & jl Le Sill C 876-i Z 7a 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 Addresst 1 ZIP Phone ,t r N61(L Li _.. `)C t �1 Ai- 1-- 16 ( (i/1 ci JfLI4 g"! ` ' 4 0 / i ...sit f&, -!fa _ d.%J R; r � `, ♦. 6iOFg-- 7 g ' _ ,/. .,11 / p.Ga Gs, ox,cd + r 1 ` �? , ( % .. / / /b(-___--iz,i,,,) 17 �4ZLILLiA, i Q1 4119 4101'1 cl'h 5 Gil& - . e c. Ams eifoo q45-4,2,54 . CAWD3 f{-, -1)6, i ,fm f I M. L7) 1(741 i I _ qr- b 5 6 f (.• 314. -1-137., L «“.i fel 0614 /0 6---A G(/ tie -7' ..7 410_ a7---'01_ S76 7 frr--07-g/ ' i X { 6 ` f fi ,,,,,,;;;,-a.44.,, ©I' (C ff' / / :13,5-, v o,,` r! 3 7 g *-- IYR - ,-4_01 Sal1 KI6 (sa) i7S % n - a 717 l ono Koper 41764.76L - ))0)t 4 Koff to '' J 37© r - 9,1 4 s ,z v ?, r017/7 PETITION AGAINST TR 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 / ZIP Phone Lorie. c 4te. ecune{r £70( Comii-1-1PRa<kci 114 S,i4- W05- 874 -0177 r\ -01 X (, ti ne_ aLl \ %0AIN JZ 37s27 leo tater)) k�5 z ---te&ik045-94 .1_ 99fs-Qs-q -0‘ 2akeM #. d 551 n011,441-1. ' ./ 72L/itriii , -ii-4,e. t1.r i- _ RI/ii Ci a. a,,, f . 611-r- 4 6.1 19c2 e -61G Leak i8urrl5Loot* i11 Ofik 114Y* . 5ItadcoLa5 6 U 6740f ?vs- 09 i1'fl� .! laiQ (Oi;e_o ) ).--, ,.> .-- ,i G(-03 1 o -t is 3 1)b; P .45 ' f%I , 1 (,U31 _Do , i -Cir ,05-5-- 2N i 4 t Dr. 4ids SI ay/- 40: 7 5eice,_ Slit 01 Yr „ �.�.-r,t l l/- 't .5 P60 / 91--.4 c Q.ir n ,) ryi i rt5' V, u \J <9 L Y? 5 va- - 5- -7 /. il 7. S(6Z) b�_rt C -4-).5e401 96 3- Z t 7 5-75 CI luc1 Tr pack.t)- 1 atkr e e 211,&C1071 S G v\( kw -4,J £bILA) 91 i "Lr�. - -3 A j Si S gii.0 1 '-/'„s a Babe . gates ( . Zi-r`'t 793 /e4.a , Y GWS PA 9r4151 707 Purim AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City I ZIP Phone N'11 % l eit +1 i "(1)-c, r - f.,,.4r' le--"" 'tc'-1 AtitYi- = ' r 6 5 al'.061‘51 1:4"--iiiiii 1 , � Is,. _ ._ La - O3'33 i.d t) O 4i l-- t-/-7' ;2 3/ 0-.--Oirt-'1- 1 "-- 1 :') --ii-' 4 604/ 1(7(/-1--tkv---4 A , ir t7f.il -c"(-71 ' _ 6......--- ef Z- L,) /11 4- Ind' 7 C ,,i _ 7/ .i' s c_ 1: 3.77 -41:z( C �: - 'c c :.3 s r.--- • 7,..) ..), ii...3 1 4 c;..% A \D C-- Liig,1 -0,:--, „,,,, 2 t! ,....,4 , 1,....j i ,. A, ,_ 7i .-Dc., , '� 1r � � Z,4-44't1�i � ,, i _ t /5 es r ' c. . c/ � *Nogyip /0........it fl, 4. /9 C f Tui Me "itrA 'i [.iii r' ' ► • t ~ , i , kb 1 i G It (.. F . o rvthf” 1` 1.h ' ,� J + f k/U rr4" �'� � �, rf ; 1)r , ,r S ..g, F' PETIMON AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City 1 ZIP Phone 'LSC -ii s(e,r vgi4i-v.� to # 2 W5� 51b01 14S-12-01 Sr' \o C o llr o • , ' �rttC ' J � t oS Mc! r. '8? -2o 6.2 3 Y /7://0 .40.4161-Airdr ,fiZ - 1, / Zi 3 S(J414-4er ,;Zi 7 5, CilZ-- _z Lci T- c--, C. - Svr(7 x cr6 '-3i91 r 1e i C -C a jr- "acv 1. Leled ere— A., 6'447 7g 74 � vel MCI G` dt1i? s�� D(DS 4d, i�', zt.,4-7"' it N' !C.ti? 8)‘,--517( ita.„,,,,...... 7 r -,4r a ,. pd 7/ f, 5/7 g74-zd.3/ t i►l L u1 G ._ � 3c:3 h1i�d V,// e p-- /I i ii eivisc ry 3 L \ ilj 6,3 (pa14 Cs' li,Li -7 ril —.2( O, I sc. '4 I f., ren.. t m n�' 2 6, SCS 3 C IR r I L Lt `] qVf -a L1+ a i aia_ tau 0,:j 0 sos --e ..lic_l S/iLoo.-1 gcsti -duo - 0 , ---) a )1.04 i4 Cv l Ir l d (Mew,. 0bir, .. 4 I3S Gwa,yclLi, Or, IS 1 6.,(-1 ! 0 7[, r 2 1' / Ca ---K-• -' 06 71 W1; k ti A '&r L 45 E-76- 243i PETITION AGAINST ME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature _ Address City 1 ZIP Phone jj�''\ r�` ]rI 4- r,t\ lti k u Y1 j IL 1c' 1' ! -e2,..f.3-ce, ,x:.9, 4L. i t.. G a ,,-..-.,,' j 6' Mad d - Ir� 24/7 /3c[ c f 7 l '.+7 d''' e3i f7`Jr2 d /r V y7` Ni- 6,7S -S 78& vi z /144, 57,4,6,.E 2 , s , ,e# �:;,�,,r !._ L CL 4Ly . & -.1 L ._.. At �.... wiw- ,g GS jAgi LL E.CAR-0 • 2 e2m40. fv14� 3 Rik. e16 :e 6075-6/9, -Dck enc, - ., € 04 • to :.c), Pd.Die 1 e I. 1 (,) 5 gjj ‚„‚ 1.71,7 61e Lf g (6, 0/ 51 Ks y5"2,7' 4-46 k_G-10-4cOM 7 q l r g I &Al Cle4i-ci94 4):17 1 f +' '' Abir 5 - 1 5 - Y I 1 I i ' TA, Timing ,, ici I' licleAli sk, ot/41 (t) ga I c'15-9'0 J --g.1 I/Jae/fey / "`' lOF Z2t gi )6/4 ro 8'4 5-0 Vi- 015 ,00 k -b IA) D0106 1;11 ■; .,1 I tf G 1- lam S1 -r > 34 C,�s, ro ileo° i .3E3`-2-33 _ , IM/e/L-- si . I 1 6)o 1 X' 3219 4// lei` &lb o z- ow . l o v ill \ / ■/ ` .0 iia r !ny 2 IteeiIfa . .rl S .. X11141,Ll. _4_122 -.,.ii d A i A rr ` "1Lo 7 9 Ow-ek V14 Aoi AS/Hir 1 lifi O.- 1 ' .0. it qi-a--?/ ILI1 6 f:-.2 kilCo P6,0 if #51 f7191 (''T co (Y760( PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature � � Address d-7 7 C e ( ctE City / ZIP este Phone 1 ` 7 --, f- • ERt krg4AJe- io iv nlEc an 184 -a4rl . /7 .6y (23,70- . 0_ 5-63.)--x) 1 PETiUOW 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 0, , 2 ,If _17 'I c-6,t_i Address _ /Ye 2 4264 0Y 0 c A f 4-e , ,e City / ZIP i 2,0, jUe ,157/176 Phone ;3Z 6 ,,,, ,-,7---,,,0„.61,6 A) 4 10,6o 1 s j—C;i14- itirne,,s-ezAtzte 7y 'c ,4 6' 3 -kr4 A Cv foz 767 PET11110111 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 S' = • re 1 f Address City / ZIP Phone f c '7,,---ViNit-\ CY\ QV \J 4 COEOCia-t ‘('.,,t C <3 -11C ) --S1( c - ----r-W / 1tii ° /-1010P // 411) C 7k V741 leccL.+-� (2 YSr7 �(4' /$2 Ilk-ski:5 1 i M491%- 6) .cY�'t' 0[ , 4oid5,..t.:040A2- 4 TA .--717,A) f L 16 50c11 2, ( 4- ZD l'jLicik, S-(zE-954__772 iv a y S p lz.,4-0 ) cep..- -5677 d cRl `t 1 V1 zko co' oc) ??,-)-,2RA 3" --eh n 6,7. ,�r/ 6t/i V ?; '' f'` ' .—)� PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opgosed 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 /A tit_ % 5/ C'7' %' 9 ,d o'7 r9.� AVG. s. 8/60/ ?YE' 9' 9',*- L /n Piz7.1 IF N Z5/'4' %' 2 0 93 i (,t .44,-..(18 r /S52 17 2a', iALi= Li I nOeVel ')c 'C OlG - -- 11OS- arlie1-, , G C- { 16o/ 'Pi 7-+'YoS _2,3 Lii 5 o L1�e,i./ �J� 71 C, _S -Z- y 76 " clzf.?C' .4.), e- L e►gr44 r L- L 1 61 V ' "e cd; e l< ,_) G2 2 ?p 1 3417 fiM 1J)'4L)►' e eft`' /t'/ ?r '78'1--2 ?. "q tri,, 11. act .,_ et ZO , /- 1 - Jai' ,-A__- 0 0 3 ISolla 11 ,414' X 1_ 3F-7 /7‘d _�7 ID PETITION /4GMMST 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. Paint Name Signature Address City I ZIP Phone 6C-1 Bt.] c [� -vt a s �` X4-35 ' 7 l Q.a Ass q I' Alell c, N - 5 veE.) Ns,, d -may--J C/41 I Guk,cw3T J g- i cis G l allok / -L/ Air: Eiziet) 74.-47, f 2 ef - 6 L.-;__5 .-/ 60 t 4i 445--1 zt 6 P 11“ ' 1) NI QL'' 7''T w r - 1 6. &a ]r('/1,14//yA Slit �� a.ff(//� gam/ yam,. ,_ ry wk. kui(JA /y/ Lr y DA -kJ' i r) AL Lz--?____ t_. ' OF 151 1 C 12-- 33c,--- ik,Aqu,i(„os-ler,.. .„*.(r..44! , Mi 1(.e(-- 7.h-reii,e.e., A, � , a L (1. MILLE .1dtis -7 c.q S5. vfivid, Gagne � PIK4 624-Z" /6,t) /flilpe),v/ 4,-.462I-4,4, 2 7S 3 rd 5 rec g14Vit' 2 256 7 to g-` -241 icicam--kcHa_.e,Jik-,r 12 - 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 wig) 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 'RU/4SPy Ci c&( S 7/ 7 )-3,M fi a -d-- f124.3 L Y C t. tri C^- rt i-e_S rei, _, 7!.6 7- "13 ,Y gd g/6.5,_- i ]o- -,'),,g ✓'a It � A G, /e 4,'`;{C/7'; He / 6 $ 3 , 3/ /1 67 _ h a'ac - 2801 4C17))911)/9 / 46 -S 4),7 r ' Vi. . r-9�-e 491 . p% '3�' .67,? ii -717 h C_.. RA i? 4,6-5 / / f5 " - D.2Wil gi,..,,,,,,A,,,, c (7, /,.5 , 'S`m- ti',/,1 /1,1 ,,,/--9 5 ---,Ai , , 05,14 4-eiAwi/e Z)1,47 g3/637 f976--5---al PeL, C� i ,.. 14, . ' _.irk ■ ► ^s -31,L AGS[. t 6.16741/LC 1 - R sd-- 876 --F4/ .-,(7,-,,,,,, /-7 I EV t' /x45 3 v/r ii4 ...,�- Cg .:W' . ,v ,9-Nza '// 3 s �k-, f,A Y �:: 'i , 15 .4;,c --S, I PEflhION AGAINST TME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant propleed 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 04:2Vc2/S / S'/L,/ F--cii C,t __)021:121.- E -/&S., E9.6 --da_vz, ADPL I kit -L-, ct', LT j 3f er f - Z /6 5-0 x'76 -2 y t )''ji J 5- heli...„..4.ila Yy .11 I-inSra 74' Rom 4. Siji Es, x 2- V6-5372 . ',...1 kcrcc ... 4 PC ` cO7. i Yi like_ 1 v1 . iel teen 'I C\_LJ C - - U9 4O sb J . - J l e / ■ L* _' . :.`.,4 AA.. At. -I ' If C 0 G a 14 3i iCD s I ?3_ 81 vim- n : �Y sic r . it., �rC_ v t.,4_, . %RyEIi _L-7) ■�!+/ ; d f J + ioVis AloF 5/t gids , + C,r --+pV 6-rg ---7tC fl3 C'1 /7!/ l.)i r /4Q^ / I �r ' //0 /145451, " , 6 4,6.. hitt 6 , e 3 571 c-ziv .�Fi„ne3 (AA Irq / /00X ,/,// 377,500 PETITION AGAINST ME PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Paan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature - Address City / ZIP , Phone t= Gt u t- 0 ;.3.,a_ --/---,..4,_CJ G e .4/" Ti 5? G 9" -;16k( G.,/ , 1-44/)\J i ,LC +� J.1 e -4-e: -L------ 57049 Ai q gliP507,,. S -117-D5171 A 1 1 atAii. 60--n/ t:;i, '' 51 V695 n ,' Doo N ; r L, -e_ H f - 5- S ? V rl '7 2P16 3 A, cP, 6 r6 �v 40,3r,,,,,,' 0.► 464,4 C ''/ it _ e t ,6&,./v_. 1t7 I 5,/,0_. ?/' .5 - —5'5 '76 '55-7. 4 /10-1-1 , 1,10¢ G,r dfelv‘ee /: kms-- .5-5 I, t- v tc ii# -L0 L 00 i - cif o,2_ iiO4,A ,oz C76, C l z.f. t 5S/i �m mON f rnr a 3/h2 cx, ,/,ii/ Vit' � 8/ S - % R - PETITION AGAINST elle PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Si • nature Address Cit / ZIP Phone 1t • Wct WIMP= 37Re lv.449, , S,t+ ijka 21.0. sl (i 7 l.' c - 0".01Q - a rt 710 i. al ,:i t c_. -r- ;%l,, •- i .7 L 4L --F 4{ tt":6 % IESIMENE ,( ? Z FINIMONLPFAL- - !s SIL _ / ► GA ig s- 'Wird. �, 37°6' Coll 'd i 51 i .576.41117 iil it. � / 109,4 . f • S . / g `52 1' If i . OP I e s,i6of ■ 4.i , L'A L la ,353 (d, r f AUL '% r .` °� 1+ `�` L le �- Y 1 S- ,- L] T JO AN w P! �� .r -,L _ . g/{%52 i �r■ ti . , . ,� 7 ped r 60).5— Dad Afc4 , - 1111.1MIAM/.7 AAS SC cb Pros PEnnoN IGAIMST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signature Address City f ZIP `Y Phone WI D ilel-t-4(1 94e -del- Oef,..". Gejege,/ 5-9/ Pt -N ► 7 ,2—e_r \kr Or 1- 924,,,,-cteJ &liC-- 71Gcc.) 1 -)61.5471 4 cif -Z3-41. JJ .4i. _ i „tat,. �/'6 piezamo s ,INIViidit 1s'' 9 d' ' v _ +156 PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSER 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 U lek rd Address - City i ZIP Phone 11. VkL c -\.-( U4_ Y-+ik •'%;i (.7441,t--5636 1 . , . r �*! ►r cv, '3% I ; i tt Vi_Ik 8 �tS f'. - VOle ('w5 55-f/-41/4/ rj51-44/14' �- 5/ r. Pt .4.0 ismiikA-- Lire 6C-ille4/#1 5�// 776;x- fri1 a e ,/ I I ) /3/ 4s la j,- &ikle 9ta 3 - L/70 ,0 4-dAL, 1 _,,'L i I l , LC j // .r 1 if Z Z cd, ti .A 7 / ,. (c- ' g /44 9 28 `) T. 1 , VIP - 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 iml:acts to our neighborhoods and the environment. PETITION AGAINST glHE PROPOSED PIT Print Name Si • nature Address City / ZIP Phone 4-- tit .._.:_... ,....9 (:).5' 7 %? Oicdta,-...k ,if,e,,,),c,-,- vics---f.-2c,(L 47-----frn rrh d & givici s (5A4.4.2i,cealtia-.7-- 2 ae-ri *at- 44,— . Scram ir Yi.e4dSc, J adc. ,s--5— /a6 ee . at, # Jbor =a -v��v L / � % / £ ,‹ 7 r �. (. terve, Print Name Signature Address City 1 ZIP f Phone i hfC f ff .p�,o it s ,. 1 e %t / e / pZ-ae-1/ ked % 'd i r" 11148:4 , ✓)L1L 3 3 Cod) t' U)Qce Or,- c 11 -. 6.r9 o D' 4 -_ -En L IX 5 0,'t f4 d / e,LA:th 1m�„c; o7 Y 4 c/ F g [_ 3 J4 - i PETITION AGAINST 111E PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed for the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Silt's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED P11 We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant proposed fur the Peterson property east of Silt. This project is contrary to the character of existing communities and the Town of Sin's Comprehensive Plan, and would result in numerous adverse impacts to our neighborhoods and the environment. Print Name Signet re Address City C ZIP Phone (Dn6 ALL /'-(-r --CI&'e- j4Xds ek. II harp 'la j ' ' as5 F I ( c f ( --\6 C ho C Q r'' O.. 9 CI, • - e A4t, - 4-4, �e/iI t'J[' Ina-, ,fJ •,ale • , I -27/ £n r1t it i t 214.05o i' 0 (,)),5-. V 771.,0-0169* J' L - A /l■_�_ r_ _ o 4 +r -1 b S' . 1 1 I ■ PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PIT We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, Colorado are opposed to the gravel pit and concrete batch plant promsed f{„ 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 1.---Det_C) ' v ',12.0,s--, . — -a . ,.."-- 2._ 0 .1,._ ' Pt- 1 C.- 2.k.r-v.2. s, Lau 0 Cc.1 Oran -a .I f i 16-4 ike. - S -6 bas- 30y5 4 Lo 4-' I , /crfv1 t _ J f tie A ,5.' LX6kt /N bit yr? 4- I7 1 110,1 / c I L 0 / -?dc)- 9g/491—.79qg bZe0 frievrs- 21:1-g S ,erg5r r, ...)-141 r 3[3Cc•. 2.6.7 )3 1 c d, .:717 'iG rnAsnY cdr /0 0 ei Ise 4 i1--.4-- 6 Jfl 42.. ,49/.6, ► Co -3i Leg--jeL5 /-t`el 1 /El r � � e).57-3 l - 26c) ' . ‘52_r_PY .5 ?t-/ .r� o>, 3, !/0'4v+4C ! r AA 1I f �u ! fyA �f0q,. U. '�--', 1, �- 3 `'''i. Vt.A-,{. CJ" 53,00 QS 4G'LI' d r % Garfield County Planning Department GIS Resources: Colorado Division of Wildlife WRIS Data Checklist for: i D+rh5 t v1/46A 0,111/4)E S toPe(At P Roti Hykys, GIS Analyst, garcrplr>@ro re VD -WS -821Z FAX: 97¢9+1 7785 D1KY'_1Oo 10:3: AM Note: For interpretation of this data, contact Pam Schnurr, Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, at 970-2g7-9792. Wildlife habitat lies: Entirely Partly Within Out in Area in Area 1 Mile of Area Bald Eagle Active Nest Site Bald Eagle Winter Range ->Z _ Black Bear Overall Range— Black Bear -Human Conflict — Black. Bear Fall Concentration Area — — Black Bear Summer Concentration Area _ Bighorn Migration Patterns — — — Bighorn Overall Range _ ►� Bighorn Winter Range _ — Bighorn Winter Concentration Area — — — Bighorn Summer Range _ _ _ „/ Bighorn Production Area — — — ✓ Boreal Toad ,/' Canada Goose Brood Concentration Area Canada Goose Feeding Area Canada Goose Production Area Canada Goose Wintering Area Canada Goose Winter Concentration Area Chukar Colo River Cuthroat Trout Elk Migration Corridors Elk Winter Range Elk Winter Concentration Area _ Elk Severe Winter Range _ — Elk Overall Range 1/ — Elk Summer Range Elk Summer Concentration Area Elk Production Area Golden Eagle Nest Site Golden Eagle Nest Unknown Status Great Blue Heron Nesting Area Kitfox Potential Habitat Kitfox Field Sightings Lynx Mule Deer Migration Patterns Mule Deer Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Overall Range Mule Deer Summer Range z0rIVIule Deer Resident Population Area Mule Deer Highway Crossing Native Fish.* Osprey Active Nest Site Kirk. SPD 17 42 r\ -e,/: 427 Wildlife habitat lies: Entirely Partly Within 1 Out in Area in Area Mile of Area Peregrine Falcon Active Nest Peregrine Falcon Nesting Area Peregrine Falcon Migratory Hunting Habitat Pronghorn Antelope Overall Range Pronghorn Antelope Winter Range Pronghorn Antelope Winter Concentration Area Ptarmigan Potential Habitat Raptors Razorback Sucker River Otter Overall Range Sage Grouse Brood Area Sage Grouse Overall Range Sage Grouse Production Area Sage Grouse Winter Area Wild Turkey Overall Range Wild Turkey Production Area Wild Turkey Winter Range Wild Turkey Winter Concentration Area Wild Turkey Roosting Sites Wolverine Possible Sighting -LL vedc Ron and Karen Nadon 2675 Cty Rd 335 New Castle, CO 81647 February 12, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed gravel pit east of Silt on the Peterson property. We're concerned that none of the property owners or the town of Silt were notified in order to make comments before the original approval. The purpose of the board of commissioners, we thought, was to represent the interests of the majority of the people, not the interests of one party. It's a travesty that it took a lawsuit to ensure the right of property owners to be heard when their interests, quality of life, and property values are being threatened. In addition, it's a serious breach of voter confidence that this elected board didn't consider the property owners' rights or interests before granting, out of hand, the gravel pit approval without even researching the implications or impact of the gravel pit. There are many reasons why the gravel pit shouldn't be approved, and only one reason why it should be approved. Reasons the gravel pit proposal should be rejected. 1. There is already an existing gravel pit just west of the proposed site. To have two pits, one after another, would destroy the natural beauty of the area. 2. Wildlife would lose yet another habitat. 3. The dust, noise, and pollution would drive down property rates of all property owners in the area. 4. Property owners would have to live next to the dust, noise, pollution, and ugliness that this industry would produce. 5. We don't need any more gravel pits. Reasons the gravel pit should be approved. I. One business owner would profit. We sincerely hope the board will right their wrongs, hear what the homeowners have to say, and reject the proposal for the gravel pit. Sincerely, 4 k.aixe), Ron and Karen Nadon United States Department of the interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Upper Colorado Region W astern Colorado Area Office 2764 Compass Drive. Suite 106 Grand Junction CO 81506-8755 WCG-ASchroeder PRJ-l5.44/ILD-6.00 Mr. Glenn Harsh Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. P_O. Box 914 Carbondale CO 81623 Subject: 835 2" Avenge. Suite 300 Durango Co 81301-5475 tx to MAR a 2 2001 11AR 221)1 OPTIONAL FORM 6P p-90 FAX TRANSMITTAL r of pleas r� Ta Ake Fran , y sc+ [ t- D, i Cif ?/ , "" " R d -C6 F.x q 3e4 -,342 " _01.0)=_.&____s -4 Special Use Permit, Western Slope Aggregate, Peterson Gravel Pit; NWl/,, Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, 6th PM (Silt Pump Canal, Silt Project, Colorado) Dear Mr. Harsh: As a result of your March and Bob Pennington's (Garnba and Associates) March 2"4 phone conversations with staff from this office regarding our letter of February 28, we offer the following: 1. Possible effect on water flow in inlet canal. The Silt Pump Canal has a decreed water right of 36 ells which is held in the name of the Silt Water Conservancy District. This water is carried through irrigation delivery facilities held in the name of the United States and adrninistered through the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation has a responsibility to look atter it's facilities and related interests, including the water rights which they carry. We believe the de -watering of the proposed gravel pit may cause some decreased flow in the Silt Purnp canal. The potential flow decrease may or may not adversely affect the ability of the canal to deliver that water right. However, without extensive calculations we cannot quantify this potential impact. We understand that Western will take appropriate measures to correct any canal flow reductions due to pit operations, if such reductions significantly affect our ability to provide the full 36 cfs commitment. Measures to be taken will be determined jointly by Western and Reclamation at the time such a significant flow reduction is identified. Appropriate measures may be as simple as installing a PVC liner in the canal. 2. Effect of water discharge on the Silt Putnping Plant inlet headgate structure: Western has indicated they will take appropriate measures to prevent and repair potential damage. We have agreed that Western will provide us a plan to mitigate the potential effect of the discharge quantity, volume, and duration on the headgate structure. We will review said plan and work with Western to develop a reasonable plan which satisfies Our concerns and protects our facilities. We will monitor the effect of the discharge on the headgate and appurtenances and request additional measures, as necessary. 3. Itern #2 of Exhibit 0 of the Mining Permit Application: This remains a correction to the application and the permit. According to the Garfield County Assessor's Office, they did not have an address of record for the adjacent US parcel, until supplied by this office on March 1, 2001. The Western Colorado Area Office at 2764 Compass Drive, Suite 106, Grand Junction, Colorado, 81506 has administrative jurisdiction for these lands; the Basalt office listed in the exhibit does not. 4. Liability for damage to Reclamation lands, facilities, or operations: Both parties recognize and understand that liabilities for damage can work both ways, and each party has legal recourse to recoup damages caused by the other's actions. 5. Sediment pond and outlet pipe sizing: We are willing to accept the pond and outlet sizing based on the State's permitting process. 6. Weed control plan: We understand that Western will comply with the Garfield County weed control plan. That is acceptable to us. In conclusion, we believe that our concerns have been adequately addressed. We look forward to working with Western as indicated. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our concerns and reach a reasonable solution. If you have any questions, please contact Alan Schroeder at (970) 248-0692. Sincerely, Ed Warner Resources Division Manager cc: Mr. Scot Dodero, Manager Silt Water Conservancy District Box 8 Silt CO 81652 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Mr. Bob Pennington Jerome Garnba and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1458 Glenwood Springs CO 81602-1458 ! C€lV MAR 4 Z ZUOEI NEVA HISCOCK 3720 County Rd 214 SILT, CO 81652 March 2, 2001 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Attn: Mark Bean Re: Noise pollution and WSA Gravel pit 876-5320 3/;ijoi a ; 30 pm. AL6e,u;eet -attd ///0-A7 Bocc Please read the following article from Smithsonian magazine March 2001. It explains how prolonged exposure to noise: is annoying, effects hearing, learning abilities, raises blood pressure, changes blood chemistry. "Good Neighbors Keep their Noise To Themselves". Lets all be good neighbors. Thank you for your time. Respectfully Neva Hiscock ECRET LABORATORY OF DR. DECIBEL," READS THE HAND -LETTERED stGN TAPED TO LES Blomberg's office door at the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, in Montpelier, Vermont. It was inspired by a Boston friend's telephone call, su :esung the organization create its own comic book superhero. College and high school interns put up the sign. Blomberg, the nonprofit organiza- tion's director, was inside his office at the time, oblivious to the tittering outside because he was fine-tuning sound levels on a CD recording he had made—ultra-large dump trucks. construction -site air compressors. jackhammers, that sort of thing. Blomberg's CDs go to noise -beset citizens so they can show officials their precise daily dose of acoustical irritant. Combating noise is not the usual cartoon -hero derring- do. But in our society noise often is a protccrcd monster- Reguiations may be weak. Or noisemakers argue quieting down would be too costly. Sufferers desperately searching the Internet stumble upon the clearing- house's site, www.nonoise org. They call or write or e -mail -1 am writing to you at 2:30 Alt because 1 was awakened by leafblowers and I am so angry 1 am dealing with a large lumber com- pany which installed a new drying kiln a few months ago. and operates it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I live in a very rural area ... ' "Recently rhe level of airplane traffic over our home has increased to an intolerable level. I have become depressed ... " "Now, the interstate has a constant roar that comes toward the school. We can't teach outside. The children seem ro have trouble with attention. They also scan to be agitated all the time " "Over the past four months our home has been assaulted by the throbbing bass of our downstairs neighbor's stereo. Asking, pleading, and mediation have not worked . . " The clearinghouse responds with data and noise -fight- ing information, such as how ro approach officials, or how to organize a neighborhood. To the beleaguered, it seems as if a buff'dude in blue rights flew in, red cape billowing.. A typical reaction: fust to know that someone has taken the time to do research such as this allows me to feel nor so alone." So think of Les Blomberg as the brainy, physics - savvy. but vinciblc, protector of rhe noise oppressed. Think of him as that limited -budget bander of rogue sound wavers. Dr. Decibel! Right now our superhero is standing at the ,00rner of Lexington Avenue and 42nd Street, in Manhattan, aiming what looks like a TV remote control toward the Chrysler Building, more or less. Ir is smoggy and humid this alicr- noon, and wilted New Yorkers hurry by oblivious to Blomberg, although ncc sound meter he holds looks like. maybe. a detonator—hey, this is New York. And Blomberg. who is ig, his remaining dark -brown hair pulled back in a ponytail. wearing a pine -green shirt. khaki trousers and hiking boors. looks unthreatening. In fact. his trimmed beard and mustache Frame an engaging grin that expresses the good-natured cxuhur,inc normally associated with, say, a Labrador retriever. He .adjusts a knob as a corrections department bus with prisoners inside whooshes by. then peers appraisingly at .i dial. "OK, that was 78 decibels," he announces. Noise, most people Find. becomes really annoying. he says, at about 55 to tis decibels. Every 10 -deci- bel increase represents a doubling of the loudness. So this Manhattan corner's loudness is four times the annoying level, a real pain in the tympanum. Blomberg is counting decibels today in the city that is arguably our national noise -pollution capital. This corner's 78 decibels, for instance, makes it louder than most alarm clocks. But now .0 moving van's driver hits the brakes. Blomberg checks his meter: "That's over go decibels." It is like putting your ear next to an exceptionally loud vacuum cleaner- To be heard above the cornea's engine whine and hissing air brakes and bicycle - tire hum and siren whoops, Blomberg finds he is com- pelled ro raise his voice. "We advise people every day. but usually from afar. so it's incredibly valuable to visit these people and expe- rience their problems," he yells. somehow maintaining his benevolent grin. "Let's get on the subway down- town—I have to check on a new kind of noise pollution that we are calling Internet Buzz " As the 7th Avenue Express rattles southward through its tunnel. Blomberg, hanging onto a metal strap. switch - Noise becomes really annoying at about the 55 to 65 decibel range. And every 10- decibel increase represents a doubling of the loudness. l A 7 n s. ON I tall Psychologist Arline 8ronzaft, right rear, chose P.S. 98, still located adjacent to elevated tracks today, as a sire for noise research. c.s on his sound meter with his tree hand "It's tin deci- bels, just riding along in here," he says A passing train registers res decibels: sustained exposure at that level, he says, can induce hearing loss Blomberg can cite lots of unsettling noise data. Accord- ing to the U.S. census, for instance, Americans' number one neighborhood complaint—above crime, traffic and poor public services --is noise. Every day more than 138 million Americans experience noise levels the U S Envi- ronmcnr<tl Protection Agency (EPA) rates as annoying and disruptive_ Among city dwelling Americans, 87 percent are exposed to noise so loud it has the potential to degrade hearing capactry over time But you will not necessarily find peace in the s-uhurbs or countryside either, not with the onslaught of leaf blowers, snow blowers, lawn mow- ers, chain saws, snowmobiles, powerboats and alkerrain vehicles. Because of airplane and helicopter overflights, the natural quiet is now preserved in only 7 percent of Ari- zona's Grand Canyon National Park and nowhere in Hawaii's Volcanoes National Park Meanwhile, researchers have demonstrated that noise can raise your blood pressure and change your blood chemistry. For instance, adrenaline levels can rise, indicat- ing the imposition of stress. Noise is also the leading cause of hearing Loss: in the United States, exposure to excessive noise has made some to million of us at least a little deaf Tom Bernardin displays earplugs he uses to fend off noise. such as the roar from computer -cooling vents (grated windows, right). "Noise is unwanted sound: Blomberg points out. "And 'noise-' tomes from the Latin word for 'nausea.'" Most sources of annoying noise are increasing. Blomberg cites recent U.S. Department of Transportation statistics. For instance. according to certain calculations, in 1997 per- sonal automobile traffic was 360 percent of ag6o levels, and large truck traffic was 43o percent. Airliner travel in 1.998 was taxa percent of 1.y6o levels, and air cargo was up a whopping i,+nn percent. Meanwhile, Blomberg says, we have new noise sources: "In 1g6o there were no boom boxes, no boom cars, no leaf blowers. no jet skis, no car alarms and hardly any snowmobiles." Vanished noise sources? "1 can only think of the doorinan's whistle." says Blomberg. America's revulsion with its own increasing racket. he says, led to his orga- nization's founding in 1986, funded by such contributors as the Rockefeller Family Fund. Blomberg exits the subway in lower Manhattan in his guise as Dr. Decibel. armed with a high-tech sound racier. "Bur I have to be Miss Manners too," he main- tains. That is because he secs two underlying noise -pol- lution issues: "Sovereignty—who owns the air? And civility—how do we treat our neighbors?" Internet Buz straddles both issues. Blomberg strides aking Hudson Street to a salmon -colored building. Last night he camped in an apartment facing this building to measure how much of its noise assaults neighbors. He also plotted strategy with neighborhood residents and their attorney, because this building emits a constant bis=. "See, on the first and fourth floors, every window has been replaced by vents, all making noise," Blomberg says, aiming his sound meter. Inside the building. telccomtnu- nications multinationals and dot.00ms have installed com- puters that control their operations. Each computer morn requires a big cooling unit, which is blowing its exhaust— and its buzz—out the window. "Its 70 decibels here on the sidewalk, and that's how loud it is outside the apart- ments across the street. all day. all night." observes Blomberg. A normal home reading is about a. decibels. City ordinances arc unclear. Do proscribed noise levels apply to individual cooling units? Or do they apply to the building's collective noise? Also. the banned decibel levels vary according to the sound's frequency. "People say, give me one number and tell me if it's a violation or not, but regulations often have variable numbers and different scales, and the complexity hinders enforcement," Blomberg notes. "Yet, if you had just one decibel level, you might have a buzz below that number, legal, but still unbearable." Blomberg and his sao,000 noise meters arc helping Hudson Street dwellers deride whom to file 1ximplaints against- Firms leasing space inside the building? Or the building's owners? Next stop;; the 7th Avenue and 4th Street Apartment of author Tom Bernardin (The Ellis Island Immigrant Cook- book), founder of Friends Against Noisy New York 1 1.1 1 T H S u N i A (FANNY) Yesterday Blomberg affixed sound meters to the facade of Bernardin's building to record 24 hours of New York noise Now he peers at the digital readouts as Bernardin looks on. "The background here is 73.3 decibels," Blomberg says. That is about the level of a ringing tele- phone. Blornberg's-m —bras stored 24 hours of data in its built-in computer, both background noise and loud spikes. `Here's a spike of 104 decibels at ]:3o A.M., probably a siren or car alarm," Blomberg points out "Here's one off my screen, louder tlaasrtm decibels!'" Bcrnardin, who -buys earplugs by the boxful, will pre- sent Blomber s-dar .to city officials. He wants to convince them to begin -wise -cutting steps. For instance, the city could specify dicer -buses. Blomberg notes that in Europe. trucks and buses can be only half -as -loud as vehicles con- forming to U.S regulations. Next on the agenda, he adds, should be noise limits for air conditioners "If the background din dropped, police cruisers and fire trucks and .ambulances wouldn't need such Loud sirens,"' he says. Bernardin. a former teacher who was a National Park Service guide at Ellis Island, where he relished the silence, gazes sadly out his windows at the Greenwich Village traffic roaring by. "This apartment has wraparound sound," he laments. In a guidebook, he finds a reference to an early igoos socialite who founded the Society for the Suppression of Unnecessary Noise. "That was almost a century ago.' he muses And the unnecessary noise is still unsuppressed " Walking to a meeting, Blomberg and Bernardin spot a blue suited executive clasping his hands over his ears. "Even in a wealthy neighborhood. we're creating acoustical slums," Blomberg says Bernardin points out drivers oper- ating remote car -door openers, making their cars toot. But here is a hitherto undiscovered noise source: a trailer truck offering curbside document shredding, accomplished via a churning and a thumping "'That's over go decibels," Blomberg announces. It's louder than a . _ . - But the churning drowns him out. They arrive at the restaurant designated for the meet- ing Blomberg calls a New York Anti -Noise Summit Economist Charles Komanoff, who coauthored a Noise Pollution Clearinghouse study on jet ski noise, reports he recently asked .an audience: Noise pollution, or air pollution, from cars—if you could get rid of only one, which would it bc? "A majority said noise.' he says. in my analyses, the costs frorn automobile air pollution arc higher, hut people are more bothered by noise from cars - Aiso at the meeting is noise -consultant Arline Bron- zaft, professor emerita of psychology ar City University of New York and an adviser to the city's League of the Hard of Hearing. She authored a groundbreaking study on noise's impact on children's learning. Bronzafr, appointed by the mayor's office to a commit- tee on transit complaints, decided to test a public school next to the elevated train tracks at 212th Street and Broad - "A train went by for 3o seconds every 4.5 minutes, the noise level in classrooms on that side of rhe building reached Bq deci- bels," Bronzafr recalls. By rhe sixth grade, students in these noisy class- rooms, demographically identical ro students on the school's opposite— quiet—side, lagged a year in reading ability. Bronzaft's report prompted the installation of noise -hushing rubber pads on tracks by the school and acoustic -al ceilings inside. Result- noise inside the affected classrooms was reduced by 6 to 8 decibels. "When we did the study again, to my great sur- prise and happiness, the children were al! reading ar the same level." reports Rron aft. (Today noise levels at P.S. 9$ again present problems: the trains, older by more than 20 years, have grown creakier, and noisier, over time ) Two hot issues are on this meet- ing's agenda—Internet Buzz and pro- posed new federal airport noise poli- cy. The discussion becomes—is it lair to say?—noisy. A few hours later, en route to Grand Central Station and his train home, Les Blomberg stops for a soda. In mid -quaff, he says: "Make noise unto others as you would have others make noise unto your" Even if the Noise Pollution Clearinghouses three full- time staff members, and five part-time workers, and assort- ed interns, and all the noise -troubled people who call for help, actually wanted to move to a deserted area, they would be our of luck. Specialists who trek to remote sites ro record birdcalls and either natural sounds report that not even the North Pole or Antarctica or the Amazon is now free of unnatural noise, such as the roar of airliners or the buzz of chain saws way Specialists who trek to remote sites to record phenomena such as birdcalls report that not even the North Pole or the Amazon is free of unnatural noise. Les Blomberg, born in :g61. grew up in the suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota, where his parents owned grocery stores- In high school. he recollects. he took "boom box speakers outside to entertain myself. I wasn't overly polite." he confcs. "I Was a teenage boy, whi shows there is hope. that people can learn." He completed a degree in mathem ttics at the Universi- ty of Minnesota and wcrat on, graduating in aggj from the University of Colorado with a master's degree in environ- mental ethics. In egg; he and his partner, Brenda Hausauer, took on a joint assignment for the State of Ver- mont, writing a state energy plan. They were living in a downtown apartment an Vermont's tiny capital when Blomberg became a noise activist. On many a morning at 4:00, down Blomberg's narrow Ianc, the town's solitary street sweeper roared. Blomberg campaigned to convince officials that a city of 8.000 did not need wee -hours downtown mechanized street sweeping. Marshaling volunteers, he proved brooms outperformed the machine. Finally—the clincher --he offered to record the downtown sweeper's noise and. at the appropriate hour. precisely reproduce it outside the officials' suburban homes. News of Blombcrg's work reached Harriet Barlow, direc- tor of the Blue Mountain Center, an anises' retreat in New York's Adirondack Mountains. She disliked noise. With a 550,000 grant, she starred the Noise Pollution Clearing- house. And she decided that Blomberg, trained in mathe- matics. physics and environmental philosophy, was just the fellow to head the new organization. Dawn on Nantucket Island. Les Blomberg stands on a lawn, airning his sound meter toward the Atlantic. He stands among gray saltbox cottages. some dating to the a600s, buried in blue hydrangeas and yellow sunflowers, pink roses growing over their roofs. Nantucket is 16 miles long and about 6 miles wide, bigger than Manhattan. But us popularion is only g,000, expanding to 6o,000 in the summer Noise? There is the ocean's rhythmic whoosh. Song sparrows. Goldfinches. Mourning doves. ''OK." Blomberg says. "Here carnes the first one." At 6:03 A.N. an airplane flies overchar's y8-4 decibels," Blomberg reports. At 6:o7 Am. another plane flies over, and another at 6:u and again at 6:1a, and at 6:t6, 6.17, 6:a8 . . Later, Blomberg drives to the epidemics source. the island's little airport, with his host. Wade Greene; for - Daemon Meeh, 14, corresponded with the governor to protest speedway noise near his New Hampshire farmhouse. M merly a New Ycarir Times Magazine editor. now an environmental consultant to philanthropies. Greene also operates Wade Cottages, a vacation compound he cre- ated from his grandfather's summer home. He believes that airplane noise as going ro hurt Nantucket tourism. Island stays arc expensive. Vacationers value quiet. So do those who can afford a summer place here, where houses average s75o,ouo or more. "Mainly we're dealing with two -engine Cessna .}ox shut- tle planes that fly to Hyannis. bur there are private planes, too, and corporate jets." Greene is explaining. He points out a parked pickup's bumper sticker: "It Used To Be Nicer In Nantucket." Right now 26 airplanes are taxiing or waiting. Their noise is, literally. deafening. "You can get to this island only by ferry or by plane. and air traffic here is doubling every five years," says Greene. "This little air- port is now the second busiest in all of New England, and sometimes the island of Nantucket has more flights com- ing and going than Boston's Logan Airport." Blomberg is here to study Nantucket's noise dilemma. Greene contends many pilots ignore an agreement to fly one mile offshore. Blomberg shrugs. He e:ak:ulates one mile is not enough: the planes should fly live to ten miles out. Usually people affeeicd by airliner noise have link polit- ical clout, Blomberg observes. "But here you can actually talk with aviation officials, and here the solution is sim- ple—push the airplanes out to sea." He maintains: "If you can't do it on Nantucket, no place can do it " Blomberg has also investigated the plight of the noise - beset residents of Loudon. New Hampshire. Today he sets up his equipment on a tripod in an immaculately kept gray ranch house's macadam driveway. "That's 78 deci- bels," he announces. Torn Early, the house's owner„ a retired airline pilot, gray haired and gray mustached. looks on glumly. From his driveway you can six only his pre- cisely trimmed lawn and white birches and one other home. Bur the roar from the New Hampshire International Speedway. a stock -car racetrack. seems k blot out every- thing. 'That Just hit 8.1 decibels," Les Blomberg says, eye- ing his instruments. He notes that a typical city noise restriction for daytime is about 6o decibels. more than four tarries quieter. "At night they'll have rock bands," Torr Early says, shaking his head. "Louder than hell. And rhe have Fireworks. And they fire off cannons." T M $ 41 N 1 A M TAKING THE MEASURE OF NOISE 115 decibels OSHA forbids any unprotected exposure FELS r?ecibets ProlrrnOTI advised rex prolonged ex•osure i �yy 75 Decibels EPA recommends protection for 8 -hour ex • osurc =rte 60 Decibels Typical daytime ordinance noise limn From the deep stillness of the Grand Canyon to the ear -assaulting din of a rock concert, a complex range of sounds underlies our everyday experience. Mufflers might be a solution. But Blomberg believes [lee real issue is that noise can increase the secretion of adren- aline in humans. perhaps because our distant ancestors associated loud sounds, like a lion's roar or a baby's scream, with danger. The greater the sound, the greater rile adrenaline rush. Blornberg theorizes that racetracks prefer w be as bud as possible because it excites the fans. "That's why exercise classes crank up the decibels, and rock bands, and action movies," he observes. "In effect, noise becomes a drug they're pumping out and into you." Later, Blomberg visits Daimon Meeh, t.t, who shows him a letter he sent to New Hampshire's governor, along with a CD recording he made just outside his farmhouse of the racetrack's roar. 1 don't remember a time when 1 didn't Hiroshima suburbs. A have to listen to the noise of New Hampshire international Speedway (NNIS) in Loudon," Daimon wrote, noting the track's growth. "As the noise of the racetrack grew increasingly louder, people in my town got rnorc and more an- noyed-" He analyzed for the gover- nor the noise's steady increase over the years and the economic effects. Despite his efforts, a solution has not yet been achieved- . Letters to the governor seem to be in the air. Stopping back at Tom Early's house, Blomberg finds the retired airline pilot irritated. "'I'm just sending a letter off to the governor, and I told her I vote too," Early says "Last night we were in here with the windows closed. trying to watch My Fair Lady on TV, and sometimes we couldn't hear it because the noise from the track was so loud." When the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse's communications director, attorney Vicky Parra Tei - bets, checks the e-mail, mainly she finds messages like this- "Filially a thread of' hope Thank you so much for your helps" Or a New Jersey mayor seeks assistance deciding about too -decibel alarms the volunteer lire company has set up in residential neighborhoods From japan comes a request for help—U.S. fighters flying low over musician writes from Hawaii it's the worst ti situations—here in paradise' Five days a week we pay z gardeners to use an artillery of weed-wackcrs, lawn mowers and blowers. powered saws etc to drive us nuts " From California, the Hollywood Heights Associa- tion seeks help dealing with news helicopters hovering overhead during movie premieres. And there is this. "We have been battling a neighborhood noise bully who has about 25o roosters on his z acre lot " As mottoes go, the watchword adopted by the clearinghouse seems benign "Good Neighbors Keep Their Noise To Themselves." 7 Richard and Joyce Wolkomir unite frpm the peace and quiet of Ver- mont Richard Howard is based in Winchester, Massachusetts 0 N A NM WISFN IAUGNILIMDGACN i SMITH LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS January 8, 2001 1. Blue Ox Logcrafters, L.L.C. Post Office Box 644 Carbondale, Coloado 81623 Bureau of Reclamation Western Slope Field Engineering 22596 Frying Pan Road Basalt, Colorado 8162I 3. Brent and Shirley Peterson 35960 River Frontage Road New Castle, Colorado 81647 4. State of Colorado Department of Transportation 202 Centennial Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601-2845 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Western Slope Aggregate, Inc. has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant a Special Use Permit, in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to - wit: Legal Description: See Attached Practical Description: Located approximately one and one half miles east of I-70/Silt Interchange, of of the South 1-70 Frontage Road. Said Special Use Permit is to allow Western Slope Aggregate, Inc. to extract gravel and operate a concrete batch plant on the above described property. The Board of County Commissioners has referred this Application to the Garfield County Planning Commission for comment. All persons affected by the proposed Special Use Permit are invited to appear and state their views, support or objections. If you cannot appear personally at this hearing, then you may state your views by letter, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected by the proposed Special Use Permit. This application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department, located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The public hearing on the application before the Planning Commission has been set for the I4` day of February 2001, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County PFn r,. GARFIELD COUNTY GRAVEL PIT REPORT Prepared by: Western Slope Aggregate, Inc. Post Office Box 910 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970-963-2296 February 12, 2001 0001)001 REPORT According to Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology County Reports for Garfield County, Colorado dated February 2, 2001 (Exhibit "A", Page 3) there have been a total of 131 mines permitted in Garfield County since 1974. Of these 131 mines, 80 are sand and gravel mines. of these 80 gravel pits, 40 have had their permits terminated, 11 have been withdrawn and 8 others are otherwise out of permit for various reasons leaving a total of 21 sand and gravel mines in Garfield County with active permits status. The 21 gravel pits with active permit status are listed in Exhibit "B" at Page 16 and shown on the Garfield County Gravel. Pit Map at locations in accordance with the numbering system depicted on Exhibit "B" On February 9, 2001, representatives of Western Slope Aggregate, inc. made field investigations of each of the 21 sites with an active mining permit. The results of these investigations are set out in Exhibit "C' Page 20. These investigations revealed that of the 21 mines permitted as active, 9 were dosed with no active mining, 3 were open but resources mostly depleted leaving 8 permits with a good resource and active mining. These 8 permits are located at only 6 sites because some of the sites carried multiple permits. Of these 6 sites, 3 are located in the Roaring Fork Valley, 1 near Silt, 1 between Silt and Rifle and 1 east of Rifle. 1JU0d00 EXHIBIT "A" 0000003 Page 1 of 11 Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology County Report 212/01 You requested a county report based on_ County: Garfield Operator: All Operators Mine ID: All Mine IDs Mine Name: All Mine Names Permit Status: Any Permit Status Commodity: All Commodities Operator Site Name .Permit No. Permit Type Permit Issued Permit Status Contact Address Line 1 Address Line 2 City State Zip Code 1 County Permit Acreage Mine Type Annual Fee CIT/QT/OT Section Township Range Pnme Meridian Telephone Commodities Mined (USGS Codes) Posted Surety Alcorn Materials Anderson PitBox M1976001 112c SW// �3/12176 iR 17 ' 6 93 06 535 Pueblo CO 81002-1002 (303) 544-5451 SDG i -- Garfield 53.00 SR 3350.00 50.00 Anschutz Coal Corporation NA X197710400 COEX / TR 0 8 89 518 17th Street Denver CO 80202-0000 (303) 573-5665 COA Garfield 0.00 BL 50.00 - Asphalt Paving Company Silt Pit M1981298 112c SE/NW/ WD 10 6 92 i 06 14802 W 441h Ave86.08 Golden CO 80401-0000 (303) 279-6611 GRAV Garfield S' $0.0 50,01 Asphalt Paving Company Silt Pit M1984005 110c N AP 10 6 92 06 James R Krattenmaker 14802 W. 44th Ave Golden CO 80403-0000 (303) 279-6611 SDG Garfield 9.71 S' 5281.01 50.01 Battlement Mesa Maintenance Battlement Mesa Pit M1981192 112c NW/SW/ 10/22/82 RV 24 7 96 - 06 Alan Schaeffer P O Box 162 Parachute CO 81635-0000 (303) 285-9589 SDG Gaiftet• 43.08 5- 5550.0, 52,500.01 Carbon King Ltd Sunlight -Archived Box 229 M1977469 COAL 1 TR - 0 i COA Garfield 0.00 B 50.08 50.0 Central Aggregates, inc. West Rifle Pit M1981006 112c NE/SW/ - 4/27181 AC 17 6 93 06 Gilbert T Lee P O Box 26 Rifle CO 81650-0000 ;970) 625-3598 SDG Garfield 22.08 S' 3688.08 510.500.01 Central Aggregates, Inc. West Rifle Pit M1995018 111 SW/SW/ 5/31/95 AC 17 6 93 Gilbert T Lee P.O. Box 26 Rifle CO 81650-0000 (970) 625-3598 GRAV I ^.."'' 5.00 SR 5350.00 512.500.00 Chevron Shale Oil Company Semi -Work Project M1981087 112 // 12/6/82 TR 31 5 98 06 Gary E Bishop Box 6518 Englewood CO 80155-6518 (303) 930-3103 SH0 Garfield 1,989.00 UG 3550.00 $50,000.00 Colorado Division of Highways Harness M1974002 112c NW/NE/ TR 9 9 92 06 Ilyess Ksoun 4340 E Louisiana Ave Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SDG BOR/ Garfield 14.00 SR $0,00 50.00 1 http://mining.state.co.us/operatordbireport.a.sp 0000004 2/2/2001 Page 2 of 11 Colorado Division of Highways Parkinson River fit M1974005SG 112c 1/ -I-P .8 6 92 06 Ilyess Ksouri 4340 E Louisiana Ave Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SDG i Garfiell 65.5 5 3,.-+.J $0.00 Colorado Division of Highways Hollenbaugh Pit M1974008SG 112c NEN 2:20.7a R 18 6 1 93 06 Ilyess Ksouri 4340 E Louisiana Ave Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 . SDG N Garfield 18.60 SR $0.00 $0.00 Colorado Division of Highways Clough P8 M1974012 110c // /20!74 tR 13 6 94 06 Ilyess Ksoun 4340 E Louisiana Ave Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SDG Garfield 8.20 SR $0.00 $0.00 Colorado Division of Highways Anderson Pit M1974013SG 1120 // 2/20/74 TR 20 6 93 06 Ilyess Ksoun 4340 E Louisiana Ave Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SDG Garfield 13.00 SR $0.00 S0.00 Colorado Division of Highways Dalrymple Pit M1974024 1120 11 WD 35 6 94 06 Ilyess Ksouri 4340 E Louisiana Ave Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 STN Garfield 0.00 SR $0.00 $0.00 Colorado Division of Highways B m Pit 1x11974032 110c SE/f WD 20 6 93 06 _ Ilyess Ksouri 4340 E Louisiana Ave Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SDG r.,.s..",, 3.00 SR 50.00 50.00 Garfield 7.40 SR 50.00 $0.00 Colorado Division of Highways Clough Pit M1974038 1100 NW/NW/ . 5120++4 TRDenver 18 6 . 93 06 _ Ilyess Ksouri 4340 E Louisiana Ave CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SST Colorado Division of 'Highways Pourers Pit M1974050SG 1100 SW/NE! WD 26 7 88 06 Ilyess Ksoun 4340 E Louisiana Ave Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SDG Garfield 0.00 R 57 .; $0.00 Colorado Division of Highways BLM LandNassar Pit M1974087 112c SEISE/ TR 28 6 94 06 Ilyess Ksoun 4340 E Louisiana Ave Deriver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SDG Garfield 21.00 SR $0.00 50 30 Garfield 6.00 SR 50.00 Colorado Division of Highways Div Of Hwys Pit .M1975010 1100 NE/I TR 16 6 93 06 Ilyess Ksouri 4340 E Louisiana Ave Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SDG Colorado Division of Highways Clough Island Pit M1978178 112c SEINWISW 7/27/78 TR 29 6 94 06 Ilyess Ksouri 4340 E Louisiana Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SDG Garfield 31.40 SR 50.00 50.00 http:/!mining,.state.co.Llsloperatordb/report.asp 00000 5 2/2/2001 Page 3 of 11 Colorado Division of Highways Young Pit M1979078 110c SEISE/ 5123/79 TR 34 6 102 06 Ilyess Ksoun 4340 E Louisiana Ave Denver CO 80222-0000 (303) 757-9432 SDG Garfield 3.30 SR 5120.00 50.00 Colorado Division of Ilyess Ksourt Garfield Highways 4340 E Louisiana Ave 3.30 BLM Burnt Shale Pit .:25'85 SR M1985170 AC Denver CO 80222-0000 5281.00 110c 9 7 102 06 (303) 757-9432 SET 50 00 NW// Colorado Lien Company Leola Craft Garfield Rifle Quarry P0. Box 767 40.00 M1985038 9/26/85 SR 112c AC Rapid City SD 57709-0000 1 5688 00 SW/SE/ 15 4 92 (605) 342-7224 LST 537.500.06 Colorado Lien Comp any --4. Robert J Olson Garfield Rifle Quarry Box 1961 0.00 M1985083 6111/85 BL 111 TR Fon Collins CO 80522-0000 5350.00 NW/SE/ 15 4 92 06 (303) 493-7017 LST 50.00 born Construction Company Mr. Edward Garfield Dere Pit *1 Box 1240 17.50 M1979052 5/23/79 SR 112c LIR Grand Junction CO 81501- 5350.00 ill 35 6 95 06 0000 SDG S5,000.00 (303) 242-3380 Corn Construction Company • ----- Dennis M Kirtland Garfield Parachute Gravel Pit1 PC Box 1240 9.90 M1981103 5/29/81 SR 111 TR Grand Junction CO 81502- 5350.00 SW/SW/ 7 7 95 06 0000 SDG 525.000 00 303)434-7301 - Corn Construction Company Garfield Ortiz Pit Box 1240 3199 D Rd 500 M1981122 3/25/82 SR 110c WD Grand Junction CO 81502- 550 00 NE/SE/ 35 6 95 06 0000 SDG 55.000 00 (303) 434-7301 Corn Construction Company Dennis M Kirtland Garfield Ortiz Gravel Pit Box 1240 9-90 M1981205 10/14/81 SR 111 TR Grand Junction CO 81502 5350 00 // 35 6 95 06 0000 SDG 512,000.00 (303) 434-7301 - Corn Construction Company Garfield Peterson Gravel Pit Box 1240 35.00 M1981300 5/17/82 SR 112c TR Grand Junction CO 81502- 5350.00 NW/SE/ 12 6 92 06 0000 SDG 530.000 00 (303) 434-7301 David Rippy Construction David Rippy Garfield Cattle Creek Pit 204 Alpine Ct. N/A M1999116 N/A ILL TR Glenwood Springs CO N/A NEJNEJ 18 7 88 06 81601-1601 909 (970) 945-2710 Dick Casey Concrete. Inc. Shawn Vonclette Garfield Dick Casey Goner Pit P 0 Box 1815 68.10 M1978349 112c 12/20/78 AC 14 6 93 06 Rifle CO 81650-0000NW/NW/ (970) 245-3700 SDG , SR 527.500.00 Dorchester Colornine Coal - — Darrel Hespe Garfield Fruita Mines i 751 Horizon Ct 0.00 X198011400 BL COEX TR Grand Junction CO 81501- 50.00 // 0 0 0 0000 COA 50.00 (303) 245-6370 hnp://mining.state.co.us/operatordb/reportasp 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 2/2/2001 Page 4 of 11 Eastside Coal Company. Inc. Eastside Mine C1984063 COAL NE/SE/ 1/14/85 PC 24 5 92 06 Stephen Self P.O. Box 701007 San Antonia TX 78270-1007 (210) 490-4788 ' COA Garfield 299.00 UG 50.00 $29,712.00 Eastside Coal Company, Inc. Eastside Mine X198318600 COEX (1 TR 2a 5 92 Stephen Self i P. O. Box 161 Silt CO 81652-0000 (303) 876-2944 COA Garfield 0.00 BL --- - - 50.00 Elam Construction Inc Young Pit M1988061 112c NW/SW/ 715/88 TR 6 1 8 102 06 Kelly Wilson 1225 S 7th St Grand Junction CO 81501- 0000 (303) 242-5370 GRAV Garfield 10.00 SR 5350.00 55,000.00 Enc Williams New Casale Road M1997006 110c 11 WD 32 5 90 1 06 Inc Williams 0981 County Road 245 New Castle CO 81647-0000 () - GRAV Garfield 0.00 SR 50.00 50.00 Exxon Company. U.S.A Colony Shale Oil Pro M1980047 112 SW11 1111180 AC 6 ' 7 95 06 Brent 0 Patterson CIO Exxon Mobil Corporation P.Q. Box 2567 Houston TX 77252-2567 (281)423-6248 SHO Garfield 6,778.00 UG 5550.00 $30.000.000.00 First Western Coal Company Sunlight Mine -Archived Box 228 M1979015 COAL to TR - COA - Garfield 0.00 BL 50.00 50.00 Flay Resources, Inc. Goldman Gravel Pit M1978279 110c SSE// 1.1/22/ 8 AC 12 6 92 06 Fred Frei 1412 CR 311 New Castle CO 81641-0000 (970) 876-2397 GP.... 1 Garfield 8.50 Ri, $2o i'.uul 517 300.00 Flag Resources, Inc. Silt Pit M1981202SG 112c 11 11/27/81 AC 11 6 92 06 Fred Frei 1412 CR 311 New Castle CO 81641-0000 (303) 876-2397 SDG - Garfield 170.70 SR 5688,00 555.400.00 Flag Resourses Inc Silt Pit M1981202 112c II 11/27/81 TR '11 6 92 06 Fred Frei 1412 311 Road New Castle CO 81647-0000 (970) 876-2397 SDG 1 11G: uarr eld _0 SR 5350.00 50.00 Flatiron Paving Company Clough Pit M1976054 112c 11 - 5/16/80 rTR i2 7 6 93 06 Peggy Schlagel Box 229 Boulder CO 80306-0000 (303)444-2151 SDG.' Garfield 50,601 SR $350.00 '`', Flatiron Paving Company Koch Pit 1/441980007 112c SW// 3127/80 TR 7 7 95 06 Peggy Schlagel Box 229 Boulder CO 80306-0000 (303) 444-2151 SDG Garfield 0.00 SR 5350.00 $0.00 ,Flatiron Paving Company Clark Pit M1982083 '111 NEJSE/ WO 7 95 06 Peggy Schlagel Po Box 229 Boulder CO 80306-0000 (303) 444-2151 500_ Garfield 9.90 SR 50.00 50 00 .Francesca Real Estate Corp Francesca Farms Lake M1993054 110c NWINW/ 3124/95 TR 20 6 93 06 Raymond Schneider P O. Box 13172 Houston TX 77019-0000 (713) 586-3726 (;RAV Garneld 9.00 SR 5225.00 522,450.00 http://mining.state.co.osfoperatordhfreport.asp 000000 2/112001 Pace 5 of 11 IGG. & H Knight Knight Pit M1982039 112c NEU 7/12/132 ' TR 4 4 1 95 06 1845 309 Road Parachute CO 81638-0000 (303) 111-1111 SDG Garfield 36.00 SR 5350.00 511 650.00 Garfield Coal. Inc. Garfield Coal Load re1984068 COAL WD x x CO 11111-0000 Garfield 0.00 OR 50.00 NW/NW/NW 10 6 92 (303) 111-1111 COA 50.00 . Garfield County . _ Sweetwater Area 109 8th St Ste 300 2.00 M1974093SR , 110c TR Glenwood Springs CO 50.00 SE/SE] 15 87 06 81601-0000 SDG 50,00 (303) 945-6892 Garfield County - - - . _ trom Russell Garfield Christiansen Pit M1974126 902 Taughenbaugh Blvd, 2.50 SR 110c WD Rifle CO 81650-1650 50.00 SW/SE/SE 24 7 92 06 (970) 625-8601 SDG $0.00 Garfield County Tom Russell -_ Garfield Dodo Pit 902 Taughenbaugh Blvd 2.50 M1974127 SR 110c WD Rifle CO 81650-1650 50.00 NW/NE/NE 16 5 91 06 (970) 625-8601 SDG 50.00 Garfield County Road and Garfield Anderson Pit P0 Box 2254 3.50 M1978024 11/22/78 SR 1100 TR Glenwood Springs CO 5225.00 NEINVW 15 3 87 06 80602-0000 SDG 50.00 (303) 945-8212 Garfield County Tom Russell Garfield Cattle Creek Pit 902 Taughenbaugh Blvd.. 8.00 M1978025 11/22/78 Ste. 305 SR 1100 AC 5281.00 NW/NW/ 6 88 06 Rifle CO 81650-2732 SCG 50.00 (970) 625-8601 Canfield County 'Road and Garliei-ca Couey Pit P 0 Box 2254 3.00 M1978026 SR 110c WO Glenwood Springs CO 50,00 NEJNE/ 8 7 92 06 81602-0000 SDG 50.00 (303) 945-8212 Garfield County Tom Russell Garfield Grand Valley Pit 902 Taughenbaugh Blvd. 3.00 M1978027 11/22/78 SR 110c AC Rifle CO 81650-1650 5281.00 NE/SEI 7 7 95 06 (970) 625-8601 SDG 50.00 Garfield County Road and Garfield Hoaglund Pit P 0 fax 2254 3,00 M1978028 SR 110c IC Glenwood Springs CO 50.00 NE/NW/ 2 7 95 06 81602-0000 SDG 50.00 (303) 945-8212 Garfield County Road and Garfield West Mamm Creek Pit P 0 fax 2254 2.00 M1978029 SR 110c V.0:72 Glenwood Springs CO 50.00 NE/NE/ 22 7 93 06 81602-0000 SHL S0.00 (303) 945-8212 Garfield Energy Corporation Sunlight Mine x 1 Garfield 1E10,00 C1981046 5/20/85 UG COAL RV x CO 11111-0000 1 , 50.00 NENE, 33 __ .i 7 89 06 (303) 111-1111 COA 512 000 00 . _ http://mining.state.co.us/operatordbfreport.asp 0 0 0 0 0 2/2/2001 Page 6of11 Grand Junction Concrete Pipe Co. Una Pit M1980080 112c NW/NW/(970) 7/24180 AC 34 7 96 06 Edward J Settle P.O. Box 1849 Grand Junction CO 81502- 1502 243-4604 SDG Garfield' 162.10 SR $688.00 592.400.00 Grand River Construction Co. Paul hippy Garfield Grand Valley Pit Box 1236 9.90 M1980147 2123/81 SR 1100 TR Glenwood Springs CO 550.00 SE/SW/ 23 7 96 06 81601-0000 SDG 50.00 (303) 945-7758 .Grant Bros Const Ltd Dan or Doug Grant Garfield Loesch. Pit P.O. Box 1027 - • -- M1981068 10/27/81 SR 1120 AC Basalt CO 81621-0000 5688.00 SEI/ _ 7 6 92 06 (970) 927-3201 SDG_ * 519.000.00 Harry's Heavy Haulers Harry R Colborn Garfield Otto Zinko Grav Pit P 0 Box 555 5.00 M1985162 9/5/85 SR 1100 TR Basalt CO 81621-0000 $50.00 NW/SE/ 27 6 89 06 (303) 927-4507 SDG 50.00 Henry Bendetti Coal Company Garfield Nu Gap #3 Mine -Archived 0.00 Box 228 BL M1979087 TR- 50.00 COAL (Y COA 50.00 // J.W. Earthmoving, Inc. Joseph E Weinreis Garfield Ortiz Gravel Pit 5454 CR 346 49.00 M1981205R 8/16/83 SR 112c AC Silt CO 81852-0000 5688.00 1/ 35 6 95 06 (970) 876-2524 900 512,000.00 Jim Mazuchi Garfield Silt Mesa Grav Pit P 0 Box 146 7.2L1 M1980006 11/28280 SR 110c TR Sill CO 81652-0000 $50.0 SW/NE/SE 3 6 92 06 (303) 876-2335 SDG $5.000.9G Jim Snyder Jim Snyder Garfield Snyder Pit 3879 346 Rd. N/A M2000019 ILL II Silt CO 81652-1652 N/A, ivrA SW/NE/ 14 6 93 06 (970) 625-2529 SDG BOR John A McNulty _ Elena C McNulty Garfield McNulty Sandstone P. 0. Box 1847 ,i.00 M1984175 11/13/84 SR 111 TR Glenwood Springs CO $350.00 SW/SE/ 4 7 87 81602-0000 SDG 57,500.00 (970)111.1111 :John G Powers John C Marlin Garfield Powers Piti P.0 Box 1220 93.90• M1979134 11/19/80 14156 Hwy. 82 SR 112c AC Carbondale CO 81623-0000 56'P npr SW/NEI 126 7 88 06 (303) 963-3516 SD.: ; _ 5284.450.00/" John J Runyan John J Runyan Garfield Runyan S & 0 Pit .2052 W. 2nd St. 44.00 M1977541 1/26/81 SR 1120 TR Rifle CO 81650-0000 5688.00 NW/NW/ 18 6 93 06 i(970) 625-1484 SDi ; $0.00 Kitson Service James Kitson Garfield Kitson Pit Box 2440 0.80 M1981198 3/23/82 SR 1100 TR Page AZ 86040-0000 550.00 SW/SW/ 2 6 92 06 (111)111-1111 SDG 4 50.00 L G 'Evens) Inc Dennis E Staebell Garfield Una Pit 9065 Quince St 42.00 M1981201 415/82 SR 112c TR Henderson CO 80640.0000 5550 00 NE)1 33 7 96 06 (303) 287.4656 SDG m..'..+t1 http://mining.state.co.us/operatordb/report.asp 000000(1 2/2/2001 Page 7of11 Larsen Siebel & Gustafson Crown Meadows M1979107 110c NW/1 8/1/80 TR 12 8 88 06 Delaney & Balcomb Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs CO 081602-0000 (111) 111-1111 SDG AGGR Garfield 4.501, SR 550.00 50.00 Lodestar Energy, Inc. R. Eberly Davis Garfield McClane Canyon Mine 333 West Vine Street 2.550.00 01980004 1/12/83 UG COAL AC Lexington KY 40507-0000 $0.00 NE/SW/SW 21 7 102 06 (606) 255-4006 COA 5190.788.06 Lodestar Energy. Inc. R. Eberly Davis Garfield Munger Canyon Mine 333 West Vine Street 1,049.00 C1981020 1/12/83 UG COAL TC Lexington KY 40507-0000 50.00 SE/SW/SW 127 7 102 06 (606) 255-4006 COA 51720�' n Lours Bendetti Coal Company Garfield Eastside Mine -Archived Box 0.00 228 BL M1979086 TR - 50.00 COAL COA 50.00 h cCiane Canyon Coal Mine Terminated Coal Garfield Archived Box 49 Archived 111/79 Box 49 0.00 M1979129 BL COAL TR Unknown CO 11111-0000 50.00 1/ 0 0 0 {111) 111-1111 COA 50.00 Mid -Continent Resources. Inc. Diane Delaney Garfield Marblehead Lst Quarry P O. Box 2115 5.00 M1977420 12115/781 SR 110c AC Glenwood Springs CO 5281.00 NW/1 2 6 89 06 81602-0000 LST $2,500.00 (970) 945-7148 -- Mid -Continent Resources. Inc. Douglas Bowman Garfield Rock Tunnel Portal 201 Centennial Street. Ste 0.00 X198419300 8/13/85, 405 BL COEX AC 50 00 /1 0 10 90 06 'Glenwood Springs CO 81601-0000 COA 50.00 (303) 945-4958 r1INREC. Inc. James E Stover Garfield North Thompson Creek Mine 2768 Compass Drive 3,335.00 C1981025 8/15/83 UG COAL PC 1 Grand Junction CO 81506- en nr, NE/NW/NW 31 3 89 06 0000 COA 5270,733.00 (970) 245-4101 Morrison Knudsen Theresa Ruby Garfield Corporation One Market. 'Stewart Tower. 0.00 Rifle Wetlands Site Suite 400 M1995131 NM 50.00 NM 19 93 San Francisco CA 94105- GRAv 50.00 I/ 0000 (415)442-7631 Munger Canyon Coal Mine `Terminated Coal Garfield Archived Box 44 Archived 6/29/83 Box 44 0.0 M1978057 BL COAL TR Unknown CO 11111-0000 50.00 1/ 0 0 0 (111) 111-1111 COA. 50.00 NCIG Financial. Inc. Rushton 0 Backer Garfield Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine P.O. Box 5460 2,639.80 C1984065 10/9/85 UG COAL PC Playa del Rey CA 90296- 50.001 SEISE) 6 _, 90 06 0000 (970) 245-4101 COA 5126.006.00 i. Nielsons, Inc. Douglas L Conger Garfield Anvil Pts Borrow Pit 'Box 1560 25.00 M1979031 3/28/79 SR 112c TR Cortez CO 81321-0000 5350.00 NE/SW/NE 30 6 94 06 (303) 565-8461 500 50.00 http://mining.state.co.usloperatordb/report.asp 00000) 00 2/2/2001 Page 8 of 11 Occidental 011 Shale. Inc. Logan Wash M1977424 112 NE/SW/ 3128/80 AC 25 7 97 06 Franklin Miller c/a Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. 2480 Fortune Or.. Ste. 300 Lexington KY 40509-0509 (859) 543-2100 SHO Garfield 134.70 UG 5550.00 5264,000.00 Palisade Construction Garfield Company Box 12434 5.00 Battlement Mesa Pit 7/1/81 SR M1981097 TR Denver CO 80212-0000 5350.00 111 24 7 69 06 (303) 457-8301 SDG 50.00 NW// 1 Peter Klewit. & Sons Company Garfield Chambers Pit Box 521 4.00 M1974034 ,5/17174 SR 110c TRLittleton CO 80160-0000 550.00 ff/f 11 6 93 06 1(303) 858-9851 SDG 4 50.0D Pitkin Iron Corparatian Robert J Delaney Garfield Mid -Continent LST 1 p755 Airport Rd. c..-�vo M1982121 4/25/83 P.C. Box 1298 SR 112c AC Glenwood Springs CO 5688.00 SEI/ ,36 10 89 06 81601-1601 ;_S T 527,240.20 (970) 945-0703 Redstone Corp. Garfield Redstone Pit 818 Colorado Ave 16 20 M1977040 7/21/77 SR 112c TR Glenwood Springs CO 1 5350.00 NW/NEI 34 7 88 06 81601-0000 ,.;i)G 50.00 (303) 94.5-7722 Roaring Fork Aggregate. Inc. John C Martin Garfield New Castle Pit P.O. Box 1220 9.90 M1994124 1/25/96 SR 110c TR Carbondale CO 81623-0000 5225.00 SE/NW/ 32 5 90 10 (970) 963-3295 _ SDG 510.035.00 Roaring Fork Resources. Inc i John 0 Martin Garfield Union Carbide Gravel Pit 14156 Hwy. 82 81.80 M1982010 3/25/82 SR 112c AC (Carbondale CO 81623-0000 5688.00 SW// 18 6 93 06 /970) 963-3295 SDG 560,000.00 Roaring Fork Resources. Inc. Dick Stephenson Garfield Mamm Creek Sand & Gravel 14156 8 Hwy. 82 N/A M2000113 N/A 112c AP Carbondale CO 81623-1623 N/A SEISE/ 1 t 6 93 06 (970) 963-0110 SAND GRAV S. W Anderson Garfield Anderson 16 Remington �� 'n' M1982193 4/23183 SR 112c TR Rifle CO 81650-0000 5350.00 NE/NW/SW 17 6 93 06 t(303) 625-1499 500 50.00 Salt Creek Mining Company Anne Baldnge Garfield Loma 1982 Exploration P.O Drawer L 0.'00 Program 8/13/82 BL X198217700 TR Fruita CO 81521-0689 5"- 7^ COEX 0 7 102 (303) 858-1396 COA. $0.00 1/ Salt Creek Mining Company John Walters Garfield Loma P 0 Drawer L Ci 00 x198517701 1BL COEX IN Frusta CO 81521-0689 50.00 /1 0 7 102 (303) 858-1396 COA 50.00 Salt Creek Mining Company John M Walters Garfield Loma Project F.O. Box 70 0.00 X198617702 1i BL COEX iC Loma CO 81524-0070 50.00 // 0 0 102 {303) 242-5021 COA 50.00 Schmidt Tiago Construction _ Garfield Clarence Hangs Pit 'Box 12434 3,00 M1974037 4/26(74 SR 110c TR Denver CO 80212-0000 550.00 // 9 6 92 06 (303) 457-8301 SDG 515,000.00 http://mininu.state.co.us/operatordb/report.asp 000001 l 2/2/ Au() 1 Page 9 of 11 Sheridan Enterprise, Inc. Munger Canyon Test Site #1 X197715303 COEX 11 TR 0 7 102 William C Bosworth 9745 E. Hampden Ave. Denver CO 80231-0000 (303) 770-6021 COA + Garfield 0.00 BLS 50.00 50.00 Sheridan Enterprise, Inc. East Salt Creek Test Site #1 X197715306 COEX 1/ TR 0 7 102 William C Bosworth 8301 E. Prentice Avenue Englewood CO 80110-0000 (303) 770-6021 COA Garfield 0.00 BL 50.00 50 00 Sheridan Enterpnses, Inc Loma Area X197715304 COEX // 'TR 0 7 102 Richard C JohnsonGarfield 745 E. Hampden Ave. Denver CO 80231-0000 3031770-6021 ..,OA 0.00 BL 50.00 50.00 1 Sheridan Enterprises. Inc. Munger Canyon Test Site #1 X197715301 COEX Ir TR 0 7 102 illiam C Bosworth •745 E Hampden Ave. Denver CO 80231-0000 303) 770-6021OOA Garfield 0 00 BL 50 00 50.00 Shendan Enterprises, Inc. Loma Test Site No. 1 X197715305 COEX 07 4/19/77 TR 0 7 102 Richard C Johnson '745 E Hampden Ave, Denver CO 80231-0000 (303) 770-6021 1 i::;OA' Ga.rei,-f 0.00 BL 50.00 . _ 50.00 Sheridan Enterprises. Inc. McClane Canyon Test Site #1 X197715312 COEX N 10/24/78 TR 0 7 102 illiam C Bosworth 301 E. Prentice Avenue Englewood CO 80110-0000 303) 770-6021 COA Garfield 0.00 BL 50.00 50 00 Shendan Enterprises. Inc. Munger Creek X197815309 COEX /7 6/18/80 TR 0 7 102 illiam 0 Bosworth 301 E. Prentice Avenue Englewood CO 80111-0000 (303) 770-6021 COA Garfield 0.00 BL 50.00 50.00 Shendan Enterpnses, Inc. Loma Property X198015311 COEX /7 5/18/81 TR 0 0 102 Martha K Sippel 745 E. Hampden Ave, Ste 50 Denver CO 80231-0000 (303) 751-0093 COA Garfield 0 00 BL 50 00 50.00 Sheridan Enterprises, Inc. Loma X198115300 COEX /I TR 1 0 7 102 Patricia Thacker •745 East Hampden venue 350 Denver CO 80231-0000 303) 751-0093 COA Garfield 0.00 BL 50.00 50.00 Storm King Mines NA X198313107 COEX /I TR 0 0 0 Sam S Arentz. 5335 West 48th Avenue Denver CO 80212-0000 (303) 433-7471 - CCA H Garfield -- BL 50.00 50.00 Storm King Mines, Inc. Storm King Project X198013106 COEX 77 TR 0 6 90 John 0 Woodruff 1901 Kipling Street. Suite 24 Lakewood CO 80215-0000 (303)111 1111 CCA Garfield 0.00 BL 50.00 50.00 Storm King Mines. Inc. Storm King Project X198113100 CQEX // TR 0 6 , Bill Tobey 5335 West 48th Ave., Ste 350 g3enver CO 80212-0000 (303) 111-1111 CCA Garfield 0.00 BL 50.00 $0.00 Storm King Mines, Inc Storm King Project X198113102 COEX II T!7, 0 6 0 ,Bill Tohey 5335 West 48th Ave.. Ste 350 Denver CO 80212-0000 (303) 111-1111 COA • r Garfield 0.00 BL 50.00 50.00 http://mining.state.co.usioperatordb/report.asp 000001' 2/2/2001 Page I C 11 Storm King Mines. Inc. Storm King Project X198113103 COEX 11 TR 0 6 0 Bit Tobey 5335 West 4th Ave.. Ste 350 Denver CO 80212-0000 i(303) 111-1111 COA Garfield 0.00 BL 50.00 50.00 Storm King Mines, Inc- Sam S Arentz. Garfield Geo & Hydro Drill 5335 West 48th Avenue 0 00 X198313108 BL COEX TR Denver CO 80212-0000 50.60 11 0 0 0 (303) 433-747.1 COA 50.00 Storm King Partners. Ltd- Allen 0 Gray Garfield Storm King Project 1901 Kipling Street 0.00 X197813104 BL COEX TR Lakewood CO 80215-000G 50-00 11 0 6 96 (303) 111-1111 COA 50.00 Sullivan Mining Corporation iom Sullivan Garfield Blackstone Project 3953 Oregon Street/Box 0-00 X198217600 4615 BL COEX TR 50.00 1/ 9 6 90 San Diego CA 92104-0000 COA 50 00 /714) 692-1180 - Surface Exploration Industries Robert H Lowdermilk Garfield Lindauer Pit 12501 WCR 13 36-90 M1979180 12/16/81 112e TR Longmont CO 80501.0000 5550.00 NW/SE/SW 13 7 96 06 (303) 444-7444 SDG 564,148.00 Umetco Minerals Corp. McAuley Gravel Pit - - Tom Gieck - P O. Box 1029 Garfield p.00 M1998145 NM NM Grand Junction CO 81502- 50.00 If 18 6 93 06 0000 GRAY' 50.00 (970) 245-3700 Umetca Minerals Corporation - - — Anthony 5 Bates Garfield Macauley Pit 2754 Compass Dr-, Ste. 280 2540 M1995040 6/6/95 SR 111 AC Grand Junction CO 81506- 5350.00 •SW/SEI 18 6 93 rt! 0000 SDG 565,000.00 (970) 256-8881 Union Oil of California Richard L Brammer Garfield Long Ridge Shale Oil 10735 CR 215 8,114.00 M197826300 8/2179 P.O- Box 907 UG 112 AC Parachute CO 81635-0000 $550-00 1/ 31 5 95 06 (970) 285-7600 SHO S12 00.000 00 United Companies of Mesa Paul E McGehee Gar::ld County P.O. Box 3609 9.50 Koch Pit 3/9/89 SR M1989015 AC Grand Junction CO 81502- 5438.00 111 7 7 95 06 0000 C.;R.AV 523,750-00 S'W+SWI (970) 243-4900 United Companies of Mesa Paul McGehee Garfield County, Inc. !Chambers Gravel Pit 5/29/80 P.O- Box 360951 10 aR M1979075HR AC Grand Junction CO 81502- $550 00 1120 11 6 93 06 1502 514,360.00 SEISWI (970) 243-4900 United Companies of Mesa Paul McGehee Garfield County, Inc. 1 P.O- Box 3609 119.80 MMM/Chambers Pit 8/15180 ' SR M1979205 AC Grand Junction CO 81502- 5688.00 112c 11 6 93 06 1502 SDG 5194.850.00 SW11 1 (970) 243-4900 Walters Company - Building Edward 5 Walters Garfield Contractors 1 P. O. Box 2323 0,00 New CastlefWalters SR M1996093 WD Glenwood Springs CO 50.00 ILL,1,32 f1 5 90 p6 81602-0000 (970) 945-2851 BOR 50.00 http://mining.state.co.us/operatordb/reportasp 00000L 2/2/2001 Page 1 1 of 1 1 Western Mable Northern, Inc. Jammaron Pit M1975004 112c SWI! 11/5/77 R K5 6 89 06 Julie Gaettemoeller 1590 W. 12th Avenue Denver CO 80204-0000 (303) 657-4331 SDG Garfield 35,40 SR 5550.00 5115,158.00 Western Mobile Northern, Inc. Enc Rechentine Garfield Sievers Pit 1590 W. 12th Ave. 122.90 M1977098 .130180 SR 112c C Denver CO 80204-0000 5550.00 X11 18 7 88 06 (303) 657-4330 SDG S154.900.00 Western Mobile. Inc. Enc Reckentme Garfield Mahaffey Pit 1590 W. 12th Ave. 58.00 M1975037 •18181 SR 112c • C 'Denver CO 80204-0000 5688.00 SW/SW! +5 6 95 06 (303) 657-4329 SDG _ 522,000.00 Western Mobile, Inc. Eric Reckentine Garfield Dere Pit 1590 W 12th Ave. 16,00 M1980207 10/14/81 SR 112e C Denver CO 80204-0000 5688.00 SW/NW/ 45 6 95 06 (303)657-4329 SDG 515.000.00 Western Slope Aggregates William M Roberts Garfield Blue Pit P O. Box 1149 82.70 M1981207 ('/8/82 SR 112c . C Carbondale CO 81623-0000 5688.00 SE/SW/ r5 7 86 06 (970) 963-2296 SDG 524,303.00 Western Slope Aggregates. William M Roberts iii Garfield Inc. P.O Box 910 - - Peterson Gravel PitSR M2000029 W Carbondale CO 81623-1623 i 5688.00 112c 12 6 92 06 (970)963.2296 SDG524.200.00 NW/SE/ White & Sons Construction Steven A Kesler Garfield Old Garfield County P 0 Box 792 6.00 M1983222 1/9/84 SR 111 R Rifle CO 81650-0792 5350.00 SW/NE/SW 14 6 93 06 (303) 625-2774 SDG _ 5500.00 William F Clough W F Clough Garfield Mile Pond Gravel Pit P O. Box 686 6.30 M1981109 + 9/82 SRI 110c . C Rifle CO 81650-1650 5281.00 NW/NE 15 6 93 06 +(970). 625-1625 SP,7,55.000.00 William J Colohan tJna Ranch P 0 Box 263 i Garfield 0.00 M1985205 BL 111 /0 Parachute CO 81635-0000 50.00 1/ II 0 0 (408) 659.4026_ GRAV 50.00 William J. Colohan William J Colohan Garfield Una Ranch Pit P. 0. Box 263 1 4.00 M1986155 SR; 110c 0 Parachute CO 81635-0000 50.00 SWINWI 34 7 96 06 (303) 945-5072 800 50.00 0000014 http://mining.state.co.us/operatordb/report.asp 2/2/2001 r Y . .x. ... `. '� r+, A r• AAA r r� j .( .. .� - w a C3 G 0C7 ¢ r n n ^i r1 ^. -• -c 7e Z de i ... • • • RP • A. • L • K 7 a 23= x 0y .3 .3 .9 7 7 J fr v e'yrl a 7 i > Z Cori a<7:e==---:7[:_ r` NN Nm << !(...Ult,ICALAC,PICA LIGAWLILICALICALIZLoal•ALIM= N V IV V D " O -C C ° C . 9 n` . -1 ry71 71 C = C 9 = CA 7 i V7 C _ L , Lr! } N b RA SA NS S 7r S Pr II ^ t Y + 7. i 5 _ 7 L 'G _ ^ + 3 C e T 3 » ' E= c E. 3 t L w w c'. E c P.- . - i a +r 4 ° F' :_ .i ^ n' r . ._ A 3 i in` 3 c3,i n r c 3 j w " _ C • 3 " _ .. r 3 " C. - C. w 5 3. .s Lir In 31. 1,3 e - 7" .77 M1 1 r1 D " C 3 k 5 _ J If a Lf = .. : r] _ ). > iIn -- t a n r.Ta n _ 3 y -5 G .. 4 3 T . ii 'R n 3 55 7 7 5 } — JF y�L�7...01-2 r 11. ' : e - x P � C L S= o • - 6 LE. - = S _ - 5 EXI-11131 ' 1 "B" 0000016 11 1 t".3g;C i UI ;. Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology County Report 212101 You requested a county report based an: County: Garfield Operator: All Operators Mine ID: All Mine IDs Mine Name': All Mine Names Permit Status: AC Commodity` SDG Operator Site Name Permit No. Permit Type Permit Issued Permit Status Contact Address Line 1 Address Line 2 City State Zip Code County Permit Acreage Mine Type Annual i'2. -q QT/QT1QT Section Township/Range Pnme Mendian Telephone Commodities Mined (LISGS Codes) Posted Surety _ Central Aggregates, Inc. West Rifle Pit M1981006 4/27/81 112c AC NE/SW/ 17 6 93 06 Gilbert T Lee P.O. Box 26 Rifle CO 81650-0000 1970) 625-3598 SDG; SDG i Garfield 22.00 SR, $688,000 510,500.00 Garfield 68.10 SR 5688.00 527.500 00k Dick Casey Concrete. Inc. Dick Casey Concr Pit M1978349 12+20/78 112c AC V/NW/ 14 6 { 93 06 Shawn Vondetle P.O. Box 1815 Rifle CO 81650-0000 /(970) 245-3700 Flag Resources, Inc. Silt Pit M1981202SG 11127181 112c AC /1 111 6 92 06 Fred Frei 1412 CR 311 New Castle CO 81641-0000 (303) 876-2397 SDG Garfield 170.70 SR 5688.00 555.400.00 Garfield County -- Cattle Creek Pit M1978025 11/22178 110c AC NW/NW/ 6 7 88 06 Tom Russell 902 Taughenbaugh Blvd.. Ste. 305 Rifle CO 81650-2732 ;970)625-8601 SDG Garfield 8.00 SR $281.00 50.00 Garfield County Grand Valley Pit M1978027 11/22/78 110c AC J+tE/'SE1 7_ 1 7 95 06 \Tom Russell 902 Taughenbaugh Blvd. Rifle CO 81650-1650 '970) 625-8601 SDG 1 Garfield 3.00 SR 5« w-_ SO 0 3rand Junction Concrete Pipedward Co. Una Pit M1980080 112c NW/NW/ 7/24180 AC 34 7 96 06 J Settle P.O. Box 1849 1 ;,rand Junction CO 81502- 1502 (970) 243-4604 SDG Gameia 162.10 SR 5688.00 592,400.0fl1 Grant Bros Const Ltd Loesch Pit M1981068 10/27/81 112c AC SE/1 7 1 6 92 06 Dan or Doug Grant P.O. Box 1027 Basalt CO 81621-0000 (970) 927-3201 SDG G3rfrpld 51 .- SR 5688.00 519.000.00 J.W. Earthmoving, Inc. Ortiz Gravel Pit M1981205R ,8/16/83 112c AC // 35 6 95 06 Joseph E Weinreis 5454 CR 346 Silt CO 81652-0000 (970) 876.2524 SDG Gat-fie/id 49.00 SR 5688.00 512.000 00 John G Powers Powers Pit M1979134 11/19/80 112c AC SW/NE/ 26 7 88 06 John C Martin P.O. Box 1220 14156 Hwy. 82 Carbondale CO 81623-0000 (303) 963-3516 SDG Garfield 93.90 SR 3688.00 5284.450.00 hitp://mining.state.co.us/operatordblreport.asp 000001 2/2/200I #12 #1 3 #14 #15 Roanng Fork Resources. Inc. Union 'Carbide Gravel Pit14156 M1982010 112c SW// 3125/82 AC 18 , 6 93 – 1 06 John C Martin Hwy. 82 Carbondale CO 81623-0000 (970) 963-3295 SDG Garfield 81.80 SR 5688.00 560.000.00 Umetco Minerals Corporation Anthony S Bates Garfield Macauley Pit 2754 Compass Dr.. Ste. 25.40 M1995040 6/6/95 280 SR 111 AC 5350.00 SW/SE/ 18 6 I 93 06 Grand Junction CO 81506- 0000 SDG 565.000.00 i (970) 256-8681 'United Companies of Mesa Paul McGehee Garfield '53.10 Q aunty, Inc. P.O. Box 3609 Chambers Gravel Pit 5/29/80 SR M1979075HR ,AC Grand Junction CO 81502- 5550.00 112c 11 6 93 06 1502 SDG 514.380.00 SE/SW/ (970) 243-4900 United Companies of Mesa Paul McGehee County, Inc. P.O. 60x3609 119.80 MMM/Chambers Pit 8115/80 SR *A1979205 AC Grand Junction CO 81502- 5688.00 112c 11 6 93 1502 SDG 5194.850.00 SW// (970) 243-4900 Western Mobile Northern, Inc. _ Enc Reckentine Garfield Sievers Pit 1590 W. 12th Ave 122.90 M1977098 6/30/80 SR 112c AC Denver CO 80204-0000 5550.00 11 18 7 88 06 (303) 6574330 SDG 5154,900.00 — - Western Mobile. Inc. Eric Reckentine Garfield Mahaffey Pit1590 1 W. 12th Ave. 58.00 M1975037 4/8181 1 SR 112c AC Denver CO 80204-0000 5688.00 SW/SW/ 25 6 95 06 (303) 657-4329 SDG 522.000.00 Western Mobile, Inc. Enc Reckentine Garfield Dere Pit 1590 W. 12th Ave. 16.00 M1980207 10/14/81 SR 112c AC Denver CO 80244-0000 5688.00 SW/NW/ 35 6 95 06 303) 657-4329 SDG 515,000.00 Western Slope Aggregates glue Pit William M Roberts P.O. Box 1149 Garfield 82.70 M1981207 3/8/82 SR 112c AC Carbondale CO 81623-0000 5688.00 1 SE!SW/ 25 7 06 (970) 953-2296 SDG 524.303.00 William F CloughW 1 F Clough Garfield Mile Pond Gravel Pit P.O. Box 686 A lrijo M1981109 219/82 110c AC Rifle CO 81650-1650 5281.00 NW/NE/ 15 6 93 06 (970) 625-1625 SDG 55,000.00 0 0 0 0 n 1 4c http://mi ning.state.co.us/operatordb/reportasp 2/2/z:uu 1 #20 #21 I-rtg'G l Ut 1 Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology County Report 2/2/01 You requested a county report based on: County: - Garfield Operator. Afl Operators Mine ID: All Mine IDs Mine Narne: All MIne_Names Permit Status: _ AC Eommodi GRAV Operator Site Name Permit No. Permit Type Permit Issued Permit Status Contact Address Line 1 Address Line 2 City Slate Zip Code County Permit Acreage Mine Type Annual Fee K T/QT/QT Section TownshiptRange l Prime Meridian Telephone Commodities Mined (USGS Codes! pasted Surety Central Aggregates. Inc. West Rifle Pit M1995018 111 SW/SW/ 5/31/95 AC 17 6 93 Gilbert T Lee P.D. Box 26 Rifle CO 81650-0000 (970) 625-3598 GRAV r T ' Garfield 5.00 SR $350.00 $12,500.00 Flag Resources, Inc. Goldman Gravel Pit M1978279 1100 SFJ! 11/22178 AC 12 6 92 06 Fred Fret 1412 GR 311 New Castle CO 81641- 0000 (970) 876-2397 GRAV GRAV . Garfield 8.50 BL 5281.00 $17,300.00 Garfield 9.50 SR '$438.00 523,750.00 United Companies of Mesa County Koch Pit M1989015 111 SW/SW/ 319159 AC 7 95 Paul E McGehee P D. Bax 3609 Grand Junction CO 81502- (1000 (970) 243 3900 0000019 htt p ://mining.state. co. us/operatordb/report. asp 2/2/2001 0000(1 '�► GARFIELD COUNTY GRAVEL PIT REPORT EXHIBIT "C" #1. Open — resource mostly depleted — no active mining. #2. Closed. #3. Open — good resources — active mining. #4. Closed_ #5. Closed. #6. Closed. #7. Open — good resources —active mining. #8. Open resources mostly depleted — private active mining. #9. Open — good resources — active mining. #10 & 11. Open — resource almost depleted — active mining — same site. #12 & 13: Open — good resources — active mining — same site. #14. Open — good resources - active mining. #15. Closed. #16. Closed. #17. Open -- good resources — active mining. #18. Open — good resources - active mining - same site as #12 & #13. 19. Closed. #20. Closed. #21. Closed. .,1lt'411'P`' LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TRACT OF LAND iN SECTION 12, T 6 5, R 92 W, 6 PM Note: The data for this legal description was taken from a plat titled JOHN PETERSON BOUNDARY SURYEfFOR LDTS 1, 2, & 3, SITUATED IN SEC. 12, T. 6 S.. R. 92 Y. OF THE 671. P.M. GARFIE D COU -14M; COLORADO; prepared by KKBNA as Job number 4769.01 dated 12118/79 A tract of land in Section 12, T 6 5, R 92 W, 6 PM, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 1-70, whence the North 4 corner of said Section 12 bears N 52° 02' 31"E 1,606.10 feet; thence, along said southerly right-of-way line N 77° 03' 30" E 1,301.51 feet; Hence, leaving said right-of- way line, 5 00° 20' 44"E 1,827.62 feet; thence West 126.61 feet; thence, N 76° 46' 31"W 613.85 feet, thence N 26° 49' 54"W 523.18 feet; thence, N 57° 24' 21"W 386.52 feet; thence, N 000 31' 02"E 720.63 feet more or less to the point of beginning, containing 41.07 acres more or less. The basis of bearing for the above description is N 89° 29' 42" E from the NW corner of said Section 12 to the North i; corner of said Section 12