Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Resolution 84-66STATE OF COLORF.DO County of Garfield Recorded at S'*()C-'s o'clock M ;APR 10.1964 ss• Rectoption No:351Z57 Mtn©t;EDALSDORI=, RECORDER GAF Fl LD COUNTY,COLORADO At a rCgu.1ar meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held at the Court House in Glenwood Springs on ' kla ay , the 9th day of April A. D. 19 84 , there were present: Larry Velasquez , Commissioner Chairman Flaven J. Cerise commissioner Eugene ` "Jim" Drinkhouse . , Commissioner BO Earl Rhodes , County Attorney 647 PACS Mildred Alsdorf , Clerk of the Board when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 84- 66 RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION OF ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY FOR A SPECIAL. USE PERMIT FOR THE EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING OF NATURAL RESOURCES WHEREAS, an .application has been submitted by the Asphalt Paving Company .for a special use permit for extraction and processing of natural resources, specifically, an open -pit gravel operation,asphalt batch plant and crushers and a concrete batch plant, in accordance with Section 9.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, on the following described tract of land: A 9.69 acre tract.. of land located in the SE1/4 of the, NE1/4 of Section 10; NE1/4 of the NW1/4, and the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 10; the East half of the SW1/4 of Section 10, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado; WHEREAS, the Boardof County.Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has reviewed the application and impact statements which the applicant has submitted and has* received the .recommendations of the Garfield County Planning •Commission, as authorized by Section 9.03.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has conducted. public hearings, which have. been duly advertised and held, in accordance with the - requirE,ments of Section 9.03.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, regarding the "question of whether the requested special use permit should be granted or denied, and during such hearings received extensive testimony and other competent evidence from the applicant and interested parties which hearings were held on February 21, 1984 and March 26, 1984; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered said. application and impact statements, the recommendations of the 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 Barth 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 Board; 2. That, except as hereinafter noted, the application and. impact statements are complete,' and the applicant has paid the fee required by Section 9.03.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978; SnnK 647 ritE609 3 That;'. in:' accordance with the general principles of administrative. law and C.R.S., Section 24-4-105(7), as amended, the burden of •. ,.proof is 'Ton the applicant '.o show, by a proponderance of the evidence, that its land use application is in compliance with the`:••applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution 1978; as amended; 4. •That the. Board must, for the purpose of analyzing the subject application, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, specifically Section 4.0.3.11, establish the neighborhood which may be affected by the possible granting of the proposed special use permit and, further, the Board has determined that, except as otherwise noted herein, such affected neighborhood is that area of Garfield County, Colorado, consisting of properties within one half (1/2) mile rf the proposed site of the applicant, which are presently being used for 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. Properties zoned, pursuant to Section 3.01, are classified as Agricultural/Industrial. In this zone classification, uses by right are generally agricultural and residential in nature. The industrial extractive operation proposed by the applicant for the subject parcel is not a use by right within the zone classification,. and is a special use in the Agricultural/Industrial zone. Competent evidence was presented at the public hearings that the. subject property and adjacent island lands of the applicant are presently under agricultural leases; 6. The property, which the applicant proposes to have permitted for the operation of u 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 presented that there has been a change in the basic character of the affected neighborhood over the past several months. The applicant's proposed land use 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 Resolution of 1978. The landowners adjacent to and within the affected neighborhood, and other citizens of Garfield County, have indicated concc n 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 Board containing over seven hundred (7.00) signatures in opposition to the application for the special use permit under consideration. Of those County citizens expressing an opinion on thisapplication, these seven hundred plus (700+) signatures in, opposition represent a substantial majority of the .affected citizenry; BaDK fAGEG 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. 70r such access is restricted to a two-lane bridge across tie Colorado River on County Road 311. The applicant has represented that, during the period of time in .which the gravel pit and associated operations are in effect,there would be up to two hundred (200) vehicle trips per day engaged in the hauling ofgravel and associated products from ` and to the applicant's proposed site. The applicant's proposed operation :.would have a substantial, negative impact ontraffic volume and safety of those Persons using County Road 311 and the bridge system within the. generalvicinity ofthe applicant'ssite, within the meaning of Section 5.03.11 of . the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1.978., as amended, 8. That there is substantial, competent evidence in the record that : the public safety and general welfare would be harmed by the applicant's proposal with regard to the water intake facility of the Town of Silt. The Town of Silt's waterintake facility is located within the affected neighborhood of the applicant's proposed activities. The Silt water intake facility is immediately North and downstream of the proposed use. There has been substantial,. competent evidence presented to show the likelihood of harm to the fragile nature of the Siltwater intake. facility and, more specifically, have the following negative impacts on the facility: a. Water Quantity: The mining ofgroundwater on the: applicant's property may :lower °the water levelat the Silt water 'intake facility. There is the.. possibility that the applicant's operations could cause irreparable harm to. the Town of Silt's lawfully adjudicated municipal water system; which constitutes the Town's sole source of water supply; b. Water Quality Substantial, competent evidence has. been presented that a spill of toxic, orother harmful.. substances, contained on or about the proposed pit and plant site, could result in significant pollution to the Town of Silt's water supply and water intake system. Competent, expert evidence was presented at the public hearings that some contaminants from such a 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 orother safeguards to protect against this potential hazard, pursuant to Section 5.03.08(6) of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; c. Flood Plain Hazards There w.as` 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 197.8,as amended. Section 6.09.01(1)(A) of . the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, provides that the following uses and activities are prohibited in the flood -way: The development, use, fill:, construction, substantial improvement or alteration, on or about any portion of the flood -way, which, alone, or accumulative with other activities, would cause the result of any increase in flood revels during the discharge of the one hundred (100):. year flood, or. the danger of. substantial, solid debris being carried downstream by flood waters. 6417 61I ere -was `substantial competent evidence _: presented at the public hearng that the . `:applicant's ;` operations, . in thenioelves, or in conjunction with a flood on the Colorado River, could cause a change in the course of the river's stream,: resulting ie : the Town's water. ..:supply being moved away from its adjudicated point of aiversion. The.: applicant has beenunable to show that adequate and appropriate conditions could be attached to the land use permit sought for the site, which would be sufficient to adequately address the possible problems which the applicant's operations would create for the Town of Silt's water supply and water intake facility to any significant degree; 9 That. Section 5.:03.08 of the .Garfield .County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, requires that the applicant' conduct any industrial operations so as to minimize dust, smoke, odor and all: other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property. That there issubstantial, competent evidence in the record that the, proposed use of theapplicant would generate objectionable levels of noise, odor and dust. Furthermore, the proposed use would be out of character with the other uses of the neighborhood, which are of an agricultural and residential` nature,. and would be unsightly. Theapplicant'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, as amended, requires chat the applicant file an impact statement, which, among other things, requires thatthe applicant demonstrate 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 ',f_migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions". The applicant has failed to demonstratethat conditions can be imposed on the proposed land use permit which would prevent significant harm to the wildlife in the Colorado River corrider. Gravel mining, and its attendant operations, represents probably the most adverse impact to wildlife:, along the river. Specifically, the applicant has represented that it may,. at unspecified future dates, request expansion • of the. .site of operations applied for in the special .use permit. Any future. expansion of the. gravel pit site or.related .operations would create a significant potential for .severe adverse consequences upon wildlife in the area adjacent to the pit and related facilities; 11. . That Section.' 5.03.11 of the Garfield :County :Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, provides that a basis of_denial of a special use permit application is the lack of physical separation in terms of distance from similar •uses on the same or .other lots. 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. This adverse, cumulative effect is the direct result of the • operations of the pit and related facilities serving to increase the level of dust and ambient air quality, noise and visual •pollution. There was substantial, competent evidence presented at the public hearing that the health, safety and welfare BOO'` ` '?'=' PAGE+ of the c tizens Garfield ,County, opart�.cularly those residing in r about- the Town:of of ; S� t, 'and their quality` of life, ,would be: significantly impaired by the', operations ";proposes•' by for .the..:: parcel; the applicant 12, That the• ;::':Town of Silt .: is .included: within: the defined 'neighborhoodof the :applicant's .:proposed use. The subject property is ..within. the :.;Town 'Of Silt'; urban :area: of influence, .District A as set forth:: in the Management District `: Maps o:f the Garfield ; ' County-• Comprehensive Plan of .1981;- 13 The Town Of Silt has strongly.objected., on.the• record in • the public hearing, to theapplicant's proposal. The' basis for the. objections of the Town of Silt have -been that, the .subject :pr:operty • is adjacent to the Town of .,;'Si;lt's Ovate'. intake facil:ity, : and: is: located near the Town's bounc,'ary. The: -proposed use is inconsistent with the Town of 'Silt's master : _'plan for development . .of the area surrounding the . parcel; :.; which '.has; designated . this as an:" area ..Of potential growth of either primary or secondary nature. There is;. substantial, competent evidence in the. record of the public hearing that, to allow -the applicant's proposed` use, at this time, would • be harmful 'to the present character of the Town of Silt and. its `orderly.. future growth; 14. That on . May 11, 1981;. -.the Garfield County Planning :Comrission adopted the • Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1981, pursuant to C. R. s., `Section ':.30 28.106, a•s amended, which• 'plan.';' is . now the masterplan for ••Garfield County. That the proposed use Of the subject property bythe applicant. is .inconsistent ...with the master•. plan in the following respects a Part I• CONCERNS AND POLICIES RE: INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, OBJECTIVE 6, PAGE : ,12 • "Encourage industrial expansion where similar development already exists in appropriate areas"; and POLICY 5, PAGE 13: "Industrial development shall occur within designated areas within existing municipalities or:adjacent to existing appropriate industrial areas". -Part I .: CONCERNS AND : ;. POL I C;I ES RE TRANSPORTATION; PAGE' 3,,' NUMBER.;. 12,:which provides "The County may.deny development proposals on :.the Lk.,of ;2j inadequate `road: access 'Which. :Will .create an"inadequate road with enlarged.'daily traffic..::volumes . c. Part II: MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS REi SILT: URBAN AREA OF INFLUENCE;. -PAGE 5'8, which .provides: in pertinent part: "Much • of the area urro:undng Silt is agrarian. New development should minimize impacts on the agrarian '.character of the ;area. Provisions •should: be made f.or the continued. opportunity for agricultural activity • d.: Part III:: ;PERFORMANCE ;STANDARDS .'RE: COMPATIBILITY,' PAGES 89-94, which Section sets forth criteria, including "adverse -effects to the desirability of neighborhoods : or the entire • community, alteration of the basic character of adjacent land use, and `. impairment of the stability or value of adjacent or surrounding properties". Further, the plan speaks of noise; dust, odors, and visual unsightliness as "haz.rds to public health and safety" and "nuisances to the, surrounding community".,.:• ::.. 15. That, based upon the above findings of ndingsfact,: this Board of 'County :'Commissloners finds that the applicant has failed, in his, burden of proof, tA; show by competent.: evidence, that the application ivacE for a pedal -land use permit .. for the subject :parcel compliance with , the Garfield County. Zoning Resolti.on the ..Garf.ield. County: Comprehensive Plan ::of .: 1981, and that,. furthermore there. is substantial, competent evidence in tYie::•record •of::::the: ,public hearings to support a denial of the land use requested;. 16:': That there. is substantial, competent evidence in -".:the.;:-`: record that the allowance of. the' proposed:use may cause economic injuryto other property •areas in the effected neighborhood; :and` That ..there is substantial, competent evidence in the record of the public bearing that :the propowcd:special use'permit:is 'not`_;in the.• best interests of the health, safety, moral`s, convenience,. `order,prosperity: and. '.welfare. Of the` :'citizens Of.: Garfield:County, `Colorado. • NOW,.;THEREFORE, BE IT. RESOLVED by the Board of .County` Commissioners for the County`. of Garfield, State of Colorado, that the `special use permit application .of the Asphalt ' Paving Company . :.:f.or a gravel' pit and concrete and asphalt batch plant Operations be,. and the same, is denied. DATED this 9th day of :April,` 1984. Upon motion duly madeand seconded, the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: Larry Velasquez,. , r Aye.. Flaven: J': Gerise . Eugene .:"Jinn' Drinkhouse ATTEST: O By: Cler.k of the;.. Board Chairman. Aye: Commissioners.' BOARD'OF:COUNTY :COMMISSIONERS . OF a FIELD COUNT , COLORADO STATE OF,: COLORADO.) ) .ss. Count] of Ga.rfield)` I, , County::..Clerk and;.:ex-officio Clerk: of :the -`Board :of- County. CommLssioners, ' in :. and for -' the •County and .State aforesaid do'hereby certify that the' annexed and foregoing:` Resolution: is truly copied- from .the- Records :Of ;. he :'Proceedings of "the:: • Board: of County Commissioners.. for said Garfield County,;, now :in my office; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my. hand and affixed the seal sof said County., at Glenwood Springs, Colorado, this day of April, A.D. 1984. County Cl:erk .• and ex -officio Clerk of `. the Board ::: of :County ommissioners.