Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.21.1984ATE OF COLORADO Rlchud D. Lemm, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Jack R . Grieb, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 (825-1192) 711 Independent Avenue Grand Junction, CO 81505 Cynt hia M. Houben, Plann er Garfield County Planning 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Spr ing s, CO 8160 1 RE: Special Use Permit application by Asp hal t Paving Company to operate a sand and gravel mine south of Silt. Dear Ms . Houben: February 6, 1984 Reference is made to Michael Grode 's letter to Garfield County dated Janu ary 14, 1982 (copy enclosed). As the Colorado Division of Wildlife stated in that letter, the Colorado River corridor near Silt is an important wildlife area. In the im- mediate vicinity of the proj ect area i s the large st known great blue heron rookery on the Colorado River in Colorado, a bald eag le communal roost site, numerous bald eagle hunting per c hes, and islands used by Canada geese for ne st ing and brood rearing. A map s howing the l ocat i on of the rookery, a communal roost s i te, and hunting perches is attached to the January 14, 19 82 letter. We feel the propo se d project will ca use disturbances to wildlife. I t i s difficult to predict the magnitude of these disturbances because of the project's proximity to se nsitive wildlife re so urce s. The redu ced scale of this proposal, versus the proponent's 1982 plan, will result in disturbances of shorter duration and destruc- tion of l ess wildlife habitats. As such, the l atest plan is preferable. We are concer ned, however, for t he cum ulative imp acts of subje ct proposal along with other operating gravel operations and permitted but as yet undeveloped operations in the area. (N ote there are a numb er of pits permitted but not operating in Garf i eld County at present). Th e cum ul at iv e result is a gradual dwindling of wildlife hab- itat s and increase in disturbances along the Colorado River riparian corridor in Garfield Cou nty. Thi s represents pr oba bl y the most significant adverse impact to wildlife along the river. At what point enough development i s enough for wildlife, we cannot say at this time. Howev er, oftentimes a s ignifi cant adverse im pact only becomes apparent once it ha s occurred. Th e n it may be too late to rectify the damage. As a prerequisite for the County's permit, we recommend that a need for this project at this time be established. Thi s co uld preve nt unnecessary di stur- bances to wildlife. We are also concerned that th e s ubj ect proposal i s just a part of a piecemeal plan that would eventually result in a project sim il ar to the 1982 plan. The propon- ents make no assurances that t hi s is not their intention. We did feel the 19 82 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Monte Pascoe, Executive Director• WILDLIFE COMMISSION , Donald Fernandez, Chai rm an James Smith, Vice Chairman • Richard Divelbiss, Secretary • Jean K. Tool, Member• James C. Kennedy, Member Michael Higbee, Member • Sam Caudill, Member • Wilbur Redden, Member Cynthia M. Houben, Planner Page Two February 6, 1984 plan would adversely effect wildlife and recommended project modifications. These recommendations, again, are: (1) Phase IV and V should not be mined. Both areas are composed primarily of wetlands containing vegetation that provides important water quality functions, acts as a vegetative screen, and encompasses essential wildlife habitat, es- pecially for bald eagles, great blue herons, and Canadian geese. Mining in these two areas would not only remove this vegetation and its functiorsbut could disrupt great blue heron nesting as well as bald eagle use of the area. If phase IV and V are not mined they will retain normal riparian functions and serve to buffer mining disturbance on the large island from the herons and eagles. (Phases IV and V were located approximately west of the orange line on the attached 1982 map. No mining should occur to the west of this line). (2) A 100' greenbelt should be left between the pit and the river and along both the north and south wetland channel. (3) The sediment pond should be located to the south of the north overflow channel so that it can discharge into the channel rather than directly into the river. (4) The pit shoreline and bottom should be irregular to enhance aquatic life forms. Peninsulas are desirable since they create additional edge. (5) Several islands with natural vegetation should be left to provide nesting areasfor waterfowl and passerine birds. (6) Cottonwood trees the greenbelt). basis. should be retained around the perimeter of the pit (i.e. Any cottonwood trees removed should be replaced on a l :l (7) An area sloped at 5:1 and 150' in length should be left along the south- western corner to create a mudflat for waterfowl and encourage growth of aquatic emergents. (8) Areas of intensive activity such as crusher, batch plant, etc., should be located away from the river, preferably near the road. (9) No activity should occur on the western end of the island from March 1 to May 15 to prevent disruption of great blue heron nesting. (The need for this recommendation should be evaluated prior to any expansion of the subject proposal). (10) Disturbed areas should be revegetated with native shrubs and grasses. If a Special Use Permit is granted for the subject proposal, above recommendations 4, 8, and 10 should be made conditions of that permit. In addition, we recommend that once this mining operation is completed, all related facilities; i.e. crusher, asphalt plant, concrete plant, etc. be removed from the island. Otherwise, operation of these facilities could continue with materials brought in from else- where. Removal of the facilities would eliminate some of the disturbances to Cynthia M. Houben, Planner Page Three wildlife in the river corridor. February 6, 1984 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal. WRE:ch xc: Grode, Leslie, vJill, File Sincerely, v~c:v . tt..tL William R. Elmblad Wildlife Biologist s"r A TE 0r. COLORADO Ricl}ar ,Lamm, Governor DtPAR1MENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Jack R. Grieb, Direc1or 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 (825-1192) 526 Pine St. Glem~ Springs, CO 81601 Mr. Terry L. llOwnan Garfield County Planning 2014 Blake Avenue Glenv.ood Springs, co 81601 January 14, 1982 RE: Special Use Permit -Asphalt Paving Canpany Gravel Pit Dear Terry: The Division of Wildlife has reviewed Asphalt Paving Ccrnpany's proposed gravel operation near Silt, Colorado, and \oPUld offer the following comrents. The proposed operation is located in an extremely sensitive wildlife area and as such will require rrodification of the proposed mining plan in order to reduce adverse impacts to resident wildlife populations. The Colorado River corridor near Silt is an extremely important wintering area for the endangered bald eagle. The eagles utilize the channels near the proposed operation as well as the islands themselves as hunting areas. The large cotton~ trees located on the islands serve as hunting perches and roost sites for the eagles. I have enclosed a map depicting bald eagle observations recorded over the past three winters by Division of Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management personnel. As evidenced by the preponderance cf hunting perches and the ccmnuna1 roost site, this area is heavily used by the balci eagle. This ccmmmal roost site is one of only four Jmown roost sites on the Colorado River. A ccmmma1 roost site is where the eagles tend to congregate for the night and is generally indicative of a high eagle use area. Intensive activity, such as a gravel operation, within a high eagle use area, could place additional stress on the eagles, or cause abandonrrent of this area by the eagles to an area of less suitable habitat. The Silt area represents an area of optimum hab- itat selected by the eagles over the years because of the available perch and roost trees, and the abundant food source. Research studies have shown that eagles wintering in suboptimal habitat are subject to nore stress and have lower reproductive success than eagles wintering in optimum habitat. Since it is the intent of the Endangered Species Act and the Bald Eagle Protection ·Ad: to prevent further decimination of the bald eagle population it would seem .i.rrperative that activities potentially harmful to the eagles be nodified to prevent any adverse impacts. In addition to the perch sites and ccmnunal roost site, the largest known great blue heron rookery on the Colorado River is_ found on the island adjacent to the proposed gravel operation (note map). The herons are very sensitive to disturbance especially during the nesting season fran April 1 to May 15. The wetlands and shallow areas of the river channels represent an important food source area for the herons. Precautions DEPART-MENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, _Harris Sherman, Executive Director • WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Michael Higbee, Chairman Wilbur Redden, Vice Chairman • Sam Caudill, Secretary • Jean K. Tool, Member • Vernon C. Wilhams, Member James Smith, Member • Donald Fernandez, Member • Richard Divelbiss, Membe· ML ;rry L. Bownan Page 2 Ja...uary 14, 1982 should be taken to prevent any distrubance to the herons during the nesting period and to preserve the integrity of the wetlands and water channels. Another irnp:>rtant wildlife specie that will be impacted by the propcsed gravel operation is the Canadian goose. The islands, including the island where the rrain operation is planned, are used as nesting and brood rearing areas by the geese. The ccrnplex of channels and islands provide excellent habitat for rearing the young geese and attract a large ooncentration of geese into the area fran March 1 through May 30. ~bst of the nest sites are located on the upper pation of the wetland areas designated on the lll3.p. The riparian zone which includes both the wetland and upland areas adjacent to the river represents only tv.D percent of the total land ll\3.SS in Colorado yet is used by 90 percent of all wildlife during scare part of their iife cycle. In addition to providing irnp:>rtant wildlife habitat, the wetland o:irridor serves to provide irnp:>rtant water quality functions by acting as a natural filter and flood oontrol irechanism. Another irnp:>rtant function providErl by the wetland/oottonl.\ClOd area (i.e. phase DI and V mining area), is that it protects adjacent areas fran mining activities by serving as a natural vegetative screen and buffer. Since the heron rookery, bald eagle perch sites, and roost site is located irrrre:liately adjacent to this operation this is an extremely irnp:>rtant function. Having evaluated the propcsed gravel operation it is apparent that if mining is to oc= at this site the existing mining plan will have to be rrodified to reduce pctential adverse impacts to resident wildlife EXJpulations. I M:>uld reccrnrend that the following be lll3.de oonditions of the special use pennit in order to protect existing vegetation, water quality, and wildlife: (1) Phase DI and V should not be mined. Both areas are composed prilll3.rily of wet- lands oontaining vegetation that provides important water quality functions, acts as a vegetative screen, and enccrnpasses essential wildlife habitat, especially·. for bald eagles, great blue herons, and Canadian geese. Mining in these h.o areas M:>uld not only rerrove this vegetation and its functions but oould disrupt great blue heron nesting as well as bald eagle use of the area. If phase DI and V are not mined they will retain norll\3.1 riparian functions and serve to buffer mining disturbance on the large island frc:rn the herons and eagles. With respect to inforlll3.tion presented on the pre-mining map, the wetlands adjacent to the north channel of the large island are not shown. The wet- land area on the southern area is shown but the channel which traverses the wetland is not shown (please note enclosed map). A 404 permit is needed to M:>rk in both areas. (2) A 100' greenbelt should be left between the pit and the river and along both the north and south wetland channel. (3) The sedirrent pend should be located to the south of the north overflow channel so that it can discharge into the channel rather than directly into the river. (4) The pit shoreline and bottan should be irregular to enhance aquatic life forms. Peninsulas are desirable since they create additional edge. (5) Several islands with natural vegetation should be left to provide nesting areas for waterfowl and passerine birds. ' ' Mr • 'Yl'.Y L. J3o'Mnan Pag.._ 3 , L 1ary 14' -J82 (6) Cottonw::xxi trees should be retained around the perimeter of the pit (i.e. the greenbelt) . Any oottom..ood trees rerroved should be replaced on a 1 : 1 basis. (7) An area sloped at 5:1 and 150' in length should be left along the south- western corner to =eate a mudflat for waterfowl and enoourage growth of aquatic energents. (8) Areas of intensive activity such as a crusher, batch plant, etc., should be l=ated away frcrn the river, preferably near the road. (9) No activity should == on the western end of the island fran March 1 to May 15 to prevent disruption of great blue heron nesting. (10) Disturbed areas should be revegetated with native shrubs and grasses. It is my opinion that if these reccmnendations are inplS'llented impacts to wildlife and this riverine eoosystern can be minimized. I "MJuld re-emphasize the :imp::irtance of not mining phase N and V because of the =itical habitat contained in these tracts and because of the potential impacts to wildlife, particularly the bald eagle and great blue heron. The Division of Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to carrnent on this project. .MRG:ch Enc. xc: J. Leslie P. Will Sincerely, viri,tu ~JI R. cµ_~ Michael R. Grode Wildlife Biologist (2) File -Silt Pit (Asphalt Paving) -Garfield) J i I t ... ~.· ... ' I\ I. \ ' .1 i ~·· ', I " .... J . ; '6.c; . -· ~1\ • ·-I'\ ·:-.. ..)· /. --,·"'>?)"'J ......... (• ~ I ~J;--. ,..'(~) ,l '. \ I '· '. : I ', • I '. I : . ( ' I '[ ! i ' I I i i Li I -. ' -. I (.'-) i.'~ .. \ : _ Y' i : , • .,.. . . .r:;.\ ,.., ,p>-" . . : ,;1 .. ~" _· .... -. - • • I . . ~ co ' -:0 .. ,•""=-,;.~---(,-:._ . ~·,. - TOWN of SILT P.O. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 '"-+i /f Garfiel d County Dept . of De velopment 2014 Blnke Ave. Gl enwood Springs , CO 81 601 To Whom It May Concern Feb. 6 , 1 984 Attached please find the concerns of the Town of Silt regarding the proposed g r a v e l pit adj c:icent to Si lt of Asphalt Pnving Company . The Town strongly ob j ects to the Pit and Butch Pl a nt. Town Admini strator 303 876-23 53 ·.TOWN of SILT P.O. Box 174 Mined Land Reclamation Board Room 423 1313 Sherman St. Denver, Colorado 80203 To Whom It May Concern Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876-2353 Feb, 6, 1984 Attached please find the concerns of the Town of Silt regarding the proposed gravel pit adjacent to Silt of Asphalt Paving Company. The Town strongly objects to the Pit and Batch Plant. TOWN of SILT P.O. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876-2353 General Comments: Area is located within 1/4 mile of Silt Town Lim.its within the area designated in the Silt Town Comprehensive Plan as B7. B7 is designated as a Secondary Growth Area, an area for rural subdivision density, Area immediately north of the River is designated as medium density residential. As such, a gravel pit and asphalt batch plant are clearly imc ompatable uses with the designated Town uses, The Silt Comprehensive Plan requests that any development must make provision for the dedication of riverfront trails for wildlife observation. Access is requested, Specific Comments: 1. 'dith the undeveloped Corn Pit and the marginal econo"'ic operation of the existing pits in the immediate area, a need has not been demonstrated for the proposed. 2. The immediate experience with the temporary batch plant at the Frei pit clearly demonstrates retainage of sr.ioi<:e •3-nd smell to be severely offensive in smell and sight, 3. The Town of Silt '>'later supply is located in an underground acquifer. Past experience with excavation in the area of the Silt bridge indicate that dewatering poses an imminent threat to both quality and quantity of the Towns only water supply. Engineering studies indicate impact mitigation could run as high as ~850,000,00 to the Town. All exhibits completely ignore the impact upon the Towns '.later supply. Further mitigation measures must address the possibility of contamination of the underground sources by diesel :·uel or other organic ccntaminents. 4. This application if approved clearly sets a precedent for the other 103+-acres for gravel mining, ·TOWN of SILT P.O. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876-2353 5. Upon approval of the Corn Pit, a condition w1rn that a traffic study be done to determine mitigative measures iealing with traffic flows on the Silt Exit. This study has not been done. The estimates of traffic of the Asphalt seem low, ~he potential for traffic problems with buildout of existing develop ment and gravelpit traffic is of concern. The Town of Silts economic future depends on its viability of access. A mitigative measure might be to send all traffic south and west to the new Mamm Creek Interchange, 6. There is no timetable for completion of the reclamation plan. Conceivably the pit could be unreclaimed for 20years, 7. All outdoor storage of any items such as barrels,timbers, tanks, or sheds must be above the 100 yr. flood elevation. 8. This is substanJ!:ially the same proposal as aubmitted previously to the County and Silt, The Town of Silt based on several grave concerns reccomends_denial. 9, Please note the concerns of the Dept, of 'Jildlii'e. .T~WNofSILT P.O. Box 174 Mark Bean, Planner Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mark: Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876-2353 May 10, 1983 Historically, Silt has opposed the majority of industrial uses outside its corporate limits yet within its area of influence. And wishes to go on record as opposing this request. The Asphalt Paving Co. was denied gravel pit operation approval by the County Conmissioners in May of 1982. Silt officials are hoping all pursuant wi 11 be consistent. If my chronology is correct, prior to A.P.C.'s request denial, Corn Construction was granted approval for a gravel pit. They also signed an agreement with the Town of Silt (see enclosed letter) which neither they nor Frei and Son's have honored to this date. The Town's water plant operator has serious concerns about the effect of on site pollution run off into the river, such as petroleum or gas production, as a result of summer rains. Further, a:ttizens of Silt and aetgbbort.ng comntantttes were appalled at the lack of pollution monitoring the Frei operation received during its; 30-day permit last sunmer. Obnoxious black smoke belched daily during plant operations. Once again Silt appreciates the opportunity to provide input • . Sincerely, cc: Mayor Administrator 9lf4c~ Michael E. Wikoff, Planner .. ' '\ . ,·' Mr. Dave Wietzel Town Manager TOWM OF SILT P. 0. Box 174 Silt. CO 81652 Dear Mr. Wietzel: COQN CDNSTP•,CTIDN ca. ····-·-•. "~·-~· OFFICE• YAAO 3199 0 AOAO Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 Hay 28, 1982 • Regarding the obligation of Corn Construction Co. to provide front-end funds in an amount not to exceed $9,000.00 for a traffic study, we want to propose the following method for recovering a portion of our costs not to exceed $6,500.00. It is our understanding that the Town will require others planning to develop new ground near the I-70 Interchange to pay an amount to be determined by the Town toward the study. It is further our understanding that the Town will refund any amount collected from other developers to Corn Construction Co. up to the agreed limit of $6,500.00. Further, it is our understanding that Corn Construction Co. will not become liable to pay any moneys toward the traffic study until all necessary permits for the Peterson Pi( have been acquired. If the items outlined in this letter meet with the approval of the Town of Silt, please sign in the appropriate place, and return a copy to our office. If you have any questions or cOITlllents concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CORN CONSTRUCTION CO. APPROVID: TOWN OF SILT --, ~ ,,/ . \.. ,-,,./ . -~·, B ·---:. <.,.~, t" ·-""-/:'--<.. .. ~ 6!011GE Eltfk5EN-HAI OR PRO-TEJlf 6-17-82 Date DMIC/bg AH IQUAI. Oft'ORTUNITY IWl.OVIR Richard D. La mm Go vern o r February 8 , 1984 Ms . Cindy Houben \ \.I// Garfield County Development Dep t . 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re : Asphalt Pavi ng Fermi t-Weld County Dear Cindy : Thomas M. Vernon , M .D. Act i ng Executive Dire c t o r Attached is a copy of the Emission Permit issued to Asphalt Paving Company for a Stansteel Model 8 X 36 drum mix asphalt plant . This plant is required to m.eet the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) enforced by both the State of Co l orad o and t he U.S . En vironme ntal Protection Age ncy for new asphalt plants . Due to the high efficiency required to meet these standards , adverse impacts on ambient air quality are expected t o be minimal as noted in the accompanying pro,iect summary . All other air pollution sources noted in the special use application have not been applied for or have been granted Emission Permits from the Colorado Department of Health , Air Pollution Con t rol Division. Until these permits are issued , t otal air quality impacts for this proposal cannot be determined . Of further concern to the Air Pollution Control Divisiin is the cumulative effect of all the gravel pits locating in the same area . Again , this cannot be addressed by the Division unt il a permit appl i cation has been filed . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project . Sioc fe~y, . ~/ .-i;/~</1-rt ;V#tt, Scott J . Miller Air Pollution Control Division SJ M/zp cc : Dick Fox , Denver Office File 125 NORTH 8TH STRE ETJ GRAND JUNCTIONJ COLORADO 81501 -PHONE (303)245-2400 ".of · CO.t. /~ ·~ O.p· i ~ ~&1? :G\. I Vl .. ~0'.\t 0 . ... . r'\ ,· '( / ,4 /,'.7 ,/. -; { /.(' ( /( COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Air Pollution Control Division ~~w~· \.. 'Z_,,.:-:,.,p-y / 1876 • Telephone: (303) 320-4180 EMISS!ON PER~V~IT PERMIT NO. C-12,733 Dfd E I ~SUD: Decenter l 7, 1982 ISSUED TO: ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY INITIAL APPROVAL !RJ FINAL APPROVAL 0 AMENDMENT THE SOURCE TO WHICH THIS PERMIT APPLIES IS DESCRIBED AND LOCATED AS FOLLOWS: Asphalt batch plant located initially at west end of Keenesburg along Highway·76 in Weld County, Colorado. THE SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT OR ACTIVITY SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT INCLUDES THE fOLLOWING: 300 TPH Stansteel Model 8 X 36 Drum Dryer Asphalt Batch Plant controlled by Stansteel Model D-130 Venturi Scrubber processing up to 60% .recycled asphalt. THIS PERMIT IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO ALL Ru:_Es AND REGUL/1TIOr-is OF THE COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION AND THE COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL ACT. C.RS. 1973 (25-7-101 et §(lg), TO THOSE GENER/1L TF.:fHv1S AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS DOCUMF.:NT AND THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS: l. Opacity of emissions shall not exceed 20%. 2. Particulate emissions shall not exceed either of the following limitations: 1.58 lbs. per hour and 0.54 ton per year based on an annual asphalt concrete ~reduction rate of 200,000 tons including up to 60% recycled asphalt. · 3. The ~ermit number shall be stenciled on the unit for easy identification. 4. This permit is reissued with conditional approval. Upon satisfactory i11- spection of all opffating conditions by plant using liO~: recycled asphalt material, final a~~>roval will be gra11ted. 1~pplicant is requesteo to advise the Division 30 cld)'S prior to start-up. 1 -continued Paqe 2 . iJJe,,: -i~~~ ~~k ! .. ~. ~JL ~~ £ "-"~~"'""' \ ~ POLLUTION CONTRC )IVISIOr c ,LORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PERM IT NUMBER C-12, 733 Page ..L of 2 Applicant's Name~-A'-"'s•p~h~a~l~t-"P~a~v~i~n~g'--'C~o~.'--~~~~~ Date~~l~2~/2~6~/~7~9'--Review Engineer~~J~o~bn...,__...GL'-"'P~l~o~g'-~~~ Control Engineer B Description of Project Asphalt Paving Co. proposes to operate a 250 ton per hour asphalt batch plant initially at Arapahoe County Airport and then in various locations throughout the state. Particulate emissions will be controlled by a venturi scrubber, Summar:i;: of Emissions (TPY) Particulate 802 NO x HC co Uncontrolled 490.5 , • 3 4.5 .25 0.9 Controlled 2.1 .3 4,5 ,25 , o. 9 Allowable 3,2 52. None specified Ambient Air gualit:i;: 3 Im2act Cu2/m ) Particulate 802 NO x !IC co 24 hour 24 hour Annual 3 hr. 8 hr. Source 21. 6 3.1 21 3.5 10 Background >1so 0 ;:::, 100 '.::> 16 0 :::.10' 000 Allowable 150 50 100 160 10,000 Area status Non-Attain-Non-Non-Non- attainment ment attainment attainment :::::,, means greater than This source is proposing to locate in an area currently designated as "Non- Attainment" for the "National Ambient Air Quality Standards" for particulate, NOx' co, and oxidants. This designation means that the State of Colorado -Air Quality control Commission has determined that the area within which the source is proposed (Continued) APC-73 15-7~) ~ POLLUTION CONTRC ;:i1v1s1orf"' LORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Page L of L PERMIT NUMBER C-12,733 Applicant's Name~~-"A~s~p~h~a~l~ti;._P~a~y)l.Linn~g_i..C~o~-~~~~- Date~-1~2•/~2~6~/~7~9,__ Review Engineer~_...J~o~h~n._,G~ • .__.p~1~o~g11...~~~ Control Engineer~~B'-- to locate, generally has ambient levels of particulate, NO , CO, and oxidants air which exceed the National Standard for these pollutant~. These Standards set at levels designed to prevent adverse effects to the public health and/or in the were welfare. Emissions from the proposed source, while contributing additionally, are con- sidered minor in nature and should not interfere with reasonable further progress towards the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. APC-73 (5-76) ----:._· __ ,.:..~~·: -·-·-·--·· AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIOt:S NOTICE Colorado Dcp1>rtment of !!"'8lth (Statlonary Source) FIRM NAME ... !\.~ P.~il.1 :t .e.~ Y. i ng_. !:oroP.9nY .... ( P.oxJ:.9.ti J.e .. A> P.b.i! J.t .. P.1.<i 8.tJ ................... . ('._, · 1Z. /.$3 Pf.RMlT NO. ···••·•••'••••······\Pao:'" No. (To be assignl!'d by He,.lth Dept i NEW __ EXISTlNG_2{ MODIFICATION FOLl.Ot.' l'P_. M'1L ADDRESS •• -~ ~.$.Q? . .YL .. 44.tti .. Av.env~ ... Golden~ . .CO .... 8.0!l03 .......... PLANT LOCATION l.Z fi (l . .m:ll.e .. Eas.t .. o.f .. Keenes.bl.lr.g ) ............ COUNCY • _\j~ J.c! ....... . PERSON TO CONTACT RE('".!IROlNG T!IIS INFORMATION ••• ?.~?.l').~ .. ~fl9.?f.? ...................... TITLE •••• ~.~~jilJ?.tf:!r .................................. PllONE ••.• 4?.~.--~.~.l.~ ................. . ' Pr due ti n f H + M" ~ 6 .• . p :t Will you accept r-o\ler-t calls'~_Yes __ . GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF nns Pl.ANT s FUNCTION •••••• 9 ••••.••.• Q •••• O •••••• QJ.-.. JXe.1..1 •• .1.i....VJTJJ.IJP.U.S •• .ClY.eroe.D •.•..••.••••.•••••••....•...... Bl!'at houns to call: ·..::9.==._~._:...:...:....:.:..:__ A. GENERAL INFOR~Q!!_~ !'<oE"mal Operation of Plant" Seasonal Throup;hput (1. of Annual) '""Specify any slg11lfic,1ntly different schedule of a uni~ or process ""~~ch ;,,,;t5"··-~~r ;,~-u~~,~;,,·1 No. of 4rloyeejLand 3 Area u]_"~s/Dayjo~~/weekjwc~k;/Year occQebfMar~rSylJSQAu.~1se25ov J ~-,,.:~;~ ::1~~~1:i~::f ;;~:;~~~,;~~[~~~~~;;~·~:~:r~;!~~;~·::;~:~J·"~'~~;;J···~·~;~·~:~:"'~-·,~·~~-'~"~.;~~w~~'""-"' .. ,. "''"'h·~~·~"=;-' "''"' Lv.,~,j-___ j c. FUEL INFORMATION 6 Ann11al C~nsumptlon 6 llca;tng \':ilue ___ r~cent by Weight Seasonal ll~-~~~~a!_11q"l sr~, .. ·~I D<:!scription of Cor.ibustion Unit De:lgn R<'tte (10 R"fl'./~r) Kind of Fuel Rurned (Tomi, 10 r:at,:lr 10 SCF) (10 BTU/Annual_ Unit} Sulfur(X.XXi.) Ash(XX.X7.) Dec-Feb Mar May Jun-A 11 g]Sep-Nov ~·JI .... P.r:.Y.\!.r:................... . .. i.62................ . . P.r.o pane ............ 4~4D~.Ga 1...... . .. 92., QOD/ .Ga 1. ..... Q .•...... n ......... 0 .... 25... . 5 0... . 2 5... . .0.. I ............................................. Q8 .......... Q i.~?.\!.l.. .#.4 ......... ?:..1.Q.!JJ .. ~il.1 ........ J.9., 5.0Q .........•. Q? .......... Q .•....••. o .... g ?. . . . -~ 9 .... -~ s... . .c I .... (.l.).Ca t. 3 9B .. G.en •...... 1.%. ::: .............. Di.es.el .. #2 ....... l.5~o.oK .Ga.1 ......... 19.,5.0D ....... ·:• D2. ......... Q .•..•.... 9 .... g?_ .. J.2:.:: J5... o ... ·I I ~ ------. ------I I Design Rate ~ finished I'roducts ~-~~..!.!L..!!!_~/Hour Product Name or Descriptf;;~-AnnualOu~ : : : :~~~:: ~r.~~~:::::: :::~::: J :~~~v~ '.:: ~:~~:~~:: ~:~:.: ~~: ~~~Y.~:i:~: ::: :: ~~~ '.:~~~:~ ::: : : ::: : : : :~::°:: :'.:::~:::: ~:: ::v~::D~~:~: :~:;:~::::: ~9:::~ 9:Q::T: R11."' M:it.erlals, Solvent.,, Cleaning Agents, W21ste, etc.,Annual Consumption Invo_l::_e~_!_~e:!!' . (Srecify ttnlt•) PROCESS INFOR~~TION D. pc"criptlon of Processing Unit fArco 11 ~e) sr:c E. POJ.LUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT 10verall Cost ot Control~ment t(To be com£.!..etcd by AiE" Pollution Control Dlvls.!..£!1l.. Poi~-------Type of Cont!~ment _collection Initial j""""' To<d A""""' En0<gy U••• EmI,,<oo• E"imo<or<oo«ollod Em<,.<on;"AITOwobl• Em<,,<oo•[E'ttr~s.ti.on P1:iinary["" __ , __ S~£..O..!:.'!_'!_r_.J'. ___ f.fJ;,.!cienc Installation Operat!_!l_g___Cost S ecify Unit.!..1!._Jy~~} __ Ton!!./Y~'!~~ _____ "I:~m• Year Tons/Ye<'l.r ~1.c_!~.d ~::_~ . l~~u~.t.i.on .... ~-:~~~~-~~-~~ .. 9.~.-.? ... ?.!? .•. 9.QQ. U.4 .•. ~.Q9 .... -~g .. QJ.~.~!'.1 .. P.~ .. C:?.1.0~. 'i,?. ... .f O.~:."?. ......... ?'. '..?.. ?.. . . . . . -·-· 0 "?.. 0 ? . ....... :.<.: .............. : .. .?. ........ . ;) . d-;)__ . ;)._ so. f------i . + ............... . NOx I HC 1 .. ): -~~~-. R~[l]?XIS? ................ . ::::::~:::;?.::::::: ::::~~>:r.:::: co --~ ...... (:.~ ............. C!.:.>.. ...... . Pb I/ .. 1 •••••••••• 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• f-----................... 1 ••••••••••••••••• iother: ··················•l•••················l··········l············l··············l•·····················1··················1······················l···················•·············· · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·······I··················· I····•····· I·•·········· I······•··'•··· 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·' · ·_1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ···•···I··················· 1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · (tor APCD Use) ------0.'.lte of Record I I UTH I O....ncr 'Process Clns .. lf., UTM Coordinates rl Colorado Air Quality control Rc"ulations I !Source _tl;mLJ.ILI l!!!lf•nl -<:11>'...l.IL ...zon... ~ -'il.L...l__l.il_ llo<hontd I Ve<t!<ol !£o.t _C£.d.!L 1·-·1 I ---·-----·-____ 1 ____ 1 ___ _ l_Connty lp r f // . 0 ) ~,_(""" COJ{'f) j\ ~C, :.r:::f \ff?[) U v--\m FE;J 2 1 /984 MJJN1A N (.'·\" .. f'Q11 · r · .. · ·' :. J CQLEC;E '" v •,;( t:C ,,,,,,,,~:oNERs ---- FILE __ 3000 COUNTY ROAD 11 4 G LENWOOD SP RIN GS. COLORADO 81601 (303) 9 45-7481 Mr. Gene Yellico . . ) ). G!..t.:J ,J -~ • 0011 Ponderosa ~ JJ~1 i'.f. ·. · Glenwood Springs, Colorado 016ol Ga rfield County Commissioners 201 Bth Street Gl enwood Springs, Colorado l516ol Gentlemen: Februa ry 20 , 1984 __________ .. __,,, -------·-ALE ____ _ ,. In view of the Ga rfield County Pl anning Oon ssi-en-an-e.-tnai-1'.'.! reo e nt ·reccorn.~endation on approval fo r th sphalt-P ;;ini.gr~~;r"~ pit, it is my de s i ..... e to write this l e tter to you, ~ Corrnn issioners of Garfield county, to approve the gravel pit . \'fe all in the county have r eceived our tax notices and tt c n.n be said they we re high . In vi ew of our dilemma of taxes, another form of jobs and getting our people in the county back to work would surely be in order. I 'm sure tha t a proposal such as Asphalt Paving's has malliY pros and cons, but denial without some considera tions for maybe some limited conditions would be turning our economy's progress away. We all share in paying county taxes and share with everyones concern for nature, environment, etc . We need to get back to everyone helping everyone out in times of poor economic conditions . Your deep est thought and judgement on t hi s matter will be app reciated. Your~ respec_tfully, , ,., .. ,Lf i t,· ~~ 1. Ji../! .... ,,, /' .,,.. .... ( -l r~ t.-v Gene Yellico DEPARTMENT OF THE ARM't SACRAMENTO DISTRICT , CORPS OF ENGINEERS 650 CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTO , CALIFORNIA 95814 REPLY TO ATTEN T ION OF Regulatory Section Mr. Jeff Ke ller Asphalt Paving Company 14802 West 44th Avenu e Golden , Colorado 80401 Dear Mr . Keller: January 23 , 1 984 I am responding to your letter dated January 13 , 1984 concerning your proposed gravel extraction op e ration (Silt Pit). After review of your min ing plan we have determined that a Department of the Army Permit (Section 40 4) is no t required , as there is no fi ll mate r ial proposed in "Waters of the United States". If you have further questions please contact Bill Herring of this offic e , telephone (303 ) 243-1199. Copies Furnished: Sincerely , Grady L, McN ttre Chief , Regulatory Unit 4 278 4 Crossroads Bou levard , Suite 111 Gannd Juncti on, Colorado 81501 Garfield County Planning Commission , 2014 Blake Avenue , Glenwood Sp rings , Colorado 8 1601 Mr . Don Scherschligt-401 Department of Health, 4 210 East 11th Avenue , Denver, Colorado 80!20 ~.~ --...-... _..~t-·1 · ' . I ''; ,,,,· ,J/~I\ ;~ C1i i\1 "It.LU CO.. FATTOR PETROLEUM February 17 1984 Mr . Larry Velasquez Chairman Garf ield County Commissioners 201 8th Street Gl e nwood Springs, Colorado Dear Larr y: '' ) I K .. , . (30 3 ) 94 5·6214 . ~~ fjul.l 'i,'1'1 (·' 1 JT~ & PITKIN P.O . BO X 848 G LENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 .__,.__.-...... ~ ..... -·--·'·--------f\lE_----- This letter is being written for the p urpose of urging you and the two other commi ss ione rs to r econ s ider an ear lier decis ion against th e r equ es t of ~~-:crvtng-~~a grave l pit south of Si l t , Colorado . I b e lieve that in view the l ates t forecast of the econ omy it i s evident that we n eed to create things to ha ppen in our area . Rifle, Colorado has taken a n ew stand and i s welcomeing n ew ideas and projec t s just so they can create or cause things to happen. I also b e lieve that with the control s s u ggested in the past; they wil l b e s u ff i cient to hold the va l id concerns in check. The pe rmit i s n o t for a li fe time .and can b e rejected i f things ge t out of con trol . Asph alt Paving h as certainly generated enough concern for this a r ea and h as s hown that th ey are willing to work with the peop l e of this area a nd t h e agencies involved . I u rge you to reconsider and pass favorab l y on Asph alt Pav inq 's requ es t. Respectfull y , #... ~-~ p M.' attor ~ Glenwood S ringsm Colorado TEXACO P ETRO LEUM PRODUCTS 14802 W. «TH AVENUE GOLDEN, COLO 80401 279-6611 Mr. Larry Joe Keller P.O. Box 956 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Mr. Keller: February 9, 1984 ln conformar1ce v.ith the rule5-and requl.:itions established by the Garfie:a County Board of County Conris~.ioners, the attachec' notice is being sent to you in order to infonr, you of the -application of Asphalt Paving Co. to mine aggregate one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado. Should yot.J wi~-h to obtair. additional infon:.ation regarding this proje:t, y:.iu may contd ct any cf tht ir;:1viduals indi(<.te: in the not ice. JK:nb Encl. -------------- .l! •SENDER: Comple.ttl}' !ems 1, 2, 3, and 4. f Add Vo1f! address in tile "RETURN TO" space :; on v.Nerse. ' (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) j 1. The following service: is requested (ch~k one). ~w to whom and date delivered .. 0 Show to whom, date, and address of delivery .. 2.0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY ,_. (lJw >Ufricud dt/J..,ryftt is claargtd in addillO~ to '.'"~. r/w ~rn n<:tipl fte.J ' g 4. TYPE OF l&tVICE: 0 REGl8TER£D D INSURED j ~ Ocoo OEXPl&S MAIL (Atwap obtain signature of •d ec agent) , .,.~!!.,,...,,,,,,~,,.,,,,,,,,=-=,,,,,::::::,.-~-r:,.J,::=:::::,,,,.~--1 "' 7.UJUll.llOOEUYERSECAUSE: • • =._~~~~~~""-~-'-~-' Respectfully, ASPHALT PAVING CO. -fffk~ ~~ef f 'Keil er FTGjt:-:-t Manager ':. ' . lit<!~"" 1---- :: ... : ;;,,~c •I o~ ..... , '.,~ 487 c;o fV1AtL ., .ll•L!J- . "1.1.1L ' opoJOjD) 'J.iuno;> pt•!j.JO!) ""'9Q fO "!CkQ ""i,._H .W D!l{IUAJ • "opGJOjD) 's6u11ds f>OOM.U.JO '"llOl,jl ·1'10) °'4Ut>O) Pl•!j..ID!) •"I• u1 'ij•uO•u•wwOJ J.iuno) 10 p.c•oe•..,110•)•110•4110 wos1-llf0'"""1•1.u10 t11~1 -q.~ JO A.Pf tl •'I• IOj If•• ..... q "'" 11w••d •in 1o·;>Mj~ •~oqc.-..i1 '°I "°"l;l)lfddO • ..,, uot ..... ,_'I >•10"d IO'iJ ·J.op ,~ 4f,,101111 Aopuow ··v.. d oo s ruo ·w voo 910 1Jno4 •yi ......... ~ OpoJOjO) "tfiu·1dS pr.>o..,u·:~ ·e"ID!9 'LO( 10 f•lD)C> l ... Wjlod&() &u!UUC>jd e'!I jO e>l!ID ~ ID f'-""•'~"' •q Aow uo:1D>•1ddo 1•war1•1n1o•::i+d5 "'IJ ·e1n 10.:..t11 IOj 11e!'lbe1 •'!• A ... p 10 l\ll>J6 01 J•~•"l.,.. f>i1tp 1,_.f u P•U»IJL IJ&'flC> puo ""'""''" A1H1do,rj 6u1punoVM jD .......... WO)"'"' o; UO•jOJ•f"~UO) •hl6 I!'" ···u~n.u· WO) Aiu,,o:-1c. p1009 • ..,, "' .,,..,,.,d ••n 101)Mls 'I'"' 01 '"'"P••oc •~04 o~' r ~iJD1">11><><l ·••11•, liq '"'" • l'•OJ e,01> C>; P"'t,,n •>~!"IOI""'"' fiu"""'"'' lj)"' ,r "'11'''""'.c Jt>•Cl<lc IOU~<>' nol I' •UO••H"QO 10 l<'<l!OJ<I .,,,..,,, ''"'!· •1DJ\ puo IO&<ldt .... p .. ,, • .,. ••t> I'"-''•.! •'n ft''"*"~ P<tl<><lt>•C •'I• ~G p,.,,.,110 1uo".," 11v ·J.i.J•dOJd f>"q•Jn•p-oqo •"II uo W111d •.-•~) -i<fD110d opuo 1uo1d 1rol.fd10 "IQOI ·JOd 11 •10J9do 01 :f<IA&U'& p-'O puot IOj eu>!.., 11d ue6o "i - . ...-.. -.i .oil" lit•! ~.fMn ~ P!Df ·ucJ'OOI °""""' fO , .. ...., pullOpDJOjOJ 'IHS'fO-.t~to-.i-.. 1111 t/I :( .. >wp!MJ J>llOlpOOJ ~.) •AoM, •11 01 1>ed..1 \fll"' uotul~) UO,ld!J,.<IQ l~Xl'cl 'OpCUOjO) """"'°=? Pl~P"~ '·w·cl lfl'I 'IHM U.S...01 'lfl~ td.l,/IU.¥.OJ '01 U°ll>I'~ 10 ".M~ .... JC •,,3 •'i• :ot 11<,.1><1lo jO •.,~~•'fl j<> ',.MS ONV •1,MN ·•,,JN '01 uo11»:, f"' '!1JN •'l• 10 ~-,JS :,, ..... .,, ·opo1010:> 10 •101s ·p1••pD(l jO Ajurx: :> •111 u• p•1D'll°' ""••C!v;d p&qFJ»ep flu,,,.,0;1<>1 •11< 'I!'"" uo•pe" ·UO> "' l"•"'"'~ •"n 10».-I~ o IU[oJfl 01 C>pelJOJO) 10 •101s J.iu<io;> p;••pO'.> !..MlvQIUh.UWO) J.iu"C) JO p1oo-e •'I• OI pe11ado (IDlj D) 6u<AOcl f!D!jdl't' ID1,j1 •:>!ION •'lg! / ' .f' /' '· -~ .. ~;<· ., .. Donald D. & Marjorie T. Lyons P.O. Box 462 Silt, CO 81652 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lyons: 1.4802 W_ 44TH AVENUE GOLDEN, COLO 80401 279-6611 February 9, 1984 In conformcnce with the rules and regulc.t1ons established by the Garfield CoJnty Board of Cour1ty Coim.is!:.ioners 1 the attached notice is being sent to you in order to infoni1 you of the application of Asphalt Paving Co. to mine aggregate one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado. Should you wish to obtain additional inforrndtion regarding th'1~ project. you may cor.:r.ct any of the individuals indicated ir1 tne not icE:. JK:nb Encl. ----------------------- 1, 2. 3. and 4. in the "RETURN TO" space r '~-~:.:eait 11--.-';.:;...~-=c:.:.::~,.,.,.,o=::-=:::-::=:-,--~-t f'"~---0;·:i't-: -(CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) 1. The f~g seMce is requested (check one}. 19'~ to whom and dare delivered........... _, 0 Show to whom, date, and address of delivuy .. _, a. b RESTRICTED DELJVER Y ---# ··(Jkfl!Stricttd dtlivtry Ju i5 cluuged In oddilion ltJ ,,.1M11U11n1.""tip1 ftt.) ,tf~:.,,;·· ·,.~ TOTAL ll..5i: 3.. .umc:t.l ADDRESSED TO: ./)•" 11 LJ ./J. + IY1 A -.:i .,,:, <.:T. /._ 'f • JJ s /J, 0, i3oK 4? :L i T (!.o. 8/(,S.:1_, O 4. ·n"N: OF tl&MCE: ARTICl.E MUMBal ! 0...-rawi 01NSURED , -Ocoo PfoJ, 94'9180 ........... g obtain 1119nature of addresaee or a;ent) ~ I ha.ye ~~ the aruclc dcscnbcd above ~ ~ 0 Aulhonzed agen1 ' . ·- 1. U(!IMlZ 10 CEUVER BECAUSE: Respectfully, ASPHALT PAVING CO. ~(/cl(dL- Ueft Keller Prcj~:t Manager P_ .102_ '9'39 486 r.J;:u1..iPT fOR cin lf!EO MAil /' /f 1'· ' Wedne1d<1)1', February 1, 198.I ~Glenwood Springs (Colo.) POST Paie 11 l"\JIC.IC NOTICI Tak• ~lie• thctt A1phalt Poving Co .. ha•) opp1i.d IO •h• SQGfd ol County (qrnrninionen (j..,rli•!d (O<Jnty, 5'Qle of ColotOOo. IO gr<3nt o Spe<•OI UH l'etm1t 1n con· '..ct;on .,.,1h 1he following Jeutob.d property utuoted ;n th• C~nty of Corlield. Store ol Co!Qrodo. "<:l·wrt: legal O•Knpl•on: Sf:'·, ol •h• Nii''• of ~ection 10. NE~'•, NW'r. ANQ SW"• ot •he SE''• ot Se.:ti= 10; ti•• IE"~"' th• sw», ol S«llon 10. Jownthip 6 Sol.oth, ~~ We.t. e.111,. Al.,. Go.-ft.ld tounty, Colo•Qdo. . . Proxtkal 0-Crt,tion {lo<:~ w1th •ft99Cf to h. Wf#t, C-:ifll toodlan4r•id.nc-.I: 111 ml .. -.itfli otm.r-.t.Sllt, Coiolodo ond-r : Qf~ Rood-Sil. . ·: . kid SpKkl6 u .. P~ l• IO ollow tN '-ttfiOfWf ro··: ~ pit """9 !of 1ond ONf V"N.Ji to Opottai. • pot- . toM. 01pholt plant ond o po11abl• conc.r.t~ p~ ori tM above Jutrob.d prop•rtr. All p•rtont ollec•f'-d ~'f 1~ .• \l'"P<Hed Sp.-c"ll I.he o.,..,,,t are '"'"''"d ·o <>1><><o<lt <J('!j 11ore •htt•• "ew1. ~<ote•!1 or ob1e(l•01>\ ,/ 1ov <•'"not "PP<1ot )erv,..,olly ~· luCl"I m.,ettn9. then •Du ;tre ""~To •1'l!I your ,:,.w, ':>y !•rt•r. pon.c.,larl• ,f ''"' ~o~e ob1e<1,,,,,. 10 tu(h ~,ol1(1al U•e P-1rmol °' oh• 8¢ord of ,:.,..,,,.,. (om. ,..,.u,onet1 .. at 9'"' ~or.,..J•ror.on •o rh• comm.-itt of 1urrouroding propfity o""nert -lnd ol1h•r1 "ff""ted in :l<KJdi"9 whem.r •o 91ont or i:t...'I' •h• requ•1I lot ip.«•ol .., ... rh~ >p•cu:al Use "''"""'' opplrco1ion _.,. be rev•e .... ed QI th• office of '"'• P!onn~ D.po.rtmenl ..xo1eJ ol 101' 91ake. Gl•nwood Spt•"9"· Colo•ado O.tw••n 1h• nou,. ot e-00 A. M. and S 00 PM., ~doy 'hrov~h Fr·Jo, rho! pvblt< hear,ng. on !he opphcoliol\ lo.r tl-te above Sl)e(•ol Ute P..-m•I not b--1 Ht for •ti.11 day of Feb .. 1q04 ::tltheh.ourofl11So.f?'t.ol•h•oflic•of>l"l•!l.oard ol County Comm111oon.,1, on 'he Ciorfi•ld Co...nty Cow· !ha<.1M. Glenwood iP'"•"9'· Colonido. • Cyl)thoa ~. H9U'-"t- °"Pf. ol o-. G0<f1•1d County. Colofl~do ,. t. GARFIELD COUNTY CITIZENS ASSOCIATION 1315 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Garfield County Commissioners Flaven Cerise, Chairman Larry Velasquez, Commissioner Jim Drinkhouse, Commissioner Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners: January 25, 1982 As you review the application of Asphalt Paving Company, the Garfield County Citizens Association would like to take this opportunity to ask that you consider imposing a temporary moratorium on approval of pending and new gravel pit applications. The purpose of this moratorium would be to allow time for the county to develop specific criteria and comprehensive policies for the issuance of special use permits for gravel pit operations. As a citizens group, we believe that such criteria and policies are essential to guide gravel pit development throughout the county as it attempts to keep pace with energy development. As of Friday, January 22, county planners had determined that there are 29 approved and/or operating gravel pits in Garfield County. {A large proportion of them are concentrated along the Colorado River from Silt to Parachute.) The Colorado and Roaring Fork Rivers and the communities in their valleys would seem to have a finite ~·carrying capacity" for the amount of gravel mining that can occur without substantial and long-lasting damage. We are extremely concerned about the cumulative effects on county residents, wildlife, land and rivers from the traffic noise, dust and general activity associated with these operations, The county obviously can neither approve nor deny all current and future gravel pit applications. Establishing ccncrete, specific criteria and policies, then, becomes an equitable way of treating developers and landowners. Those with an economic interest in gravel pit development can thereby know clearly in advance if to proceed or how to proceed with their plans. To our knowledge, the need for gravel is not at an 11 emergency" level in the county that would necessitate continuing to issue special use permits without such a study. Garfield County residents 1 on the other hand, stand to lose a great deal if these pits continue to multiply without their cumulative impacts being addressed. Even beyond the serious consideration that residents must live with these impacts through the life of the projects is the potential that scarring of the land and loss of wildlife can be permanent. ·~· Garfield County Commissioners January 25 1 1982 Page t\VO A short-term moratorium could allow the county planning staff, the Planning and Zoning Cornmission, the towns and interested groups and individuals to evaluate the existing situation,and to develop appropriate criteria and policies to assist with these critical decisions. Mechanisms for detennining need for gravel; various safeguards for the towns, developers, river corridors and wildlife, and siting stipulations all could be incorporated in such policies. \Ve feel that this course of action represents the fairest way of protecting and responding to the interests of all concerned--residents, landowners and developers. We trust that you will seriously consider this request for a temporary moratoriun. Thank you very much for listening to us. Sincerely, (\ I I I I ,:, \. \ jfwt~!~ ~Z:f~( '(j ,,. '" ""'"''' 1,.,./\ ,,(\ 1 . . . '• ;· .c r' ('; /'· ! l (' ,. --·-"'-·- These are extraordinary times in Garfield County and on the Western Slope--probably no one knows that better than the county commissioners. Our land use regulations were developed when Garfield County economies were predominantly agriculture and tourism. We have no specific regulations and guidelines for gravel pits. We have no specific criteria for siting gravel pits, for determining suitability for a particular site. The special use permit procedure has been sufficient. At the time regulations were developed it was envisioned that ranchers might use the special use permit procedure to extract gravel as a sideline--sell gravel to the coW1ty for county roads. Now we are seeing the industrial development of gravel to accomodate the largest mining attempt in the history of the world. We are not just dealing with the industrial mining of gravel but also gravel crushing and batch plant facilities. There is already tremendous competition for land in Garfield County. Available land for residential use, for gravel pits, for a myriad of toher uses will become increasingly scarce as energy development proceeds. Exxon's announcement last week that its worker force would be at least twice what it had estimated emphasizes once more how scarce land for housing might become. It should be obvious fro1J the numbers of people turning out to protest gravel pits that gravel operations and residential neighborhoods are not especially coripatible. House Bill 1529 passed in 1973 required thepopulous counties of the state to develop "a master plan for extraction of 'commercial mineral deposits. 1 Such deposits are defined there as those; a) consisting of limestone used for construction purposes, coal, sand, gravel or -. -.... ~ . l quarry aggregate whose extraction is commercially feasible, and b) which have significant economic or strategic value to the area state, or nation.1as demonstrated by geologic, mineralogic, or other scientific data." The Garfield County Citizens Association is not opposed to gravel extraction in Garfield county. That would be highly unrealistic, Rather, we want to see development occur in the best ways possible for us all. We are suggesting that the county take time to develop specific criteria and policies to guide gravel pit development in the county so that these pits can be sited and developed in ways that do not conflict with the interests of residents but still meet the needs for energy development. ---;;_,,,.,~· JI }2_ J"3 I 'i } '5 I L, I -:r I <( I ~ ~-0 ~, ~-'7 'r I · TO TIIE .COMMISSIONERS OF GAHFIEt D COUNTY We,·t he und e rsigned, her e by p et ition that the Garfield County Com mi ssioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Com pany for a gravel ex tra ction ope ration on land situate d next to the Colorado River ju st west of County Road 311, south of Silt, Garfield Co unty, Colorado . No . Name-Signature Date Resident's Address Register Voter YES-NO 1101 lZ!Jo29-</5ju-NO J:-1:>1_ ~'¢ 1,,2 1 -S ,\1 == -~-=-----"------<--· __,_c; /bry= 'f o J S , Li--t-~~ ~~~~~-=H"--:--'-------=;z..'--::_10 .§"t'J:?s -:s~s R~ ~o t-11_. fh -=---""'------;? -I '! ~ / e .sx &/ t:?l/ 7 Al. ( I r~ J ~44-j~~£....L.,M.-L-J(.-=.,~~=-~~-~--'"='---~1~=-__,,'~'~s~~~«~e~·~~~~<..=..c:lb~'~o~ . .__-4-'~- 2 -/ u · ~~--,,6( cbA :J -I{)_._:§;/-/ fMJ. ·--~.1_2:;; :ti; I ~~ 3/10 Jii): ~~~=-'-_..,.,,.==,__ _______ 2_-_/_0 __ ~-~R~l~F.=L~:._~-4-~..:=..:'-'-"'-'-~~ --------c~.-.--_ ... /_t?_· ---~·~-:;/~C. r c('/'/ /&~6 dt/F ~5 _:2 ,--/{) 8--s ~ft k: u / Vvo !J -10 cJ-7._V __ ,>2..-// ~;\. -4 Ol3 -~-~ flY.A"'-1 ~--~ t ~ z'-f ~5 e:;.~ p(-=f ~i ~1 ao "3 I 3cl 3~ ., t./ ~5 3{.p 3-=t TO THE COMMISSIONER S OF GAR F IELD COUNTY We , the unde rsign e d, h e reby p e tition that th e Garfield County Commission e r s de ny th e appli cat ion b y As phal t Pavin g Compan y f o r a gr a ve l e xtra ct i o n op e r a tion o n land s i t u a t e d ne xt to th e Co l o rado Rive r jus t wes t o f Count y Road 311, s outh o f S ilt, Garfield Co unty, Co lorado . No . Nam e -Signature Dat e Res ident's Addr es s Re gist e r Voter YES-NO :;) -9 -~'-I / 11 .;;; ~ s:r. /\J czw Ca.a t 4. ,. c Q) y e.3 (JLU~~~~~~Ltz::L!f/_ SG 4'L/4rd J::<i c2i · 7lc:r CJ~ !f?/16 3Pl4]?J ~c_({ c~r<) lks-. / //M> a~lf'-< ;J 5;!/ r& ,;1--0 o/ /; /.3e<8./L_,__ ~ft.~ /e>3 ~@-f1 ~H~ S d+-C ,c1 -I ; TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We, the unde rsign e d, h e r eby petition that the Garfield Co un ty Com mi ssio n ers deny the application by Asp halt Paving Company for a grave l ext rac tion ope r a tion o n l a nd situated n ext to th e Co l orado Ri ver just we st of County Road 311, sout h of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. ' No. Name-Sign ature ~-\ -k~ lJAe.Rl )\15.'roN c;l --/~-f '/ /7 t./ 3 C'~J t:I z; D ~,'t-UI 50 ,~,, LJdt:L 51 ?/~~~ sz... 5, 5LJ 55 I ~kls-r- S I /) I /', ? 1l 1 ' '-" I 7 7 1 <.~ 1 L _,. ( ,(l •'-, I e7 S"f-~~L:L---l-~~~~~~~~--'-4-•~~l -~~3-·7~~~?1~'---=-'S;f.t~'..__\~~~ 5 ~ 0~-<.J ~J dip /54 tlj;4/e ft e(, A vz1<. ,Al~ wCJ ,,rf/c_. I 51 ~o . TO THE ~d MMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We, ·the unders ign e d, h ereb y petition t h at the Gar fie ld Cou n ty Commissio ne rs d e n y the application by Asp h alt Pavi n g Company for a gravel e x trac tion o p e r at ion o n land sit uat e d n ext t o the Colorado River just west of Co unt y Road 3 11 , so uth of S il t , Garfield Co unty, Colorado. No . Name-Signature Date Reside nt's Addr ess Regis ter Voter YES-NO 09/~>'t'~~~··. I ~I &J.. lo~ I Pfc / _j__ -I ; \11-' , /_ ·~ .. , tJ. · ~ -S I Lr 't' G ~ le~ -::>-1 '---!--S '--f t.,'5 1--# )5 .r f '( '9 8 I J Z 1 o &'. D tt{C.l ·~ ~f.p · ~ )-'-. S l/ · '. IS' C'c<.lc !w-vs ' ·-G ' tlftV d- 1 v 1" I SL I 9 b&'!J Cl-<S L<:?J-~ ,~-..,· ><-·~ ,J ~~~d-A+.L-V-~~-==~~~=+-=~~"-L-~·~~.J-+-~~~3 ~pd~';ht~N ~~·l!e~~ 4'6 1 0 . ·«1 lt&vl1Z1 1 7[lz __;) -,){). ~ v ' t 1 11 tu({ I z GI .£)~tl~IJ s<§ 1 J ~ -c:J-0 --s>~ o2J!~ u , r . r ..... J3Dt C]3/ 1 ]J~-J ~ c6 '() . " r-· ... -. (' ,..-) <.:·: ' · TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We, 't h e undersigned, hereby petit i on that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by As phalt Pav in g Company for a gravel extraction operation on land situated next to the Color a do Hiver ,jus t we s t o f County Road 311, south of Silt, Garfie l d Co unty, Colorado. No. Name-Signature Date Re sident's Address Register Voter YES -NO t '3 l 4 R 1 o ~ f<.J 1e0 6 L 'o S es ,.?(_ () r;/' ,.-2£ ~'-'-'-+----~~~1--~~"'7"'-~7'7---'-"""-q -f3 1i fol§~ :SOw~ c, ( ~ I (!<Zd-K ~ Lkd:lui da2-o<7-cf-'/ ..:?</~?/ #'NYh ,,t/Cf<<Jkti-/e-~<:r ~ - C/O _{?~~-IJ.;l1-i51(/RJ.JJL/ J~.<;o-6, Q/65& ~ t'f / ~<2 (jl,p,~. /. ;;/!,/-.?!£"¥ q~ {J!L,Ll , ?1. e /{,. ;) -1 n 11 C/3 t?--lS-ti/ ;) t> Javzt ?!L ¥ . 6 11o9 /7~ q~ :l -1.r --P 'f_ 1.:i.1~~r;~h·~ ~ ~z -P-L<-S'( 1; ~ -.413k TT :, . Cf:l- q<[ qq /00 /0/ /D9J... Jo~ ,fff /0.5 I , Io I.? /b1- j() r I{) t/ //0 ,,, //J //3 111 /J ? ''" /l t- 11 r I 1 '1 I :{O /2/ /Lv /2-3 1~~ Ji.? /2.b Jlr TO · THE COMM I SS ION ERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We, th e undersigned, he r e by petition t h at the Garfield County Commission e r s deny the application by Asp h a lt Paving Company for a gravel e xtraction ope rat ion o n l a nd s ituat e d ne xt to th e Colorado Riv er just west of County Roa d 311, sou th of Silt; Garfie ld Co'u nt y, Colorado . "' No . Na~-Sig n at ur e J Date Reside nt's Addr e ss Register Voter YES -NO Z-/$·-_gt./ fJO/JfJ(/t/ O/f..VWCJo~ /21 )-;,~ / 3 () '/ 31 I~ z., /33 ):fs/ f 3!/ (3S 13i 131-- I~ 't( 131 lt/O It/ I )~-v Jt/3 I 'I'-/ /- TO THE COMMI SSION ERS OF GARFI ELD COU NTY • I We , the unde r s i g n e d, h ere by pe ti tion th at t h e Ga rfie ld Co un ty Co mm i s s i o n e r s d e n y th e app li cati o n b y Asp hal t Pav in g Compa n y fo r a g r a vel ex tr action o p e r at ion o n land situat e d 'ne x t to the Colo rado Ri ver just wes t of Co unt y Roa d 3 11, so u t h of Si lt, Ga r fie ld I Co un t y, Co l orad o. 1 I No. Name -S i g n at ure 2- !'IS fl/(, 111- /t/<I \ TO . THE COM MIS S IONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We,.the unders i g n ed, h e r e b y pe tit ion that the Garfield County Commissioners deny th e application by Asphalt Paving Company for a gravel e xtra ction ope ration on land sit uat e d ne xt to t h e Colorad o River just west of County Road 3 11, so uth of S ilt, Garfiel d Co unty, Colo rado. No . Na me-S ignature Date Resident 's Addr ess Reg ister Voter YES -NO 337 E It/~· ~~~_......._----~'+--'-'-4---f ......... 56'---hlbfl~~~-~ -TO THE COMM I SS ION ERS OF GARF I ELD COUNTY We, th e unde r s ign e d, her e by p e tition that th e Ga r fiel d Co unty Comm i ss i o n ers den y the application by Asp h alt Paving Company for a gravel e xtracti on ope ra t i o n on land situated n e xt to the Colorado River just west of County Road 311, south of Silt,· Garfield County, Co l o r a do. No. Name-Signature Dat e J'S i,., 2--~l AJq. $1'/f-'2. -I (l ~-'i' /53 1 ~. { olJVfl..U. r;;~~ --Ir~ £?..: }SY 8 12 ~£ ~-<~ 42-v 1J as.its_ -11 -s ,;./ ,~fa e ~,_ /<:>-0Lt?L_<4t-_--2 _ 11-'(j '-( /St. ~ n'!h/mdJ~-1;,?ft 157-. .5:'7 ~ ::____ J-&sij;J c?Xp_:__Y- 1 Reside n t's Address Register Voter SJI- 'r Ir I ( ,, I( /I !ZtSO l v z-- v // L-- ~/ /'Sf J-5 'f I (.p , ,,,, /t,2- /r,~ /r,~ J{,-S I r,t }l/7~ TO THE COMM ISSION ERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY we; the undersigned, h e r e by petition that the Garfield County Co mmi ssion e rs deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a grave l extraction operat ion o n land situated next to the Co lorado River just wes t of County Road 311, south of Silt, Garfield Co unt y, Colorado. No . Name-Signature Date Re s ident's Addr ess Register ' I \ . Voter YES-NO µ ~J.t3C\ .@LlS i<D . O . £~ / ,I / f ·' ~· --~ 1 · TO THE COMMISSIO NERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY /IP<"( /hC/ 11'0 We, ~he undersigned, h ere by petition t h at t h e Garfie ld County Co mmi ssio ner s deny t h e application by Asphalt Pavin g Compa ny Jo r a gravel extraction ope ratfo n on l a nd situ ate d n ext to the Co l orado River jus t west of County Ro a d 3 11, s outh of Silt, Ga r f i e ld County, Co l o rado. No. Da t e Resi d e nt's Address Re g ister • Voter YES~ . . und/4c b"¥t; ve0 I 7 //7/?c /-+I .:;;_ ~ i c:£2 c/d_ ~ af_d,,, ~1£. 11-l-;;i_ -<1 ob f2 o r>1 t&JtM Q, t/#:~ 6 ~Y!> /~3 ~~~~~~d-~~·~~~~~~~~-'~q·~~J~~~~~~·e~d~1 1q_3~ ~l%~~g~J. l~) ,... //~ ~-4.~ ,2-J )l& /IO q<;'i(,, G J<~wo~l~~)'i V .,, -~ -2 -r "~ c-t: u~ /'"ff,, ~,-2 -'7 6 82 o 7-f.vy 8 2 C-k~~"""-"as /::5 . J"f1-1~ ZL}-LA-.2-°I t 7~-! J/-w ~ Ja l ~~ B . J=tC/ f tb Jfl 'i J ':o ').. )'f3 !'8'~ ~ /Y5 /-&'b I 'ff1-_JZ&.~Szu!~~l!---!Z~(_L_L::.~~~'l±t!!::.~~~~'-5!:3 J~t -dt4t&fd1~~~~~~'5:J!/-Q-l-~~~~~~~ ~I f /~~ }qt> Jq J }12- 113 /&/~ Jtt5 ltfv 117- JtfV 119 !). ()0 J_()/ ;lO'l- z.o 3 2c~ U>'5 ~oc, ao=t ~o ( ;.oq ;i10 ~ti TO THE COMMISS IONER S OF GARFIELD COUNTY We ,· the unde r signed, he r e by p e tition that th e Garfield County Commissioner s den y t h e appli cation b y As phal t Paving Co mpany for a gravel extraction operation on land situated n e x t to the Colorado Ri ver just wes t of Co un ty Road 311, sout h of Si lt; Gar f i e ld County, Colorado. No. Na me -Sign at ure Date !/(.() /L_ ;l l l. i /3 )/~ ~r5 ~/(,, ~I ~ "1r Ji. IC/ ~ ao il.~I 222- 22.j 2.:Z tf 2..Z~ 2.Z.(, ' TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We ,· the unders igned, he r e by petition that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by As phalt Paving Company for a gravel extraction operation on land situated next to the Colorado River just west of County Road 311, south of Silt; Garfield Co un ty , Colorado. No. Nam e -S ignature Dat e Res ident's Addr ess Re gister Voter YES-NO i~~ 22.V 2..2-, 230 :<~I o?3J ;/3~ ~31 ~35 ~3& ~,:,.. .<3 r :<'31 ;..../ l> -z'I I l-a./>- 2. t/' 2&/~ ~ '15 2-c.f" ~~ TO THE COMM I SS IONER S OF GARFIELD COUNTY We, the undersigned, h ere by petition t h at the Garfi e ld Cou n ty Com mi s s ion e rs deny th e appl ication by As phalt Paving Company for a gravel ex tract ion operation on land sit u at e d n ext to the Co lor ado Riv e r just we s t of County Road 31 1, sout h o f Silt , Garfiel d Cou nt y, Colorado. No. Nam e -Si g nature Dat e ~~~~~~~~--!l:_~~d~~~~~~~~~ <.L~ 2- _.l_~,....ij:i..:~4£----lL---,,~~~=· _;!_~~·Q=---q~--<'~~~~~~~-~~·---~~~~~~1 1-~ ~h,1£.r 6 cf Z<-1 • 3 11 JC/ c'i:t!I C ~ ~/ 7 ,/f?iJ &J-::y--3 7 6 ·~ ~d&. ~>8~ A. I 0 I Y' '7 0 -v -t Y 7 ' ~e rifV.;_;:cc ~/. L....;_~~~-=:c.:_!J_~~~~~-=-:__;....-L-.:___-----:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ I ~ LI {o \olo :3 1 ~ ;2. ~13 g y ;J_-r 7 -·+ :2 I f l<1r '/ 2. lf Y' ~d..?­i~?\ =1= =:..~,,, - J i,!" 2..SI 2..S2- L.5' ~st.J ,._5') · TO THE COMMISSION ERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We, the undersigned, hereby p e tition that the Gar f i e ld County Commissioners de n y the application by Asp h a l t Pavin g Company for a gravel e xtrac tion operation on land situated next to the Colorado River just west of County Road 31 1 , south of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No . Dat e l /~~~?;:z,~~~~~==----~~~~~'4=---'~~~"""£:!:.~~:.....=.~:::__ ,,,., ~St.,/ ,, i-=t 'Z~ 4i' ~S1 ·:~(,~~~~4-L-7'-~~~=l--.:_,l~~~==---1--~~~~ TO Tl!E" c ml~II SS IONER S Of GARFIELD COUN'fY II\!,. the und e rsign e d, hereby p e tition LhaL th e Gar.field Co unty Comm i ss i o n ers deny the application b y As ph alt P avi nf.~ Company 10 1' a gr a v el ext r action operatio n on land s itu ate d n ex t to tile C'o.lo r ndo Hi ver jus t wes t o f Co unt y l \oad ~311, so uth of Si lt, Garfie ld c LI \l 11 l y I cl) 1 0 l' a cl 0 , ~~o. N ar ne-S ignatµl'e Dale Resident '~ Addr ess t-t <../ ~ c ~.:::; \-JS\\) R-. . .l\.\.c;. \5?.,-{f<.:; I 0 Lf i >/ /\ 1"-kn<'{ t)u !2-¥.Jr C)d<> 2-/t2i/fi ~~-.0L1~ l~w·J1:-~e C.flre f"'S' c.{l-I ;I -cf~ f) /0 t{_~..v/,u_ ; (./ b 1£/:/<e · l U <l_j 0 n iQ • l -3 3 ~~ /"j. s .. -,oo 30 1 3V°" 501 3of 30'5 30& ~t/? }o~ .3t>, ~I b TQ THE CO MMI SS IONER S OF GARF I ELD COU NTY We; t h e unde r sign e d, here b y p etition that t h e Gar fiel d Count y Commissio n ers deny t h e appl ication by As phalt Pav in g Comp any fo r a grav e l e xtra c tion operati o n on l a nd situated n ex t to t h e Colorado River just wes t of Cou n ty Road 3 11, sout h of S il t; Garfi e ld Co unt y , Colorado . No . Name -S i g nature Date "-6·. ~ '-/ 2 -1s -'[Y- 2 ·Vo · )SA.) 2-1/p-tf -{,-{..,. -8'1 o2 /~ (J c:;i,/11=/ g(/ 2 /10 !?'(-I I Res i dent's Address R eg ist e re ~ Voter YES -NO o I~ 1. ca . I)<,,., G(c"'-' 'v ••O c,.{'6 <;, C....:; . ('5 ~ A...J/UL"' !ti!al .. £ u "' ~ YI ~I I I . 3.12--/~, 313 /7. ~'~ ;'(/,. 3-I~ ~ '(., ~J ;r 3.-11 3:z.(, TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We ,· th e undersigned, h e r eby petition th at t h e Garfield Cou nty Commissioners deny th e applicat i o n by Asp h al t Paving Co mpan y for a g ravel e xtracti o n operat i o n on l a nd s ituated next to t h e Colorado River jus t wes t of Co unt y Road 3 11, south o f Si lt; Garfield County, Co lor ado . No . Nam e -S i gnat u re Dat e Resident's .;;)-/ ~~~~~~~~~ ,;icr 3l-1 33~ l>~\ 3~2- ~r1 33~ 135 .,,~ ''3-::r 51~ 33; ~tfD '3-'1 I -V/) 1-. • I ~~. Y f 2 -r -fY IJ . ') ( j~J._ ,,~~ j.'.J~ ~~s '3 '/-{, 3 '-/"'t 3'/'t' 3'-/'1 TO T HE . cm1i11 SSION ER S OF GJ\HFI E LD COUN i y '.'.'t.:,-t.hc undersign e d, licreby p<~L.iU o n Lh aL tile Garfie l d Cou nty Crnnrr.·Lss l oners deny th e application by J\s phalt Paving· Com pany t o r a gr :.ivcJ ex tra ct i o n operation on ln.nd situated next to tile Co.lo r ado !Li ve r jus t west nf County !toad :311, sou th or Silt, Ga1·ficld Cc •unLy, Colorado. Na1ne-Signature Dat e Hesident's Addre ss Register Vot e r J.4, 0£J YES-NO ~~l->'---....,1.-L/--, ~Id~-tz7~; ~ 1:;, 6 ~ ~'--- !! Iha?-_ 2 /;tz--o / J Rc1. 12_ f 3 '!;# g-e,/) _ 4J-8f-___ ,f 'M E__/:tlh,lf!/f. fr} - -----"'-&l...._-/ :z _:_f c/ l'f Zf 57 c ~ 3 2 a ~ ,~~"""""'·~· /]~-..... =-· -------. CD tj O Ci( 3 32 / _ ~L ___ ,J -12~-J.'1-----·-'-"------'--'----=----- -~~C----·-"'-'-;;_,_. 1-"-:J_· _ _::_f-1-V __ J__\3 l 1?ac1 crL.J;1!. 1/z ffr.r- -~1!)_42.U t J':~YULA:Je') JM· r:L __ ~/.~·JL:___Y./__,( t / /r}& Cl~ , v d --= ~ -11 -~ Lf . 4: ~ -o E 1 I o _:(;-->.l1 _-=SJ+-"'R.~a<=-- ~~ o k/· (,;~.?;.--~--~-/·,-:_h ~-~~~~=--~--~u_v ~.;> ~:A <Z-?d'-U a?.,, \edt~ _ L _,,,.. 0 7 .:! j°,) d/;;- ~$1-~ .,,~Ullw._ '}fl f ~ 2 -12--f tJ ~~? 1 -I?-.-?;z ~ '5 ~ ~~~---"'-'1)~--1-13~J1 ~~5 ~'5(1 5'5 -:r ~f ss1 ~(10 ~lll SI J ~vef <'~ jos . ) 1 7 #ffr~~ ~­ ,!;'</</7 ~309 j)li46l·Lz'-y e~ -~~~·~~Z=--~~~>~V.__,_A~V~G=-~{jt ..u_ -1d/ ylij1/u..<-; ...j..,l.X>;;lt"--<t._ __ 3(,(, 3lt-=1-- 3'1 ~ ~" no '3-":J--1 31'~ 3.1'"3 ~ 3"f'5 :t~(, ~":t-1- 3~ 3~1 ~~ TO · TH E COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We , the und e r sign ed, h e reby petition that t h e Garfi e ld County Co mmi ss i o n e rs deny the application by As phalt Pav in g Co mpany f o r a grave l e xtraction operation o n land s ituat e d n ext to t he Colorad o River jus t we s t of Co unt y Roa d 3 11, so ut h of S i lt , Garfield Cou nt y, Co l orado . Date Resident 's Addr ess :;; ~ . '/A'" l<.J ftf? <;,#/I z/6/ ;Jc/ 811 2?/r) rzo ~s 24/oY 08/ 3 ~ ~,,,J.2 :?/ -2Yo ;/u 7 ;). .7 .g'-f 3;;.q N (k I ) ~I LT' No. ~J?/f</ fol-C?~ ·~ IJ/tJ o)-/·6 ~~ I 2t7 Jc9'-1 ao:f3 I 'I o,a'-L.J. S A'ae 'f._c-s _ ~-2'?_ 2·7 -~t/-fl ZQ P1TK 1/J ~o ;2 -?-<Y' 1<) 8uf.-J1Ju Jm VJ<fil 'O "cl-1..ao ~, 5';$\ ''-- TO · THE COMMISS I ONERS OF GARFIELD COUN TY We, t h e u n d ersign ed, h ere by petition t h at t he Garf i eld County Com missioners deny th e application by Asp h alt Paving Company for a grave l ex t raction operation o n l a n d sit u ated next to th e Co l orado Ri ver just wes t of Co un ty Road 311, south of Silt , Ga r fiel d Co un ty, Co l orado. No . Name-Signature Date Re si dent's Address Reg i ster Voter <6' . YES -NO 'l ~Acw~<NJ~cnJ~~---~--"--l--~~~~-o?XP=-'-l~Pt~~~3~1/~~~l=--~Y~e~0- ~ (~ -~ ~ ~ '\--~ \A.\_,Ltlow 2 -I -'& <-/ C?i I I 8 &rvN-tt -.J:J1Jf49 ~ -0 '0 (j- -,15-£, .:.,('()Jc.~ 1-----.)'l?M~ &aeMtRLJ ~-::I · P-</ _~9_,_· 1 '1-'--L-A=~-==-~-"'k=-M,=r-;?~'-'----:~;;,c--;..-- 5'iJ-Y ~ b~~~') P~~--L.._-_3_~_Lf-,___2.=-=o:o-8_o_~,,___=--=-LD_'-__,,_C"'"""o..o.::~--:;__.· --~~- 3 t4 9.u..oo--.... ~o ... ,id, D Cl~ Po . Ra ~ ic) G;, S: ~ 3'10 31( ;11. J1~ 311 "3 1") 31v J./o o ,Z -?dr-/ 13::r;<~ C( 6 Lf P I ?._ -J -i GLM-C /)zr&y_) qrz-L--~~~:::'.:::::::::::::c=--~-~')._.-~~~,~~-1t-~~~~?~sL_L/~l ~~~:2__~~~~N~o~~c-L-~~1~ESL._ ljo3 J/tJ'-/ 'lo '/Of, ~D~ L·~~~~~~~-f)(...J.il.2+-Q-1---L~~:..:__!_-+~~~~~~~ c2~ . TO THE COMMISS I ONERS OF GARF I ELD COUNTY We, ·the undersign ed , h ere by p e titi o n th~tL the Garfte ld County Commis s ioners deny the n.ppli catj_on b y /\!ciphalt Pavj_ng Compa n y for a gravel extraction o p er ation on land situated next to the Colorado Ri ver just west of County Road 311, south of Silt; Garfield County, Colorado . No. Name-Signature Date Resident's Address Register Voter YES-NO ~' ;,, ~CV'-0/1 a.Ad ~ _2_-1-/ =---' '1.:..____,,8="----'l -=-O--=-~'--'-'' 0~~.---\'-=e.~s ~ ~ 1-Juz __ q_._.zt'--'-l-=/,£//~it?~· ~g113'--·_:;_b=--_·__._Yti=-fi8+- -1a<lltm~'&,..L-4r ~r...:.L~~"--'-__,_?j,.___·--------'--l;Z/;'& _ _L_f&_.__71 -~'-------~-~-~'--------~~ TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY W~, the undersigned, hereby petition that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a gravel extraction operation on land situated next to the Colorado River just west of County Road 311, south of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name-Signature Date Resident's Address Register Voter YES-NO ·o 111 ~Ii- 11 7J q,~ L/15 '/Ji ~/':1- '// r '-/11 'f 2,b 1~1 ~')..Z.. t/z3 1,,1 '/25 1-/ztt t/-Z1- '{21 121 i/~() Lf.Jt LJ1 l-- 11 ~ '-/3" tf3'5 . . TQ THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We ,· the undersign e d, h e reby petition t hat the Gar f ield County Comm i s sioners d e ny the application by As phalt Pavin g Company for a gr a ve l extr ac ti o n operation on l and situat e d ne xt to the Colorado Riv e r jus t wes t of County Road 311, south of Sil t , Garfield Co unty, Colorado . Date Res ide nt's Address Re gister .dJ ~ 7 /rFY ~tJX J y c.72--NC / 9'//r/h 1J A"oVoter // //' 0 . ' YES-NO ~-\ ---~l! ~~3 l) '(\ c.. ~ T. s ~Ll.d..AA.4,-.. _..__.._..........,~----------c-J=--!~£~· ~-i_.Y 0£-i.J.sl rPr<f(nt~ £J..2 16 · ·~-\ s · l>Y 'S osq 1 \,l). \\w'J Ci 1t "d \.\ 7 J. -1 b -g t ±J..o w, Htrn:R aw J1 1 .,)-l b '6'--/ i :<-/]-~~ I 2 -11 -%1 q4o d. B dJ W Y 8d s · lfft o SL/? $e c2 vu9t 0~ ~ 0 THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY: e, the undersigned, hereby i petition that the Garfield aunty Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a gravel extraction operation on land situated next to the Colorado River just west of County Road _ _ _ 311_, ____?~uth _of_ ~-i l_ t ,_ -~?_r!i _~_l d --~ou~~t,_ ~o l_ora~o. ____________ -· _ _ _ _ _ -------+------------------------------------- -------- --------------- ·-----------·----------------- -~ -··---t---------------- ------+--------------· -~ ---------------- ---·--· ------------------ --------------- ~e , the undersigned , hereby petition that the Garfield County Cornmiss.ioners_d_enJ:_the ap_1)lic..ation b.J'._J-1.S_nhal:t .taY.i.ng~pany _ for a gravel extraction operation on land situated next to the Colorado River just west of County hoad 3 11, south of ~ilt , """G a:ff .• eTd Co u nty , COloradO.----- - - - - --- 1--------- -------------~---~---~----------~ ---------- --------- . ------------------- -___ _, _____ _ TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUN TY We , the unde r s i g n e d, h e reby petition t h at the Ga r f ield Co un ty Co mmi ssion e rs d e n y the a pplication by Asphalt Pavi n g Com pan y for a grave l extraction operation o n l a nd s i tuated ne xt to the Colorad o Ri ver just west of Co un ty Road 31 1, sout h of Sil t, Gar fie ld Co un ty , Colo r a do. No . Name-Signature Dat e Res ident's Addr ess Register Voter YES-NO --/-J=-SL!.!..-~~~-=-----___..a-,~+----6'-~----C't11C _jd ?:£C <11( d) l/J Q rYJC. &o x aY .? 1 . c .. (YlC J. ')"':>K J Q ~'O\ 3t:L'D Cw."'\u.?-0 \ \'-\-«'> ~)< /'// ;i:(./ (0 &COe. 1.fd~ /-(1"1 s· lf~ot <:::o/o ft(;!! q u.J1!d Turke1.../ {..r). (,Hie. ±on &ID. /J(). !la TO THE COMM I SS I ONER S OF GARFI ELD COUN TY We ,· t h e undersign e d , h ereby pet i t i o n th at t h e Garfiel d Co unt y Co mm ission ers d e n y t h e a pp l i cat ion b y As ph a lt Pavin g Co mpan y fo r a grav e l ext r action o p erat io n o n l a nd s i t u a t ed next to t he Co l o r a d c Rive r jus t west of Co u n ty Roa d 3 11, so uth of Silt, Ga r f i e ld Co u n ty , Co l o r a d o . No . Name -S i g n a tu re Da t e Res id e nt's Ad d r ess Reg i s t e r Vo t e r 4~~ ~ b; l t~i1r--~---=-~'°--'-='f:;:+.-1_,,_,__~-+-l---'-'~=...L....· :'---::Vi~(~=---§&_:er_rE_ES--N'!~ '-f 1 Y 11/ V\.JVWff fl~~ Za ) /Y''/ 8<16 5 5 f ~V' lftS ~ IJ:--,;M~uh(_ d2-;<_7 N C/c2!S J-1 , 1Vf) e--Gl/4't{ {. ~ Yes tfT{p /9, ~ 1-2-1 <{ o ~ S 1 /~ C-< ~~.J LJr=t ~ "~ -=-./.z1,U,f 3;2./o ~Cl7 fi-,5 Fes ~r1 ~-=---__._Ffi[lill(A fl::µ:;<·P/fl:j.IL.-f:.:::...___--=:;J'-1-/-=2 ;._:_,1 f--.J/ Q"'--L<...__f ___ C=..itl-!-'oi~c ~B""-'ac~,, __,:._T\c.-· --''t'----"-Ye~s I.ft~ ~ ~, 1 fl1/ 1 ~4 r.o, &,.: IH. 'I f S L1 f() ~ J.. ~/ ~ ..___ -2 -.t/-3¥ ,i'/63 1-fQJJ»ll}Mfi!K.. 1!G . .s) 1 ics -q~I Jt...T~ CJ) 1,;Jrf>,,,,, /P,{;zr (~,1-hof 110 ~12 4& L f - L/13 tRfal kl./ /!o , 8o)( Ct/ f e¥ W?4, '-1~4 7-/Z ' /81 ~ CcyfeL v\. C~Le_ q~ ~CJ6() ?~~';,..___ L . C-t. fo . q1i 0 gJ 11~-'~ LJ<R-cru s L . e) ,.- Lf <f 1 k--l ~ c...-l a---\'\UAu..-J._ / tt I /q ~ (#1 c 8 er;>< l o 7 O.S c1J /JI 0 JJ<ii 7-0"1 S/'"'/rf n .. «,, C1"lc !f0 ,r ~;~J G~ CO . /(/ci .., 7 2-2./ . ~lj lff f} q q~~ yq q :_~) ')Do t.(- 50 1 ~ ')u?. ~ S-o 3 1 '10 y q, TO THE cmtMI SSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We , the undersign ed, h e reby p et ition that the Garfield Cou nty Commissioners deny t h e application by As phalt Pavin g Company for a grave l ex traction operation on l a nd situated n ext to th e Colorado Rive r just wes t of County Ro a d 3 11, so uth o f Silt; Garfield Co unty, Colorado. No . Name -Signat ure Date Reside n t's Addr ess Regist e r Vot er YES-NO 507 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\:-~~.J-1--~.,)0\-~~~~._\-- 50~ /o -14JJ-:J9di+~,__µ_,~~~----\-!C:-H~~--U~~-L!..:.Jl.1-'D----/Ar~~(;fa_ ~~ ~~~====.,~~~~~~-=::_;.~~=----~~~~~&:__..:::::£2:.~~·~ 5oCO 11 I/· ~~ 510 ~/J SI~ SJ "3 .s 1l{- s1~ S/t., 4Sl:r :,1-s s l't ,;lb 5=2.r 5:?2- ?~3 ~24 ~;{c:; .t)~ ')2.7 «) '2~ ?2<1 536 .,.~, TO THE COMMISSION ERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We , the unders i g n ed, hereby p etit ion t h at the Garfield County Commi ss ion ers deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company for a gravel ex traction operation on land situated n ext to the Colorado Riv er just west of County Road 311, south of Sil t; Garfield County, Colorado. No . Nam 0 -Si g nature Date Resident's Address \ TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We, the undersigned, h ereby petit ion that the Garfield County Commissioners deny th e application by Asphalt Paving Company for a gravel extraction operation on land situated next to the Colorado Riv e r just west of County Road 311, so uth of Silt; Garfield County, Colorado. No. Name-Si g nature Date 1'-J..o - Resident's Address Register Voter YES-NO 73tl '535 S-3f.t S371 · S3i '$31 ;s<fb } . "O THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIEL J coUNTY I We, the undersigned, hereby peti ion that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the applicati n by Asphalt Paving Company for a gravel extraction operatio* on land situated next to the Colorado River just we st of Coun 1y Road 311, south of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. I No. Nam e -Signature Date ------------- .. 9/LI ~l/f 5'f~ 5111' 1~'( rqq SS'o S'i ( ~2 {S°' ~ti SS<> sSv ~ ~ ~ ~() ~"'' I } TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD CO UNTY .. We, the unde r s ign e d, hereby petition that t h e Garfield Co unty Commi ss ioners d e ny t h e a ppl icat i o n b y As phalt Pavin g Company for a grave l e xtra c tion operatio n o n land sit u a t e d n ext t o th e Colorado Riv e r ju st west of Co un ty Road 3 11 , sou t h of S ilt, Garfield Cou n ty, Colorado . No . Nam e -Signatu re I , Date Res id e nt's Addre ss Reg ister Vot e r YES -NO _.ic;__,.._~-J,G..-'--l.-.>.:.::.~.:.-:..-=~-------'--+--'~~---=-'t!---'"'---'---=--+---. 1f e ¥ )~l.m~-LL!,Cµ~~~~~~~---Cf-~Ll.L.J~---1--~__c::_J~=::_:=-~~~-+~+~~lh~ I I J j ' 5 t: ( <1<1 .J /)// d o 11· !/ () -. '' l. '/ TO T!IE COMM ISSI ONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We, th e un dersigned , hereby petition that the Garfield County Commiss i o n e r s d e n y the application by Asp halt Paving Compa ny for a grave l ext raction operat io n o n land si tuated next to the Colorado River ju s t we st of County Road 311, s outh of Si lt , Garf i e ld Cou n ty, Colorado . No. Nam e -Sign ature Dat e Re s ide nt's Addr ess Reg ister Voter ;)./ ;;2 1 / 8 Lf YES-NO l!oS t (Y) S)LT )E> ~-<'?ii-gl_\-\\OS. i'·M c.:-:,._ ,\ \-\) ~.::; ( 1 . I •, ,.,22. .. , 1'0 THE COMMISSIONERS OF GAHFIEL]) co u.~ J'Y We, th e undersig n e d, h ere by p e tiU o n Lha t til e Garfield Co unty Co mmi ss i o ne r s deny th e application by J\::;pllalt Paving Company for a g rav e l e xtra c ti o n op e rati o n o n l a nd s i tuated n e xt to t h e Co lorad o River ju s t wes t of Co unt y l\011 d :lll, s outh o r Silt, Ga rfi e ld Co unty, Co l o rado. No. Nam e -Signature na I,(' TO THE COM MISSIONER S OF GAHFIE LD COUNTY We, the undersigned, hereby pctiU011 LllaL Lhe Garfield County Commiss ioner s deny th e application by J\sphaJt Pavin g Company for a gra v e l extra c tion o p e ration on la11cl ~it uat ed next to tlle Colorado Riv e r jus t wes t of County l \o<t d '.l lJ, south o f Si lt, Ga rf je ld Co unty, Co lorado. No. Nam e-S ignature Da t. <~ ... ----------------------- -·-------···· ·--------·-------- --------- ---------- --·-·-· ---------------------- --------------------------------- TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNT Y We, the undersign e d, hereby p e tition t hat the Garfi e ld Coun~y Commissioners deny the application b y As ph a lt Paving Company for a grav e l extrac tion op e ration on land s ituat e d n e xt to th e , Colorado Rive r jus t we st of Count y Ro a d 3 11, south o f Silt , Garfi e ld County, Colorado. Da t e 5 -c}-1-cf<-( J-<-/-/1 Res ide n t 's Addre ~s ij.~J.ster JI ho l./:AullL 4ve-:Y/ Z::f f'tT'& e r YES-NO /.310 i5'alicued 0t I f is r r I ';j I t L/ /<!, <-) CJ <~ 3> /fl; e a r1-Jutzc ~ t{j tr ~( TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We, the undersigned, he reby petition that the Garfield County Commissioners deny th e application by As phalt Paving Company for a gravel extraction operation on land si tuated next to the Colorado Riv e r just west of County Road 311, so uth of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No. . . Date 1;iJ E r-&?~7t_,, ;u, t& 329E(L=L/ Rtf': ~ . ... TO 'l'HE COMMI SS IONER S OF GARF I ELD COUNTY We , the undersign ed, hereby petition that the Garfield County Comm issioners deny the application by Asphalt P~ving Company for a grave l e xtra ction opeJi·atio n on land sit u ate d next to the Co lor ado Rtver just west of Co un ty Road 311, south of Silt , Ga r f ield Co unty, Co l o rado. I No. Name-Signature Dat e 3 -13 -!j (f Reside nt 1 s Address Regist e r Voter YES-NO SILT \ v 0 0 .• ,. ' ·' If ) TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GAR F IELD CO UN TY We , the undersigned, he r e by p e tit ion th a t th e Gar f i e ld Coun t y Commiss i oners deny the appli cati o n by As phalt Pavin g Compan y for a gr a v e l extrac tion o p e r a tion o n land s itu a t e d n e xt t o the Co lorado River just wes t o f Coun ty Ho a d 311, s o uth o f S ilt, Ga rfield Coun t y, Colorado. No. Nam e -Signature Da t e Res ide nt's Addre ss Regist e r Voter YES-NO ~ -~ -,,,..~'-'='1-"""'\--'-.-Jd-'"1,~~-=-~~~~~~--'-'-----'<--J.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~if ~~~~~~-9-L"--L-L'-'A-,4-~~'::::J-=---~~-~g-.--L--~~~=0~/--LJ..tu..a.L~~~-'-'l.-~~~-~__:~~ g5___.;~.:_+-~'-'-';-,..:.U..~"""'-'-'\--~~~-=~3~~~~~~-_-<~~~-~~J.-~_IS_'_._j_lc?~R~V,,___li~1 ~~-i~v~C~1=s ~1 <_6_-~Y=c.>J.-S ~[, ---'-~ J -( 3 -~'( D<{ ))_ % ?2 . 6'!> Cb~Moot ~ E 5 .. . . ) TO 'l'HE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY We, the undersigned, hereby petition that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by As phalt Paving Company for a gl·ave 1 extract ion operation on land sit uat e d next to the Colorado Riv er just west of County Road 311, south of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado . No. Nam e -Signat ure .. \ \ \ Date Reside nt's Address Register Voter ~--/ ~;.u YES~No ·5 5,f '1//#;; ( ./(//-VpS- TO THE COM ~fI SSIONE R S OF GAHFIELD CO U'.'l 'l'Y We , the undersign e d, hereby p e tition Lllat Llie (;arfiel<.l County Com mis s io n e r s deny th e appl ica tion l)y As phalt Paving Co mpan y for a g rav e l extraction opc 1·atio11 o n land situated n ex t to tli e Co lorad o Hiv e r ju s t wes t of Co unty l \0:1d :n1, so uth of S i l.t, Garfjeld Co unty , Co l o rado. ) No. N:1111 e-:-Signa tun ~ Re s ident':~ Addr ess ----· ---------- ------------------- --------·---··-----------------,------ ------------------------- ----··------··---------·----- ------- ------____________ .. ----·----· Register Voter YES-NO Ye; I We, th~ unders:ignucl, lie1'()!Jy Jt.:Li ti on 1!1:t t tile l iarf j eld C oun t.~1 Comm i ss ioners d\!ll Y t.lw appiil·atju11 l>v .\s pl1:llL J>;l\·j11 1 ~ Corn pan y for a f!,l ·a vu.l lC:Xlt':L 1:t iu11 upl •1·at.io11 u 11 1:111<1 silualt!d r l!~XL t o ll 1t : Colo 1-.1d o Hi.\'l'l' jus t \\'l 's t. <>r Co 11n1~· 1;(J:1d :11 1, :-;outh Il l' ~ill, C arl'jcld Cou nt y, Col o rad t>. -----------------·· ·--·--··-------· ----· ·-- -----·---------------·------·-··---- ...... ·-··----·--·· -----· -···-------- \ ' ' TO THE cml ~II SS I ONEl1S OF G:\lU'IE L]) ~ ·.\T ,· \\'e , th e..: u11cle1·:s :i 1~11 L·d, lw1·c1Jy 1 1•Litirn1 11t:1l lit e <iar!"i t ~l cl Ccrnnt.y Cc1111in i s s i o n e rs lkn y t Ile ;;.pp Ii 1·a Li u 11 l 1v .\:.;p l 1:1 I L P a,· i_n 1 ~ <'0 111 p a 11 y r 0 r a I-'. ,. a \I c.: l l"' .\ L , . ; l '. l i ( 1 l l ()pl • 1 ·;ti i () ll \.) ll I ; I 11 cl s i I ll a t (:cl 1 l (: .\ 1. t () t.l ll' Co l orad o Hi\·v 1· .i t1 s t \\'1 '~;t c>f" Crn111t ,. l :c1:1d :l l 1 , s outh rif S i IL, Ci a1·!"ic.:lcl County, Cul u rad 1>. Ku. N :1111 1:-Sl g nat 111·\· . --. -------. ------·--. -----·. -------- ... -------·--------------------- ) ) TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COu1'lTY We, the undersigned, hereby petition that the Garfield County Commissioners deny the application by Asphalt Paving Company ) for a gravel extraction op e ration on l and situated next to the Colorado River just we st of County Road 311, south of Silt, Garfield County, Colorado. No . Name-Signature Date Re s ide nt's Address S:!I- ~~""""' ..1-=-=--....__ ___ 3_._z_c;.-=-~f:I_,___ __ 93f Pl1RJ< tW. R.!FLF . o.4ox-7~rb' ,}?es' .. . . / .E.Lilll!l.!i We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, do hereby approve of the granting of a special use ,pennit by the Garfield County Corrmissioners to Asphalt Paving Co. to operate a gravel operation, asphalt plant and concrete plant on a site approximately one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado. ¥2IJ.d.",L_-tf.&i<-:f:h.~\1".:::;';:f.c."--'-2.12.J_l,.~~~:a...i~<.... ......... q:...:~'--"~~3-1~-8y ~~~=ff~;G._--1:__~~:£....::!L..;""7E2::.E--"'~"""'~~,,.....--"~CJ.Lry f• J-1 y' ::,t;;U~-U...J, ~,-,,--...d:..U'.......s!Li:12....tl1i.:__,,~~~~~..d2'..L·J> y 'lz_.~~L:d:if:~'.l.--..<::Lll..if..!<-.LL05.'.';'t:_;~~~:.>L.L~t.o.L0~2.:-/.3 -$' y ~~~~~~~-.:2$.i!.J.!J.,._..J.-!d..._,;1;:,:L....-Jf:...:fii.'-.....L~"-'--'a.=-13-~f v...l,~'4f-tif-:t~r:.:i:<~:__....e_,~~fef~,..2.-~-1.,:t.µ.~,a,!'.Q..~~~~-./3-ty ';..~ L 'at, cl_, 3 · / 3 ·-~--y .Y'·-~·-1 • JJJ/ ->"<;:~:;Cj~..4W-T----'::~':"f--'-LL"'-'::?~--"'=...l."---...l.L.L-"'-+.7-} ·-t 1• t</. 5 zrc?KJ • f.f llllQ!! We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, do hereby approve of the granting of a special use pennit by the Garfield County Coninissioners to Asphalt Paving Co. to operate a gravel operation, asphalt plant and concrete plant on a site approximately one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado. ADDRESS '),J/ff; t'iS ·r -· I -./..' 5',;-- --· -Lv)'' , '1-;z_;z. -:0£ £-<::<-Pf 3 J-2-0-/ s-' ~ !'..f.l!.l!.!l.!i We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, do hereby approve of the granting of a special use permit by the Garfield County Co11111issioners to Asphalt Paving Co. to operate a gravel operation, asphalt plant and concrete plant on a site approximately one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado. NAME ADDRESS 0i cl.., \,1..,1'.,.,.,,,, \:,.,..,_ SC\ I ~ <.'c ro~:i£1a::/V 1~(/!~::,Pet' I 444.<ao ) d1As ~~ 313::2. Ge !Id :un AJ,.,, !(Cdd/c !'f31 &£;,., £b $.:U Co. (} DATE ~-\':i-8~ 3-/s-By J-/G< fY ~""-/.?-?' y tillll~li We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, do hereby approve of the granting of a special use permit by the Garfield County Conmissioners to Asphalt Paving Co. to operate a gravel operation, asphalt plant and concrete plant on a site approximately one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado, f.IllllQ.!i We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, do hereby approve of the granting of a special use pennit by the Garfield County Corrmissioners to Asphalt Paving Co. to operate a gravel operation, asphalt plant and concrete plant on a site approximately one-half mile. south of Silt, Colorado, ADDRESS DATE We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, do hereby approve of the granting of a special use pennit by the Garfield County Colllllissioners to Asphalt Paving Co. to operate a gravel operation, asphalt plant and concrete plant on a site approximately one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado. ADDRESS DATE -J_ !' , ,.c-~-::,:,.;.~,___,,,~=""""-~~-f..-·~~-1~-~-~-k&-"'~~·~·~5:__~--~-s2-:.-~'~7;._~ f___.~"""'-"""'-,f,'t'-"""'-4---,-----'ft:!"-..·,,_, _,/_"",.'-'-, ,..jJ,_,j,"',O'-"e«O:.:j L,,,;Li "-?,_,_, ~), ___ _:Jc__-,L/-<.,2 __ ... "· l' !·r,. ~-, .,,I/ . ~ l . _/ l .-"'-)" _; .. ~ ,__, ~ ..... -' . j-~ -:; -12 /' ( , , ,'; I 7 /,, /;.,, ' 3 (3-~1( -01{/,,7 '.:l"/.g/.f'( .1/r >IJ-4- 5/j?:/ 3, t?:i-8'{ .:/-1;, ii-I f.fllllQ.!i We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, do hereby approve of the granting of a special use pennit by the Garfield County Conmissioners to Asphalt Paving Co. to operate a gravel operation, asphalt plant and concrete plant on a site approximately one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado. NAME ADDRESS DATE fl71il_ ~"<L ca~'c} ??tk "?Jc/,,_,,,_,,,6]r 1 r1-5':r Q,<,1k ~A:?:klnce'.Ob, 1-1?1 t) /-1.uAy' 8'"-GL•v 51'<1 3-/J-Jf ~~tM, "~:;~ ~';~ _'/ .J11ML" @//,,,-,,, 1·c 'I(:' j_,, ... _,, (· / ,' t '" c ';, -=c·:;/ ')J:l&~ 11/.;.&; ~~")··;ti S-/3-.s4 tt~ ~ cs. :2, --'i -"'"-/ \,_c!l~f'L"=:.:::..-"'--'CL:+.!f-f'~LJ.._;~-Li.'.L;"--,C,...,Ll<2:LJ..CLD~LJJ..:,__z:;_2.::--.L:s;Ll?~O :5_7_0_~-~ :A J iv SL Y.l -F ?0~ rtr 11;;;;::;,,,.~~:=::::;~====--~~~l!'!.y__;_~~£.a...,_L.£.~~~~~~~~.27-,,;y,.?v 3" -y !:IllllQ!:!. We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, do hereby approve of the granting of a special use permit by the Garfield County Conmissioners to Asphalt Paving Co. to operate a gravel operation, asphalt plant and concrete plant on a site approximately one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado. NAME ADDRESS DATE / (". (r n,.yc,\ >:i~,-1 _C;!v 310 6 ~-, _ (, -1- ' ' . /. ·-i ·. :'. , / .:r I J. _, I , . ' . . -~ . "' -._, ). ' j/-~ -~-··· -/ ·,t' ~ .'' ,, -~-, . / ' ' -' .•· - "· ; Iv )• '_;:,'/ 1_. .'. . "-, . ,-'- i I, .,;. I ~J \ -~. 3 -'.;1.\ 3 7-';Jj I We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, do hereby approve of the granting of a special use pennit by the Garfield County Corrmissioners to Asphalt Paving Co. to operate a gravel operation, asphalt plant and concrete /.· plant on a site approximately one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado, NAME ADDRESS DATE !• --:;il;;&d=..,~-1=-"-"".d:~~~~~~~~""'--~oµ,.~>.l___-~-11~ ~~~~~)j;:_~~~~~,,)_f-11~2-r-ff-~~~¥! Bl b" 1 _S,-,Q.f~ 3 -pp-?:_; -r-"-"9'9'~~:..=~~~~~~Z-,L--L:=c::;;...:=-.:.:::.::::.=::~~..e52~-£"C/ ~~~~~=-=--__d?_~~~~~'#%2t-~~~] ~~~~----Z.Q:.~4L!:J£.!:!.£.L..J.._£ij~~i:J-Yf ~~==--r,Q..:._tf1.~z__..:~~~~:;u._,~'.'.'.:1,;~-=cL:S~~Sz2/?:/ . ·, f.IllllQ.!i We, the undersigned residents of Garfield County, do hereby approve of the granting of a special use pennit by the Garfield County Colllllissioners to Asphalt Paving Co. to operate a gravel operation, asphalt plant and concrete plant on a site approximately one-half mile south of Silt, Colorado. NAME ADDRESS DATE _,/! 4,,, ,6 . ~ -h~/x?J ~~~; j~(--C:.olo 3-Z..t,,·'b~ - EXHIBJ ~ ST A TI Of COLOR.ADO ...... €"""' County ol C1.1J1eld At a ••••••••.••.•••• r.e,gular ............................. rntttin9 of thr &;ud of Coun1y Com.m.iuionnl for G.MfV:lt'Cc;>uniy, Col.or-11110, )lr\d al I.hr Cowl Houu in Glenwood Sprin91 on ........•.....•••. _ ......... Jionda.y ................................ , Ult: ...• 2/J.C:.1.---·-·············'ll:Y of ......... -J1ay ................. A. D.19.B2 ....... , t.ho:a wo::rr pieM:nl: ........ .F.lav.en .. J.A .... .C.e.ris.e. ............................... , Coi:n.=i.t..dono::r Clair~ ........ .E.ugen.e ... Dr:inkhaUSIL .......................... , CommWioni:r ........ Lar:r:Y. .... V.e.lasq.ue.z ... _ ............................ , commU.Don~ ........ .E.ar.l. ... Rb.o.de.s ................................................ , coun1y A11ornry ........ L.e.anne .... Gl.e.l.an.d •.... De;p.ur:y ............. ' Cl~k of"" !lo~d RESOLUTION t82-118 RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIP.L USE PERMIT BY ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY. WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by the Asphalt Paving Comp-any for a special use permit for extraction and processing of natural resources, specifically, open pit sand and gravel mine, and asphalt and concrete batch plants, in accordance with §9.03 of the Garfie]d County Zoning Resolution, on the following described tract of )and: SE~ of the NE~ of Section 10; NE~ of the NW~, and the SW~ of the SE~ of Section 10; E~ of the SW~ of Section ] 0, Tp 6 South, Range 92 \~est of the Sixth Principal Meridian.in Garfield County, Colorado; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Co]orado, has reviewed the application and impact statements subn-1i tted bY the applicant and received the recommendations of the G~rfield County Planning Commission, as authorized by §9.03.04 of the Gorfie)d County Zoning Resolution; i'i1HEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has conducted pub) ic h<?...arings duly advertised and held in accordance \l.'ith the requirements of §9.03.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution r0garding the guestion of whether the reguested special use permit sliou)d be granted or denied, and during such hearings received extensive testimony and other evidence from the applicant and interested parties; 3nd \\'HEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered said application and impact statement, the recommendation of the Garfield County Planning Commission, and the Garfield County Planning Department, and the testimony and other evidence presented at said public hearings, and based thereon, said Baord of County Corrunissioners t1creby make the following findings in respect to such applicatio~ to wit: 1. That all procedural and notice reguirements set forth in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution with respect to special use permit applications have been met, and this proceeding is properly before this Board; 2. That except as hereinafter noted, the application and impact statements are complete, and the applicant has paid the required fee in the sum of $500.00. 3. That in accordancP, 1 .iith aeneral princi_p1es of administra1 Jriw and §24-4-105{7), C.R.S. 1973, d.S amenoea, L11t 1.Juruen of proof is on the appl1cant Lo snow oy a preponderance of the evidence that its land use application is in compliance with the Garfield county Zoning Resolutic of 1978, as amended. 4. That the Board must, for the purpose of analyzing the subject application in accordance with the provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, establish the neighborhood which may be Df tected by the possible granting of the proposed special use permit, and further, the Board has determined that, except as otherwise noted herein, such neighborhood is the area of Garfield County, Colorado, within a one-half mile radius of the point on the south end of the bridge where county Road 311 crosses the Colorado River. 5. That the general character of the neighborhood of the tract proposed to be subject to the special use permit is Agricultural/ Residential, and includes areas incorporated into the Town of Silt. 6. That landowners adjacent to and in the area of the subject property and other citizens of Garfield County have indicated concern regarding the effect of the proposed gravel pit and associated operations on the agricultural and residential nature of the neighborhood, uuon the value of adjoining properties and other properties in the area anCJ its 1mpac1:. on L.ne 'l'own ot Silt. 7. That there is substantial evidence in the record of inadequate r_oad access from the proposed site of operations of the appJJcaJ11. to the Silt interchange on Interstate 70. At present the only existing access is by means of a one-lane bridge across the Colorado River on County Road 311. That bridge is restricted to vehicles weighing less than 15 tons, and all vehicles used to haul gravel from the. applicant 1 s proposed site, would exceed this weight limit. Further, that said bridge is inadequate to carry the 40-50 trucks per day which \..'ould be generated by the applicant's proposed use of the subject site. 8. That there is substantial evidence in the record that the pub)ic safety and general welfare would be harmea by the applicant•s !Jl-oposa), in regards to the Town of Silt's intake water facility. Said ~ater facility is immediately north and downstream of the proposed use. Substantial evidence has been presented to show the likelihood of harm to Lhe Silt facility, since the mining of ground water on the applicant's 1'rQQer.ty rriay lower the water level at the facility., and there is tne JJUSS1bility that the m1llJ.11y operation in itself or in conjunction with ~ flood on the Colorado River would cause a change in the course of the i·jve'" st.ream. The appl.lcant has failed to show that the concerns of ~h2 Tow11 of Silt in regards to its water facility could be addressed by n1t·.::>ns of atteiching conditions to the applicant 1 s land use permit. 9. That Section 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning H~solutiori of 1978, as amended, requires that the applicant conduct an)' industrial operations so as to minimize dust, smoke, and odor and a)) other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property. That there is substantial evidence in the record that th0 proposed use would generate objectionable levels of noise and dust. rurtl1er, the proposed use would be out of character with the other uses in the neighborhood and would be.unsightly. 10. That the site of the proposed use is adjace~t to a critical habitat for the endangered species of bald eagle, blue heron_, and canadian geese. That ~cct1on ~.Uj.07 of the Garfield County zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, reguireS that the applicant file an .lmpact statement which, among other things, requires that the applicant demonstrate that the proposed use will ''not have a significant adverse effect upon (c) wildlife .•• ''. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that by the imposition of conditions on the proposed land use permit that the harm to wildlife in the Colorado River corridor can be lessened to an acceptable degree. 11. That section 5.03.11 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, provides that a basis for denial of o soec.lal use permit application is the lack of physical separation in ~erms of distance from similar uses on the same or other lots. Tbat· substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that the impact of the number of 9ravel pit~ in the £en~ral area of the proposed.use· ~ould have an adve~se effect on the general welfare of Garfield County as <:i result of the iocrease in dust, noise, and visual pollution. ,. ,(· ):'· "/ r1~,:,2z.'. , ...,, f;i!J ~~ 12. That the Board of County Commissioners hereby finds ~hat deposits of commercial grade gravel is of importance to the general welfare of Garfield County and that there is a need tQ conserve valuable resources for fnt.ure generations. To the extent that the · county has recently permittcu a J;umber of Other ~its in the general areo so that commercial grade gravel is presently available, it is appropriate to deny the applicant's application. 13. That the Town of Silt is included within the defined neighborhood of the applic)nt's proposed use. The Town of Silt has strongly objected to the applicant's proposal, since the subject property is adjacent to the Town's boundary, and inconsistent with the town 1 s master plan. The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds that there js substantial evidence in the record that allowing the applicant's µreposed use, at this time, would be harmful to the present character of the Town of Silt and its orderly growth in the future. 14. That on J.1ay 11, 1981, the Garfield County Planning Commission adopted the Garfield County comprehensive plan of 1981, pursuant to ·§30-28-106, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, which plan is now the n1aster plan for Garfield County. That the proposed use of the subject property by the applicant is inconsistent with th~ master plan in the following respects: 1) Part one concerns "and policies, re: 1ndustrial, corrunercial activities objective six (page 12): Encourage industrial expansion where similar development already exists in appropriate areas; and objective seven (page 12): Encourage industrial development in areas where adequate transportation facilities and public utilities are available. 2) Part two, management di~icx--s, re: Silt urban area of lnfluence (page 59) provides in pertinent_, -~;:~(the Silt bridge has a l~-ton limit., and replacement of the bi'i.dge is necessary due to the )argc volume of traffic and services . ..D·~VelOµrnent which would place further traffic on this bridge shou)·d be required to contribute to its 1·<?"0) acement or approval withheld un'til the bridge can safely and Jd~quate ly accommodate additional traf fie." 3) Part one: Concerns and policies, re: Transportation (page 23) number 12 which provides "the County may deny aevelopment proposals on the l::Bsis of ... (2)inadeguate road access which will create an inadequate road with large daily traffic volumes.'' 4) Part two: Management diytrjcts, re: Silt urban area influence (page 58) which provide~·n ~:tinent part: "much of the areb surrounding Silt is agrarian. · aevelopment should minimize lmpacts on t.he agrarian character o the area." of 5) Part three: Performance standards, re: Compatibility (pages 89-94) which section sets forth criteria including ''adverse e~fects to the desirability of neighborhoods or the entire community, alteration of the basic character of adjacent land use, and impairment of the stability or value of adjacent or surrounding properties." Further; the plan speaks of noise, dust, odors, and visual unsightliness as, ''hazards to public health and safety,'' and ''nuisances to the surrounding community." 15. That based upon the ab~ve findings of fact, the Board of County Conunissioners find that the aoolicant has failed jn his burden of proof to show compliance \-':i..th the Garf.ield County Zoning Resolution and the Garfield Countv Comprehensive Plan, and further that there is substant1a1 evidence to support a denial of the land use request. 16. That there is substantial evidence in the record that the allowance of the ~reposed use will cause economic injury to other pro~erty owners in the neighborhood. -. NO~. !'tl.EREFORE, BE JT RESOLVED by the Board of County ·ommissioners for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, that the ;pecial use perrn:it_ application of Asphalt Paving Company for a gravel )it, concrete and A~phalt batch plant be and.hereby is denied. ht test: Vp<>D Cf_ DhTED 'l'lllS ~ day of May, 1982 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Chairman i:notioo duly JXJ,c\e and uconded tbt fore"9oill~ Ru.o\utioD y1a,s; adopttd by tho: follo....ui, vote: ......... ..fl. av.en __ J .. _.C.e r.i s e. .. ·--····-··-····--··························-····· Ar• · .......... J;.uge.ne .... Di::inkhous.e ....... --·······················-·······--···-··Ar• J . .o.i::ry .... Ve.lasq.ue.z. ..................... -..... ·····················--···-··A>• ST/'. TI OF COW RADO Cousuy of G..i-l>e\d 1, ..... .......••.....•..........•......... -...... , County Ou}< and ~-officio ClCO"'J. or tht :Board of Counry Conu:ni..uionen in and fDr thr Coun1y .. ~ Suitt ilfoauld tb Lmeby c-r::rtily th.al the annhed Vld fm~oin9 C>Jder U truly copied hom tht Rtcordi ol the f'1o~~d.wq> o! tht f;.ovO of County Co=iu:.onco lo: u>i: G&.<l1eld County, oow in my of1100. . th.u .. r'.>)' of. . ,A D. 19 ..... -rk ol \),, kucl o! Coun1y Co:-n.mi.u:ionen. ·---··o ~ .. -.... ~ .. -··<::> ~-...... _ w ·-- 014 :SJ.ake Ave lenwood Sprir:gs ~olorado S160J , .... K // Cour1tv Co1mnissi or;e1~s 2ID1 81.11 Street Glenwood Spri~gs, Colorado 91601 Dear Sirs1 In sprins of 19B2, the Garfield County Coi:imissioners refused to issue a special use permit for a gravel operation o;i property owned by Asphalt Pav in~ Co. '1'he rnain reasons for de:iial were1 1. Cumulative impact 2. Incompatability with nei;,.·hbors J. Opposition from ':[·own fo Silt and residentsof courity The Division of Wildlife was also concerned as to the effect of a gravel operation o~ the large 3lue ~eron and ~agle populations. As'it r.ow stands all tne reasons given for denial are still the same. rj·here still are too many gravel pi ts in a smell area, the neighborhood is still rural-agricultural in nature, a pit in this area contradictory to the Silt Comprehensive ?101;!, and 8lso the County ?lan. ·i'he IJ·own of Silt is also concerned cbout the ef·_rect of a ;ravel operation so close to their :"Jew water filtration plant. In 1982 we J1elped circulate a petition to show the commissioners a broad public oppositior: to d ;;ravel pit at this locatio:i. As I see it that petition is just as valid ior this special use permit as it was in 1982. '!'here is still a great deal of opposition to a pit so close to town and so close to other operations. Hhere do we draw the line:· I thought we drew it i::. 1982. (~Vlc~.e:r:e r:-+ ~£)~( ~ '\k --. . '-von~l~'" .~ ~ ifhi<3?,{ '\. OJ61 iload Jll Silt, Colorado 31652 '\?}~ r;:;:; \' ;:~) ~ ~m~ I •q,~ : I \( 1 1\ rEB ~ 1984 ~ ! !:...J_:.._.. ---·"- f.lc\:riELO c.::. PLAN~ER f-f Fla:1nint; and Zoning Co1n;1,1ss1on 2014 3lake Ave ~ J /- Glen\~'ond spri!~gs ..... o) orado 61601 £....... County Corrnoissi one rs 201 Bt_ri Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sirs, Once again the Gar:field County ? .:':: i and the Commissioners must make a decision concerning gravel operations on the Colorado River in Silt. This is a request for a special use permit to mine gravel by Asphalt Paving Co who tried to obtain a peroi t two years ago and failed. The County Cor.l~:iissioners denied the perni t for these reasons, a1nong others: 1. Cumulative ii.1pact to area(c!.~eeted by noise,dust,traffic,etc 2. Incompatabili ty v1i tL are:: \·(·1ich still ren18ir!s basically rural and agricultural 3. Oppositio;i froT11 the 'I·own of Silt because of the effect on their water intake system 4. Oooosition from residents(netition submitted carrying 800 names) - 5. Opposition fforn \'lildlife officials I have all the same concerns as two years age, the situation on the river f1as not changed and the reasons listed above for denial still apply. The request this time from Asphalt Paving is for a much smaller area to be mined, but my concern is1 if once the area is changed in use to allow for this small pit, what will be the sirtiuation when Ashal t Paving applys to expand (a_s did Frei t~ Sons)? The Commissioners felj:, in the Frei1 & Sons case, that they had no good reason to deny them "their expansion permit because the area was already in use by gravel operations. This could very well be Asphalt Paving's plan. And now we ,re back to the original question we posed two years ago of need, and of impact? Yet since then, lrei is now in full operation and have expanded greatly, only making need less of an issue. '~e don't r:eed any more gravel and related operations on the Colorado River. Please deny Asphalt Pavings request for a special use permit. As Larry Velasque stated at the ;.Jay 12, 1982 meeting to deny· Asphalt Pavings first request-he said he might in the future be less inclined to approve such permits, even if a need for gravel was demonstrated. "We have a responsibility to future generations to disallow anyone to come into the county and exhaust our resources." It could be, he said, that developers may have "to import some of the materials from other areas." I appreciate you taking lnto concideration my thoughts when you·mal~e your decision. Thank you. SinJerely, A.-' 1 ~'V-.-il--~-;"-) ''.'-._l{i._{_,C.7J,.__/ Susan Throm OJ61 :load Jll Silt, Colorado 81652 (Quotes taken frorn "'l'he ·rieekly i'lewspaper", J::ay 12, 1982) MEMBERS PRESENT: Dale Albertson, Acting Chairman Barbara Lorah Allen Bowles Dale McPherson Evelyn McKay John Tripp M COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Stranger, Director of the Department of Development Mark Bean, Sr. Planner Cynthia Houben, Planner Earl Rhodes, Cty Attny Steve Zwick, Asst. Cty Attorney Eleanor Haring, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. Roll call was taken with Laverne Starbuck and Arnold Mackley absent. The January 18, 1984 minutes were approved unanimously with one correction on page 4, correcting John Tripp 1 s name to Dale McPherson. These minutes will focus only on Asphalt Paving, item 7 on the Agenda. The preceding items will be logged at another time. Cynthia Houben read the Project Information and description of the proposal. Mr. Jeff Keller, the Project Manager for Asphalt Paving Company introduced Mr. Bill Keller, President of Asphalt Paving Company. Mr. Jeff Keller said that Ms. Houben gave an accurate review of what happened the last time this project came before the Board of County Commissioners. He noted that the land was purchased from Mr. & Mrs. Donald White who had a small farm and ranch operation. The Whites wanted to build a few homes on the land but were denied by the Commissioners as much of the land is in the 100 year flood plain. Since they could only obtain permission for a trailer home, they put the property up for sale and then it was purchased by Asphalt Paving. After denial in 1982, Asphalt Paving put it up for sale. According to Mr. Jeff Keller there has not been one showing of the property since it was listed. He said that since they have an investment in the land, they would like to do something with it. He noted that they would only utilize 8% of what they own and leave the rest leased with a tenant as is the current operation. The gravel operation would be on a limited scale and be used only on a job-to-job basis. It would offer an opportunity to be competitive. Mr. Jeff Keller then indicated on the map where the plant would be located on the higher ground with storage facilities and access to County Road 311. The mining will be in the pit. It would create about a six acre pond, not changing the land and when the time is up, it will all be revegetated. The only difference is that the pond will be a little larger than what exists. He said that in agreement with the Department of Wildlife, the pond would be contoured in an irregular pattern. Mr. Keller went on to touch upon some concerns: Dust -Asphalt Paving uses dust palliatives, however, this is a "wet" pit-;-and will be processed with moisture. They also will use spray bars. The asphalt plant and the crushers are permitted. The only one not permitted is the concrete plant and it is not set up yet. Truck Traffic -it will be regulated by a Stop Sign upon exit from the proPerEy, the new Silt bridge is now in use, north and south bound on Cty Road 311 will posted with proper warning signs. The amount of truck trips in the application were figured on a maximum amount. Noise -Asphalt Paving takes decibel readings for their own employees-WOrking on site so this should take care of the public concern .. Aesthetics -Because of the value of the Colorado River corridor, the trees on the land would provide a barrier besides leaving roosts for the species of birds in the area. The site would remain basically the same. SI Mr. Keller said they would work with the Division of Wildlife and also assist in studies on effect of wildlife in that area. In addition, he said the intent of the application was to be a compatible plan with the neighborhood, environment and the wildlife. He said there is a need for the pit as they had the opportunity to bid six Highway jobs but could not because of not having a facility. He added that if the Town of Silt had problems with the water, they would shut down immediately and help them determine the cause. There is also a timetable for completion in the application, namely, reclamation will be completed no longer then 12 months after the end of mining. He said that this a substantially different type of operation then was applied for before. Mr. Keller said he had checked the zoning in the area before purchasing the property and it is Agricultural/Industrial which encourages light uses in similar areas. The commissioners in the record said the area was Agricultural/Residential. He said he would like to know which it is as they based the purchase on A/I. Again, he stated that Asphalt Paving would work ~ith the Planning Department in regard to permits as they are here to cooperate and not cause trouble. Mr. Keller also noted that there are five other gravel pits in the area and he feels that his application is a good use for the piece of land. Asphalt Paving would hire locally, up to 40 or 50 employees, depending on the jobs that would be available. A few supervisory people would come from Asphalt Paving's home office. Gravel is valuable and, unfortunately, it shows up along the rivers, he said, but the Colorado River will not be drained because of a small pond. Asphalt Paving would like to do something with the land so that they can bid competitively in the County while being compatible with the County and the Town of Silt~ Mr. Bill Keller took the floor with a point about the water situation eluded to by the Town of Silt. He noted that the contractor that built the Silt bridge had to get into the water and dig the footings and also put a pier in the middle. Asphalt Paving has no intention of getting into the river as the closest point they would be to it is a 100 feet. It would be impossible to drain the Colorado River. Also, Mr. Bill Keller, said that it has been said that this operation was just a stepping stone to further development of the property but that is not the intent. If the County or Department of Wildlife does not like the way the operation is run on an intermittent basis there is opportunity to put a stop to it. Asphalt Paving feels that it will create a good working relationship and they would like to prove that they can come into the County with an operation to be proud of. Dale Albertson then turned the meeting to the audience for comments. Don Throm, an adjacent landowner, said there was no change since the last application. He referred to a quote by Larry Velasquez at that time in which he stated that he had real concerns about allowing more gravel pits in the area until there was study of the need and impact before granting a Special Use permit. Mr. Throm said that assessment had not been done as yet. He stated that Frei & Sons had a pile of gravel, and Corn Construction had not started up and there are enough gravel, batch plants in the area. Kevin McDevitt of Glenwood Springs took the floor stating that he served on the Board of Garfield County Citizens Association. He read a statement from that Association commenting on the Special Use permit by Asphalt Paving. In 1982, the association opposed the operation and there is no reason at this time to change that position. The Association asked for denial by the Planning Commission of the application. There is no evidence of a change in the neighborhood, the pattern of land use has not changed. The industrial use is incompatible with the agricultural/residental neighborhood. The Association is in support of the letters submitted by the residents of Silt, and also the Town of Silt's position regarding future growth. He referred to a letter from the Mr. William Erabladt, Colorado Division of Wildlife, in which he states that gravel mining probably represents the most significant adverse impact to wildlife along the river. It sometimes only becomes apparent after it has occured. Mr. McDevitt wanted to repeat the statements so that it would become underscored. The Citizens Association feels that there is not a demonstration of need for this type of operation at this time. There is also concern that granting of this application will open the door for further development of the site. Randy Corey, a Silt resident and a member of the Board of the Town of Silt, made personal comments stating that there was no need for this gravel pit. He is concerned about the noise, visual impact and the reclamation process. He said if a bad investment was made in the purchase of the land, the people of Silt and the surrounding areas should not have to pay for it. Judy Moffatt, Glenwood Springs, wanted to know the length of the haul road, means of water quality control, the 100 trips per day especially since the previous application for a larger operation had fewer trips per day, and would there more trips per day for hauling water for dust suppression. She also wanted to know what the decibel level would be for the different operations, for instance, portable diesel generators. She said, as a side note, the Comprehensive Plan for the county states that industrial development is encouraged where public utilities are available. In this case, evidently, they are not available since diesel generators have to be brought in. She questioned whether a decision on air quality should be made without Mr. Scott Miller's comments from the Department of Health. She said that asphalt plants smell and there is no avoiding that. Also, would the site be mined before the five year period with that amount of truck trips a day. Would there be large stock piles that are unsightly? Would they cause pollution? Was there flooding on the site last year in the high water? She also noted that the amount of property taxes paid for 1981 and 1982 by Asphalt Paving was $248.00 because the property is zoned agricultural. Ms. Moffatt asked the Kellers if they had talked to the Division of Wildlife about purchasing the property. In conclusion, she stated, that there were still questions about air quality, water and noise that had not been addressed. Susan Throm, an adjacent landowner, took the floor and stated that she had a petition with 800 names on it from the last hearing in 1982 that were opposed to the operation and she felt that if there were time she could get that many to sign again. Don Nesbit, resident of New Castle, reiterated that he had concerns about the environmental impacts but his concern chiefly that he wanted to purchase property (7 acres) adjacent to build a house and he felt that there is really no need for another pit, as there were four pits in the immediate area. Dale Albertson called on the applicants to answer Judy Moffatt's questions. Jeff Keller took the floor and replied that the length of the haul road was around 400 feet. Water control would be by an impregnable fabric that would not allow anything to infiltrate out and that fabric would be hauled out to a proper dump site so that the sediments will not contaminate the water or the soil. As for the 100 trips per day, faster production will control the length of time the pit is in operation and it would be exclusively Asphalt Paving trucks. Permits go with the equipment and when they are moved, a permit has to be obtained for the move. He said that there is about 300,000 to 350,000 tons of material in the six acres and according to the MRB requirements of 70,000 tons a years, the five year period was established. It would not exhaust itself faster than five years. He said they only stock pile enough for the job and then the crusher is off to another job. Mr. Keller said the taxes were correct even though the Assessor billed them as industrial irregardless of the fact that they did not get the permit in 1982, therefore the ground remained agricultural. Mr. Bill Keller filled in with answers that Mr. Jeff Keller did not get to. In regard to the noise decibel, they have worked with EMSHA and OSHA that test this type of equipment and have never been in violation. Portable diesel generators are more practical for intermittent jobs as to bringing in commerical utilities which is unaffordable for this type of operation. Ray Fender, Realtor, said he had the property listed and that he originally sold it to the Kellers. He said after the Kellers did not get the permit in 1982, they put it up for sale. He said he phoned all the people who opposed the application and that eveyone had an opportunity to buy the property. Dale Albertson then asked the staff to clear up the zoning. Ms. Houben replied that it is Agricultural/Industrial and it is not Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density. In 1982 one of the Commissioners findings was that the character of the neighborhood was Agricultural/Residential however that is not the zoning. Also, the proposed facilities are above the 100 year plain, she stated, and as far as flooding last year, she did not know. Dale McPherson then said that in 1982 he voted for the application and he would vote for it again and that Silt's fears are unfounded as far as water supply because of the reduction in the scale of operation. There was a great need for the operation in the County, in 1982. At that time it was hoped that it could be mined rapidly and turned over as recreational area. Things have changed. One favorable point is that there is now a bridge which would accommodate the traffic but we have no need. If this application is approved and the small area is mined then immediately it meets the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan ~1hich says expansion would be encouraged where similar development already exists. He went on to say that he felt this operation would grow. He said in the past very few applications for enlargements were denied and that this operation could go on for years. Then, he questioned , that sometime in the future when this island was completely mined and there was a large lake, could it go out in high water? That is a real concern. Mr. McPherson then asked the people who spoke in the audience if they ever considered a drive to purchase the land such as Parks Department, Divisior of Wildlife, etc ... this is the only way to preserve the island indefinitely. He then stated that he was not in favor of the proposal at this time. Evelyn McKay said she was in favor of what Dale McPherson said, and also that you cannot keep people from having reasonable use of their ground in the long run. She also agreed that there was no need for a gravel pit now. Dale Albertson then spoke saying that he agreed with Dale McPherson in some respects. If people wish to preserve the land, then they should purchase it as long as it is for sale. He further stated that since there were other gravel pits in the area, it is not out of character with the neighborhood and the nearest agricultural land is across the river with a nFor Salen sign on it for the past two years. He said to deny this application based on the agricultural land across the river that could sell tomorrow is not a good basis. He further said that in the case of the wildlife, by denying the owner the use of his property, it is a round-a-bout way of taking eminent domain, because it is the obvious and best use. Regarding the loss of opportunity to bid on at least 6 project~ by the applicants, he said, shows that there is a need. He said that the prior objections the County Commissioners had are not applicable now and that he saw no reason to deny the applicants. He said he voted for the application before and he intended to do the same at present. Barbara Lorah said she agreed with Dale McPherson, also that there were e lot of questions that still needed to be answered, such as air pollution, etc. According, she said that if 800 people signed a petition the last time that it spoke strongly of their views. She said she did not think that the application was appropriate at this time. John Tripp then spoke questioning the need for gravel in County. He said this application would not be incompatible as there are gravel pits all over the area. He would like a condition saying that this application be good for only five years and if it would come before the Planning Commission again then it could be denied. Allen Bowles said that if it will only be in operation for five years and the reclamation is adequate, the noise and odor controlled, wildlife accounted for, that he had no objection. Dale Albertson interspersed with the comment that the applicants have certainly tried to mitigate. Dale McPherson again stated that he had never seen an application come up for expansion of a gravel pit that had been denied and that he was fearful of this application. Suppose it was sold in the five year period? Could the next person be denied? Dale Albertson said the petition with the 000 names pertained to the previous application and that decisions cannot be based on a petition that applied in 1982. Barbara Lorah said her intent was to state that the people in the area did not support it. Dale McPherson said that with that many signatures some influence could be placed on State agencies to purchase the property. Evelyn McKay asked where the signatures were obtained? Mrs. Throm replied that they were all Garfield County with the exception of Carbondale. Mr. Bill Keller then reiterated that in the past two years no one was interested in the property for purchase and that is why they are back with the proposal. This plan is totally compatible and will be utilized on a job-to-job basis. They are also very open to the sale of the property if there is interest. Dale Albertson said he would entertain a motion. Dale McPherson made a motion to recommend to the Garfield County coramissioners denial of a Special Use Permit by Asphalt Paving based on the four Findings and the additional Findings of the Planning staff. Barbara Lorah seconded the motion. Before the vote, Dale McPherson said that the other pits are not in view of Silt and with another one there will be a lot more smog in the valley. Dale Albertson said that it appeared that incentive and initiative were being taken away from private enterprise and this is on a little scale of what is happening all around the country. Allen Bowles was appointed to vote in vote was as follows: Allen Bowles Dale McPherson Dale Albertson Barbara Lorah John Tripp the place of Arnold Mackley. NO YES NO YES NO The The motion is thereby lost. Steve Zwick advised, at this point, that another motion could be made. The chair entertained another motion for recommendation to the County Commissioners. John Tripp made the motion for approval of a Special Use permit for a mine and gravel operation and a concrete and asphalt batch plants on a job to job basis for a five year period with the following findings and conditions: 1. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters, and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 2. That the proposed Special Use permit application meets the requirements for section 5.03 of the Garfield County zoning regulations regarding Special Use permits for industrial operations. 3. The proposed land use will be compatible with existing land uses in the established neighborhood. 4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. COt!DITIONS 0!'._~PPROV~ 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval, unless noted otherwise. 2. That the permit shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance of the Special Use permit. 3. That all other required permits from state and federal agencies shall be submitted to the Planning division, Department of Development prior to the issuance of the Special Use permit. 4. Operations will be limited to the hours of 7 A.M. to 5 P.M., Monday through Friday with the exception of the maintenance of equipment on Saturdays. 5. Prior to moving any portable concrete and/or asphalt batch plants, copies of current Colorado Department of Health emissions and relocation. permits will be submitted to the Planning Division, Department of Development. Further, that each piece of equipment shall have been initially permitted after April 5, 1975, when the new State regulations were revised. 6. That upon verified allegations of a violation of the conditions of this Special Use permit received from the apprvpriate persons or agency, the Board shall investigate compliance with the conditions of approval as provided for in Section 9.01.06 of the Garfield county Zoning resolution of 1978, as amended. 7. The following conditions requested by the Division of Wildlife shall be met. 1. A 100' greenbelt should be left between the pit and the river and along both the north and south wetland channel. 2. The sediment pond should be located to the south of the north overflow channel so that it can discharge into the channel rather than directly into the river. 3. The pit shoreline and bottom should be irregular to enhance aquatic life forms. Peninsulas are desirable since they create additional edge. 4. Cottonwood trees should be retained around the perimeter of the pit (i.e. the greenbelt). Any cottonwood trees removed should be replaced on a 1:1 basis. 5. An area sloped at 5:1 and 150' in length should be left along the southwestern corner to create a mudflat for waterfowl and encourage growth of aquatic emergents. 6. Areas of intensive activity such as crusher, batch plant, etc., should be located away from the river. 7. No activity should occur on the western end of the island from March 1 to May 15 to prevent disruption of great blue heron nesting. (The need for this recommendation should be evaluated prior to any expansion of the subject proposal). 8. Disturbed areas should be revegetated with native shrubs and grasses. 8. In case of water quality being affected adversely, in the Town of Silt, the town will notify the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with Sec.9.01.06. of the Garfield County zoning regulations. The motion was seconded by Allen Bowles and the following vote was taken: Allen Bowles YES Dale McPherson NO Dale Albertson YES Barbara Lorah NO John Tripp YES Motion carried by a vote of three to two.