Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Resolution 83-170STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Garfield BOOK 631 5251 Recorded at ,q : 5B o'clock FA: JUL. 25 1993 Reception No.°.T[Q4 g4 MILQRED ALSPORF. RECQRD.€R At a regular meeting of the. Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held at the'.Conmissioners' Annex in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, on Monday , the 25th day of July , 1983, A.D., there were present: Eugene "Jim" Drinkhouse Larry Velasquez Eleven J. Cerise Earl Rhodes Stan Broome Mildred Aladorf , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , County Manager , County Clerk when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to wit: RESOLUTION NO. 83- 170 RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH TBE ::DFNIAL OF AN APPLICATION FORA SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY MID VALLEY PAVING, INC. WHEREAS, an application hasi been submitted by Mid Valley Paving, Inc., for a special use permit for Processing, storage or material handling of natural resources, specifically, the installation of permanent concrete and asphalt batch plants, in accordance with Section 9.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, on the following described tract of land: Government Lot 14, Section 25, ltwnship 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; WHEREAS,. the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has reviewed the application and impact statements submitted by the applicant, and received the reconmmendations of the Garfield County Planning Commission, as authorized by Section 9.03.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution; WHEPEAS, the Board of County Commissioners has conducted public hearings, duly advertised and held, in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.03.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, regarding the question of whether the requestedi spial use permit should be granted or denied, and during such hearings', received extensive testimony and other evidence from the applicant and interested parties; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered said application and impact statements, the recommendation of the Garfield County Planning Commission and the Garfield County Department of Development, and the testimony and other evidence presented at said public hearings, and based thereon, said Board of County Commissioners does hereby make the following findings in respect to such application, to wit: 1. That all procedural notice requirements, 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 Five Hundred Dollars and No/Cents ($500.00); 3. That in accordance with general principals of administrative law and Section 24-4-105(7), C.R.S. '73, as amended, the burden of proof is upon the applicant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it's land use application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; u 631 PAGE252 4. 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 affected 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 (1/2) mile radius of the Zemlock and Son, Inc. Gravel Fit, located at 0242 County Road 104, Garfield County, Carbondale, Colorado; 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 the Ranch at the Roaring Fork Planned Development; 6. That landowners, adjacent to and in the area of the subject property, and other citizens o* Garfield County, have indicated concern regarding the effects of the proposed concrete and asphalt batch plants and associated operations on the agricultural and residential nature of the neighborhood, upon the value of adjoining properties and other properties in the area, and its impact upon. the Ranch at the Roaring Fork Planned Development; 7. That there is substantial evidence in the record that the impact of the special use permit will be injurious to the established character of the neighborhood. Specifically, that the operation of the concrete and asphalt batch plants will have a cumulative impact upon residential properties within the neighborhood with regard to air and noise pollution, and have the potential for the creation of fumes, and other undesirable environmental effects and impacts beyond the boundaries of the property in which the use is to be located. There is wmpetent evidence in the record that the proposed use would generate objectionable levels of such undesirable environmental pollution, and that the proposed use would thereby be incompatible and detrimental to other uses in the- neighborhood. The proposed uses would 'substantially interfere with the existing uses of the adjoining property and other property in the neighborhood; 8. That there exists a_ lack of physical separation in terms of distance from. similar industrial uses on the same or other lots. This accumulation of industrial uses, which creates detrimental pollution of the environment, which is the cumulative effect that the proposed uses would have, in conjunction with the operation of the gravel extraction operation at the Zemlock/Blue Gravel Pit, is such as to have an impact which is injurious to the established residential character of the neighborhood and zone district; 9. That Section 5.3.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, requires the applicant to conduct all industrial operations in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor, and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property, where said uses are located, such that those impacts are not perceptible, or do not, in any substantial manner, interfere with the existing uses of adjoining properties. That there is competent evidence in the record that the proposed uses would generate objectionable levels of such environmental pollution with regard to adjoining property, and would substantially interfere with the existing uses of property in the neighborhood. The information supplied by the applicant is insufficient for the Board to find cumietent evidence that the proposed uses would meet the standards set forth in Section 5.3.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; 10. The City of Carbondale, in a letter dated June 17, 1983, signed by Davis Farrar, City Manager of the City of Carbondale, has found that the applicant's proposed use of the subject property for concrete and asphalt batch plants is generally incompatible with the adjacent and neighboring land uses, and has recommended that the Board of County Commissioners deny the applicants a special use permit for such operations; 11. That there is competent evidence in the record of inadequate road access from the proposed site of operations of the applicant to the interchange with State Highway a2. The applicant's proposal to remedy the access situation, in accordance with the phasing schedule set forth in their application, is inadequate to, protect the safety of the public upon the County Roads in the vicinity of the proposed special use; 2 Ii'. 631 PACE253 12. That, on May 11, 1984 the Garfield County Planning Commission adopted the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1981, pursuant to Section 30-28-106, C.R.S. '73, as amended, which plan is now the master plan for Garfield County. That the relevant elements of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1981 have been considered in evaluating the applicant's proposal for a special use permib, in accordance with the applicable Colorado law. The proposed site does - fall within the Carbondale urban area of influence, and the City of Carbondale has gone on record that said proposed industrial uses are incompatible !with the low density, low intensity uses existing in the area. The proposed use of the subject property by the applicant is inconsistent with tile master plan in the following respects: a. Part 1, Concerns and Policies, Re: Industrial, Commercial Activities, Objectives, requires j a heavy industrial development to meet all Federal, State and Local Standards for air and water quality, and requires industrial developments to use buffers between less intensive land uses. b. Part 2, Management Districts, Re: District A, Carbondale Urban Area of Influence. The City of Carbondale has found that the applicant's proposed uses .may have a detrimental impact upon City services, should the applicant seek to obtain water or other services necessary for the operation of the proposed special use. c. Part 1, Concerns and Policies, Re: Transportation, Page 23, No. 12, which provides: "The County may deny development proposals on the basis of...(2) inadequate road access, which will create an inadequate road with large, daily traffic volumes:." d. Part 3, Performance Standards, Re: Compatibility, Pages 89-94, which section sets forth criteria, including that the standards are intended to insure the compatibility of proposed land used and existing land uses. The purpose of which is to avoid '.potential problems with the creation of a public nuisance in adjacent or surrounding areas, adverse effects to the desirability of neighborhoods or: the entire community, alterations of basic character of adjacent uses, and the impairment of the stability or value of adjacent or surrounding properties. Any proposed land use may be deemed incompatible for the following reasons: i. Adversely affe',cting the desirability of the immediate neighborhood or the entire community; ii. Impairing the 'stability or value of existing adjacent properties; iii. Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent residences; design; iv. Showing a lacki of quality or function in site planning and v. Creating a public danger or nuisance to the surrounding areas; and vi. Altering the basic character of adjacent land areas or the entire community. Dust, odors and fumes shall be contained within the site generating such emissions, and shall not negatively effect any surrounding land use. Proposed land uses!, which may cause a noise disturbance or nuisance to adjacent or surrounding property, shall be prohibited, unless the noise disturbance can be effectively controlled within the proposed project site. 13. That, based upon the above findings of fact, the Board of County Commissioners finds that the applicant has failed, in his burden of proof, to show compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, and further, that there is substantial evidence in the record to support a denial of'.. the land use requested; and 14. That there is competent evidence in the record that the allowance of the proposed use will cause! economic injury to other property owners in the neighborhood. N3?, RmEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, that the special use permit application of Mid Valley Paving, Inc., with the consent of the property owners, Jean Blue and pee Blue, ''for the installation of permanent concrete and asphalt batch plants adjacent to the Zenlock and Son, Inc. Gravel Pit, 0242 County Road 104, Carbondale,. Colorado, on the property of Jean Blue and Dee Blue, be and hereby is denied. 3 s.,JK 631 ?4GE254 Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: Eugene "Jim" Drinkhouse , Aye Larry Velasquez , Aye , Aye Flaven J. Cerise ATTEST: gg qq �� // �e'AJ.Ll�+/ ittta A Clerk of the Board Commissioners BOARD OF COUNTY OF GARFIhLD COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Garfield ) ss. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing order is truly copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now inmyoffice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs,:; this _ day of , 1983, A.D. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. 4 July, 1983 - Page 65 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO indicated that the water rights would not change, with regard to Beaver Creek. Ted Anderson indicated that General Fund subsidizes the Water & Sewer Fundandhas for several years. Mr. Anderson could not give the board a balance figure inithe Systems Improvements Fund. After further discussion, the board agreed that the requested information had not been submitted, therefore no !decision was made. The discussion will be continued next week after 4 balance is known for the Systems Improvements Fund with some indication that the tape fees are going into this fund. The meeting was adjourned for lunch with the County Officials at 12:05 p.m. and reconvened. at 1:40.p.m. with all of the Commissioners present. The next item on the agendp. was a continued Public Hearing from June 20, 1983, for a Special Use! Permit to install concrete and asphalt batch plants, located north of Hwy. 82 off County Roads 103 & 104; applied for by Mid Valley Paving, Inc. Continuing with exhibits accepted at the last hearing, Cindy Houben, of the Planning Department,imarked the following exhibits: 1) Additional Information, regarding questions raised at the June 20, 1983, Public Hearing, 2) Letter from Scott Miller, of the Colorado Department of Health, 3) j Unsigned post card requesting denial, 4) Letter from Randy James requesting denial, 5) Photographs submitted by the applicant (5-1 through 5-22), 6) Photographs submitted by Roy Grice, 7) Photographs submitted by Mike Romanus, and 8) Petitions of denial (8-1 through 8-3). The Chairman accepted all of the above exhibits as evidence with the exception of exhibit 3, because it was unsigned. Cindy Houben presented additional information regarding the Mid -Valley Paving application, as req ested by the BOOS. 1) School Bus Schedule - The RE -1 School District indi4ated that the Carbondale school bus pick-up time on County Roads 103 & ;104 would be between 7:30 a.m. and 8:15 a.m. and drop-off tine would be !between 3:30 p.m. and 4:15 p.m., however more specific times will be obtained when the new school year begins. The applicant noted -that they were willing to provide flag people and would also not run their trucks during these times. 2) Hazardous Waste - According to the Dept. of iealth the sludge produced by the -scrubbers on the asphalt batch plant AS not considered hazardous or toxic. 3) Sludge and Water Discharge - The Colorado Dept. of Health stated that if there is no discharge from a settling pond, then no permit is required, however if there is discharge without{ a permit, the violation is considered a criminal offense. 4) Noise - The Colorado Dept. of Health indicated that there were different noise level regulations for industrial operation areas and residential areas. No studies have been done identifying the noise levels at the. Ranch at the Roaring Fork area based upon existing industrial activities on State Hwy. 82 traffic. It is unknown as to whether the potential noise level from Mid -Valley operations would impact the Ranch at the Roaring Fork by adding,'to the existing noise unless thereby exceeding the residential noise level standard. 5) Air and Odor - The Colorado Dept. of Health usually does Ipot review a plant for its ability to meet air quality standards until an application has been filed with the department. Upon request, Mid -Valley Paving, Inc. submitted the name of the one plant, which it still had the option to buy, to Scott Miller of the Dept. of Health. It was reviewed:with regard to air quality and he indicated that the plant probably cannot meet the present State performance air quality standard. With regard to odor, Mr. Miller indicated with the given equipment, odor was a potential problem. In addition to the above concerns there were several complaints regarding a temporary asphalt batch plant that was located in the Zemlock Gravel Pit. The staff invested the complaints and were able to detect the odor approximately 1/2 mile away due to the particular wind:conditions at that time. The Chairman then opened the hearing up to those opposed to the application. Clemmmins Kopf, of No Name, was sworn in. Mr. Kopf indicated that he at one tine was the Vice Chairman of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. He 'indicated that the Air Pollution Regulation and Control is very complex and without adequate data, he could not give any information concerning the; application. Mr. Kopf suggested that the board delay a decision until such time as the air quality permit has at least been applied for so that the adequate data is available. Milt Wright, of Carbondale, was sworn in by the Chairman. Mr. Wright indicated that he is the President and Chairman of the Board for the Ranch at the. Roaring Fork Home Owners Association. He spoke for himself and on behalf of the 300 memebers'of the association of which only one was not