HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportPROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
APPLICANT: Mid -Valley Paving, Inc.
REQUEST: Special Use Permit
OWNER: Jean M. Blue/Dee Blue
LOCATION: Section 25, Township 7 South, Range
88 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian. A parcel located just
north of State Highway 82, across
from the Ranch at the Roaring Fork
SITE DATA: The site is approximately 10 acres
in size.
WATER:
Hauled in by truck from the Town of
Carbondale and to be supplied by
the property owners' irrigation
ditch rights.
SEWER: Portable chemical toilets
ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: North: A/R/RD
South: PUD and A/R/RD
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD
ACCESS: Off State Highway 82 and County
Roads 103 and 104.
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The site falls within District A, Carbondale's Urban Area of Influence
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The site is on a bench located north of State
Highway 82 and north of the Ranch at Roaring Fork PUD. The Blue-Zemlock
gravel pit is adjacent to the east of the proposed site. The site is Lot
14 owned by Jean Blue.
B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to install permanent
concrete and asphalt batch plants. The applicants propose to use the
existing haul roads used by the Zemlock pit and County Roads Nos. 103 and
104. The application stated that the proposal will increase truck traffic
by an average of 10 trucks per day.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
A. Staff Comments:
1. Leonard Bowlby, the County Road Supervisor has noted that the
access roads (County Roads 103 and 104) are inadequate for
additional heavy truck traffic unless road improvements are made.
2. No evidence of legal access to the property over the existing
haul road was provided in the application.
3. The applicant did not address the hours and days of operation.
4. The application stated that the project could increase traffic by
an average of ten (10) trucks per day. This average was
determined by using a 300 day work year. Thus, the actual number
of trucks per day could be substantially greater during the heavy
construction months when projects requiring concrete and asphalt
are in operation.
5. The proposal is for an operation which would be totally separate
from the existing gravel pit operation. Therefore, an additional
principal use is being added to the property and requires the
creation of a separate parcel through the subdivision process.
6. The application did not include verfication of the property
owners' agreement or ability to serve water to the applicant.
fi
A.Ar
U
-t -7
IV. FINDINGS:
1. The hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that hearing.
2. That the proposed Special Use conforms to Section 5.03, Standards
Governing the Approval or Disapproval of a Petition for a Special Use, of
the Garfield County Zoning Resolutions.
3. That the proposed land use will be compatible with the existing
permitted land use in the area.
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed zoning is in
the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the Special Use Permit for the concrete and asphalt batch
plants with the following conditions:
1. All proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of
approval unless otherwise expressly stated below.
2. That prior to issuance of the subject Special Use Permit, the
applicant shall obtain and submit to the Garfield County Department of
Develoment/Planning Section, copies of it's permits from all other
governmental agencies.
3. That all needed road improvements determined by the County Road and
Bridge Supervisor shall be met prior the issuance of the Special Use
Permit.,
4. That hours of operation will be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.,
Monday through Friday.
5. That the permit shall be reviewed annually for compliance with the
conditions of approval.
6. That prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit, a separate
parcel shall be created for the batch plant operations, in accordance with
the requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
7. That access and water agreements shall be submitted to the Planning
Section prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit.
c4-. That the operation shall have no more than1,4 round t -truck trips
per day.
c f7
rJbu . r42
.gam-.
ir-Uc-1/44w/ Z«.-Cec I�
.o p
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
APPLICANT: Mid -Valley Paving, Inc.
REQUEST: Special Use Permit
OWNER: Jean M. Blue/Dee Blue
LOCATION: A parcel located just north of
State Highway 82, across from the
Ranch at the Roaring Fork
SITE DATA:
It is proposed to add a concrete
and asphalt batch plant to the
existing Zemlock/Blue gravel pit
RECOMMENDATION: Referral to the Planning Commission
PROJECT INE'''ORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
APPLICANT: Mid -Valley Paving, Inc.
REQUEST: Special Use Permit
OWNER: Jean M. Blue/Dee Blue
LOCATION: Section 25, Township 7 South, Range
88 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian. A parcel located just
north of State Highway 82, across
from the Ranch at the Roaring Fork
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEVER:
ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
ACCESS:
The proposed site is approximately
35 acres in size. The actual
project area is, however, proposed
to be one to two acres in size.
Hauled in by truck or to be
supplied by the property owners'
irrigation ditch rights.
Portable chemical toilets
A/R/RD
North: A/R/RD
South: P/D and A/R/RD
East: A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD
Off State Highway 82 and County
Roads 103 and 104 and by use of the
existing haul road across the Blue
property.
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The site falls within District A, Carbondale's Urban Area of Influence
The following statements are from the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
Urban Area of Influence policies, Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and
general policies:
(1) "Development which has the equivalent of an urban density or a land
use which is urban in nature shall be required to locate within District
A.
"
(2) "It shall be the responsibility of the developer to improve
inadequate roads or roads that will be inadequate as a result of the
traffic generated by the developer."
(3) "Encourage industrial expansion where similar development already
exists in appropriate areas, i.e. within or adjacent to platted industrial
parks, within designated industrial zones in existing towns, or adjacent
to existing similar development."
(4) "The County shall require all large scale industrial and commercial
development to mitigate any adverse impacts it may have on the County or
towns in proximity to the proposed development. Such actions may apply
to, but are not limited to, schools, health care, fire and police
protection, road conditions, traffic generated, and sewer and water
facilities."
(5) "Industrial development shall occur within designated areas within
existing municipalities or adjacent to existing appropriate industrial
areas."
(6) "The County shall require any development proposed with accesses for
a poor or inadequate road to improve that road to standards acceptable for
the proposed type and volume of traffic generaged by the developer and
other existing uses in the area."
(7) "The County may deny development proposals on the basis of: 1) Lack
of access to the site; 2) Inadequate road access which will create an
inadequate road with large daily truck volumes; or, 3) A road which which
is already at or above its design capacity and due to the terrain or
geology of the area, cannot be further improved to safely accommodate
additional daily traffic."
The following statements are taken from the Garfield County Comprehensive
Plan, Performance Standards:
(1) TRAF'F'IC -"Traffic generated by a development shall not exceed the
existing capacity of adjacent roads or identified critical intersection
that will serve the project. If the traffic generated negatively impacts
roads or intersections, the developer shall aid in alleviating the
negative impacts."
(2) COMPATIBILITY -"The proposed land uses shall be required to provide
adequate mitigation of potential impacts to ensure maximum capatibility
with all adjacent land uses."
(3) COMPATIBILITY - "An incompatible situation shall be solved before the
proposed development will be approved."
(a) "Proposed land uses with a more intensive land use rating than the
adjacent land uses shall reduce or alter all the more intensive uses
until that proposed use is compatible with the adjacent property to
the satisfaction of the County Commissioners."
(4) COMPATIBILITY - "Any proposed land use may be deemed incompatible for
the following reasons:
(a) Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate
neighborhood or the entire community.
(b) Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent properties.
(c) Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent
residents.
(d) Showing a lack of quality or function in site planning and
design.
(e) Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas.
(f) Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the entire
community."
(5) SMOKE, DUST, ODORS -
(a) "All new roads and parking areas shall be maintained in a
condition which will prevent dust generation."
(b) "Dust, odors and fumes shall be contained within the site
generating such emissions and shall not negatively affect any
surrounding land use. (EXCEPTION: Agricultural land uses shall
not have to comply with this performance standard.)"
(c) "Smoke emission shall be kept to a minimum within acceptable EPA
standards."
(6) NOISE - "Proposed land uses which may cause a noise disturbance or
nuisance to adjacent or surrounding properties shall be prohibited, unless
the noise disturbances can be effectively controlled within the proposed
project site."
(7) VISUAL UNSIGHTLINESS - "Land uses which may adversely affect the
property values or visual integrity of adjacent uses shall be
appropriately screened to provide a visual buffer. (Minimum four (4) foot
screening.)"
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The site is on a bench located north of State
Highway 82 and north of the Ranch at Roaring Fork PID. The Blue-Zemlock
gravel pit is adjacent to the east of the proposed site. The project is
proposed to be located to the north side of existing Government Lot #14 on
the Blue property. This area is currently used as agricultural land by
the land owner.
B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to install permanent
concrete and asphalt batch plants. The proposal is to use the existing
haul roads used by the Zemlock pit and County Road Nos. 103 & 104. The
proposal would increase traffic by 30 round truck trips per day. The
hours of operation would be from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday thru
Friday from May 1 to November 1. The operations would employ fourteen
(14) individuals, including truck drivers.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
A. Review Agency Comments:
1. City of Carbondale: A letter was received from the city manager
of Carbondale dated May 31, 1983 (See page 7 & 8 ). The City
Manager expressed concerns and made suggestions regarding the
condition of County Roads 103 and 104, noise, dust control and
odor, reclamation and bonding.
2. Representatives from the Ranch at Roaring Fork were present at
the Planning Commission meeting on June 1 opposing the proposed
Special Use Permit.
B. Staff Comments:
1. After review of the initial application submitted by Mid -Valley
Paving, the applicants were asked to submit additional
information addressing the issues of access, water source, number
of trucks per day, noise and air permits, length of the project
life (permanent or temporary) and the exact location of the
proposed project. A letter addressing these issues was received
from J.L. Soulsby, president of Mid -Valley Paving, Inc. (dated
May 23, 1983). Shortly after, an additional letter was submitted
at the request of the Planning staff, by the applicants attorney,
Rick Neiley, (dated May 26, 1983). This letter more fully
addressed the issues stated above. Another letter was requested
of the applicant concerning the landowners' desire and ability to
provide access and water to the proposed operation. This letter
was submitted the evening of June 1, 1983 at the Garfield County
Planning Commission meeting. Following the Planning Commission
meeting, the applicants were requested to submit a more detailed
and specific impact statement in a form consistent with the
information requested in Sections 5.03.07 and 5.03.08 of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution. This was submitted to the
Planning Division on June 10, 1983. (See impact statement, dated
June 9, 1983, pages 9 thru 12 . )
2. Leonard Bowlby, County Road Supervisor noted that the access
roads for the proposal are inadequate for additional heavy truck
t(affic. Mr. Bowiby's specific recommendations concerning the
roads were not presented at the June 1, 1983 Planning Commission
meeting. Since that time, a site survey of County Roads 103 and
104 has been completed by Mr. Bowlby. The following minimum
requirements for additional truck traffic on County Roads 103 and
104 were established at that time:
a. The applicants shall provide proper signage and striping for
both County Roads 103 and 104. (Ex: CAUTION: Heavy Truck
Traffic) The County Road and Bridge Department will place
the signs.
b. The applicants shall provide an additional 14 foot wide lane
at the intersection of County Roads 103 and State Highway 82
for the slower moving traffic to access Highway 82. The
length of this access lane will be determined by the Uniform
Traffic Manual requirements.
c. The applicants shall widen County Road 103 to a 28' width (2
fourteen foot lanes) with a 3" asphalt road base to be
provided for the entire 28 foot width.
d. The applicants shall widen the intersection of County Road
103 and 104 to sufficiently accommodate a right hand turn
off County Road 103 onto County Road 104 without requiring a
tractor trailer to cross the center line to make the turn.
-3-
The impact statement also states that "no ground vibration from
either operation would be noticeable within 50 yards of the
operation. No smoke is generated except from the four (4)
cylinder diesel and gasoline engines powering the asphalt plant
and generator for the concrete plant." The impact statement also
states that all emissions from the asphalt plant including dust
and exhaust, are filtered through a water scrubbing device.
Therefore, there should be no particulate matter discharge; steam
would be the only discharge emitted from the stack.
In reference to the concrete plant, a dust collector would be
required and installed. It is stated that this should eliminate
any impacts of the operation.
Dust from the haul road is addressed in the County Road
Supervisor's requirements.
It is further stated in the impact statement that the applicants
will comply with all applicable county, state and federal
regulations with respect to water, air and noise pollution. The
impact statement states that no public nuisance or hazard would
r be created by the operat
In regard to the odor, the impact statement states that the
prevailing winds are to the north in the direction of the
Carbondale landfill/garbage dump. It states that the only
emissions which would be generated would be steam from the
asphalt plant which does not contain hazardous materials or
noxious odors.
9. The impact statement indicates that any construction that might
be done on the site to create berms and/or access will be
re -graded to pre-existing conditions at such time as the use of
the project area is terminated by the applicant. Also regarding
concrete truck washouts, the impact statement states that the
trucks will wash out excess concrete into wooden frames which
would allow the concrete to be removed on a periodic basis to a
location off-site.
10. A small storage area will be needed for materials on-site. The
impact statement reads that it will be in a fence -enclosed
location so that there will be no impacts with respect to
visability.
11. The applicants state that a construction trailer along with a
self-contained chemical toilet will be needed on the site.
IV. FINDINGS:
1. The hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete,
that pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that hearing.
2. That the proposed Special Use conforms to Section 5.03, Standards
Governing the Approval or Disapproval of a Petition for a Special Use, of
the Garfield County Zoning Resolutions.
3. That the proposed land use will be compatible with the existing
permitted land use in the area.
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed zoning is in
the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
On June 1, 1983, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Special Use Permit for the concrete and asphalt batch plants with
conditions 1 - 9, as listed below. The staff recommends conditions 10
la as additional conditions of approval:
1. All proposals of the applicant shall be considered
approval unless otherwise expressly stated below.
2. That prior to issuance of the subject Special Use
applicant shall obtain and submit to the Garfield
Department of Develoment/Planning Section, copies
from all other governmental agencies.
-5-
conditions of
Permit, the
County
of it's permits
The applicant shall be required to improve the impacted county
roads to a standard acceptable to the Board of County
Commissioners and the County Road Supervisor prior to issuance of
,the Special Use Permit. The City of Carbondale's letter of May
'31, 1983 shall be taken into consideration in regard to the road
situation.
That hours of operation will be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00
P.M., Monday through Friday from May 1 to November 1.
5. That the Special Use Permit shall be issued for a five year
period and reviewed annually for compliance with the conditions
of approval.
6. That prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit, a separate
parcel shall be created for the batch plant operations, in
accordance with the requirements of the Garfield County
Subdivision Regulations.
7. That aecesse4c1 water agreements shall be submitted to the
Planning Division prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit.
8. That the operation shall have no more than 30 round trip truck
trips per day to transport asphalt, concrete, aggregate, water
and any other material needs of the operation.
9. That upon a verified allegation of a violation of this Resolution
received from the appropriate person 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.
10. That the existing road owned by the Blue's which accesses
directly onto State Highway 82 shall not be used under any
circumstances for the Mid -Valley operation.
11. That the applicant will post a bond for road construction and
maintenance as deemed appropriate by the Board and the County
Road Supervisor and that a phasing schedule for road improvements
be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Board of i. ,
Commissioners upon the recommendation of t
Supervisor._ op A-e�- �
12. Water u�sp R �I /` (n
lee /7
orb a
f ,'
/f)
-6-
GARFIELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
•PLANNING: 945-8212 / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 945-2339 / BUILDING: 945-8241
June 30, 1983
Scott Miller
Colorado Department of Health
125 North 8th
Grand Junction, CO 81501
ATTN: Scott Miller
RE: Asphalt Plant
Dear Scott:
Enclosed is a copy of the Mid -Valley Paving, Inc.
application to Garfield County for a permanent asphalt and
concrete batch plant operation. Also enclosed, are the name
and details concerning the one piece of equipment which
Mid -Valley still has the option to buy. (The other machines
have already been sold to other companies.)
Apparently, the plant in question is one which was
originally owned by the State of Colorado. It was then sold
to 44,,rparty who could not make the payments, so it has been
repossessed by a bank in Golden, Colorado. If you could make
some comments regarding this plant, it would be very helpful
to our planning staff in determining its actual affect on the
surrounding area. Primarily, we are interested in: 1) the
effeciency of the plant in terms of its pollution control
equipment - (History of the plant's record? Where has it
operated? Were there complaints? Why did the State sell it?);
2) The relationship of the plant and its proposed location
regarding odor - (General wind patterns of the area).
I realize these are difficult questions and cannot be
answered simply. However, any comments you can give us will
be greatly appreciated. Our next public hearing regarding the
Mid -Valley application will be July 18, 1983 at 1:30 P.M. If
you could be there to answer technical questions, we would
appreciate it. Also, I would appreciate it if you could have/
your comments to me prior to July 13. That would assist me in
incorporating them into our staff report for the public
hearing.
Once again, thank you for all your time and help in this
matter.
CMH/lw
Enc.
Sincerely,
Cynthia M. Houben
Planner
2014 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASPHALT BATCH PLANT WHICH MID -VALLEY, INC.
HAS AN OPTION TO BUY.
This plant is to be located north of Highway 82 directly
across from the Ranch at Roaring Fork Planned Unit
Development. (Approximately 1 1/2 to 2 miles east of the
intersection of Highway 82 and Highway 133.)
BARBER GREENE
Continuous Mix
Model 832 dryer
Model 840B
SERIAL # 832154 (dryer)
SERIAL # 840B237 (pug mill)
Wet scrubber
Heater and oil tank
Leonard Bowtby
Road Supervisor
July 18, 1983
GARFIELD COUNTY
ROAD AND BRIDGE
P.O. Box 1485
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Phone 945-6111
Cindy Houban
Department of Development
Garfield County
Dear Cindy:
° JUL. 919.83
Regarding the proposed asphalt batch plant by Mid Valley Paving,
Inc., our department would recommend the following improvements
to County Road 103:,
1. 3" asphalt mat 28 feet wide from State Highway 82 to the inter-
section with County Road 104. At least 11/2" mat as soon as
possible after they start up, the remaining 12" by November 1, 1983.
2. A 14' truck lane on the west side of County Road 103 for slow
truck traffic as it approaches State Highway 82.
3. Widen the intersection of County Roads 103 and 104 to allow
truck tractor traffic to make turns and stay in proper lanes.
4. Improve line of sight at the curve to the north of the Clifford
Cerise driveway.
5. Install proper heavy truck traffic signals.
Yours very truly,
Eugene Diaz
Assistant Road Supervisor
Garfield County
ED/pc
DATE:
T INE :
FILE:
RECORD OF CONVERSATION
COMMENTS:
O a
OUTGOING:
INCOMING:
CONTACT : )r- /$ Q n
J_ J/
.r
f80 do 46„t,,
02.0 0,/
0--1
FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED:
SIGNED:
ij\ c
.k: T'''
r
9
DATE;
TIME:
FILE:
RECORD OF CONVERSATION
9
COMMENTS:
>.OUTGOING :
ri 5:- 4+\5 INCOMING :
710,
CONTACT:
Li/
r
,721(: /4_ ,r,,}-(,) 9 CJ
FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED:
SIGNED:
DATE:
TIME:
FILE:
RECORD OF CONVERSATION
/0 • cz,)rzam
�- Va AA
? (2- r
COMNEN§ (1)? (CCCC"'
Jr5(e)&f 6./c)62tt_1- az)
OUTGOING:
INCOMING:
CONTACT « r)H /2( C
¢
1,,.
-FFR R ACTION REQILR- Dr
`id s_ 641 / "Z br
aMisteD
�. yam -
d70.
ald.o-&C-e .fiz.e
z: C,G1--
r
`u 1
`lb X -1/k.)
4:-1-1-6-1„--e- - : Old) ;d= )
F 7 s `,
f:i; zc,‹ c,, t'''.\' i
.'-› .,k
-i'
C a,' ,z
00 a • A )
1011
MID -VALLEY PAVING, INC.
Blacktop • Chipseal
Driveways • Parking Lots
Patchwork • Roads
June 20, 1983
Leonard Bowlby, County Road Supervisor
Garfield County Commissioners
Garfield County Court House
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Gentlemen:
In response to Leonard Bowlby's requirements for road improvements to
County Roads 103 and 104, tid-Valley Paving, Inc. would like to firstly,
state our opinion that the improvements are necessary and that they
should be completed for the safety of all involved, and secondly,
submit the following schedule of all improvements to be done.
1983 - 1. Signage.
2. 14' turn lane on Road 103 off of State Highway 82.
3. Widen the intersections of Roads 103 and 104.
4. Line of sight on the North side of Road 104, across from
Cliffals Cerise's property shall be improved to Leonard
Bowlby's specifications.
1984 - 1. Grading as required to widen County Road 103 to a 28'
driving width. The asphalt shoulders would be 2" in depth
to accommodate an even grade with existing pavement.
1985.- 1. Overlay Road 103 with 1 1/2" of asphalt on the existing
28" width from State Highway 82 to Road 104.
2. Stripe centerline and road edges as required.
The access haul road across the Blue Ranch will be kept graded and
dust retardants will be used to keep dust to a minimum. The expense
will be shared by Mid -Valley Paving, Inc. and Zemlock & Son Sand and
Gravel.
Leonard Bowlby has assured Eid-Valley Paving, Inc. that any improve-
ments on Roads 103 and 104 can be done within the existing 60' road
easement.
Thank you for your concern and time given this matter.
MID -VALLEY PAVING, INC.
J. L. Soulsby
President
P.O. Box 1148 • Basalt, Colorado 81621 • 927-3208
Garfield County Commissioners
P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Miriam Dee C. Pattison
1925 County Road 103
Carbondale, Colorado 816
July l)a, 1983
Re: Special Use Permit by Mid Valley Paving Inc.
Gentlemen:
SudEz
Vis,,
.1'.11_ -1"
'u HERS
On June 20, 1983 petitions against Mid Valley Paving Inc. being granted
a Special Use Permit to operate a Paving Batch Plant to be located on the
Jean Blue property just off of Road 10h, Carbondale were submitted. My signature
was the first one on the petition that had been left at Clarkts Minit Market,
0155 State Highway 133, Carbondale, Colorado. I wish to have my signature
stricken from that petition as I signed it in error. The error Itm fully
acknowledging as mine as I did not fully read the petition before signing
and had misunderstood that it was for the Special Use Permit being granted.
Further: I wish to state some of the reasons I am for the Special
Use Permit being granted and some of my personal observations about present
and past operations*
1. The jobs created by the proposed Paving Batch Plant wil], be
of economic value to the surrounding area.
2. I travel County Road 103 past the road 104 turn off, at least one
round trip daily and have never experienced any problem with the
traffic from road 104. So far all trucks have given me and I
have seen them give others the right-of-way. Also, for a period
around March, 1983 there was as much, if not more, truck traffic
on Road 103 north of the Road 104 turn off, to the extent I did
not realize there was any particular traffics involved with Road
104x..
3. Tonight I learned that there has been a temporary Paving Batch
Plant in operation at said location for approximately two weeks.
Now it seems that since my hone is located approximately one-quarter
to one-half mile in a straight line from the Batch Plant location
that at some time I would have noticed noise, smell or some type
of emition. I have not.
Very truly yours,
Miriam Dee C. Pattison
P1,„
MID -VALLEY PAVING ADPL f ( A'TION FOR ; I.)NC ]ISL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE ASPHALT AND
CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS -- PUBLIC HEAkING - GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS --
JULY 18, 1983
As a homeowner and board member at the Ranch at Roaring Fork, I am opposed to
the granting of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving for the operation of
asphalt and concrete batch plants. No one can object to a landowner benefiting
from judicious investment in property; however, when this individual benefit
results in a situation detrimental to adjacent landowners, objections must be
raised. Please keep in mind that granting of this permit would benefit only a
small number of people --- the Blues, Mid -Valley Paving (headquartered in Eagle
County) and their 14+ or so employees, some suppliers and, in a minor way, tax
collecting agencies. However, over 300 persons residing at the Ranch at Roaring
Fork and in adjacent areas believe we will be forced to endure undue hardships
and burdens if this permit is granted. I cite the following reasons:
1) Indications are homeowners would experience an immediate decline in the
desirability of their property and a resultant loss in the value of that
property. These effects on property would be an inevitable result of the
batch plants whether their impacts were mitigated or not. They would occur
due to another precedent having been set for the industrialization of the
neighborhood, making potential buyers wary indeed.
2) While the Commissioners would grant such a permit with many conditions
designed to protect us from air pollution, noise, odor and traffic dangers,
experience has shown that the enforcement agencies do not have personnel to
monitor these impacts. Thus a further burden would be placed on Ranch
residents and surrounding neighbors to somehow monitor negative impacts
themselves, report violations to the proper agency, and endure them while
awaiting action.
-2-
3)
2-
3) The Ranch at Roaring Fork is a very unique housing concept unlike any other
in the County. The housing is clustered to make less of an impact on the
environment, leaving over 360 acres of wilderness. Part of the land is still
using for cattle grazing and hay crops. The Ranch is a wildlife refuge, and
almost every bird in the Audubon checklist for this area has been identified
at the Ranch. It's reputation for sport fishing is nationally known. There
are recreational amenities for almost every interest. To further detract
from this unique concept, which should be used as a showplace within the
County, would be shameful.
Most residents of the Ranch are hard working, middle-class people. We are here
today fighting to protect a very special place and our quality of life. Yes,
most of us are "newcomers" but proud of the vital contribution we make to this
area -- we are approximately 300 workers/employers, buyers/sellers, taxpayers.
We want to see a viable, thriving economy in this County and see it attract clean
business and industry -- not become the dumping ground for all that is undesirable
elsewhere. And, yes, we do resent any prospect that will lessen our quality of
life and force us to make undue sacrifices for the benefit of a few. We believe
a mistake was made with the granting of the Zemlock gravel pit permit over a year
ago, especially when it appears that conditions imposed with that permit have
not been met. It would not be fair to compound the hardship placed on our
community simply because a gravel pit now exists nearby and offers a convenience
to someone for making asphalt and concrete.
The Commissioners have it within their power to deny issuance of this permit.
County zoning regulations state the following under Section 5.03.11 "Denial
of Special Use": "The County Commissioners may deny any request for special use
based on . . . any impact of the special use which it deems injurious to the
established character of the neighborhood or zone district in which such special
use is proposed to be located." Page 90 of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists
-3 -
six
-3 -
six reasons for deeming a proposed land use incompatible with existing land uses
not just one but at least five of the six reasons apply in this case. They are:
1) "Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate neighborhood or the
entire community", 2) "Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent
properties", 3) "Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent
residents", L) "Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas", and
5) "Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the entire community."
Therefore, I urge, plead, that the County Commissioners deny this permit
application, thereby putting a halt to the industrialization of our agricul-
tural/residential neighborhood.
Joan E. Acebo
0312 Stagecoach Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623
I would like to mention that the tax revenues would be minimal with
the corporate headquarters being located in Eagle County.
_ The applicant has proposed that there would be 14 jobs in the event
the special use permit is granted.
I would like to ask how many full time employees would be hired and
are they apt to come from Eagle County?
Are any of them independent contractors?
What is the projected payroll to be, including officer's salaries?
The limit of 30 truck trips per day will permit the plant to operate
at 20% capacity for only 6 months of the year which translates to
operating at just 10% of capacity on an annual basis.w=-tr i if
it's possible to operate a plant of this size with an investment of
this amount, the plants that are operating at 100% of capacity would
generate enormous profits and anyone would be making a grevious error
in not locating their plant in a location where it could operate at
or near full capacity. This is obviously not the case and it will
probably not show a profit at 10% of capacity. The point to all this
is: What are the alternatives if the plant loses money?
A.) Increase the number of daily trips
B.) Walk away and leave an ugly eyesore on a beautiful piece of
property.
C.) Continue to operate the plant at a substantial loss over the
years. A most unlikely event.
Because of the above mentioned possibility of corporate losses, we
are concerned that the promised road improvements may never be completed
Therefore, we beseech the commissioners to demand that the entire bond
for road improvements be posted up front and not in a manner which would
allow applicant to post bonds by phases.
Regarding devaluation of property, a^sale was apparently lost last
week, at least until this issue was decided. Unfortunately, the realtor
involved is out of town until later this week.
We are your constituency, not the people in Eagle County. We are people
you should listen to, not the people in Eagle County. Let them put
their damn plant in Eagle County.
MID -VALLEY PAVING, APPLICATION FOR ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PLANTS
PUBLIC HEARING, GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
G.C.C.A. has not taken a formal position either for or against the proposal.
We do, however, have several comments.
We feel that the County Commissioners have adequate grounds on which to deny
the asphalt and concrete plants if you choose to. The staff report cites six
reasons that can be relied on in deeming a proposed land use incompatible:
"1 Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate neighborhood or the
entire community.
2. Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent properties.
3.. Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent residents.
4. Showing a lack of quality of function in site planning and design.
5. Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas
6. Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the entire community."
We believe you could apply at least five of these six criteria to reject this
proposal.
We also wanted to remind you that the proposed use is not a use by right in
Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density zoning nor is it a conditional use. A special
use permit places the burden of proof on the applicant to convince you that he will cause
no significant adverse impacts to the surrounding landowners, the neighborhood, the
community.
You are not obligated to grant a special use permit unless you are so convinced.
In this case, you could easily in good conscience deem the proposal incompatible.
The number of residents who oppose it alone testify to its inconpatibilitiy.
It is Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density land, and it is surrounded by A/R/RD
land.
Garfield County policies, how you have historically interpreted the special use
permit, have left the county wide open for gravel pits and asphalt and concrete batch
plants.
Mid -Valley Paving
Page two
At risk of irritating you by mentioning our neighbor to the south, some of
these operations could be characterized as Pitkin County refugees. Pitkin County does
not welcome this type of development. And Garfield County assumes responsibility
for more than its fair share of it. We also seem to have more operations than
can be monitored to ensure that they have all the necessary state permits and to
enusre that they are meeting the conditions of their permits.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
4 �
Lo u,`5Q ivo.i ?s
Judy Moffatt
Garfield County Citizens Association
901 Blake Ave.
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
kN
NT
1
3 � �
1 k
1
1
`,L
1'i'
Nki
jr
sN
1 J 4‘ i A j4
ic i - )1 ''
‘k V A IA
1 i :I 1
Di, 1
,,i ,t & ' ,z , \i,4 , ,k t .i \t i-) i 1t ,_. .,s.\ s-4 .-'- ', % 1 i +1iN tN 'sZ& t Ok,-k Q) k 1
V
May 31, 1983
Ms. Cindy Houben
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Cindy:
;p
MY§ 1J$3
I have reviewed the Mid -Valley Paving application and have the following
comments on the proposal:
76 So. and
1. The hours of operation should be restricted to 7:00 a.m. -
5:00 p.m., from Monday to Friday, so that there is not an
an adverse impact to the surrounding residential area. The
application indicates that the hill which buffers the pro-
ject from the Ranch at Roaring Fork eventually will be re-
moved. For this reason, it is important to restrict the
hours of operation.
2. The estimation of round trips per day is vague. The
applicant should estimate to reasonable accuracy the number
of truck hauls per day separate from employee vehicle trips
per day. Trips per day should not be prorated over a year
period. They should be estimated on the basis of actual
trips per day (i.e. in June, 30 t.p.d., D^^archer, 5 t.n.rl.).
3. County Road 103 should be paved with a 4 inch asphalt road
base to accommodate the existing and proposed heavy truck
traffic. The existing chip and seal road surface is too
narrow and inadequate to handle the trucks. The road driving
surface must also be widened to handle the trucks. This
should not be a burden to a company that makes asphalt.
4. The acceleration and de -acceleration lanes on Highway 82
u ould ;)e constructed and operational at the time material
._s hauler from the site. Acceleration/de-acceleration
Carbondale, Colorado 81623 303983.8733
Cindy Houben
May 31, 1983
Page Two
lanes should also be constructed on County Road 103 to
accommodate the large slow-moving trucks on that road.
5. Truck traffic signs and other appropriate signage should
be provided by the applicants for proper placement along
103 Road.
6. The application does not address noise, dust control or
odor from the facility. The road into the site should be
paved to reduce dust. Frequent watering should be used
onsite to reduce dust. The hill which separates the site
from Highway 82 and the Ranch at Roaring Fork should be
left intact as a noise buffer. Some measures should be
taken to reduce the odor generated from the hot mix plant,
(i.e. stack scrubbers, etc.).
7. No reclamation plan is included in the application. All top
soils should be stockpiled and preserved for the life of the
project for reclamation. The County should require a
reclamation bond for the project for the full term of the
operation. No top soil should be sold off of the site.
8. There should be no direct access to Highway 82 from the
Zemlock pit or the batch plant area. All access should be
maintained from 104 Road to 103 Road.
9. All proposed or required improvements to the site should be
bonded so that completion is guaranteed.
If there are any questions on these comments, please contact me.
Sincerely,
akto. XiAitgA
Davis Farrar
City Manager
DF:nb
GARFIELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING 945-8212 / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 945-2339 / BUILDING: 945.8241
MEMORANDUM
TO: Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Planning Staff
DATE: July 18, 1983
RE: Additional information regarding questions raised at the June 20th
Public Hearing for Mid -Valley Paving.
On June 20, 1983, a motion to continue the Public Hearing regarding
the Mid -Valley Paving, 'Inc. application was approved by the Garfield
County Commissioners. On that date, questions were raised that the
Commissioners directed the Planning staff to investigate.
1) School Bus Traffic - The RE -1 School District indicated that the
Carbondale school bus pickup time on County Roads 103 & 104 would
be between 7:30 A.M. and 8:15 A.M. In the afternoons, the children
are let off between 3:30 P.M. and 4:15 P.M. However, more
specific times can be obtained when the school year begins
and new schedules are followed. The applicants noted that they
are willing to provide flag people and that they would also not
run their trucks during these times.
2) Hazardous Waste - The question was asked as to whether or not the
sludge produced by thescrubbers on an asphalt batch plant is considered
hazardous or toxic. According to the Colorado Department of Health
in Denver, the sludge is not classified as hazardous or toxic.
3) Sludge/Water Discharge - The Colorado Department of Health stated if
there were no discharge from a settling pond, no permit is required.
However, if there is discharge without having obtained a permit, the
violation is considered a criminal offense.
4) Noise - The Colorado Department of Health stated that there are
different noise level regulations for industrial operation areas
and for residential areas. There are no studies identifying noise
levels at the Ranch at Roaring Fork area based upon existing industrial
activities and State Highway 82 traffic. It is unknown as to whether
the potential noise level from Mid -Valley operations would impact the
Ranch at Roaring Fork by adding to the existing noise and thus, exceeding
the residential noise level standards.
5) Air/Odor - The Colorado Department of Health usually does not review a
plant for its ability to meet air quality standards until an application
has been filed with their Department. However, Scott Miller of the
Grand Junction office has spent a great deal of time assisting the
2014 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
Page Two
Board of County Commissioners
July 18, 1983
Planning staff prior to an application for an air quality permit being
filed by Mid -Valley Paving, Inc.
At the request of the Planning staff, Mid -Valley submitted the name
of one of the plants they still had an option to buy. The other plants
they had been considering have been sold. Mr. Miller was asked to review
the plant for its ability to conform to state standards for air quality,
given the type of plant and its proposed location. Mr. Miller has indicated
that the plant probably cannot meet the present state performance standards
for air quality.
In response to concerns expressed about odor, Mr. Miller indicated that,
given the equipment, odor is a potential problem. In addition, there
were several complaints regarding a temporary asphalt operation that was
located in the Zemlock gravel pit. The staff investigated the complaints
and were able to detect the odor approximately - mile away, due to the
particular wind conditions at that time.
40...�--
�l
op 9tkage5 to -LO ibe
COLORADO DEPARTMENT DF HEALTH
Richard D. Lamm
Governor 1876
Frank A. Traylor, M.D.
Executive Director
July 12, 1983
ynthia Houben
Garfield County Development Department
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Mid -Valley Paving, Inc.
Dear Cindy:
As requested in your letter of 6-30-83, a review of the information sub-
mitted by Mid -Valley Paving has been completed. Unfortunately, there is
not enough information available to adequately address any of the questions
Garfield County is concerned with. The following comments are drawn on
general engineering and meteorological principals.
Any asphalt plant sold by the Colorado Department of Highway may be
assumed to be at least ten years old. Due to the great advances made
within the last ten years in air pollution control equipment, it is safe
to state that air pollution emissions from this asphalt plant will be
almost ten times that of a similar plant with new control equipment.
Further, scrubber controls are dependent on water. If the water is high
in pollutants (such as in recycle system) then control efficiencies will
be further decreased as the water becomes dirty.
Although control equipment will remove some of the odor causing pollutants,
the odor will occur with even the most efficiently controlled asphalt plants.
To my knowledge, there has never been an asphalt plant cited for violation
of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission's odor regulation.
All areas surrounding the asphalt plant may expect some impact on air
quality due to its operation. Due to the location in the Roaring Fork
Valley areas directly down valley would receive the major impact if the
plant operated 24 hours per day. Since the majority of the down valley
winds occur during the night time hours when the plant will not be operating,
impacts on areas west of the plant will most probably be during the early
morning until two hours after sunrise and late evening (one hour before
dark). Mid-morning impacts will likely be north of the plant, while
midday will be to the East. Late afternoon, early evening impacts could
be in any direction but the two most likely will be to the north or south.
These impacts are based on limited data collected in similar mountain
valley areas. Due to the uniqueness of the Carbondale area it is impossible
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER,COLORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-6137
Garfield County Development Dept.
July 12, 1983
Page 2
to determine if in fact the wind flows as indicated without actual
meteorological information from the plant site.
It is highly recommended that more information on the asphalt plant be
obtained before Garfield County issues a Special Use Permit. Much of
the information is required by the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD)
as part of our Emission Permit requirements.
Meteorlogical information is normally not required by the APCD for this
type of project. If it is to be collected a more detailed evaluation
of air quality impacts would be possible.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to comment on air quality issues
concerning Garfield County. If I may be of further assistance, please do
not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Scott Milxer
Public H alth Engineer
Air Pollution Control Division
SM/na
cio.„„ct, Low) m e:) -n
C� to 06-1A.K4yi 0
e i (t ovA cca a c t4 /cc,,kijicrt.0-7/kei-
-CeLA.)
g�f C_6�nm edv S On4-h e F �m -ccrt- cc_
I JTLI 43
b cciLat /104- inK c(4- �� � Z e44 1, c c
1--ek 0
pH4-. F, , km=c)eilfL
C.B,ice,-Ay 'n ca. -S -416-y\ �ecs no4-i '� c,� -eueIy cue
re r Gt ty ef:),c) 7 e.s 16
as
Yi G � �` c; Cd u:5-1,1 E.:'`" O CC Qi p[ a C .Q4A+
p ropet-4-y r,c) te/t -1-L
uccts 4- cc/ eg 3
lock
p orL
r€€i J) +1 lg s 9 r c
b€A otclti se.t e cl + ,
Pc arE e_ct Sem e
c c r-oSS Cr -.-
r oQc ckv
pc -I& b+wee
rod be bck ‘I
r. C. v do-vl e -n ex rs-
/Mbrr>r SfCYiS
as c e eco 1)
4-e,r-5 e ci-t`
5c4 -i s -rac
mould be c 6v\e,
e p r 7" t.o cx s
road was ikse
were nod
in,c4“
fqc) fc4 15
4o ) W0 5 SQ:04 4
e no a L, tA, e 4-- +-0
,scknci cz cj- 1 S rev r c r
to p Get 4-o b e clc1-yt-e
1 5 y (..A.A.kc) 4-cL.Kot i.t13 e(
Cerise S rtc+ happy 1,0 -1 -1 -ti + C ctCCSSSS
propdone J y e l D c
�he 0-1,-) K. (As G iia 0,4
was +ia+ +-he acc1e5s r-:
v b e p Jo 40 I r s sco , s t ac 4-
L 4 c -C 1ci.kii2A- y
4-1 r` u �` r r� r S r c P 4o 5 1--0,-/kkolLut--c)
y
eirlcd e }-1 (14, 4� t5 c u ss-1-Lcct-
pc tuieu, /4 -ti w)�,
w{ +hese -rn no+ ei 0c_ tiease
-o ' us4 � es` t +-11 e Pectct us
s -�
per LS" cApp!'o e t vv c i I er-
roQc.) 5 cp e- v s -Peel s
i'n5 ` - E ctce
44, rig 155r�
5 1 r- b --1-4/1Q+ -14‘ e y
5erue a[ 4-11 -P e
C + e_ tia.4 ok.c4--/ e
cls L' (4-1 r a Csh.� r tcd- k
icu
c
Q
cv
, H _...
._... 4_
0) , (-I,
ofQ)
c+ og
th ,H —+- .--t- . - -
,... •
--if (a-- '.,)3
75 o Qj
-7' CV If -C
C 0 o
c5
M
o0
00
i
Public hearing regarding 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.
1st Public Hearing held on June 20, 1983.
Exhibits as presented by Cindy Houben:
A) Application,
B) Staff Packet,
C) Proof of Publication from the Glenwood Post; published on June
3 & 6, 1983,
D) Certified Return Mail Receipts,
E) Letter of denial from John G. Colton,
F) Cover letter of Denial Petition without signatures,
G) Letter of denial from John G. Ritzenthdler, M.D.,
H) Letter of denial from Richard Stevenson,
I) Unsigned post card of denial,
J) Letter of denial from William J. Gilligan,
K) Letter of denial from Davis Farrar, on behalf of the
Carbondale Planning Commission,
L) Letter of denial from Rita Bell,
M) Letter of denial from Sandra Gardner,
N) Letter of denial from Landy & Cindy Bownds,
0) Letter of denial from Thomas & Marcy Landis,
P) Letter of denial from Emmett P. Dowling III,
Q) Letter of denial from Anne Bowers,
R) Copy of letter sent to the Roaring Fork Journal regarding the
publication,
S) Cover letter for exhibit "R" from Michael B. Cerise,
T) Denial Petitions: T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5, T-6, T-7, T--8, &
T-9,
U) Letter of denial from Robert Cerise,
W) 6/20/83 letter from J.L. Soulsby indicating the phasing
schedule for the road improvements,
X) Photographs submitted by Doug Bowman: X-1 & X-2,
RR) Letter from Milt Wright & Resolution of denial from the Ranch
at the Roaring Home Owner's Association,
SS) Photographs submitted by the applicant: SS -1, SS -2, SS -3,
SS -4, & SS -5.
The Chairman accepted the exhibits with the exception of exhibit
"i", which was unsigned. The formal proof of publication was
submitted to the Board during the presentation of the exhibits.
Attachment D-2:
Section 25, County Map 2393
(140) 1/3 R dy
1/3 Jan -t
1/3 Ro
P. 0 Box
81. 3
(142) Chris
P. 0.
8161
Fr- -man James
ae James
Davis James
2, Carbondale, Co.
LSC (148 ii.. ael
P.
623
Sommer y�
4953, Aspen, Co. 'h
ary
474 9/zf
ox 1278, Carbondale, Co.
(149) Gary G.
1052 Deer
Carbo, e,
(150)
GC P. 0.
$� 3
(151)
Ka hrar_ F. Hall _A
it Ave.
o. 81623
Sidney & Aimee E izabeth Lincicome
Box 121, Carbondale, Cod
David S. &
178 Eucli0
81623
(152) R. E. B
555
81611
. Hotchkiss
Carbondale, Co.
, C/0 Artic Circle
nt, Aspen, Co.
(153) 1/2 R
1/2 Pet
3880
803
••al.
(154) Chas & M
0323 104
(156) Jean
0401
(157) L. C.
1130
Ph• nix,
add
Van Dyke
rt Lane, Boulder, Co.
t Harris
Carbondale, Co.
(158) Osca
16311
Carbo
obson
'issouri (suite 400)
rizona 85014
81623
arbondale, Co. 81623
& Wi Cerise
e Highway 82
e, Co. 81623
Attachment D-3
(203) Chas & P: rgaret Harris
0302 1 load, Carbondale, Co.
8162 \\.
(204) Glen &an Waldo Harris
0323 1 oad, Carbondale, Co.
8162
2391-303-00-
Harol. ' . Blue
400' RoaI 100, Carbondale, Co.
2391-303-00-007
Carbon .z Dump
Town .' Carbondale
76 .uth 2d
C-- bondale, Co. 81623
Attachment E-2
Section 36 County Map 2393.36
(002) Stagecoac sic.
F. 0. X, Basalt, Co.
81-6`x% x
(003) RFR Deve •pment Co., Inc.
720 Hyman, Aspen, Co.
81 1
a/C
(005) Ranch at Roaring— o eowners Assoc
P. 0. Box -599, Aspen, Co.
81
2393-361-15-xxx SGL
(001) Arthur R. es III
P. • :ox 3853, Asp= , Co.
611
o4o,' 041-• 953-9- 0.56r, A15, 0 ; 057-;-058;.055
-(r673, o7', 068, 069)
Kassco Realty Corp./-
0500'102
orp./0500`102 Road, Carbondale, Co.
81623
(0 066(
Jame T Jesse
P. 0. "ox 599, Aspen, Co.
81
(065) Ma
F.
81
.ace
Box 1981, Aspen, Co
(034) Buge
19285
Exc
(035) Ca
P.
8
(0
ris F. Reich
ghway 7, Vinehill
sio , Minn. 55331
le ock
ox 8592, Aspen,
1
Dal
731
Asp
s
rant Ave., #°?A
olo. 81611
42-4A1A-Li --Te
/gTiq/i 4 � lc 4C�
D. 1{ .
4,76
7E1'� '/(t 5
c,5-7 o
b--)42
Attachment E-3
2393-361-15-xx
099) 6
Ranch at R ing Fork, a Partnership
P. 0. Bo �9, Aspen, Co.
81611
Chas E. Englund & Robert Mail.�
0248 Surrey Drive
Carbondale, Co. 81623
Robert Marrs
(043) Chas E. E
0248 Surre
Carbon
. 81623
(044) Mars D.
0264 S y Drive
jorrEindake< Co. 81623
(045) Mottza Ball Const.
\ P. 0. Box 599, Aspen, Co.
81611
(046) Mar_.rita F :ecker
Barba . . Truan U`
333 W gain St., Aspen, Co.
816
PUBLIC NOTICE
Toke Notice that Mid -Volley Paving. Inc. has applied
to the Board of County Commissioners, Gorfield Coun.
ty. 5tote of Colorado. to grant o Special Use Permit in
connection with the following described property
situoted in the County of Gorfield. Stoto of Colorado;
Legal Description: Lot 14 ly;ng in the S'.,s o£ Ste of
Sec, 25, Township South. Range 158 West.
Practical Description (locotson with respect to high-
way. County roods, and residences)_ N. of Hwy. 82 off
Co. Roods 103 & 104 opproximately 4 miles from Car-
bondale.
Said Special Use Permit is to allow the Petitionerjs)
to install concrete & osphail batch plants on the above
described property.
All persons affected by the proposed Special Use
Permit ore invited to appear and state their views,
protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally
at such meeting, then you ore urged to state your views
by letter, particularly if you have objections to such
Special Use Permit, os the Board of. County Com-
missioners will give considero,ion 10 the comments 04
surrounding property owners and others affected in
deciding whether to grant or deny the request for
special use. This Special Use Permit application may be
reviewed at the office of the Nanning Department
located at 2014 Blake. Glenwood Springs, Colorado
between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday.
That public hearing on the application for the obove
Special Use Permit has been set for the 20th day of
June, 1983, a1 the hour of 10:00 a.m.-at the office of the
Boord of County Commissioners, in the Commissioners
Annex. 201 8th Street, Glenwood Springs- Colorado.
Cynthia tfouben
Dept. of Development
Garfield County. Colorado
Published June 3, b, 1983 in the Glenwood Post.
jLJ
PROOF OF PUBLICATett.JN
GLENWOOD POST
STATE OF COLORADO,
COUNTY OF GARFIELD.
ss.
N2 014283
1, Clay W. Stauffer
do solemnly
swear that I am General. Manager of the
GLENWOOD POST; that the same is a newspaper printed, in whole
or in part, and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colo-
rado and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has
been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of
Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next
prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise-
ment; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States
mails as second_class matter under the provisions of the Act of
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof. and that said newspaper
is a newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and ad-
vertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of
Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in
the regular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper for
the period of 2 consecutive insertions; and that the first pub_
lication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated
June 3 A -D., 19 83 , and the Iast publication of said
notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated
June 6 A.D.,
19 $3..
In witness whey of I ave hereunto set my hand this 6th
day of jut A '. 19 83
General Manager / Publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public i
d for the
County of Garfield, State of Colorado. this 6th day
of A.D. 19 83
(SEAL).����4�-*•..
Notary Public
My Commission Expires .
June
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid --Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The ZPmlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
to wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104+, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
P.'", example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUN'WU Utz
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus t 3minishing the quality of life for residents.
vaw
g • g749.01/7H9�t,•r• .a
O a f 2 6 ur" v Co u /'t / I/
i ayl+c /r epi r /fG.6
,"'"„ c-,9 60 Arc -A/.414. e C-G/G
June 16, 1983
A/
COL.
Garfield County Commissioners
P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Gentlemen:
Re: Issuance of a Special Use Permit to Mid -
Valley Paving Inc., for the operation of
permanent concrete and asphalt batch plants
in the vicinity of The Ranch at Roaring Fork.
As the owner of a condominium in The Ranch at
Roaring Fork I wish to register a strong protest
against the issuance of the above permit.
There must be numerous locations where the proposed
plants could be constructed without ruining the
quality of life for established residences in the
near proximity,
The issuance of the above permit would demonstrate
a complete lack of regard on your part for the
interests of a great number of concerned people.
I strongly urge you therefor to deny the issuance
of the above permit.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Stevenson
c/o Th Ranch at Roaring Fork
14913 Highway 82
CiRIS� Carbondale, Colorado 81623
UMVain
VE 0, 7
- /1A►M,x
4.)•. 11W 4-
ROA014°
June 15, 1983
Garfield County Commissioners
Post Office Box 640
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
81602
Dear Sir:
CERT'
As the owner of the Blue Creek Ranch, located on Route 82
and Route 100, I strongly object to the granting a permit
for the installation of a concrete and asphalt batch plant
adjacent to the Zemlock gravel pit on County Road 104.
Traditionally this area has been both agricultural and
residential. The installation of such a plant would have
a significant negative impact on the quality of life and
property values in this area due to the pollution of noise
and air, not to say anything of the pollution of the
scenic landscape that has brought all of us to the lovely
Roaring Fork Valley. Not only will there be increased pol-
lution from every standpoint, but also there will be in-
creased traffic on our already overloaded roads. I find
only one possible reason why the County Commissioners would
grant such a permit and that is to line the pockets of the
owner, Jean Blue. To make an approval on the basis of the
economic betterment of one individual that would negatively
impact the lives of all the people who reside in the Roaring
Fork Valley on a permanent basis is incomprehensible. Thus,
1 strongly urge the County Commissioners to deny his permit.
Sincerely'y u s, C
William J. Gilligan
WJG/gk
June 17, 1983
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County
P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Dear Honorable Board of County Commissioners:
�HUi1S�
VILASOIJEZ
On Thursday, June 16, 1983, the Carbondale Planning Commission unanimously
recommended to the Garfield County Board of Commissioners denial of the
Mid -Valley Paving special use permit for an asphalt/concrete batch plant.
The following reasons were given for the denial:
1. The number of cumulative truck trips from the batch plant
site and the Zemlock pit are too high. The Zemlock pit has
no restriction on truck trips, and the additional sixty
one-way trips from the batch plant site would create a
serious negative impact to public health, safety and welfare.
2. Hauling of water offsite from Carbondale will create an
unnecessary negative traffic impact in Carbondale. The
truck traffic will also cause additional wear and damage
to the Carbondale street system. No mitigation of this
impact has been proposed.
3. The truck traffic on County Roads 103 and 104 will create
a dangerous conflict with school bus traffic in the mornings
and evenings.
4. The batch plant and related operations will degrade air
quality through increased emissions of particulates, hydro-
carbons, sulphur dioxide and other emissions. No baseline
monitoring of existing air quality has been attempted and
enforcement of existing standards is likely to be non-existent.
.,L uuUILLy ��«uutti tuIlers
June 17, 1983
Page Two
5. Generation of noise from the batch plant cumulated with
existing noise from the Zemlock pit will negatively affect
the surrounding rural residential area. Monitoring and
enforcement of decibel levels at the operation will be
difficult or impossible.
6. Approval of the application will add to the existing and
inappropriate proliferation of industrial uses in an area
that has previously been established as a rural agricultural
and residential area.
7. The batch plant will have a negative impact on the Carbondale
landfill with disposal of scraps and waste materials. No
provisions have been made to deal with this impact.
8. Approval of the batch plant will serve to further downgrade
the surrounding areas' property values and quality of life.
9. Approval of the batch plant will establish another industrial
special use in an area zoned agricultural/residential/rural
density zone district with uses by right intended for low
intensity use and rural densities.
Carbondale would like to thank the County Commissioners for this opportunity
to comment on this proposal.
71)/Sincerely,
Davis Farrar
City Manager
DFtnb
1,, /4 /7
9e
J , q
Jug •z//4 ift,2 g-&-.77‘ 0 6,4-•-'
��— Z`
it
41-- a e)
d/L, 41-0`e
47,4- ,./?;--
(?)
ziger
76-7-g?
L
st-t-et,ilia,1 ei,„;
„A„..77
ti dee
A /-; 61'4
JUN 1
•
COUNTY CuMt,iISSTONERS
ict
7‘? -1 C
I
Q(JAAie.0 au e
(040
tu_r_ c., Lj r e. 2I602F.
/IQ
RICAN
TUDIO
ae
e�.rJ
SANDH. GAF DNER
102 Main st.)
Q I3ox 1193
Carbondale CO 81623
963-1269 940
-7 1‘, 002
0111/411tUSES
RECEIVED
JUN 17 1983
CrA,;IELD
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LAA e_e),Lu2 ,/{) (-4/at DEVX_V-L;IL LIPLO 44-0 iMAjcd
\AA Pyr e 7lam1111,1111WA
Ltt,ot_ iaiva;241- -16 c_e_4_s4c,latiAL a_ petA7 /3,0 ki6
a.-aptalt 004 a nuk)ue (oef2i,st -(c_A
i3P-a-ta
q -Le_ qd
Rte_ �� z
1/3\ec.,6 d`ee.vrrumLerle-9
�4e
OL_ UeAle eL6 4L
tcL--V*1:6k. -tak. (9.1A/L.
\B CU-ae,-PoLjait.d
oA,Lrace . 41
r
tu,,0„ OLX -
totArI Bal_„0_611-
0_ pa-/CLea
46 4,4,
Staeb
C€14Z-It 'AuQb
z)
� a 7uemt-6-cid o� �. �h��Qnactia.QAepiyuut-P__Jz_ 6_,QJ a_ at -4/M ad k,1 -0o2 et5tv
a�
1 d0 144- Io -b -h_ Q6c10a,,J p2.a-wla 1 peAn.�>���,
Buz. c1PRaivad;c. ,/o 4.0.A , 9,6e.0 442. Gpulaut e.vi-ayal>o
40_12:u1 )(faa.
co -1/61-01,Gd, atv-t,Wo1/4e, 1 Lia.0,-e_
0,A51,(14.)- D. -at, 1/0 QA2A.1(LA6 Cs 6._t;N_ ik-a-z44) /- vi -c)
Lep tom. Ot ( CIA 19 7i . ? -� -
amu. c6.r -auA 46 sial
0.4)s
Yu- to --c_4-64/1 4-Putz GLAA e_Aft,4„e,_.9
Lif Lie" -))71- 4 -a -t ne.edAA latuelz),,
c62) k,„,6 OA(
L (x�� ' 4Q -6,6k64 o_a
' ° puis,14 C L9 CJtM. 4--12-
6,4c6
091 84 1O/Cat
da46. auLD ajA At'c
ers c_.,ALpte_60 LAJ):1-e„ /42_4/ci Luk aApta.,o4- &Lau/IT ItLe
puot /AA\ save . te__O
ot, Lezact_xe gaup (`_,LA, 4012. _ia,cuakett 4,LLEs4v0.61-v t-eAr42Auvii &4016, -lay Eqpi,
June 14, 1983
Landy & Cindy Hownds
2968 Plaza Azul
Santa Fe, N.M. 87501
Garfield County Commissioners
P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602
17-1:ECTIVEED
JUN 17 1983
GLa.:,11SSIONERS
Re: Special Use Permit Application by Mid -Valley Paving
Inc., Public Hearing on June 20, 1983.
Dear Sirs:
As owners of a condominium at the Ranch at Roaring Fork and living
there on a full time basis until June 1 when a job transfer relocated
us to New Mexico, we are greatly concerned about the above-mentioned
permit. Our concerns are outlined below:
We attended the last public hearing concerning the permit to allow
Zemlock & Sons, Inc. to mine gravel and at that time Zemlock assured
those attending the hearing that mining could not be seen nor heard
by Ranch residents for at least twenty years. We see equipment
dumping mounds of earth on top of the hill adjacent to Hwy. 82
all the time. The noise is easily heard while inside our unit
and especially in the summer months when the windows are open.
Therefore, if Zemlock has already violated one of the "so-called"
provisions the commissioners added to the agreement, why should
we believe these provisions will protect us under another permit?
We feel that permiting heavy industry to flourish in what is now
primarily a residential and agricultural area is detrimental to
the wildlife and health of nearby residents due to the air pollution,
noise, heavy truck traffic and odors which would most assuredly
occur from such operations. This will also incur a drop in property
values and possibly the tourist trade which is most important to
the Roaring Fork Valley's economy.
Therefore, we urge you to consider aur concerns and deny issuance of
said permit. Unfortunately, we will be unable to attend the public
hearing to voice our opposition. We understand that these hearings
are only a formality and that your decisions are usually made before
the meetings are held. This was obvious at the public hearing
concerning the Zemlock & Sons, Inc. permit application in which many
citizens including the Garfield County Planning Dept. and the Town
of Carbondale voiced heavy opposition and the permit was still allowed.
We hope that this is not the case at the June 20th hearing and that
all positions are heard and respected before a decision is made.
Page 2
Again, we strongly urge you to think of the detrimental effects
these plants would have on the wildlife and quality of life for
which Colorado was once recognized for and which only too soon will
be extinct all due to the greed of a few.
Respectfully,
Landy Lownds
0 y T t yt4
Cindy Bownds
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CSA V I ELD
June 13, 1983
Garfield County Commissioners
P.O. Sox 640
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
RECEIVED
ji_1N L 7 1983
r,;}� .QLD
C0lJN7Y CQP4�iiSSiOIVEitS
COUNTY COKMISSIONERS
CERISE
ORIPIRIIpI;: E
ICASIME1
Dear Sirs,
This letter serves to register our strong opposition to the
proposed issuance of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Malley Paving Inc.
for an asphalt and concrete batch plant across from the Ranch at Roaring
Fork. We are homeowners at the Ranch and feel that this plant would
necessarily increase noise and pollution and cause a safety hazard on
Highway 82. We also feel that this industrial development would violate
the residential and agricultural nature of the valley and negatively
effect the quality of life for local residents.
You previously ignored the desires of local homeowners with the
approval of the Zemlock ;ravel Pit. Please do not disregard us again
in favor of a short-sighted com^�ercial project that benefits only a
few special interests. You will be held accountable for your actions:
Sincerely,
41/l i
Thomas D. and [Marcy L. Landis
2033 S. High St.
Denver, CO 80210
and
0150 Stagecoach Circle
Carbondale, CO 81b23
MYRLE GREATHOUSE, PRES.
E,P, DOWLING III, V. PRES
CERISE
Toltek yR'----�--
Antla
Drilling Company �--— --_
FILE ' - 340.DENVER CLUB BLDG.
EbG DENVER. COLORADO80202
[303) 571-1331
(303) 571-5498
June 15, 1983
Garfield County Commssioners
P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Dear Sirs,
JUIN 17 1983
I have been informed of the application for a Special Use Permit
from the Mid -Valley Paving, Inc.,for the operation of a permanent
concrete and asphalt batch plant to be located adjacent to the Zemlock
Gravel Pit. While I am greatly in favor of the free enterprise system,
I feel that the County Commissioners have a responsibility to the
residents of the community.
As a property owner within the community, I hope that the Commissioners
have analyzed all aspects of this application. I know that the quality
of life for me and several hundred other residents would significantly
be effected. Generally an Environmental Impact Statement is filed when
government agencies are involved. Please advise me where this statement
from Mid -Valley Paving, Inc. is available for reading. If their claim
is to protect the environment, the highways, the ecological balance and
the harmony of their neighbors, what kind of restrictions or penalties
will the commission impose if such claims are violated?
I fully understand that the Commissioners' tasks are difficult.
You must weigh the effects of increased productivity, employment and
revenue to the area and balance that with the quality of life of the
residents and the esthetics of wild life and nature. I am not in favor
of the permit being granted, but at the same time I have confidence in
the decision making abilities of our elected and appointed officials.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
oldUt
mmett P. Dowling I
Executive Vice Presi ent
Toltek Drilling Company
EPD/rca
(1(-� kp.�
'N N. LI /�
I
C -ft.)- PET TTI ON -
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMtSSIMEARFIELD COUNTY
Jn ' ";cj33
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
apzroved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a tri of hi noxious activit in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS- ,_Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104+ and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in -Particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odor are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refine and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
YDS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard,
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established cpnmiu i ties thus d i mi nisbig_g. the u y of life for residents _
TeD
COWS -r --sem to War5
TNS IS IL\ Copt.) of A� �ti-ze. TNA. -t -
I
( •5(4,0 -A -44c -A, --Iro -:::}t\t... 120442,11-ier -Fe* 1/4...t.ey
Joki tz-N PL. . (7 V.-Itk ?Att. 1511Q> Oc- Ne- I 6 1 lqe),
731,,,,.. —14,A..t) -d--if.‘s Icsii-cx- .
„tely
,i4ti. a.4.
Dear Editor,
As a resident of the Crystal Springs area, I am writing
to express concern about the evolving industrial slum forming
on 104 Road. At present we have two sawmills, one junkyard,
and two woodyards all without permits and all in noncomplying
usages with the present zoning of residential and agricultural
use. We also have the Blue-Zemlock gravel pit. And now to
top all of this, asphalt and concrete batch plants (by Mid -
valley Paving, Inc.) are trying to move into this area.
I wonder if this area should actually be used for indus-
trial uses? Adjacent landowners are now experiencing land
devaluation due to heavy truck traffic on an unimproved
substandard road and an aesthetically displeasing view of all
this industrial disease. Why do many have to suffer because
a few want to rape the country side for economic gain?
I urge all residents of this area to go to the public
hearing of June 2Othl the County Commissioner's Annex to
speak their views about the asphalt and concrete batch plants
that are trying pw:JI thffrnselves into our dr,-.,,. l hope that
this t1`F1 I II• f';niyti .li'Iiei •1('n't again sid w1 r. r i;,'eE, w i 11s
and want. 0I' I ( n;1 , ? r l a l deveioper rd ther t l}r,rl the wishes
(1'he rle ' • f ,> . ,.. ; 1 ai;ol,t
this 1 1 r li I aee ri%j Ohr] q i v / I' views
to Lily :)NI R I 1 c il• I'
Sincerely,
Michael Es. Cerise
County Road 104
Carbondale, CO
COLTON BUILDING SYSTEMS • 3637 SOUTH 9TH AVENUE • PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85041
L�.l�laE
DRlMK ltUSf
June 15, 1983
Gar'f'ield County Commissioners
P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Subject: Special Use Permit request by Mid -Valley Paving, Inc.
Gentlemen:
With all of the emphasis on the preservation of natural scenery
and zoning to this effect, it is hard for me to believe that
the subject Special Use Permit could receive any action other
than DENIAL.
We were one of the first owners in the Ranch at Roaring Fork
Development. We purchased property in the area based on the
overall development plans presented to us. We did not buy
up there to be accross from a Sand, Gravel/Concrete and
Asphalt Batch plant operation.
The attached copy presents many of the concerns for a DENIAL
on this Special Use Permit.
JGC/dar
Sincerely,
COLTON Building Systems
John G. Colton,
President
Owner of 109 and 110 at
The Ranch At Roaring Fork
f€TMLA 'Tw `�'14�1T b
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and .snhalt batch plants to be located north of Hi hwa, 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on J an-Frue ` s property. �-is requestectbr ollowin reasons :
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of>
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
W EAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their roducts to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition"in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE
1) 0.s7'73 .EctAE, )4.,,t;ft
3) ,,/,A,,;://0
4) X7- '?
5)
6) 71 3
7) 3 -Li -g.
8) 7- .3
r,
ADDRESS
3 o 5 ` ,.e. 2 � Co&
305 ,-. " -
"Nov 47- e,,i/e/...4/Z..-
7 2 c--72:4
O L 7 X1-6 4 �� Or\r-
5 (y/-___}„_� _ }
r
't9 1 , ,, i .� -t �.±. .
(CA,
- 4°1115
_. I
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
j ';
7
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
7-9
4
/
F
677/ S Cl -es r/ pc; ZfHrC
1L"7
'74///'-`/j /4,.y�c ��z .t•�/
df -'-r1--!7/1"
e i / ��.
! ,/ ` CJ /(, 7 2.5- /1/7/i"4,27-,
�. AZ& /./s� /.,z/_.4 /4 f F.�r.(/7,3z.,-.-',.; �%
OD rz. iana-rcr�r c 7Lbo i aLQ col- ,
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lo)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14+)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24.)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
.approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
1 hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
9) z__,;24 / V—ea
10) cf
16)
ADDRESS
8� CJc-YS� n -e C)(1-063cAroprt,
/ Y'7/3
0
«'S rdS `' 3 (4ch
,44K <2-
t/ -6 e 57 C "4r7..-- a CViZ'/_
6toV C,T.ti 4 J 01 ,6. Co.
13.3, cat-zuRa C .C4D-
7J 6e,
('' i '' So. 2 --,fart
4/71.6(5-Y „Lk
.n"5 ,gyp 4,7,E I =cJ {ter r A4
ct,e)z) aci..huric/6.(4,
09z/ ,,,x _57,`
gr/e/27/2. 770?„,/tw,
25) 6,/
26) 'Mr_
,lf
� lr
27)
28)
29) G/.2 s_
30) /2 5
,,/40, Jj ha
0 a$ --5-"D ed /rd /# 4e G-Kkellie
9fieb (%/
3/ 2 t C kI-6- a.
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
1)
2)
3)
l+) z•7 •:
5)
6)
7)
8)
9) 7-/f r? W/4-,
10) 7
11) 7 (; 8'3 ,
12)
13)
DATE
ADDRESS
Ii L
14+)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
-x
'36 ( 06 -5-
r
694 cc
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact'that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use PerTeit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGMA
1) 6-/E---
2)
-/ 2)
3) 61✓ .
4) 4:/f43 side4a‘g
5) 6 -19-23 '71,74---g-z4
&h.
/1)e)A-54)LesLA
6)
7)
8) -M-X3
9) (r-
io)//ci/S7?)
11) 6f/r 3
12) 6 -(4-Z
ADDRESS
f2P1- .F -I1023
2-8'!-/a5-1 4/623
I
1143111L A -‘1111p ,
ep 4151111116i:
401WIEW
OS? 6 - /d.S`'/cal
oDV,
o
V7 '7 0-- Rd c
( 1 r
o �T / ci w f /z. k a-R&vii, CNd. LA, 0 .
iwkly co
0 I
Gubn
At*
0 k
20)
21)
22
)
ec ct to-az3 } a0C*cc312, }1(0z.3
3v szi /ow ( gid - P' —
103 124 , Ctaid34)JvAek Mid
• /i
23) 1P
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29) ‘/3
Y
2-R3j /03 RcO CbAttlljsitRV)
9/6- - /03 CC .,064
1//i off✓ 4'
Dg-)
Uf
� ra/ c -t ,
/789 /t - pi,4,6fdge,i,c/
.
0'0 r Y-triio7) C &A,,68-60.gg
(f /W a;44!; 4e1:e
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE
1)422i/i?fl
2)
3) _445
4// <71,3
5) / ?
6) .41_j233
7
p -IL-
7) h -/ - 3
8) (r -&S
9) -Iq- �S
l0, (q=4:
11)6-(Qf
12 /-S5
ADDRESS -- DD ,,�,, aa
O/ L 43 ,,�, Fol 100 C __ W-( 3 -co •s I623
2,7k6t/-e/15Y4cd�
_36z7 1i,/1ov,
/63 i_ C,4,4o-JQ,-/Q C? . PiK23
�3) 6040 ljtak:t r Le -di
14) c°4-tf et3
15) (O
16)i,
17) , 26/`��a er..„.„27
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
1 hereby declare that 1 have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
14)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County. Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard -and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment cocziply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, improvement of Road 103, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
SEAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus riiminishing the quality of life for residents.
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
1)
2)
ADDRESS
3) Cnlz /
4) eVcaJ__
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10) (?Z
11) z./2)
12) L/Z
13)
14)
15) 1/18 P114 ► k4.
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
2#)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
3o)
(() /•
'v £ce /70 WeipDC7
12,04 C . 170 ():t4((i? C� ,
0/65 &(t -ti gi0/1,4: (? 1!
G - 1 sJ 3 r-�R(_E-( 11/u32 `[ t r)
7L
3 LS cd, "% -h-041, X 8
8 , 1/2 Ll,,"s•TG-
► LI, -0 3 "P't a a d,retn.,.c
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIiSSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUN'T'Y
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from. the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
ti
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with thi9 petition.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5).
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
3o)
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
2/ o 0
Mr40%,
r
et.°j1 'c�
fyikr LL6z_ rl - L
X02 c%i.%frt
cS
S-�
£ 77
o 3a
5-1-f tem* ��rO
_I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24 )
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
0
- PETITION -
TO THE/BGARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUN'T'Y
T3
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WEEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WEEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WEEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WEEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WTEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE
1).!l'6
2)
>14
3)
4) WW'
5) ( '„_4
.
6) W/(/
7) 6/
8) CPA
to . ca.Jl ift
9
SIGNATURE
LeLto
ADDRESS
2
/°-4 earL,,t'
1 15 3 S /4 ) 133 C (�
L/ca /.4 CLAcic/8
(1'
9) ' l kAi) CyLLiu7C 6.0
lo) 44L__ cri/Lo
I / 1
f
/!
0
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
qf 7
l�
4Z-2—
L-77-
/7Fz,
°Ki-t-e•i2
f `1
23)6../ d'3
24) 7' / 3 (fid (Pc L -'
U' ,
fi�tt ''
ce.
c70
/1
25) [=D=--
26) g./.3
27)
28) 6-/342
6+-k1Y::s-rCr✓4 C ` A
16 s A-Ceibie
U 0 4 P1 _ 13?i -57 ci?iZotJ K
(c_ c-
0 Fir- 0-N ,fir , as/
3 1 yV
C'03c45- PL Lo ELQ 9 Qc (c),
29)
30)
4
vz� r
. 3 Caisi-r,_,
C��o
r hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
�5)
26)
�7)
28)
29)
30)
ADDRESS oIS
� C'(\C (�
10 SO 7 g7t:0t f ,
1/7- u ,,
0/ ffr
/moo -, 4'e
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they roust not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
ADDRESS
°L, 175..
c9c z3N
.66y(97 Litz
5 -? 15-4 (r/
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
.<2l x_ -'(, ,,q/-/,-/./6- /;'/-r nllir7 rrieecr:dilz=
gy lipA
0 '</rr 7( .4 a - ca„ _6____
3 2 A.-//3_, &
4L 3 3 7 %'cam' //3 (_b f
R„--1 cc-\__
3 7 G C'--�
l ei4r),
th
�3 y
E4 2
4;1
fed �Q.V=r) reAlleief44(-- 4=C /e7a-veti
)4/
7 1 /'cc Z_i £r✓
1 -2 Xt./4400/k
Po 165 (air kforOv_te
(0/0, f i; 46)t Ci,c;k
e$ /06a (��
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5) eL=a15
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
�3)
24 )
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
DATE SIGNATURE
� r7wS3 �o
174161,4\
7 3r
-7
ADDRESS 'Z 0 3 I,
¶f(70 &UP).C1 j) Ute • C/i�'��i!Y/JC//WE • C
/o Saari s Ca,6,,� d� 1� Qo -
/51 63- `°
/,‘4(9ra41/-
ae,, 93
IrS
e
f7
tqPi
4
ao
co)
Z6 .z %6 SE
2651i 3 CC/ , a
P o, 4t-2 gifYitiTC t)
aL
`� Co
r� if C61°
r
r“7 /2,7(
f0( C.6-110
- P TITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
y EREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE
1) g
(7-/ 3
2) ;(1472,
3)
3) �/2//i3.
4) i3 a3
5) i 2i
6)(,j&
7) t,S
8)
/ //3fr1
9) 6-43 cf,;
10)
11)
12) 1/5/er
13)h/
14)(0
15)
16)
17)
18)col pRI(2
19)
20) 41 Ja
t /,3 -kms
ADDRESS
0369
`he—d11• /6.3
03 /' // 2'
� I
,x.04;
77 (9 c, . 8 .. 3
C"-vyc9 Y Ci i'r CCD,
09,9D C RAY CAR -60N 0 co.
/D.r1 of
21)
Cuild1)61,Q)-urV
.kr )Ta_ (27
\-
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
,70 (5/`62",
C ?" 3 f /) / / (' 47 G-
<< /1
D s'
oc/c2 '7 ke-e71 (/2. -LA -0 . (.-bat.0-9412,64.-
S (, innL mss- CA-) ;kJ 100f
St . r Unirla'th ra)1Ain ) Calti?n ( L
et
-- 2 eq 1 u
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
1)
2) i/z€
3)
4) 4-/
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
2t+)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
DATE
6 /i'/
S 3•dcc 4
,5-1( � %7'
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
719 - A (-)[ 7,-7 igbiliffgo 6ei-L
GQ! M o _ �.
0e// i L7/'3 ke,°
Owl -Yoe
1
1 hereby declare that 1 have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
1)
2)
3)
4)
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
,r j W( v y 0V <1 far e,aJ CGE -
� J
/1
7S:t
‘1,1/13(%-
5) VP( Va-reLetfe_f
6) l/ r r VO---c7,---Q-6,)
7)
�//I3
8) 6ii/3
9) 8
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
3
4,/#7P3
4,////e3 7 r y�-
((///f 3 �ev Ye
0//f5
6/1{
W,//2
U/43
61//1,8
g3
,a( -t
-ds-....
iitAWS.1111i
./4.11-1,411
et -4, ,,L.J2x,d)
cp 11 55 9j ,t r l I Al s
&/;//g, aakAal/e4'
;4 1
64(,le3
it 3
6--0 -a3
ite /:7 /
Q
3/2_ 5i4 G e G9 k cif L NC r r A "i cH "IT" OZo.RMNi /� C
/.
vu;;/
£ (( ,
tiLil.�w tt
pc, L-1 (LA (1_ /opt (D ilhit JA JL /.33
a3 72 frAr zeq -d w. ca ' x dc-&- .
G 16 [ Z
,1 / 4 C,5).4.6;e11 J.41/6/6r •
/4113 44--)kY '�z-► i
0 MSf z
f ,7
C",U
0 2 73 ,--Wee 1 Sr- <<' °v► c
jL61,�
D3? .S'7-146 c 67 ' AJ
1 Yi/,3 Vg,f,stig"! �o z
035
0110 SAC L i&C14 Car CA ) As -Le
r Z j -e� e, C•6z>
to/ .s7Ac
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
)4 )
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance frith this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
t+)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
�3)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
�3)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
�7)
28)
29)
30)
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc,, for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
}4 )
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24+)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
3o)
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
L+)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24 )
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
I+)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
lA)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24+)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
3o)
I hereby declare that 1 have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
1)
2)
3)
l.)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24 )
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 10l and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfsmiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE
1) : /8
2)6i/e C�
3) ,/J `/
4 )
6) ✓' 2
7) /8
14)
15) 4/%
16)
17) Z."
18) 7Y
19) i -
20)
21)
22) 60k
�3) `"
1714_
elm.
24) 71 6 904f\ t m ‹ A1A
25) 4,/4/
26) L 1 ) ' B ,Q
27) `` ( r ( o -t-4k
28) 6/12 2 S
29) j, b f
30) 67( I PI ' A- � ✓1vtG
ADDRESS
L4-1
/517
Altz iv /33, C'dc-
z
KrafJ +y
// ig(2_ ,E
r
3 „,u1/4,\( ,
/ 13.--4?f � 614
J
7 -/ / ?lam r1 �� fcT
P-6 x 73 r(j I -J
7& -��,� /,6/ C --
%` 3 13 /V/0itAlvv7ei a
f C
, z mei A
(PC Lie -AY Qt),J rL,_&„4„,t,
s-vis22,),
64 G
/C)/ (( f`C.7`�r/l
i? -Sr'� fe JS—
ate,, ti -
lJ
a 0 -7 6 O2
-RA, /.73/
461 //Lug 14466 (;/,-e}
674',PC)
1 hby declare than I ha e read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
2)
3)
L)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13) 41'
14) <//
15)
//I%
16)~
17) /
18) ; /7
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
2k)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
£/77
6/,
yr-7
A
pr -4,4-7,L7
('-
re)
ADDRESS
d
f z ivt. „
6,,267/ 51 -Et e c G`CA
I 9 7
/S0
-
L/, a
/i
14
eo-cf.e4
am u'/ _;
%-�,
I e -6
c� tfP
/7 th
aL 4
47.e- -e,../7 a e X
c42-.
C cis F 04°621
%?a, &yn
,eI/
k {y
Y�i-r((6Jz .
PcAotriao vci6D
C CL f
)
1 hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
DATE SIGNUP TUBE
7 '
// �/ 3
'4:P1)/8
(7i/ (-//c3
blip/9
409/44)_
l(g
/I `T /83
CG.,L
irk JL
.,,„N\vf
c
ADDRESS
-
/)
7,
1 r 1 it
/37
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
2I. )
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
bf3
-t
I4 r1
/1 fi v
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Cozmnissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE
� c
1) !0-/983'
2) 6-/q.,g3
3) -/9-Z3 K7,27G
4)
5) /9--P3
.)42/1„--k)
ADDRESS
G) 3S3 S lave cdcc 41 Cet ri,PAI
03,3- 54 - e cow C r ,
2 _ 0144_
06I
Pte,e hL
r r r
O 377
•r
ce
r
03 6 I
o 1,1
,i 8 0--->
r,
•
1•
1.
11
♦ .r O .tom`
12) 41101ftide,2i FY 1��11• L
13) T e , / r .JI ,ee
iL)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
2l. )
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
��o.. eip,L‘—_----
;V9/3Xye9-� J S'
d/,r-
R/t- »uei;
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE GNATURE ADDRESS
1)
2) w / / 9/T3 k&-
3) 3 17r4dia-4,() (,/ 1 % ,
4) c,7,71y1
5)_�3 % g )) 0 /� tS
6)
7)
8)
9)
O?.y3 ,Qct
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
2l)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
1 hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SI ATURE j ADDRESS
1) — 22, .�_..�.� 9D . Cif k 1Qs.
2) '1 / . b CMr orZD IBJ -S.
3)
I.)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
2o)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
3o)
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is pr-imarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
AO
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
1 hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
Caunty to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE
1)
ADDRESS
5) - r 1
6) --/c/43
7) - r{-I-'3kt64a1
8)
o)
10)
11)
12)
13)
1L)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
corl Irbz3
Q.
co-7 C-R -, 4_„ '
I hereby declare that S have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
1+ )
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
I -ereby declare that i have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
Of a Special Use Permit to Mid Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS
2)
3)
�+)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
- PETITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfamiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE
432
2)%
3)
4)
ADDRESS
f07 ML1511.1 & . CQ. cca 1,4?
od? !o (,1I4rs/i'
p (4,/ co ( C Ctife4
10) .t s-�
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
-17
- P..TITION -
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
The undersigned hereby request that the Garfield County Commissioners DENY issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants to be located north of Highway 82 and east of Crystal Springs
Road on Jean Blue's property. DENIAL is requested for the following reasons:
WHEREAS: The Zemlock gravel pit, adjacent to the proposed batch plants, was
approved by the Garfield County Commissioners in November, 1981, despite heavy
opposition from the Garfield County Planning Department, the Town of Carbondale,
and residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Crystal Springs Road and numerous other
citizens of the County, thereby permitting the establishment of heavy industry in
the area. It is respectfully requested that in the case of the proposed batch plants,
the wishes of the People be heard and followed.
WHEREAS: Approval of these batch plants would create yet another precedent for
continuation of a strip of highly noxious activity in what is primarily an agricul-
tural and residential area.
WHEREAS: Heavy truck traffic would be increased to an even more dangerous
level on County Roads 103 and 104 and State Highway 82 with the transport of asphalt
and concrete in addition to trucks hauling gravel products. Eastbound trucks entering
Highway 82 from Road 103 do not reach road speed at the point where the highway
narrows from four lanes to two lanes, thus creating a dangerous passing situation,
in particular for the many tourists who are unfarrtiliar with the road.
WHEREAS: Noises emanating from the existing gravel pit would be increased by
the addition of the asphalt plant, creating an intolerable residential environment.
WHEREAS: Foul odors are created from the manufacture of asphalt and would be
carried to surrounding areas. Such odors are not only unpleasant but cause allergic
reactions in persons who are chemically sensitive to hydrocarbons.
WHEREAS: It is required that batch plant equipment comply with governmental
standards; there is, however, no indication that these standards consider the close
proximity of a residential area as far as noise, air pollution and odors are concerned.
WHEREAS: The nearby Ranch at Roaring Fork is a wildlife refuge, and the possible
effects of these operations on wildlife at the Ranch and in neighboring areas has not
been addressed. These areas are inhabited by deer, elk and over 100 species of
indigenous and migrating birds, including endangered species such as the Bald Eagle
and the Osprey.
WHEREAS: The cumulative effects of this noxious activity would create a hard-
ship on an existing residential community of over 150 homes and homesites by further
lowering property values and negatively influencing potential buyers due to apprehen-
sion over the possibility of additional industrial development.
WHEREAS: Over one and a half years later, chip and sealing of Road 104, which
was a condition of approval for the Zemlock gravel pit, has not been done, providing
an example of failure to enforce what are intended to be protective conditions for
those affected.
WHEREAS: The two asphalt batch plants and five concrete batch plants currently
in operation in the valley would appear to be sufficient to handle the present and
foreseeable needs of the area. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the
State Highway Department is able to set up temporary asphalt batch plants as required.
WHEREAS: It is recognized that these types of operations are needed to supply
their products to an area; however, they must not be permitted to encroach upon
established communities thus diminishing the quality of life for residents.
I hereby declare that I have read the attached petition in opposition to issuance
of a Special Use Permit to Mid -Valley Paving, Inc., for the operation of concrete
and asphalt batch plants and request the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County to act in accordance with this petition.
DATE
2)
3) L4
4)
SIGNATURE
cp/ /4 ... ccc' uma u
/Ay
5)
//�� /
_AAAgrAOffirMOW'
10)
11)
12)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
1
ADDRESS
37 S 7)/J 2c(IoLL, L'iCC/
' (' Cid (Q
Uri
Cry; d& '1
/4 93 Rd /06
CD8/
lb3 - g -IA,
9 fwd .
as/- // £ - - d-
r) 1- 1
66)/ 4 for
y (0 Li 34if
3? A/. de- C.
C/? -J C ---ems .e-67.
(? / a
28)
29)
30)
12ns- P.er,„;.
t71bb
0086 104 Road
Carbondale, CO 81623
June 19, 1983
RE: 103 and 104 Roads
Your article last week concerning Schenck's anger
over the conditions and work performed on roads 103 and
104 is correct, and in light of the circumstances, this
anger is justified. To set the record straight, I re-
presented our family which owns much of the property
bordering these two roads in the area concerned. When
we met last June, at Mr. Schenck's request, on the road
site with Mr. Bowlby, the county toad supervisor, and
Mr. Zemlock, the gravel pit operator, we walked these
roads and pointed out all of the following problems,
which were to have been corrected prior to the commence-
ment of any gravel hauling:
a. Narrowness and lack of driving surface for big
belly dump trucks.
b. Poor condition of the asphalt surface and
shoulders.
c. Blind curves, steep drop offs, and tree and
brush problems.
d. Poor angle and narrowness at the point of road
intersection which is our school bus pick up
point.
e. Lack of road s igris .
1 could go on and on, but we were assured that now
that it was known where and who owned the right of way
the work would be performed by Mr. Zemlock and the county
would install the necessary signs. Further, Mr. Zemlock
could wait to chip and seal 103 Road later in the summer
when he would be doing 104 Road.
As Schencksays, until he threatened a lawsuit., no-
thing was done. Then in early September the county crews
and equipment came in for approximately five days and did
what little work on the road that has been done. Further,
to add insult to injury, the county obtained road base
material from another gravel bed on Highway 32 which
definitely implies that the Zemlock operation rnade no
reimbursement to the county for these improvements. When
the Zemlock operation had 104 Road partially chipped and
sealed, 103 Road was never touched. The present condition
of these two roads is still very substandard for the now
existing heavy truck traffic. Our anger is justified.
Sincerely,
Robert S. Cerise
June 20, 1983
RESOLUTION PRESENTED TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY
URGING THE DENIAL OF THE MID VALLEY PAVING, INC., APPLICATION FOR A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF ASPHALT AND CONCRETE BATCH
PLANTS TO BE LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 82 OFF COUNTY ROADS 103 & 104.
WHEREAS: The Homeowners of the Ranch at Roaring Fork feel
that a permit for the operation of asphalt and concrete batch
plants would be detrimental to the entire community from the
standpoint of highway safety, neighborhood property values, and
noise and air pollution; therefore
RESOLVED: That the Board of Directors of the Homeowners'
Association of the Ranch at Roaring Fork urge you to deny the
application of Mid Valley Paving, Inc., for a permit for the
operation of asphalt and concrete batch plants.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
THE RANCH AT ROARING FORK
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Milt Wright, President
Board of Directors
d'e 14913 Highway 82 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (303) 963-3500
v,-)
MID -VALLEY PAVING, INC.
Blacktop • Chipseal
Driveways • Parking Lots
Patchwork • Roads
June 20, 1983
Leonard Bowlby, County Road Supervisor
Garfield County Commissioners
Garfield County Court House
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Gentlemen;
In response to Leonard Bowlby's requirements for road improvements to
County Roads 103 and 104, Mid -Valley Paving, Inc. would like to firstly,
state our opinion that the improvements are necessary and that they
should be completed for the safety of all involved, and secondly,
submit the following schedule of all improvements to be done.
1983 - 1. Signage.
2. 14' turn lane on Road 103 off of State Highway 82.
3. Aiden the intersections of Roads 103 and 104.
4. Line of sight on the North side of Road 104, across from
Clifton Cerise's property shall be improved to Leonard
Bowlby's specifications.
1984 - 1. Grading as required to widen County Road 103 to a 28'
driving width. The asphalt shoulders would be 2" in depth
to accommodate an even grade with existing pavement.
1985 - 1. Overlay Road 103 with 1 1/2" of asphalt on the existing
28" width from State Highway 82 to Road 104.
2. Stripe centerline and road edges as required.
The access haul road across the Blue Ranch will be kept graded and
dust retardants will be used to keep dust to a minimum. The expense
will be shared by Nid-Valley Paving, Inc. and Zemlock & Son Sand and
Gravel.
Leonard Lowlby has assured i id -Valley Paving, Inc. that any improve-
ments on Roads 103 and 104 can be done within the existing 60' road
easement.
Thank you for your concern and time given this matter.
FID -VALLEY PAVING, INC.
"27/-
J. L. Soulsby
President
P.O. Box 1148 • Basalt, Colorado 81621 • 927-3208