HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report• • PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
PROPOSED ACCESS:
ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Colorado Li e n Company
Conditional Use Permit
Bureau of Land Management
Approxi mate ly 10 miles northea s t of
Rifle, west of the Rifle Fish
Hatch ey off State Highway 325.
The affecte d area is a 40 acre
tract of land owned by BLM. The
actual min e site and proces s ing
area would encompass approximately
26 acres .
State Highway 325
O/S
North: A/R/RD
South: O/S
East : A/R/RD
West: A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREH ENSIVE PLAN:
The proposed project is loc ated in an area that i s owned by the Bureau of
Land Management, which is an. area that no management district was assi gn e d
due to the public ownership. Relevant Comprehens ive Plan objectives and
policies are:
A. Require heavy indu s tr ial development to meet all federal, state
and local standard s for air a nd water quality. (Page 12, # 5)
B. Encourage industrial development in areas where adequate
transportation faciliti es and public utilities are available.
(Page 12, #7)
C. Require industrial development to u se buffers between less
intensive land us es . (Page 12, #8)
D. Ensure that roads consider ed inadequate to serve additional
development occur s . (Page 2 0, # 2 )
E. Require new developme nt to contribute to the improveme nt of
roadways which will be adversely impacted by the construction of
that development. (Page 21, #10)
F. Separate heavy truck and commercial traffic from local commuter
and tourist traffic. (Page 21, #11)
G. The County shall r equir e any development proposed which accesses
from a poor or inadequate ro ad to impro ve that road to standards
acceptable for the propo se d type and volume of traffic generated
by the development and other exist ing uses in the area. (Page
22, #3)
H. Require development h aving mod e rate e nvironmental con s traints to
use construction and design techniques which minimize or correct
the environmental problems. (Pag e 29 , # 6)
I. The County shall guide n e w development to occur on lands having
moderate, minor or no environmental co n st raints. In areas with
environmental probl e ms , the County s hall require d e velopment to
perform to a standard which mitigat es or minimizes the problem.
(Page 30, #2)
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPO SAL
A. Site Description: The propo sed site i s located within a fairly narrow
and steep canyon area which had b ee n mined previously . As a r es ult,
there is an exposed rock face of 40 to 60 feet in height with a
previously used stockpile area .
B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to develop an open pit
mine to extract high c a lcium limesto ne and to crush and stockpile thi s
product on a 26 acre p a rc e l of BLM land. As mentioned above, the
product would be transport ed by State Highway 325 from the s ite . Th e
year-round employee count is expected to be eig ht miners. Five to six
of these employees would be seasonal employees , living in temporary
quarters. The remaining employees would be permanent, and they are
expected to live either in Rifle or Glenwood Springs.
-15 -
" . Colorado Lien's tr!sport operations would be Inducted 52 weeks per
year, five days per week at an average of 384 tons per day. This
would require approximately 16 round trips per day or 32 vehicle trips
per day. Colorado Lien has proposed certain provisions and guidelines
by which they would tr ansport their product. The applicant has
indicated that the hauling will take place as follows:
1. The applicant will coordinate with the Rifle sc hool board s to
ensure that truck traffic will not oppose sc hool bus traffic;
2. Truck length will be limited to 38 feet;
3. All safety requir ements required by the State Department of
Transportation will be implemented, including:
a. Log books on drivers;
b. Regular physical inspection of all vehicles;
c. Limitation of driving hours to red uc e accidents caused by
fatigue.
4. Tacographers will be install ed i n all vehicles to monitor vehicl e
speed and engine r.p.m. to provide additio nal checks on vehicl e
safety and speed on highway;
5. Semi-annual report s wi ll be made to Garfie ld County, including:
a. Number of cit atio n s issued to indivi dual drivers, if any;
b. Number of motor vehicle accidents involving Colorado Lien
drivers, if any;
c. Number of deer killed, if any;
d. Number of load s hauled per week;
e. Number of work ers employed;
f. Monthly quarry output;
g. Any other rel evant information requested by the County.
6. Drivers will be paid on a per hour sa lary rather than a per load
hauled in order to reduce incentive for high speed;
7. Truck traffic will be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and
5:00 P.M. during summer month s and daylig ht hours in the winter.
No loads will be haul ed after 3:00 P.M . on Friday, on weekends or
on state or national hol idays.
8. Truck speeds will be restricted to posted speed limits. All
trucks will be equipped with Jake brakes;
9. Applicant will in stall two-way radios in trucks and school buses
to facilitate safety;
10. Blasting will be r estricted to midpday and warning signs will b e
posted giving notice of actual blasting and the hours bla s ting
will occur;
11. Dust control will be implemented on the crushing operation. Chip
and seal will be applied to the access road between the quarry
and Highway 325. Sedimentary procedures will be used b e twe e n the
quarry and Rifle Creek;
12. Applicant will cooper ate with the State Highway Department to
place signs warning of heavy truck use on Highway 325 and other
roads and highwiay s used within Garfield County;
13. Only legal loads will be haul e d on Highway 325 and other roads
and highways u sed with in Garfield County .
The life of operation is seventy-five years.
This application was first reviewed by the Garfield County Planning
Commission in August of 1980. The Planning Commission recomme nd e d
approval with conditions . On September 22, 1980, the Garfield County
Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on this request. This
hearing was continued until Octobe r 6, 1980 at which time the Board
accepted further testimony. The hearing was then closed and a
decision was scheduled for October 20, 1980 . On that date , the
Garfield County Commissioners denied the applicat ion by Colorado Li en
Company due to the inadequacy of the road systems providing access to
the mine site, and due to the impact of this use and the resultant
traffic on the recreational facilities in the area.
Subsequent to this deci sion by the Board, Colorado Lien filed suit
against the County. Howev er, when it was discovered that Colorado
Lien had applied for the wr ong type of permit (Special vs.
Conditional), the lawsuit was withdrawn.
The County, in the meantime, h a d amended the zoning regulations to
allow for a determination of certain uses on public lands to be either
special or conditional u ses , d epe nding on the issue of Federal or
State preemptive regulation s in regard to the specific proposals.
-16 -
• • On April 5, 1982, the County Commissioners heard legal arguments from
the County Attorney and counsel for Colorado Lien in regard to the
question of federal preemption and wheth er this proposal constitutes a
special or a conditional us e permit. On that date, the County
Commissioners made the decision that the Colorado Lien proposal was a
special use, and the project was referred to the Planning Commission.
Subsequent to that time, the applicant and the County jointly employed
a traffic consultant to review the access route proposed by the
applicant. Mr. Matt Delich, the consulta nt, presented his findings at
the August 11, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the
Planning Commission recommend ed the special use application be deni ed .
On September 13, 1982, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Resolution No. 82-235, which conditionally approved the special use
application. As a result of the Colorado Supreme Court Brubaker
decision, the Board of County Commissioners rescinded the previous
resolution conditionally approving the spec ial use permit.
Subsequently, Colorado Lien f il ed suit against the County.
ruled that the County did have the authority to rescind its
This has resulted Colorado Lien deciding to continue their
application.
The Court
action.
It has been agreed upon by both the County and Colorado Lien that the
continuation of the application will be as a conditional use, not. a
special use. Without going into all of the various discussions of
applicable, the result of the continuation is that the County has no
authority to deny the conditional use permit, but does have the right
to impose "reasonable" conditions to protect the general health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. (See letter,
page -2..3 __ ) •
III. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES
A. Review Agency Comments:
1. State Highway Department indicated that the June 27 and July 30,
1982 comments still apply: The road can handle increased traffic
volume, but that State Highway 325 is not structurally capable of
handling the heavier truck traffic; and some deterioration is to be
expected.
2. City of Rifle -the City recommends denial of this request until
the access limitations are corrected.
3. Re-2 School District indicated that the September 12, 1980
comments still apply: Concerns in regard to the safety of the school
children and residents.
4. Bureau of Land Management -letter of April 1, 1982 indicated that
the proposed limestone is of metallurgical grade and is considred a
locatable mineral.
5. Division of Wildlife -the Division of Wildlife is adamantly
opposed to any activity which would adversely impact the safety,
security and overall operation of the Rifle Falls Fish Hatchery or its
personnel. The Division's opinion is that the Colorado Lien project
may do so; and they therefor e , request that an alternative quarry site
be selected.
6. March 29, 1982 letter and addend um from Allen A. Schaefer opposed
the project.
7. Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Jewell are on record as opposing the project.
8. May 10, 1982 letter from Reg Thurlow states concerns regarding
possible damage to springs and ponds on his property.
9. May 10, 1982 from the Economic Development Committees of the Ri f l e
Area Chamber of Commerce encouraged Colorado Lien to consider
alternative access routes and supported the applicant's proposal to
establish an operation in the Rifle area.
All of the above comments are summaries of comments received at or
before previous hearings. Other comments received subsequent to the
August, 1982 hearing are:
-17 -
• 1. A January 4, 1983 letter from Colorado Ute Electric Association,
Inc. stating that Colorado Lien does have a contract with Colorado Ute
to supply limestone but the source is Rawlings, Wyoming. Colorado
Lien has the option with Colorado Ute's approval, to provide limeston e
from another source. It is also noted there are other companies
capable of supplying limestone to Colorado Ute. (See letter,
page 24 )
2. A September 30, 1982 Department of Highways memorandum was
received recommending that Highway 325 needs a 1 1/2" overlay
presently, to meeting existing traffic conditions and needs. If
16, 25 ton loads per day are added , an additional 1 1/2 " of
asphalt will need to be added. (S ee Me mo, page .25~~)
B. Staff Comments:
1. Colorado Lien proposes to use State Highway 325 as its immediate
accessto the mining area. The road presently cannot safely
accommodate the type of heavy traffic proposed by the applicant. This
road is recognized by the Colorado State Highway Department as being
narrow and having numerous curves. The Department also acknowledges
that the road and structural base is not sufficent to carry present
traffic, much less the types of heavy traffic projected for the mining
operations. Improvements to this road are not included in the
Department's present five year construction plan.
2. The State Highway 325, Quarry Traffic report, July 28, 1982, notes
a number of safety issues that need to be addressed:
a. Poor horizontal or vertical sight distance;
b. Poor site distanc e at driveways and access points;
c. Narrow lane width s.
The report recommends three solutions to the above safety
problems:
a. Reduce bank and wid en the pavement at blind curves;
b. Cut vegetation which is causing restricted sight distance;
c. Sign for "hidden driveways" at access points with restrict ed
sight distance.
There are specific point s of improvement noted in the report.
3. The environmental report suppleme nt fo r the Union Shale Oil
Upgrading plant and truck loading facility noted that "Highway 13 from
Rifle to the county line is already over capacity and additional truck
traffic will add to pres e nt over capacity." Although not part of the
existing 5-year Capital Improvement Program of the Colorado Department
of Highways, the reconstructi on of Highway 13 and addition of hill
climbing lanes to the road were suggested by the Colorado West Area
Council of Governments as a means of improving the road for projected
traffic increases by the y ear 2000.
4. Recent traffic counts are showing an increase in usage of State
Highway 325 over previou s years. The 1980 annual average daily count
for State Highway 325 just north of its intersection with State
Highway 13, showed 1050 vehicles per day. The previous year indicated
900 vehicles per day. Increasing area populations will further
stimulate an increase in this traffic.
5. Tourism and recreation play major roles in the economy of Garfield
County. In the area of the mine site and along the applicant's
proposed access route, there is considerable public investment in
numerous tourist and recre ational facilities. Those public facilities
could experience substanti al adverse impacts as a result of mining
operations in such close proximity.
The Rifle Falls State Park and Rifle Gap Reservoir Area had a visitor
count of 148,026 in 1981. The Rifle Gap State Park had a visitor
county of 166,103 from July 1979 to June 1980. The City of Rifle
Mountain Park, north of the mine site , also has substantial usage.
The Division of Wildlife h as operated the Rifle Falls Fish Hatchery
since 1954. The Hatchery had an estimated count of over 30,000
visitors in 1981. The operators indicated that slightly less than
half of these visitors are from out of state.
-18-
• • To the best knowledge of the Wildlife Division, the Rifle Hatchery has
the largest trout production of any state or federal hatchery in the
United States. It represents a multi-million dollar operation that
contributes to both the state and local eco nomies. The value of
catchable and fingerling trout produced at the hatchery approaches one
half million dollars annually, generating a significant number of
dollars for the recreation industry.
6. The character of the land use s adjoining State Highway 325 can be
characterized by two distinct patterns. The land uses surrounding
State Highway 325 from the Rifle Gap Reservoir to the Rifle Falls Fish
Hatchery is generally recreational in nature, with a few residential
units interspersed. The character of the so utherly portion of State
Highway 325 has, in fact, been changing in recent years. Several
residential developments have been approved (Rifle Creek Estates) or
are now in the review process (Rifl e Creek Ranch, Cedar Hills PUD) in
this area.
7. Garfield County recognizes that it has no authority to impose any
conditions on a State Highway. To that end , Garfield County sent a
delegation to the Colorado State Highway Commission meeting on April
21, 1983, asking that State Highway 325 be transferred to the Garfield
County road system and become County Road 217. On May 2, 1983, the
Board of County Commissioner s adopted Resolution 83-110 (See
page 26 & 27) which requests not only transferrance, but $375, 000 to
pay for 1 1/2" of bitumonous pavement the e ntire length of the roadway
at a width of 24 feet. This will bring the roadway up to structural
standards consistent with existing traffic loads.
8. To bring the roadway up to structural standa rds necessary to
accommodate the additional h eavy truck traffic generated by Colorado
Lien, will require an additional 1 1/2" of bitumonous pavement at a
minimum. Colorado Lien proposed to pay $50,000 per year for the first
two years of operation to pay for "safety" improvements.
Additionally, they agreed to pay on a formula basis for maintenance
(See letter, pages 28 -thru 3Lf). The County's response was that the
proposal was reasonable, if the roadway were structurally sound
presently, which it is not. (S ee memo, pages . 35 & 36 )
9. Colorado Lien has recognized in the above proposal, that there are
improvements necessary on Highway 325 for safety reasons and a need
for a long term maintenance and repair, as a result of their
proposal. What has not been resolved is the fact that the Highway is
not presently constructed to carry the existing traffic load, much
less the potential Colorado Lien heavy truck traffic.
10. Colorado Lien has submitted additional information with regard to the
effects of blasting in the area and methods of eliminating potential
noise disturbances created by the actual mining operation and truck
traffic. Provided all plans follo wed , potential noise and vibration
disturbances should be minimi zed .
IV. FINDINGS:
1. That the meeting before the Planning Com mission was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters, and issues were submitted
and that all parties wer e he ard at the hearing.
2. That the proposed conditional use confor ms to the requirements of
Section 5.03.07 and 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
of 1978, as amended.
3. That the proposed land u se will be compatible with existing and
permitted land uses in all directions if app ropriate conditions are
attached to the permit.
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed
conditional use is consistent wi th the best interests of the health,
safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission recommend approval with the following
conditions:
-19 -
• • 1. All written proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions
of approval unless otherwise expre ss ly stated below;
2. That the use of the tract of land s hall comply with all present and
future regulations of Garfi e ld County relating to the extraction and
processing of natural resources in which the property is now or may
later be located.
3. That within two years of the date of this resolution, the conditional
use permit authorized hereunder shall be issued to the applicant, in
the absence of which the gr a nt of authority to the applicant shall
automatically be rescinded.
4. That prior to the issuance of the subject conditional use permit, the
applicant shall obtain and submit to th e Garfield County Department of
Development/Planning Division copi e s of its permits from all other
government entities.
5. The applicant shall substantially comply with conditions imposed by
permits issued by other governme nt e ntities. Compliance shall be
determined solely by any issuing government agency and the County
shall not consider the question of non-compliance under this condition
until a violation is determined to have occurred by such agency. The
applicant shall advise the County o f any determination of violation
within ten (10) days of the time it is a dvised of any such violation.
The Board shall consider such violation upon reasonable notice to the
applicant. In the event the Board det e rmines that any such violation
adversely affects the health, sa f e ty, or welfare of the population of
Garfield County or of the u se s within th e zone district, the Board may
require that the permitted oper a tion b e brought into compliance within
a specified period, and the p e rmit may be suspended or revoked if the
operation is not brought into compliance within the period allowed.
6. That the recommendations of Mr. Howard N. McGregor, P.E., contained in
his affidavit of August 23, 1982, for th e reduction of noise to
adjacent landowners from th e propo s ed mining site, shall be
implemented by the applicant, a nd the applicant shall pay all of costs
therefore.
7. That the recommendations of Mr. Matt Champion of the Dupont Company
for the reduction of noise, du s t, and vibrations from blasting on the
proposed site shall be adher e d to by the applicant.
8. That the applicant shall comply with th e following items prior to the
issuance of the conditional us e p e rmit, provided the State Highway
Commission agrees to the terms in Res olution No. 83-110:
a. That the applicant, at it s own exp e nse, shall perform such work
as is necessary to meet and correct the safety concerns contained
in the report of Matthe w De lich, P.E., of July 28, 1982.
b. That the applicant agre e to bring Highway 325 to structural
standards consistent with the recommendations noted in the
September 30, 1982 memorandum from the Colorado Department of
Highways.
c. That the applicant shall e nter into a long term contract with The
Board, whose approval s hall not be reasonably withheld, for the
maintenance and repair of the subject road, so that the truck
traffic from the propo se d u se of the applicant does not cause the
physical condition of the s ubject road to fall below the
condition of the roadwa y at the time it is accepted by the
Board. Said contract s hall provid e for a way to establish the
baseline condition of the road, and for adequate security so that
if the applicant ceas e s to op e rat e , or otherwise fails to perform
its obligations under the a gr eeme nt, the Board will have a source
of funds to maintain th e ro a d for the term of the agreement; and
d. If the applicant can d e mon s tr a te an alternative access to State
Highway 13, then the abov e condition need not be complied with.
9. That the applicant shall not engag e in underground mining, since it
did not include a plan for und e rground mining in its application.
10. That the applicant shall be limite d to 16 round trips per day for
truck hauling operations.
11. Prior to the issuance of th e Conditional Use Permit, the applicant
shall tender to the Departme nt o f De v e lopment proof of access to the
proposed site.
12. The applicant's compliance with the conditions of this resolution and
any conditional use permit i ss u e d pursuant hereto may be monitored
through the Board's review th e r eo f a nnually.
-20-