Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportPROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PROJECT NAME: Frei and Sons, Inc. - Asphalt Batch Plant OWNER: Albert Frei and Sons, Inc. PLANNER: Larry O'Brian Environment, Inc. LOCATION: One mile southeast of Silt, off I-70 access road and :off County Road 311. PROPOSED ROADS: The applicant is initially proposing to locate the batch plant on the north side of the river, which would be served by the I-70 frontage road. Later, if the plant mere relocated to the south side, County Road 311 would provide the access. EXISTING ZONING: A/I RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This proposal lies partially within Silt's Urban Area of Influence, and partially within District B: Subdivisions/Rural Serviceable Areas (1 mile to 1 mile radius) Minor Environmental Constraints. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: A) Site Description: On October 14, 1981, Frei and Sons received approval on a Special Use Permit for a 171 acre open pit sand and gravel mine. The mined and processed product is transported across the Colorado River by conveyor to a five acre site on the north side of the river where it is loaded and moved to other areas of the county. The traffic generated by the haul trucks (approximately 75 to 150 VTD) utilizes the I-70 frontage road. The applicant is now requesting that an asphalt batch plant be located on the north side of the river at the existing loadout location. In their request the applicant has also indicated that this site may later be moved to the south side of the river where the main excavation operations are located. Traffic generated by the batch plan would comprise a possible additional 160 vehicle trips per day. (This is in addition to the 75 - 150 vehicle trips per day generated by the mining). The north river would utilize the I-70 frontage road. The south side location would utilize County Road 311 and the proposed new Silt Bridge. The applicant has indicated that the operation will be run in accordance with all local, State, and Federal air, water, and noise pollution limitations. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS: Staff Concerns/Comments: 1. On April 14, 1982, the applicant met with the Planning Staff, the County Code Enforcement Officer, and a representative from the Division of Wildlife in regard to the applicant's non-compliance with his existing'special use permit. Specifically the applicant had violated the condition of the County Special Use Permit which indicated that "an undisturbed greenbelt of 100 feet should separate -the pit area from the river.'! (Several stockpiles had been placed in the buffer zone, and a substantial amound of vegetation had been destroyed." At the meeting, the applicant indicated that there had been a misunderstah.ding, and that all offending materials would be removed from the buffer area; and the area ,would berevegetated during this growing season. As of the writing of these comments, the buffer area, had not yet been completely returned to its natural state. Several stockpiles remained, although a representative of the applicant did indicate that some revegetation had apparently been accomplished. 2. Location of the batch plant on the north side of the river is highly visible from I-70, and closer to neighboring residences, than location on the south side would be. Location of the plant on the south side of the river would place.an additional 160 haul trucks per day on County Road 311. Location of the plant on either side would utimately result in a tremendous increase in traffic in the area, from the permitted uses of approximately 75 - 150 vehicle trips per day to possibly double that amount. Page 3 Review Agency Comments: 1. Town of Silt- See letter, page-. 11 • 2. Division of Wildlife- no responses dt the time agendas were mailed. FINDINGS 1. The application has been filed in accordance with Section 5.03 of the County Zoning Regulations. 2. The proper posting, publication, and public notice were provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the application be tabled until the issues of non-compliance remaining in regard to the previous Special Use Permit be settled. However, if the Board chooses to review the proposal, the following issues need to be addressed: 1. Traffic generated by the plant; 2. Impact of traffic on the surrounding areas; 3. Air quality; 4. Compliance with the previous Special Use Permit; 5. Setbacks and buffer zones in relation to the parcel on the north side of the river; Maintenance to County Road 311, if the proposed batch plant location changes; Concerns by the Town of Silt and the Division of Wildlife. 6. 7. Ex A ` I - `DcP C —t r, dr Car rd B(1€4.--, .'a rc) ( 1cM c T 004 1.:44 � e 1. r c, ak_rr i- 1 G.c-v,-V, c, 1 d. Z . Yn D i ne, burr roti AmoV.A.. �, ���� �l �. r rte€ ale -{-ed 9 r\0 . y r 1� � c.'h bc�r s o r, S' � cue 3 c> aper c, r, J �u Lit - r� ;rrte? � r;� 1 1,Mc. (-) ccu 51 ( ©YDS %' �-, ►1c�'{Z l f i11 �� �n�t�l-l-Inh�s rea."l tH 'i s suec3 . 1d, � j®� nI -9 vc.Jr 5, nnac- C)oy - rE 1 Iv Gcn\( ex\# oy, non -co (') ? 6nce. 1. i ' - rrn ©0e.c) r4- - Z ` 8 Z,) rE'c�q i�r J15 n aPy r Cln 4ek. �. c -t "11-91 it 4-6 ked c� e ._A C" -Phe -CSO h 6.c_. Lok 3, ��,1`Yib ke � b c.x-t n\ t-10 ryL yT b cLr- i 1 r L Or �� � k •'c c r't LDOLLD Loa i-er- � ra.� I �� �, kczxA-r-s Qa9 holy -414A/1- 5P✓vt) do • c c . C cam, \ 1 �- ®1-k -, 1 �I e -- ,,.- 1- 2 coVs 61- � ` �Oh ; `n©.� )-q,,t�t - �� 1 cLst,�-5 b ,', a.e-4 Vf04, 0a_ -�',+C? G' Gyri /-7 -�-� /5 (2_,c_.-(=e,-,acoja0-. ,z_c-e_eez, J Air Z