Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.0 Application1 • APPLICATION SPECIAL/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Date: Januan.y 29, 1996 Applicant: Wesjenn S.ope Agg&e.gate6, Inc. Post 044.ice Box 910, Ca4bonda2e, Coto&ado 81623 Address of Applicant: (77 jji - Special/Conditional Use: Permanent Highway 82 Access Legal Description: Parcet o4 £and )'ocated .in pokttion6 o4 Section 25 and 26, T7S, RS8W o4 the 6th P.M. (See attached 4o4 !egat de6e4.iption. ) g._sMiY Practical Description (location with respect to highways, county roads, and residences). Partcet located Pups; north o Stctte. Highway 82, across titom the Ranch ob Roamng Fo th. (B'ue G'uwet. Pit.) Requirements: 1. Plans and specifications for proposed use (hours of operation, number ofvehicles/day, location and size of structures, etc.). 2. Existing or proposed method ofsewage, source of disposal and water. Road access and other information deemed necessary to explain proposed use. 3. A vicinity map drawn to scale depicting the subject property, location, and use of building and structures on adjacent lots. 4. An impact statement on the proposed use where required by Sections 5.03-5.03.12 of Zoning Regulations. 5. A copy of Assessor's map showing property; and a listing of all adjoining property owners of said property. 6. A base fee of $ 525.00 shall be charged for each application and shall be submitted with the application, additional charges may be imposed if county review costs exceed the base fee. 7. Attach a copy of proof of ownership for your property (deed, title insurance). If public notice is required, notice provided by the Planning Department shall be sent out at least fifteen (15) days prior to hearing by return -receipt mail to all the above noted adjoining property owners. Mailing is the applicant's responsibility and proof of mailing must be presented at the hearing. Additionally, the same notice shall be published one (1) time in the official County newspaper at least fifteen (15) days prior to such hearing date. Applicant shall bear the cost of publication and be responsible for presenting the "Proof of Publication" at the hearing. The above information is correct to the best of my knowledge. WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES . INC. Applicant W t tam M. Roben 6, January 29, 1996 Date Western Slope Aggregate January 25, 1996 TO; Officials and Public of Garfield County FROM: Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. RE: Special Use Permit for Permanent Highway 82 Access The purpose of this application is to modify the access route to Western Slope Aggregates, also known as the Blue Pit. Currently the access is from County Roads 103 and 104. We would like to add direct access to Highway 82 via the existing ranch road. We would request that the Planning Commission Members and County Commissioners visit the site to see the existing and proposed access. Sincerely, William M. Roberts President PO. Box 910 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (970) 963-9424 Western Slope Aggregate TO: Officials and Public of Garfield County FROM: Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. RE: Permanent Highway 82 Access Road This Special Use Permit Application represents a request for the addition of the permanent use of an existing ranch road to the existing permit issued in the name of Jean and Dee Blue and Zemlock and Sons, Inc. (Garfield County Resolution No 81-384). The general character and nature of the gravel mining operation shall remain the same as in the existing permit. Present access to the permit is via County Road 103 and 104. The new access road would utilize the existing road from the gravel pit to Highway 82. Under the present permit work hours are 7:00am through 5:00pm daily. Existing structures onsite presently include a scale house (200sf), maintenance shop (3600sf), and the crushing equipment. The existing methods of sewage disposal are portable chemical toilets for the gravel pit operation and truck drivers and a leach field for shop personnel. Water for pit activities, including washing of material and equipment and dust suppression, is obtained from the landowners water rights in the Basin Ditch in the summer. Water rights for the pit operation are provided for through District Court, Water Division No. 5, Case No. 87 - CW -364. Water will be trucked in for winter use as needed. We currently hold an active State Highway Access Permit #393015 with the Colorado Department of Transportation to access Highway 82 from the proposed access road (see attached). The proposed permanent permit provisions offer the following benefits to the county, general public, and the applicant: PO. Box 910 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (970) 963-9424 • • PERMANENT ACCESS ROAD 1. Almost all truck traffic will be removed from County Roads 103 and 104. This will remove the conflicts of truck traffic with the growing residential traffic on County Road 103, increasing public safety. Conflict between school bus traffic and the existing bus stop at the 103/104 intersection would also be removed. Maintenance requirements on 103 Roads will also be reduced. The 103/104 Road. access would still be used for delivers north of the pit. This route would be used to keep trucks from going down to Highway 82 from the pit then back up 103 Road past the pit. 2. The new route will reduce the trip time by ten minutes over the present access. This will save fuel and improve truck efficiency. This is of course beneficial to the applicant, but it is in the long run, also beneficial to the public. Current access from scale house to the proposed Highway 82 access point via 103/104 Road is 2.7 miles. The proposed access from the scalehouse to Highway 82 is 0.4 miles.. 3. Acceleration/deceleration lane conflicts on Highway 82 at 103 Road will be eliminated. Currently the west bound accel lane is Roaring Fork Redi-Mix's decel lane. The access road is currently in place. It was constructed within the Highway 82 Four Lane Project. The existing road would be widened, paved, and disturbed areas re -vegetated. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED REVISIONS 1. Truck traffic will be accelerating and decelerating in the vicinity of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, introducing some additional noise in the area. The impact of this noise is minimal when considered in context with the existing noise levels of Highway 82 traffic volumes. We have included a "noise study" supporting the fact that noise impacts will be minimal. (See attached.) Western Siope A a e SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PERMANENT ACCESS - IMPACT REPORT This impact report is offered as a supplement to the previously submitted Special Use Permit Application. The report responds to the subject and issues identified in Section 5.0107 - Impact Report and Section 5.03.08 - Industrial Performance Standards. INTRODUCTION This site which is the subject of this report is presently occupied by a gravel mining and crushing operation which was permitted in 1981 (Garfield County Resolution No. 81- 384), This Special Use Permit Application requests a change in the access route to the mining site. The operational plan has been brought up to date, but the remaining aspects of the operation will remain consistent with the existing Special Use Permit. A more detailed explanation of the proposed revisions and additions is included in the text accompanying the permit application and will not be repeated here. This report intends to describe any possible impacts of the operation and, where appropriate, to discuss mitigation measures. GOVERNING LAWS AND REGULATIONS The operations at the site falls under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) and the Colorado Department of Health. The existing IVILRB Operations Permit for the site has been transfered into the name of Western Slope Aggregates. The pit is presently in operation under the provisions of Permit NO. M-81- 207, Revision No. SO -02. The Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health has issued an Emission Permit for the site, Permit No 83GA233F. SURFACE/SUB-SURFACE WATER There are no active natural streams heading on /or running across the project area. The Basin Ditch and a feeder ditch cross the project and irrigates lands within the project boundary. The mining and relcamation plans incorporate provisions for maintaining uninterrupted flows in these ditches. P.O. Box 910 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (970) 963-9424 The hydrologic characteristics of the reclaimed area following mining will be very similar to those existing today in that surface drainage is now and will remain tributary to the Roaring Fork River either by surface flow or entry into the water table. Plant operational water will come from the land owners water rights in the Basin Ditch. Water rights for the pit operation provided for through District Court, Water Division No. 5, Case No. 87 -CW -364. Operational water requirements will be minimized by maximum recirculation of wash water. Any surface drainage potentially contaminated in the operation area will be collected, settled, and skimmed for floating contamination prior to its release from the project area. The topographic character of the pile site directs all surface drainage from potentially disturbed areas back into the pit. EMISSIONS The proposed operations are potential sources of dust, noise and vibration. The previously discussed Emission Permit requires certain procedures and equipment to restrict the release of fugitive dust or other air pollution from the mining operation. The most intense source of dust is from vehicular traffic at the pit site and on the exisiting access road. The frequent application of water will control dust at the pit site. The proposed access road will consist of chip and seal paving. The pit site is surrounded by considerable acreage owned by the Applicant, except east of the site where the Carbondale Landfill was located. This provides as significant buffer area over which any arrant dust may dissipate. This buffer is also significant in reducing any impacts that noise or vibration might have on adjacent properties. The apparent closest residents are located at the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The vibrations generated by the rock crusher or dozer activities are not detectable at the site boundaries. WILDLIFE The majority of the mine site has historically been in agricultural production. This proposal does not alter the area of disturbance created by the mining operation as defined by the existing Special Use Permit. Reclamation of the site will result in slopes that will develop a climax vegetation dominated by sage and will provide quality forage for deer. The small area at the bottom of the mine site is anticipated to be returned to agricultural uses. The proposed new access will not significantly disturb the slope facing the highway beyond the scar created by the existing ranch access road. All disturbed areas remaining after construction of the proposed access will be topsoiled and revegetated. The upper portion of the road is incorporated into the disturbed area generated by the highway construction. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Presently, access to the pit site for all traffic is provided via County Roads 103 and 104. the proposed access will remove almost all pit traffic from these county roads and provide a much more direct and safer route to Highway 82 for this project. Elapsed time for truck trips will be reduced by approximately ten minutes by the proposed road with reduction in fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. The long term detrimental impacts of the truck traffic on the structural and surface conditions of the county road will also be eliminated. The 103/104 road access would be used for deliveries to destinations north of the pit, This route would be used to keep the trucks from going down to Highway 82 from the pit and then back up 103 Road past the 103/104 Road access. The removal of almost all truck traffic from County Roads 103 and 104 will make these roads safer for the increasing residential, agricultural, and school bus traffic. DOMESTIC WATER AND WASTEWATER The primary factor influencing water and waste water services on the site are the number of employees located on site. The operators project a range of five (5) to ten (10) employees to be located at the pit site. The existing well will provide domestic water while waste water is processed by a standard individual septic disposal system. Restroom facilities are located in the pit maintenance building, and chemical toilets are used for pit operators and truck drivers. NIA APR-IL7--1995 12 32 i'1ATfHEW DEL I CH PE C •. ORAL710 DEPARTMENT OP HIGH'lfS • PLICATION FOR STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 3036595034 P.02 Instructions: contact the Department of Highways or your focal government to determine your issuing authority. - cont ;'t the issuing authority to determine what plans and other documents are required to be submitted with your application_ complete this form (some questions may not apply to you) & attach all necessary documents and submit it to the issuing authority. Submit an application for each access requested. - if you have any questions contact the issuing authority. Please print or type Issuing authority application acceptance 1) Property owner (Permittee) - Jerzn M. artd Dee Btue street address, city, 0404 County Road 104, Caatbondate. state & zip Coton,ado 87623 Phone OF 970-963-2653 3) Address of property to ba served by permit (if known) 0242 Country Road 704, Catbondate, CoZoitado 81623 2) Applicant (L1e,e -telt n s-eo •e A•. •/tego t2.c1 Irtc. street address_ city, Pot N64:CC Bax 970/0242 County Road 104, Canbcndate state & zip Phone e CoZona_do 87623 970-963-2296 4) Legal descrdptian of property - - countySubdivision block Gwc6,Cet.c1 L J What state highway are you requesting access from? Sta-te. fl.i.ghwarq 82 ) 101 tl section township ran9e 36 p 7S8 8U1 6) What side of Ma nighway7 Nafcth. "�' Q s 7) 1-io'w many feet is the proposed access from the nearest mite post or cross strait? 3696 feet ( N srl3w) frim kite Post 14 ME OW 4) Check here if you are requesting a - - - - - new access • D temporary access LI improvement to existing access ❑ change in access use 9) What r the approximate date you intond to begin construction? May 1996 (Pending GaAlii.•r`_-e.ed County Appreova ) 10) D ou,have krlowIetge of any State Highway access permits nerving this property. of for adlacera properties In which you have a property interest.. Z1 esM no if 'yes" - what are the permit number(sj7 393075 and/or. permit date Feb rla,tg 18, 7993 11) Does the property owner own or have any interests In any adjacent property? .. yes • G no If "yes" - please describe: 12) Aro there existing or dedicated public Streets, roads. highways or access easements bordering or within the property? XL8kyes D no if "yes" - list them on your plans and indicate the proposed and existing access points. 13) If you are requesting commercial Or industrial access please indicate the types and number of businesses and provide me floor area equate footage of each? bUslnesa square rootage Weatehrt S.Pnpe Aggivaga.ted, Inc _ G 110 ac/ce1 business square 'footage 14) !f you are requesting agncultural field access - how many acres will the access serval 3 15) If you are requesting residential development access, - what is the type (aingle family, apartment, townhouse) and number of units? type number of units type number of units 15) Provide the following vehicle count estimates for vehtClee that will use the access- Leaving property then returning is two countsindicate i your cou"ta are peak hour volumoa p ar average daily volumes ADC _ 6:300a - 5;SOprn sr Of passengers cars and light trucks p of multi unit trucks N of ather verliCleS 40 rt of single unit vehicles in excess of 30 8o of farm vehicles (field ■qulpmanI) Total Count of All Vetiietea 750 17) Check with the issuing autharbty to determine which of the following documents are required to complete the review of your appiication. [ohne shaulet ee rte Larger than 24- x 3a-) e) a) Highway and driveway plan and profile. 1) b) Drainage pian snowing impact to the highway right-of-way. g) c) Map and betters detailing utility locations before and after h) development in and along the right-of-way. i) d) Subdivision, zoning, or development plan. I) Property map Ingicating other access, bordering roads and streets. Proposed access Design. Parcel and ownership maps inciLtding easements. Signing 4110 Striping pians. Traffic control plan Proof of liability InetJranea if an access permit is issued to you it will state the terms and conditions or its use. Any changes in the use of the permitted access not consistent with the terms and conditions listed an the permit may be considered a violation of the permit. THE APPLICANT DECLARES UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN THE SECOND DEGREE, AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM AND SUBMITTED ATTACHMENTS ARE TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE TRUE AND COMPLETE. Applicant signature k ?.K � • E Hate I-> 96 if the applicant is not the owner of the property, we require this application also to be signed by the property owner or their legally authorized- representative (or other acceptable written evidence). This signature shall constitute agreement with this apollcation by all owners -of -interest unless stated in writing. If a permit is authorized, the property owner will be listed as the permittee. Property ownansignature 1��r1 Oata �r? Proving,. .OIIlons may be us.rl until ■upplt.•.r. .z h•usira eb CH Form rltb7 Wee - APR -03-1996 12:32 MATTHEW DELICH PE COLORADO DEPARTMENA OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT (THE PERMITTEE; Jean M. & Dee Ulue 0404 County Road 104 Carbondale, CO 81623 3036695034 P.03 4117777/MP/Side: 62N/014.7o0/Lrip7 Local Jurisdiction: "+field Dist/Section/Petrel, CJ 3 /32 /16 DOT Permit No.: 396055 Permit Fee: 0.00 Crate of Tranmitter: 03/21/96 r�PPLICANT : Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. P. D, Box 910 0242 County Rod 104 Carbondale, CO 81623 Jean M. & Dee Slue - (970) 963-2653 (970) 963-2296 is hereby granted permission to construct and use an access to the state highway at the location noted below. The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit. including the State Highway;Access Code and listed attachments. This permit may be revoked by the issuing authority if at any time the permitted access and its use violate any of the terms and conditions of this permit. The use of advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades and fiaggers are required at all times during access construction within State right-of-way In conformance with the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTRQL DEVICES. Part VI. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit. LOCATION: On the north side of State Highway 82, a distance of 3696 feet east from Mile Post 14; 0242 County Road 104; Carbondale. ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO: General Light Industrial PERCENT 3 (110 Acres) 100.00 OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED SHEET (S) FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. By (X) Date Title Upon the signing of this permit the permittee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments Contained herein_ All construction shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to being used. The permittee shall notify Mike Moore with the Colorado Department of Trarrapartation In aas a1 t at 970-9_27-1117 at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction within the State Highway right-of-way, The person signing as the ,permittee must be the owner or legal representative of the property served by the permitted access and have full a hority to accept the per and all its terms and conditions. ,Arai Permittee (X) Date This permit is not valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. DEPARTMENT OF TRAf}i$PORTAT ON, STATE OF COLORADO By (X) CIV ,,,t,oln ++easy+lee: 1. ❑lyrr4cr (lar,ginal) 2. Applicant 3. $leT/ ROW Date Title ate. -eco - C rd sla-r-Qr Maas Gopig7 necessary for: Local A ,(horny insp.ctgr MTCE Patrol Trartsc Engineer Previous Eatlans are Ctraalato dna win ,,or rse u�ad GDOT Form •161 7/91 .APR -09-1996 12:33 �r- MATTHEW DELICH PE 3036695034 P.04 • • DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 2 ISSUE] TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. If there are any questions regarding this permit, please contact Charles Dunn at (970) 248-7234. 2 The Permittee shall refer to all additional standard requirements on the back of this permit and any enclosed additional terms, conditions, exhibits and noted attachments. 3. This permitted access is only for the use and purpose stated in the Application and Permit.. 4. The Permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary additional federal, state and/or City/County permits or clearances required for construction of the access. Approval of this access permit doers not constitute verification of this action by the Permittee. 5. The Permittee shall submit a survey plat, warranty deed and legal description for all property to be dedicated to the Department as new right-of-way. 6. The Permittee shall provide the Department a copy of the recorded final plat. 7 Any work within State Highway right-of-way shall begin after 8:30 A.M. and all work and equipment shall be off the highway BEFORE 3:30 P.M. each day. 8. It is the responsibility of the Permittee to prevent all livestock from entering the State Highway right-of-way at this access location. Any livestock that does enter the highway right-of-way shall be the sole responsibility of the Permittee. 9. A FULLY EXECUTED COMPLETE COPY OF THIS PERMIT MUST SE ON THE JOB SITE WITH THE CONTRACTOR AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS OR ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENT MAY RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION QF WORK BY ORDER OF THE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR OR THE ISSUING AUTHORITY. 10. All materials, equipment, installation, construction and design, including the auxiliary lane(s) and intersection improvement(s) within the State Highway shall be in accordance with the following (Department standard references, as applicable: a. Roadway Design Manual b. Materials Manual c. Construction Manual d. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition e. Colorado Standard Plans (M & S Standards) f. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (M.U.T.C.D.) for Streets and Highways and the Colorado Supplement thereto g. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), latest edition h. institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation manual, latest edition• I. State Highway Access Code 2 CCR 601-1 j. Roadside Design Guide Some of the reference materials listed above (a through e) may be purchased from: Colorado Department of Transportation Eid Plans Room 42C1 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222-3400 APR -139-1996 12:34 MATTHEW DELICH FE 3036695034 F.05 DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 3 ISSUED TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CONT' D) Telephone Number: (303) 757-9313 The Access Code may be purchased from: The Public Record Corporation 1666 Lafayette Street P.O. Box 18186 Denver, Colorado 80218 Telephone Number: (303) 832-8262 11. Survey markers or monuments must be preserved in their original positions. Notify the Department at (970) 248-7220 immediately upon damage to or discovery of any such markers or monuments at the work site. Any survey markers or monuments disturbed during the execution of this permit shall be repaired and/or replaced immediately at the expense of the permittee. 12. Prior to starting construction or any work within the State Highway right-of-way, the Permittee/contractor must provide the following to the Department: A. A construction traffic control plan prepared by a professional traffic engineer or an individual certified by the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), using the latest edition of Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and other applicable standards. The plan must be submitted a minimum of 72 hours in advance of construction. B. A copy of the work and phasing schedule. 13. The Permittee, through a Colorado registered professional engineer shall provide design, construction, pavement striping and signing plans to the Department for approval 45 days prior to commencement of any work. Design plans must include but not limited to layout of speed change lanes, Utility locations, present and proposed drainage, present and proposed right-of-way lines, traffic control plan (if any), present and proposed traffic control devices, cross sections on 50 foot intervals and clear zone analysis. (Par. 4_10.17, 2 CCR 601-1) 14. Upon completion of the work, the Permittee/Contractor/Engineer shall submit an "As Built" plan, showing in detail all construction changes, modifications and revisions. All changes, modifications or revisions shall be stamped by a Colorado registered professional engineer. 15. It shall be the responsibility of the Permittee to verify the location of the existing utilities and notify all utility owners or operators of any work that might involve utilities within, the State Highway right-of-way. Any work necessary to protect existing permitted utilities, such as an encasement will be the responsibility of the Permittee. Any damage or disruption to any utilities during the construction shall be the Permittees responsibility and shall be repaired or replaced at no cost to the Department. 16. Any damage to any present highway facilities including traffic control devices shall be repaired immediately at no cost to the Department and prior to continuing other work. Any mud or other material tracked or otherwise deposited on the roadway shall be removed daily or as ordered by the Department inspector. 17. Areas of roadway and/or right-of-way disturbed during this installation shall be restored to their origional conditions, Co insure proper strength, drainage and erosion control. APR -09-1996 12:34 MATTHEW DELICH PE • • DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 4 ISSUED TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue TERA'IS AND CONDITIONS (CANT' f7 ) 3036695034 P.06 18. Any incomplete construction activity on the State Highway that must be left overnight, shall be barricaded and signed in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and other applicable standards. 19. Open cuts which are 6 inches in depth, within 30 feet of the edge of the State Highway traveled way will not be left open at night, on weekends, or on holidays. 20. No more than 6 feet of trench areas shall be opened at any ane time. Open trenches and other excavations within the State Highway right-of-way shall be backfilled and/or paved before 3:30 P.M. of each working day or be protected in accordance with the M.U.T.C_D.. 21. The area around the new work shall be well graded to drain, top soiled, fertilized, mulched and re -seeded in accordance with the Department standard specifications. 22. When it is necessary to remove any highway right-of-way fence, the posts on either side of the access entrance shall be securely braced with approved end posts and in conformance with the Department's M-607-]. standard, before the fence is cut, to prevent slacking of the remaining fence_ All posts and wire removed shall be returned to the Department_ 23. Highway widening for be 12 feet wide and 4 24. Highway widening for he 12 feet wide and 9 taper. the right turn deceleration lane shall 85 long, including a 270 foot taper. the right turn acceleration lane shall 60 feet long, including a 270 foot 25. A left turn lane shall be installed. The deceleration portion shall be 16 feet wide and 485 feet long, including a 270 foot taper. Redirect tapers for through traffic shall be at a 50 to 1 ratio. 26. The left turn acceleration lane shall be 16 feat wide, with an approximate total length of 960 feet. The components of the lane will be a 690 foot acceleration length and a 270 foot taper. 27. All excavations for utility lines, culverts, trenches or tunnels shall meet the requirements of the Occupational, Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Colorado Industrial Commission, Colorado Division of Mines or the Colorado Department of Transportation, whichever applies. 28. All work that requires traffic control shall be supervised by a registered. professional traffic engineer or by a traffic control supervisor certified by the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) or the Colorado Contractors Association (CCA). When flagging personnel are required, they shall be certified by the -contractor in accordance with. the Department standards. 29. Construction traffic control devices, when not in use, shall be removed or turned away from traffic. 30. All temporary pavement striping shall be Permittee/contractor in conformance with Department's standard specifications for Construction (latest edition). done by the section 627 of the Road and Bridge RPR -E9-1996 12:35 F1RTTHELJ D]EL I CH PE 30366950 34 P.27 DATE; March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 5 ISSUED TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue TENS AND CONDITIONS (CONT'D) 31. All final signing and pavement striping shall be done by the Permittee or the contractor in conformance with the Department's M & S standards and the M.tJ.T.C.n., unless otherwise agreed to by the Department and the Permittee, A final signing and pavement striping plan shall be submitted to the Region 3 Traffic Engineer a minimum of 45 working days prior to commencement of work. No work shall begin without prior approval and authorization from the Department. 32. The roadway shoulder shall be widened to 4 feet alone the speed change lanes and surfaced wich HAP in accordance with the Department specifications. The shoulder widening along through lanes shall be no less than 4 feet paved or match existing and paved. 33_ The access shal/ be constructed perpendicular to the travel lanes of the State Highway for a minimum distance of 50 feet, and shall slope down and away from the adjacent pavement edge at a rate of 2% grade for a minimum of 20 feet. If curb and gutter are present, the slope shall be calculated from pan line to pan line. Any revisions to this requirement shall be subject to Department review and approval prior to commencement of any work within the highway right-of-way. 34. The access shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation of construction within State Highway right-of-way. 35 Pursuant to section 4.10.2 of the State Highway Access Code, the access roadway shall not exceed a maximum grade of 10 percent within the highway right-of-way, as measured 50 feet beyond the pavement edge and extending to the right-of-way line. The access vertical grade shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the Department M & S standard M-203-1. 36. The design of the horizontal and vertical sight distance shall be no less than the minimum requirements, as provided in section 4.9 of the State Highway Access Code, 2 CCR 601-1. 37. All required access improvements shall be installed prior to the herein authorized use of this access. 38. The access shall be surfaced immediately upon completion of earthwork construction and prior to use. 39. Compaction of Hot Bituminous Pavement shall be in accordance with section 401.17 of the Department's standard specifications. Compaction of the Aggregate as Course shall comply with section 304.06. 40. Compaction of subgrade, embankments and backfill shall be in accordance to section 203.07 of the Department's standard specifications with the test results sent to and approved by the Department inspector. 41. Placement of base course materials shall be in accordance with section 304.04 of the standard specifications_ Compaction shall be in conformance with AASHTO procedure T-99 42. The surfacing shall meet the Department's specifications with the following material placed for final grade: 12 inches ABC, Class 1; 6 inches ABC, Class 6 and 4 inches of RPR -'Q9-1956 12:35 MATTHEW DEL I CH PE 3'636695034 P.06 • • DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 6 ISSUED TO: Jean M . & Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CONT" D) Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading C ar CX) placed in the following lifts: 2 - 6 inch lifts Class 1; 1 6 inch lift Class 6; 2 - 2 inch lifts HBP. 43. The new State Highway pavement shall slope on the same plane as the present pavement surface. 44. Slopes shall be at a 6 to 1 ratio on the roadway and a 6 to 1 ratio on the approach. 45. The existing asphalt adjacent to all new pavement shall be saw cut and removed a minimum of one foot back from the existing edge, or until an acceptable existing cross slope is achieved to assure a straight edge for the joint. 46. The top layer of plant mix bituminous pavement shall not be placed between October 1 and April 1, unless oterwise approved by the Department. 47. If frost, water or moisture is present in the subgrade, no surfacing materials shall be placed until all frost, water or moisture is gorse or removed. 48. No drainage from this site shall enter onto the State Highway travel lanes. The Permittee may be required to detain all drainage in excess of historical flows an site. 49. All existing or upgraded, construction Department's 50. Ail culverts sections. drainage structures shall be extended, modified as applicable, to accommodate all new and safety standards, in accordance with the standard specifications. installed in open ditches shall have flared end TOTAL P.09 04/10/1996 11:17 9709522412 EARTHWORKS ApniJ 70, 1996 To GakAie. d County ?tanning and Z c th g As a neeid€nt ci MiAdoaki Heights Y urn peaty in liuvon ol5 .the pnopo/ed toad to .the Weatenn slope Aggnega.ted gh.avet pit. T gea .this toad w.it keep heavy tnucfx ,tnatitiic o66 at the county kpade .that thavexae M .bAou', He.igW 416 they have dine& and convenient access 4N Highway 82 to the gtava pit. S.in.ceneiy, APY W.i. . -iam Teague Resident Arc PAGE 01 NPR -10-1596 16;13 ROARING FORK M INT & CONS • RICT DEPARTMENT 0. ,DOX 20 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602: 945-5864 Charles W. Cloud Administrator Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8t11 Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 April 10, 1996 Dear Marl;.: After having several discussions with different parents and community members regarding the road corning out onto Highway 82 instead of 104 Road, 1 feel that the Roaring Fork School District Transportation Department needs to withdraw their previous recommendation. f feel that we need to have all the facts presented to us before we can make this decision. P.02 If you have any further need to discuss this matter with me, please give me a call at my office (945-5864 or 945-1207). Sincerely yours, 40,6_ .Z 4& Larry Estrada TOTAL F.02 6 0: mrm-uu -ivy In eSA 1 CHBL ,^ •Ci I3ELTCW PE z z • • MEMORANDUM 3036E05034 F. E TO: Frank Hallowell, The Ranch at Roaring Fork 1 Sherry Caloia 1 Garfield County FROM: Matt Delicti .010SD VIL EHGINEEIRIftG -- DATE: April S, 1996 SUBJECT: Western Slope Aggregate proposed access to SH82, traffic engineering evaluations (File: 9622MEM2) I have been requested to provide traffic engineering evaluationa and opinions pertaining to the proposed access to SH82 for the Western Slope Aggregate operation, known as the Blue Pit. VehiCles (trucks and passenger cars) currently accessing the Blue Pit from/to SH62 use County Road 103 (CR103), County Read 104 (CR1 04) , and a private road. Both CR103 and CR104 are paved. The private road is gravel. The proposal is to improve an existing gravel road that currently intersects with SlIsa across from the access to the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The existing access to 3H82 is currently gated, During a number of site visits, the gate was always open, however no vehicles were observed using this access. It is my understanding, based upon conversations and review of available documentation, that this access had a temporary access permit granted by the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT). The temporary nature of the access permit was related to the construction of the four lane cross section of SH82 in 1993 and 1994. The current access ]route (described above) i.s expressly defined lr► Resolution 81-3e4, which relates to the approval of the special use permit for the gravel extraction operation. No limit en the number of vehicles utilizing the Blue it Was found in the available documentation. The access permit application (signed on 3115/96 and 3/18/96) states that the estimated daily vehicle counts using the proposed access will be 30 passenger cars and light trucks, 80 single unit trucks in excess of 30 feet, and 40 multi -unit trucks. This is a total of 150 vehicle trips. The access permit states, "Leaving property then returning is two counts." The auxiliary lane requirements defined in the State Highway Access Code are based upon the estimated number of vehicles that will utilize the access. The following are the auxiliary lane requirements taken from the approved State Highway Access Permit: 23. Highway widening for the right turn deceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 485 long, including a 270 root taper. APR 09 '96 10: 08PM CHaL, APR-ke-1 b 1a' C1 ria P.C.W DEQ I CH 1 3036695034 24. Highway widening for the right turn acceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 960 feet long, including a 270 foot taper. 25. A loft turn lane shall be installed. The deceleration portion shall be 16 feet wide and 435 feat long, including a 270 foot taper. Redirect tapers for through traffic shall be at a 50 to 1 ratio. 26. The left tern acceleration lane shall be 16 fust wide, with an approximate total length of 960 feet. The components of the lane will be a 690 foot acceleration length and 270 foot taper. Ina memorandum and attach.cents dated March 1, 1996, from King to Mark Bean, traffic volumes on 08143 were discussed. Traffic courts on CR103, at a location 100 yards ;south of CR104, average 1344 vehicles per weekday, and on CR03, at a location between CR104 and Wooden Der Subdivision, average 907 vehicles per weekday. A simple calculation would indicate that the difference between these two count locations would be the number of vehicles cursory observation indicates that there are 8 single utilizing CRI04. This difference is 437 vehicles per weekday. A family dwelling units that .have primary access to CR104. Usxr�g conventional trip generation rates, results in 76 weekday vehicle trip ends for these eight dwelling units. The only other users of CR104 are the Blue Pit vehicles. This results in 361 vehicles that are likely to be related to activity at the Blue Pit. This number of vehicles is 2.4 times the cumber of vehicles stated by the applicants is the State Highway Access Permit Application. This discrepancy should be explained. The increased vehicle activity would directly irnpct the Ranch at Roaring Fork at the proposed access, If there will be hi_ghcr trip_ generation than that indicated in the Permit Ap flection.. then the awKi1iar lane rerruirements will likely be different than thoS indicated in the State Hi hwa Access Permit approved b CDOT.. In light of the above, the weigh station tickets for the current Blue Pit operation should be obtained for a number of wec.;days during each month of the year. I am suggesting data from each month, since truck activity is higher during the construction season. It should be noted that the traffic counts performed, by Garfield County were in November 1995, and I believe that truck traffic was probably lower during this time than during construction season months. Mere are currently 133 dwelling units in the Ranch at Roaring Fork, a 9 hole par 3 golf course, and a bar/entertainment facility. The vehicle activity from 133 dwelling units is approximately 1200 average weekday vehicle trip ends. Comparing the residentially generated traffic on CR103 to traffic generated by 133 dWelling units of the Ranch at Roaring Fork indicates that €he vehicle APR 09 '96 1 n: 09AM CH2.L . P.C. APR708-19J0 16:22I.ECJ DELICH PE 411 410 ?036895034 activity at the Ranch at Roaring Fork will be higher than the residential vehicle activity on CR103, just north of SMe2. The Ranch at Roaring Fork is not fully developed. The total number of dwelling units could be 190. This number of dwelling units would raise the vehicle activity to approximately 1800 average weekday trip ends. It is not known what the future development activity will be along CR103. This is a function of future development approvals by the Garfield County Commissioners. However, it should be noted that the Ranch at Roaring Fork pre- dates the 1981 Blue Pit approval and much of the development to the north along CR103. Actually, a significant amount of the development along CR103 came after the Blue Fit was operating tracks on CR103. Based upon the foregoing comparisons, it can be cori.oluded that more residential traffic may be impacted by moving the Blue Fit access than by allowing it to remain where it currently is. The current route for the Blue Pit truck: invplv'es a T intersection with SH82. The proposed access will create a four - leg intersection, By its very nature, a T intersection has less conflict paints than a four -leer intersection. In that respect, a T intersection is safer due to less conflict points. Since it has been demonstrated that vehicle activity at Bot, intersections is almost the same at the present time, than the SH32/CR103 intersection is safor since there are fewer conflict points, If the Ranch at Roaring Forts continues to develop according to approved pians, then more "residential" traffic can be negatively impacted by the proposed access location. Conclusions Based upon my evaluations and research, the following can be concluded: - There appears to be a discrepancy between the estimated vehicle activity at the proposed access and the current vehicle activity using C 1103 • The vehicle counts have a bearing on the design of the proposed access. If there are differences, they should be resolved so that a proper design can Be implemented. - The "residential" traffic at the access to the Ranch at Roaring Fork is higher than the "residential" traffic on CR103. With additional traffic from build out of approved development at the Ranch at Roaring Fork, it appears that mere °resid_ential" traffic is impacted by moving the truck activity to the proposed ace location. The existing route goes through the SH82/CR103 intersection, which is a T intersection. The proposed access will 3 96 mr-m-uz ivow3 r4 c,s OW CH&L,�-v; �' `ri= DEL.TCH PE • • 3036695034 create a four --leg intersection. By their very nature, z intersections have less conflict points than four -leg' intersections and are, therefore, safer. 4 TOTAL P.05 rillATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield At a r.g.V,14.r matting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held et the Court House in Glenwood Springs on MarlrlaY , the..2.1.5 t day of pocomnbc r A. D. 1911 ..... .... , there were present: 1, ar ry Ve la sq uc , Commissioner Chairman Flaven J. Cerise . Commissioner Eugene Drinkhotse Earl G. Rhodes Leanne Cleland, Deputy when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 81-384 Commissioner County Attorney Clerk of the Board A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION BY JEAN AND DEE BLUE AND ZEMLOCK AND SONS, INC. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County has received an application from Jean and Dee Blue and Zemlock and Sons, Inc., for a special use permit for extraction of natural resources; specifically, an open pit sand and gravel mine, on the. following described tract of land: The following described lands in Sections 25 and 36 T•7S, R88W of the 6th P.M. Those portions of lots 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 Section 25 lying in the Si of SI of Section 25 and lots 2 and 3 in Section 36 excepting any part of the above named lots in Sections 25 and 36 lying southerly of the northerly ROW of State Highway 82 and excepting any part of the above named lots in Section 25 lying within the parcel of land described in the Quit Claim Deed document number 288920, Book 516, Page 393. Also, excepting that portion of lot 16 -in Section 25 lying southerly of the centerline of the Basin Ditch. WHEREAS, pursuant to required public notice, the Board conducted a public hearing on the 30th day of November, 1981, upon the question of whether the above described special use permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said special use permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of the evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determinations of fact: 1. The proposed use is compatible with the uses existing and permitted in the district in which it is to be located, provided that certain hereinafter contained conditions be complied with. 2. That neither the impact on traffic volume and safety or on utilities, or any other impact of the special use will be injurious to the established neighborhood or zone district in which the special use is to be located, provided that certain hereinafter contained conditions be complied with. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners of Garfield County, that a special use permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above described tract of land for extraction of natural resources; specifically, an open pit sand and gravel mine, upon the following specific conditions: 1. That the use of the tract of land comply with all present and future regulations of Garfield County relating to extraction of natural resources in the zone district in which the property is now or may later be located; 2. That; prior to the issuance of the authorized special use permit, the above described tract of land shall be severed from any other tract of land upon which there may exist a principal use, unless such other such principal use has been terminated at the time of the issuance of the special use permit; 3. That mining area #5, as designated in the application, shall be entirely eliminated from the approved project area, and no mining activity shall occur south of a survey line, which line is described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. vfr/ Yf • 4. That water shall be used as a dust suppressant in the pit area, and applied in a frequency and manner sufficient to mitigate any adverse impact from dust; 5. That the hours of extractive operations be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily; 6. That access to the proposed project area from Highway 82 shall be by the Crystal Springs Road (County Road 103); 7. That the applicant shall make improvements to the Crystal Springs Road (County Road 103) from its intersection with Colorado Highway 82 to its intersection with Road 104, which improvements shall be paid for by the applicant and shall be to the satisfaction of the Board of County Cornniis- sioners upon the recommendation of the County Road Supervisor; 8. That the applicant shall make improvements to the intersection of Road 104 and County Road 103 to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners upon the recommendation of the County Road Supervisor; 9. That the access route for the project shall access directly onto Road 104 instead of through the adjoining sawm 4 —property; and that the access i1� route shall be kept a minimum of oci feet away from the adjoining property owners fence line; 10. That the applicant shall make improvements to Road 104 extending to the pitsite to bring it in compliance with County Road Specifications; specifically, that a 24 foot driving surface be created, that a chip . and seal mat surface be put in place and be adequately maintained by the applicant for the life of the project; as determined by the Board of County Commissioners, upon the recommendation of the County Road Supervisor. ATTEST: Deouty Clerk ofLthe Board BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS G ARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: Larry Velasquez Aye Flaven J. Cerise Aye Eugene Drinkhouse Aye Commissioner STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield I, County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Order is truly copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners lot said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of s..id County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A. D. 19 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board 01 County Commissioners. ' i_GnAo mil I OF TRANSPORTATIONAft 111. eill4u/lvtt,Sledt 82/14.7u/L STATE HIGHWAY Local Jurisdiction: Garfield County ESS PERMIT FJIsI/Sec tion/Palmi: 3216 THE PERMITTEE; Jean 11, Blue and Due Bine 04(16 County Road 102 Car-honda 1u, CO 8162:3 DOT Permit No.: 303015 !'ermit Fee: $300.00 Date of Transn,illal: %I-18_93 is hereby granted permission to construct and use an access to the shite highway at lht, location noted below. The access shall be constructed, rlltrilrtairled and used inaccordance with the terms and conditions of ! this perrrli including the Stale 1liglrway Access Code and listed attattachments.`this permit may be revoked by issuing the authority if at any time the permitted access and its use violate any of the terms and cor�diliorts of this permit. The us et of advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades and Naggers are required al all limes during access construction within State, (4)l11 -of -way in c.onfearniancii with the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TAAFFIC CON -1R01_ DEVICES, Part VI. The issuing alYlll[)Plly, we t)e:ilarintent and tlr+<;ir clrPl harmless against any action ttn personal irljarl y or tare)laeaty c#amarge sustained by reason of lite exercise of the permit. Y appointed agents and employees shall be held LOCATION: On the north side of .State Highway 82 from Mile Post 14, 0406 County Road 10'1,1 Carbondale. distance i 3606 feet: east ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO: Western Slop Aggregates', Inc. (110 acres) and 35 acres agricultural, OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS: Sce At Lachert Shutes (2). MUNICIPALITY OH,CQUN'py APPflOVAI- Regrrired only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. by (X) Not fi it r rod gale l rile -t�- t.Ipon the signinrg of this perrrlit the: pr:rrrlillee agrecas to Ilia terms and conditions and referenced attachments-_-s-_stain herein. Ail constrtrc.lion shall be completed in an expeditions and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from contained initiation. The perrniltecd access shall be completed ill accordance with lire le+ms and conditions of the permit prior being used. The permittee shall notify y Don Obert P p or Io with the Colorado Department of Transportation In al least 48 hours prior lo commencing construction within the Slate Highway right of-way.at 3 934 7 1 he person signing as lire perrrrllleo rrrrlsl be Hie owner or legal representative of the properly served by ire permitted l access and have ft 11 authority to accept tire permit andall its terms and conditions. Permiliee (X) _ - Date 2 -- -- , 1 This permit is not valid until signed by a dulyauthorized � �.- -- -- ^— -` DEPARTMENTT OF TRAN/SPO TA -ION, STATE COLORAD0ativc of the Department. Hy (X) O18TA1BLITION: l�cqufoe[1; 1 lalslricl iUuudr ..' Alr.lrhrunr.- - Date_ (Date of issue) alio copIt,:s as aut.:L'Ssaty Int: I rrc.d Aulriuriry rri? f;1ut 1',1Ir01 I i,rii rt Title _ Administrator, Aces Committee Pit:mutts Edilirrns are 4Lsplcle anal will nt3I Le Lista COOT Form ti 101 • PL RM1:`1' NO. 393015 local ordinance requires a construction permit from Garfield Comity. 1 Driveway shall be constructed 30 feet wide with 50 foot radii. Surfacing for driveway approach is required as follows: 12" of class 1 gravel in 2, 6" lifts; 6" of class 6 gravel in 1, 6" lifts. 2 Also 4" of 1I11P in 2, 2" lif=ts of grade E, EX, or :3 equivalent. The asphalt cement in the Ilt3p shall be AC 10. Fill/cut slopes shall be at a 6:1 slope on the roadway and at 6:1 on the access approach. 4 It is the responsibility of the property owner to prevent all livestock from entering the State Highway right-of-way. Any livestock that does enter the HIiglrway right-of-way is the r-esponsilb i .l i ty of the property owner. 5A new 18" CNP culvert shall be used. All. culverts (side drains) installed in open ditches shall have flared end Sect=ions. 6 Highway widening for the right turn deceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 4185 feet long, including a 270 foot taper. / Highway wider -ring for the right turn acceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 960 feet long, including a 270 foot tcrper-- tl Lanes shall be constructed as per Colorado Department of Transportation specifications, with the following material placed d for final grade: 12" ABC, Class 1; and 4 "' of fIlS1' Grading 6" ABC, Class � � nlifts:42 1 ` .1 E or EX place in the following 6"lifts class 1; l 6" lift class 6; 2 2" lifts 11W'. Shoulders along the speed change lanes shall be 4 feet wide and paved. The new pavement shall slope on the same plane as the pr'esernt pavement surface. The entire roadway shall he overlaid with 1.5" of 11131'. A REGiS't'1:121?l3 p Ol''ESS! [NAI, ENGINEER I:R must provide construction, striping and signing pans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for approval. 45 days prior to construction. Design plans must included but not limited to, layout of sliced change lanes, utility locations, drainage present and proposed, right of way lines, traffic control devices, cross sections on 50 foot_ intervals and clear zone analysis. The placement of striping on the new pavement must be verified and deeepted by the Colorado Department of 'Transportation 24 hours prior to actual striping. A traffic control plan mustbe prepared by an American Traffic Safety Services Association (A'1`ssA) cert_ i tied individual or Professional Traffic Engineer, consistent with the A'i.I.J.`I'.C.D. and approved 1}y the Department and local issuing authority 7 days prior to any construction within the right of way. A REGl,;rJERED HRO 1 SSIONAL, ENfj!N1:J R must provide certification that all work was done meeting specifications. CERTIFICATION will bu sent to the Colorado Department of 'I'ranspol tat=Gorr._ N(3'1`E:,. e be modified upon submission offrrarlt clapproved esign rdesign rbytaon may professional engineer. Such design shall have a Structural Number no less than 3.36. Written � .aral design i s required before co nstr uctiorl oval of elle modified9 No drainage from this site shall enter onto the surface of the highway. All existing drainage structures shall be standard to accorlrri}octfrte all new construction and safety standards. 10 Contractor- shalt follow the applicable construction specifications set for by the Department of 'Transportation in the latest manual St:andard_Speci.fic_at_ions for. Road and Bridge ,Construction, The property owner is responsible for any utilities disrupted by the construction of this dr-ivewa and all expenses incurred for repair. Any damage to any Y existing highway facilities shall be repaired prior to continuing other work. Compaction of sub -grade, embankments and backfill shall comply with Section 203 of the Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. The first 20 feet beyond the closest highway lane, including speed change lanes, shall slope downd away from the highway at a 2% • JL r, MAR G 11 ; I GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. BOX 2256 tilonwood SPrings, CotOrado 81602-2254 Phone 965-6111 0A1E: March 1. 1996 TO: Malt; 13 rkLIM: King RE: co Rd 103 & Westopn Slupe Aggregates on Cu Rd 1014 1 _16fid teruSlope. Aggregates•i making application Li to t_o1IhiIcy 82. This would be orl upptrf tAlli)(y roi the County t.o delay 6 future finantial liohility. Most ger Llinly the d. -y is ,;oming for co Rd 10:5 ond Co Rd 106 to b- lebuilt, but the relief om the wheel -loads it is would postpone that expenditur. Lyon though the comity hos maintehohce agreements on Co Rd 103, ond Co Id 104, t doh t believe they address the financiol responsibility fol a rebuild. To complicate it sI ightly, the ogioements ore with two separate entities, one not dependent UDOH the other, i.e., the concrete operation could shut down iH6Vihg the County solely responsible for Co Rd 103, which is the primory road. The Asphalt Institute calculates the r tj Lthikness LOLj ratio of 6 road based on the number of Equivalent Single Axle (FSA1.), thot the road midht. be expooted to support. A footor of 2,800 passenger vehicle (.ohlits equals one ESAL. State Highway 82 is rated ot 85,000 lbs. for 5 -axles, and 54,000 ih. for 3 -axles. ft is hard to say, using tube counter.s, how many loads aro 5-oxles or .1-oxles, but the effect is still pretty dramotii]whereos 85,000 lbs. is 6.5 ESAL!.--..„ 01 18,680 passenger vehigtes, and 54,000 lbs. is 5.2 ESALS, or 16,560 passenger vehicles. Osinq the attached groph, ,/oh Gan col(Ailate that 233 vehicles utilizing Co Rd 106, we primarily trucAs that would of eguolled 1,2)1.6 FSAIS with the not. effect. of 3,392,480 passengoi vorriles. ow- 10 fm- 9LH BOUNDARY 2391-30.3—OO-005 2391-303-00-007 TAX EXEMPT CAR9ONDALE DUMP rzorprz corz/fdegre COO.5A' °UAW 1111 ..5Y49 -EW 2393-361-00-005 C T E MAP N� 393-344 SEE MAP NO. 2393-35 35 .,r,1C1Y ,5:112 PP TY24CT,S' 2 1R -HF JR RL#D 00 ingen APPROVED: co twL`f+OR 2363-011-00-019 2 3 .9 3 T. 7 S. - R. 88 W. The following described lands in Sections 25 and 36 T7S, BMW of the 6th P.M. Those portions of lots 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 Section 25 lying in the Si of S; of Section 25 and lots 2 and 3 in Section 36 excepting any part of the above named lots in Sections 25 and 36 lying southerly of the northerly ROW of State Highway 82 and 'excepting any part of the above named lots in Section 25 lying wi Lhin •the parcel of land described in the Qui( Claim Deed document number 288920, Book 516, Page 393. Also, excepting that portion or lot 16. in Section 25 lying southerly of the centerline of the Basin Ditch. 4 Western Slope Aggregate Match 6, 1996 TO: Mattk Bean - Gatt iekd County Harming Depattment FROM: Sean Memo - Weetettn S.ope Aggttegatea, Inc. RE: Highway 82 Speciale di6e. Penm�.t Pse .inc&ude .the attached .inkottma.tion to be path o4 an. app.EE.cation ca&k.entty in yours. o66.cce. Since/Lay, M. Sean M J o Eng. naso/P&oje.ct Manage& P.J. Box 910 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (970) 963-9424 13-996 15 : 39 ROA' I NG FORK. MP . NT a CONS fb DICT ANSPOSENT a GLENWOOD ZPRI GS, COLORADO 81602 945-5864 'eharte& W. Cloud Admrnr$trafgr Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81661 March 13, 1996 Dear Mars;: 1 am writing this letter regarding the bus stop ;it the intersection ctito on of h103 & c04 Rod . in talking, vitt Sean Mello of Western dope Agzregatcs,1 would like instead of the trucks coming down 104 Road. This pose" a safet+ prob kn, to the students walking down the road to catch the school bus in the morning and afternoon. This is a very winding road with no sidewalks for the students to use. • further need to discuss this matter with me, please don't hesitate to contact my office 1! you hare any at 945-5864 or 9454207. Sincercb yours. dan-cyr4 C11± -ba -8 -0, - Darr}' Estrada Transportation Supervisor cc: Sean Mello • • MARK KAVASCH 0152 WOODEN DEER ROAD CARBONDALE, CO 81623 925-3771 963-3797 March 13, 1996 Attn: Mark Bean RE: Western Slope Aggregate (WSA) Permanent access from pit to Hwy 82 Dear Commissioners/Planning & Zoning -Garfield County: My house is at the intersection of 103 and 104 roads. i encourage you to allow WSA permanent access from their pit directly to Hwy 82. Currently, my kids and T avoid 104 road because of the heavy truck traffic. I believe this heavy construction traffic is handled best using the existing road which has direct access to Hwy 82. Routing construction traffic over 103 and 104 roads has not been safe. Very truly yours, 7,2k Mark S. Kavasch levo • Marcii r3, 99G vrw4.7G thra //eitt.cvv�cc �,u of eye+ i70/14 # „r�akx LWf4 gr-esea,saf ��cesr eht rt, Opera t7..on from H1,4Way 12. k4. age dee sidea. ers ,f Iddiel -1) r a re s+de e a./ Brea Q FF &un ly /1. 103, Learn-t,'t t. urs 7 Add i I 03 ht ke s S n T � ;,,Q�� Ita r- 5 e 'Cath a tit I 4'1 u 1441%1 z rs F Ont - Rear ,w'k 14 c t Al o ti a W Lit{ S 1n nee41 oS sew re fa i , , 't rthtr, we dfi"L1ry Sit c.41+idree- floUrk 0.INA len +lit %ALLA14-9 0C iLAg. e0.24 rtC.Len Cb k 1,01 64 Tranta • Likit me oat *Ind t is 110051hp()1111 eaft.G.k a crony f'r: rest 6e4 eit.e- af- a vbp:u nut&c t1( G t��c a- as —hQr'1 Sfir.S bail 04W e , e I��no4 ever, BSc -rt,,2�it- fl i or do -chi -ion 0rvy�,,c�.� 6� i c A ' �- 1,12: k wt + (� - b [ kt'At . wC 0 cbn, . r if , /Lit ras on, e ottle shand./ � ep i �er� c_tt 1 r: rtbtd v70 +S Y si),e L et s u ivi r7R: +r t kityuit, c! i t} {]t" Ir] , L6/4.- 14 '1'f tAk. .5 a r^C f iki, , 'f -14 0 Yt9 wLLre farm 50 Fck-10 �'i . i a c rcc,ti tri Yt - o F our hA IV4 t S . eGe1,1' i s o id b' a ccLs s �c • • GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning March I4, 1996 Colorado Department of Transportation Attn.: Charles Dunn 222 South 6th Rm. 31.7 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 RE: Jean M. Blue and Dee Blue CDOT State Highway Access Permit No. 393015 Dear Mr. Dunn: Please consider this letter to be a request in behalf of Jean and Dee Blue/Western Aggregates , Inc., to request the acceptance of a new highway access permit Slope th the fee waived. The applicants submitted an application to the County for ran amendment application rto the to the Special Use permit for the Blue Gravel Pit, to allow for access directly onto Highwayy $2. Due to an error on rny part, it appears that the applicants will need to submit a revised application for the County permit or reschedule a hearing with the Planning Commission to reconsider the application. If the error had not been made, then it is probable that applicants would have been able to meet the timelines contained in their access tthe per_ mit. Your favorable consideration of this matter will be appreciated. If you have any about this letter and the issues contained in it, please feel free to call questions convenience. or write to me, at your Sincerely, 22?4, Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department xc: Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. 109 8111 Street, Suite 303 945-82121285.7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 COLORADO DEPARTMEN•F TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT a/MP/Side: 82/14.70/L 1 Jurisdiction: Garfield County Dist/Section/Patrol: 3216 DOT Permit No.: 393015 Permit Fee: $300.00 Date of Transmittal: 2-18-93 THE PERMITTEE; Jean M. Blue and Dee Blue 0406 County Road 102 Carbondale, CO 81623 is hereby granted permission to construct and use an access to the state highway at the location noted below. The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit, including the State Highway Access Code and listed attachments. This permit may be revoked by the issuing authority if at any time the permitted access and its use violate any of the terms and conditions of this permit. The use of advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers are required at all times during access construction within State right-of-way in conformance with the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, Part VI. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit. LOCATION: On the north side of State Highway 82, a distance of 3696 feet east from Mile Post 14; 0406 County Road 104, Carbondale. ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO: Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. (110 acres) and 35 acres agricultural. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS: See Attached Sheets (2). MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. By (X) Not Required Date Title Upon the signing of this permit the permittee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained herein. All construction shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to being used. The permittee shall notify Don Obert with the Colorado Department of Transportation in at 963-9341 at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction within the State Highway right-of-way. The person signing as the permittee must be the owner or legal representative of the property served by the permitted access and have f ,_1 authority to accept the permit and all it's terms and conditions. Permittee (X) Date RV,/ 177 This permit is not valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. DEPARTMENT OF TRA I�ISPORTA TION, STATE OF COLORADO By (X) Date 4-21-93 Title Administrator, (Date of issue) ecess Committee COPY DISTRIBUTION: Required; Make copies es necessary for: Previous Editions are Obsolete and will nol be used I Dislricl {[]Digi ua t Local Arrllinrily inspector CDOT Form 5161 F i/91 At ful.'ant M 1 {;E Panto r r,rffrr Engir r:e:r The following paragraph are pertinent highlights of the State Highway Access Code. These are provided for your convenience but do not alleviate compliance with affections of the Access Code. A copy of the r^ie Highway Access Code is avaliak'ie from your local Issuing authority (foc vernment) or the Colorado Department o nsporlatlon (Department). W sen this permit was Issued, the Issuing authority made its decision based in part on Informal! submitted by the applicant, on th.-: access category which Is assigned to the highway, what alternative access to other public roads and streets is available, anent safety and design standards. Changes In use or design not approved by the permit or the issuing authority may cause the revocation or suspension of the permlt. 1 Appeals 1. Should the permittee or applicant chose to object to any of the terms or conditions of the permit placed therein by the Department, an appeal must be filed with the Colorado Transportation Commission within 60 days of transmittal of the permit for permittee signature. The request for the hearing shall be filed in writing and submitted to the Colorado Transportation Commission, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222. The request shall include reasons for the appeal and may include recommendations by the permittee or applicant that would be acceptable to him. 2. The Department may consider any objections and requested revisions at the request of the applicant or permittee. if agreement is reached, the Department, with the approval of the local issuing authority (if applicable), may revise the permit accordingly, or issue a new permit, or require theapplicant to submit a new application for reconsideration. Changes in the original application, proposed design or access use will normally require submittal of a new application, 3. Regardless of any communications, meetings, or negotiations with the Department regarding revisions and objections to the permit, if the permittee or applicant wishes to appeal the Department's decision to the Commission, the appeal must be brought to the Commission within 60 days of transmittal of the permit. 4. Any appeal by the applicant or permittee of action by the local issuing authority when it is the appropriate local authority (under subsection 2.4), shall be filed with the local authority and be consistent with the appeal procedures of the local authority. 5. If the final action is not further appealed, the Department or local authority may record the decision with the County Clerk and Recorder. II Construction standards and requirements ar 1. The access must be under construction within one year of the permit date. However, under certain conditions a one year time extension may be granted if requested in writing prior to permit expiration. 2. The applicant shall notify the office specified on the permit at least 48 hours prior to construction. A copy of the permit shall be available for review at the construction site. Inspections will be made during construction. 3. The access construction within highway right-of-way must be completed within 45 days. 4. It is the responsibility of the permittee to complete the construction of the access according to the terms and conditions of the permit, If the permittee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by the issuing authority and Department and included on the permit. The Department or issuing authority may order a halt to any unauthorized use of the access. Reconstruction or improvements to the access may be required when the permittee has failed to meet required specifications of design or materials. If any construction element fails within two years due to improper construction or material specifications. the permittee is responsible for all repairs. 5. In the event it becomes necessary to remove any right-of-way fence, the posts on either side of the access shall be securely braced with an approved end post before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining fence. All posts and wire removed are Department property and shall be turned over to a representative of the Department. 6. A copy of the permit shall be available for review at the construction site. If necessary, minor changes and additions shall be ordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site conditions. 7. The access shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that shall not cause water to enter onto the roadway, and shall not interfere with the drainage system in the right-of-way, 8. Where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a traffic control device or public or private utilities for the construction of a permitted access, the work shall be accomplished by the permittee without cost to the Department or issuing authority, and at the direction of the Department or utility company, Any damage to the state highway or other public right-of-way beyond that which is allowed in the permit shall be repaired immediately. 9. Adequate advance warning is required at all times during access construction, in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. This may include the use of signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers. This is also required by section 42-4-501,C.R.S. as amended. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit. 111 Changes In use and violations 1. if there are changes in the use of the access, the access permit -issuing authority must be notified of the change. A change in property use which makes the existing access design or use in non-conformance with the Access Code or the terms and conditions of the permit, may require the reconstruction or relocation of the access. Examples of changes in access use are; an increase in vehicular volume by 20 percent. or an increase by 20 percent of a directional characteristic such as a left turn. The issuing authority will review the original permit; it may decide it is adequate or request that you apply for a new permit. 2. Alt terms and conditions of the permit are binding upon all assigns, successors -in -interest and heirs, 3. When a permitted driveway is constructed or used in violation of the Access Code, the local government or Department may obtain a court order to halt the violation. Such access permits may be revoked by the issuing authority. IV Further information 1. When the permit holder wishes to make improvements to an existing legal access, he shall make his request by filing a completed permit application form with the issuing authority. The issuing authority may take action only on the request for Improvement. Denial does not revoke the existing access. 2. The permittee, his heirs, successors -in -interest, and assigns. of the property serviced by the access shall be responsible for meeting the terms and conditions of the permit and the removal or clearance of snow or ice upon the access even though deposited on the access in the course of Department snow removal operations. The Department shall maintain in unincorporated areas the highway drainage system. including those culverts under the access which are part of that system within the right-of-way. 3. The issue date of the permit is the date the Department representative signs the permit which is after the permittee has returned the permit signed and paid any required fees. 4. The Department may, when necessary for thr reproved safety and operation of the roadway, rebuild, modify, remove, or redesign the highway including any auxitiar . ' +�e. 5. Any driveway, whether constructed before, o ' after June 30, 1979, may be required by the Department, with written concurrence of the appropriate local authority • econstructed or relocated to conform to the Access Code, either at the property owner's expense if the reconstrti•. ' r relocation is necessitated by a change in the use of the property which results in a change in the type of drivew' ~ration; or at the expense of the Department if the reconstruction or retocation is necessitated by changes in road or traffic conditions. The necessity for the relocation or reconstruction shall be determined by reference to the standards set forth in the Access Code. • PERMIT NO. 393015 1 Local ordinance requires a construction permit from Garfield County. 1 Driveway shall be constructed 30 feet wide with 50 foot radii. Surfacing for driveway approach is required as follows: 12" of class 1 gravel in 2, 6" lifts; 6" of class 6 gravel in 1, 6" lifts. 2 Also 4" of HBP in 2, 2" lifts of grade E, EX, or equivalent. The asphalt cement in the HBP shall be AC 10. 3 Fill/cut slopes shall be at a 6:1 slope on the roadway and at 6:1 on the access approach. 4 It is the responsibility of the property owner to prevent all livestock from entering the State Highway right-of-way. Any livestock that does enter the Highway right-of-way is the responsibility of the property owner. 5 A new 18" CMP culvert shall be used. All culverts (side drains) installed in open ditches shall have flared end sections. 6 Highway widening for the right turn deceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 485 feet long, including a 270 foot taper. 7 Highway widening for the right turn acceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 960 feet long, including a 270 foot taper. 8 Lanes shall be constructed as per Colorado Department of Transportation specifications, with the following material placed for final grade: 12" ABC, Class 1; 6" ABC, Class 6; and 4" of HBP, Grading E or EX place in the following lifts: 2 6" lifts class 1; 1 6" lift class 6; 2 2" lifts HBP. Shoulders along the speed change lanes shall be 4 feet wide and paved. The new pavement shall slope on the same plane as the present pavement surface. The entire roadway shall be overlaid with 1.5" of HBP. A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER must provide construction, striping and signing plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for approval 45 days prior to construction. Design plans must included but not limited to, layout of speed change lanes, utility locations, drainage present and proposed, right of way lines, traffic control devices, cross sections on 50 foot intervals and clear zone analysis. The placement of striping on the new pavement must be verified and accepted by the Colorado Department of Transportation 24 hours prior to actual striping. A traffic control plan must be prepared by an American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) certified individual or Professional Traffic Engineer, consistent with the M.U.T.C.D. and approved by the Department and local issuing authority 7 days prior to any construction within the right of way. A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER must provide certification that all work was done meeting specifications. CERTIFICATION will be sent to the Colorado Department of Transportation. NOTE: Pavement design for construction may be modified upon submission of an approved design by a professional engineer. Such design shall have a Structural Number no less than 3.36. Written approval of the modified design is required before construction. 9 No drainage from this site shall enter onto the surface of the highway. All existing drainage structures shall be extended to accommodate all new construction and safety standards. 10 Contractor shall follow the applicable construction specifications set for by the Department of Transportation in the latest manual Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. The property owner is responsible for any utilities disrupted by the construction of this driveway and all expenses incurred for repair. Any damage to any existing highway facilities shall be repaired prior to continuing other work. Compaction of sub -grade, embankments and backfill shall comply with Section 203 of the Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. The first 20 feet beyond the closest highway lane, including speed change lanes, shall slope down and away from the highway at a 2% • PERMIT NO. 393015 CONTINUED grade to ensure proper drainage control. All excavations on utility lines, culverts, other trenches or tunnels shall meet the requirements of Colorado Department of Transportation, OSHA, Colorado Industrial Commission and the Colorado Division of Mines, whichever applies. The area around the new work shall be well graded to drain, top soiled, fertilized, mulched and reseeded. 11 Compaction of Hot Bituminous Pavement (HBP) shall comply with Section 401.17 of the Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. If frost is present in the sub -grade, no surfacing material shall be placed until all frost is gone or removed. Saw or score asphalt to assure a straight edge for patching. 12 Work shall BEGIN AFTER 8:30 A.M. and all equipment shall be off the roadway BEFORE 3:30 P.M. each day. • IALS n s U Irbr S 54J - Aft. oii r b/ f. o nA ige 1'i c J l c. G-' \ AF lcd 11``p r es . 11 Ga ro ptr iy S 1 pert- the sr Q G a Q hat I± op 4 f (t� n n ij r .0 c'ri 1;r19 (fn 4,,01 fa e s i -fie e% r s 1204" e�ttlhr e / 1 iiv J /4/14,7 s ISA,* .58 LJacdrr► 62, 49.2, 4 4(r 11 4.25 (-26) QG3—P'559 • TrATEOFCOLORADO CountyofOultda At at ..... tits't Ong of the lloatd of County Cornanissioticts far Garfield Colliity, Colorado. hdd ttre Court frouse 1.11 Glenwood Spinti4 ...... ......................... ........ .. ...„, ....... . ................... day of . . ......... ............ . A. D.ca:ti ... ....... a/wtwere in esanit: ...... .. . . .................. .............. .......................... , Corloolls3itarrur Chairman. ....... .. .. .... ... . .... . ..... ....................... ......... , . .. ....... .... . .... ... . Q.!). ........ .... . .................... ..... cankriasia„cr ... .. Nlocks , County Attorney .. . . ... . .. . . ... . . .. . t ... . .................... Cleik of the Board wben the followinq prut-cedinejs, allig1119 allwere had arid Joon, to -wit: RES0101101.1 NO. 81-38,4 A RESOILMION CONCERNED WIM1 THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL OSE PERMIT APPLICATION BY JEAN AND DEE BLUE AND ZEMLOCK AND SONS, INC. WHEREAS, the Board or County Commissioners of Garfield County has received an application from Juan and flee Blue and Zemlock and Sons, Inc. for a special use mine, on thb.. following described tract of land: permit for extraction of fldiUrdl resources; specifically, an open pit sand and gravel The following described lands in Suctions 25 and 36 T7S, R88W of the 6th P.M. [hose portions of lots 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 Section 25 lying in the SI of SI of Section 25 and lois 2 and j in Section 36 excepting any part of the above named lots in Sections 25 and 36 lying southerly of the northeriy ROW of State Highway 82 and excepting any part of the above earned lots in Section 25 lying within.the parcel of land described in the Quit Claim Deed document number 288920, Book 516, Page 393. Also, excepting that portion of lot 16 in Section 25 lying southerly of the centerline of the Bashi flitch, WHEREAS, pursuant to required public notice, the board conducted a public hearing Oil the 30Lh day of November, 1981 upon the question of whether the above described special use permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinlons regarding the issuance of said special use permit; dnd 1u2aring, has made the following determinations of fact: WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of the evidence produced at the aforementioned 1. The proposed use is compatible with the uses existing and permitted in the district be complied with_ inwhich it is to be located, provided that certain hereinafter contained conditions 2. That neither the impact on tratfic volume and safety or on utilities, or any other impact. of the special use will be injurious to the established neighborhood or hereinafter contained conditions be complied with. zone district in which the special use is to be iocated, provided that certain NOW, THEREFORE, BE If RESOLVED by the Commissioners of Garfield County, that d special use permit be aod hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above described tract of land for WardCLiOn of natural resources; specifically, an open pit sand and gravel mine, upon the following specific conditions: 1, That the use of the tract of land comply with all present and future regulations of Garfield County relating to extraction of natural resources in the zone district in which the property is now or may 1LIter be located; 2. That; prior to the issuance of the authorized special use permit, the above described tract of land shdll be severed from any other tract or land upon which there may exist a principal use, unless such other such principal use has been terminated at the time of the issuance of the special use permit; 3. That mining area N5, as designated in the application, shall be entirely eliminated from the approved project area, and no mining activity shall occur south of a survey line, which line is described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. l\' ----I ' / /3 / y -6')/ 4. That lnt water shall be used as a dust suppressant in t h€! " t area, and applied dust; in fx]ieds;ina frequency and mann' sufficient to mitigate any adverse impact from 5. that. the hours lar extractive lalrpratlurls, daily; be limited t r•Udil 7:00 d .rri S • That to 5:00 J] ,rJl. at_cl~ss to the proposed project 1r c i o 1 from rrrHighway 82 2 shall he by the l eCrystal Springs Road (County Road 103);7. That the applicant shall make improvements Lo the Crystal Springs Read (CcirtY }aat103) from its intersection with Colorado Highway 82 Lo its intersectJpr with Road 104, which improvements II paidfor a the applicantarcshall be to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commis- sioners ipll upon Jt}i recommendation cclmmendatipro f the County Road Supervisor; r a, r ;and County Road 103.o the satisfaction of the Boarp1 County That the acess route for the arpjeet shall access directly 7t o Road 104 of through the adjoining saWli�Jrrlertys and that the access aroperty owners fence line;route shall be kept a minimum F G? feet away from the acJpiriry-. t 10. That eleaaalicalt sla11 wake improvements to Road I extending site to bring in compliance with Count Road Specifications; d 24 loot driving surface be created, thata chip and spa] pat Surface be put in place adequately maintained by applicant forCil!ifof pas determined Brl Supervisor. Cl Commissioners, upon the recommendation ofthe County Road BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERStnlFIELO COUNTY, COi(i"liElattllaa8. a1icdrt shall lake improvements to the intersection ul4rthe recommendationthe County Road Supervisor; e y of Road 104 Commissioners ATTEST: Deputy r�F the Board —_-- y C' Clia i Arian.` Upon usotlon duly tirn[te ,nod wounded thu iut� r+nl r'r' i .Giny itcaulti�sra[t tv.ti ..... } vf='. � s1:;� lit?� td4lyded 6 F`'l ci f�,ti.................J... Y tl,.rnil ae 4r1[ .......,..L X.,........'....,_...... 1 vssde. Ut - SC Aye ........................................ ................ .Aye . Aye STATE, or COLORADO County of Garfield Commissioners In assd for .... County and Srures..... du laaere6..., Couuty Clerk lase ridforProceedings arld ex officio Clerk of the florid iruiy or of lite land la County y cord/5., that the anuext;d un County Y l:uutenls d in foregoing flee.eider is truly Y C�rnrstissiotrers ;lunera tor said tart defd County, rrr Y cor;ied from dlte r?ecards or Wl'I'rftSg Y, rtasw in my utfice.. titla.., irYr1L-'!tl'.Cal^', 1 ll;,vr, 1sa:reunCu ...ley aF......................lLi............ set rr�Y hand and aflixcrl fiat ........... ....... A. D.near of said County, 19 .............. Y, al Glenwood Springs, County Clerk and ek-olfiuto Clerk of the Itu,ard at County Commissioners, 03/06/1996 14: 7 9709632412 EARTHWORKS 40 Activated Air A udio Engineering 'A Saund Company'' 1005 Colorado Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1.303-945-9873 Attention: Sean 3.05.96 Western Slope Aggregate Inc. Box 910 Carbondale, Co. 81623 Dear Shawn, Concerning the mise measurements we conducted July & August of I Pork. PAGE 01 • a .132 3 r'en- Post-it" Fax Gale at the Ranch of Roaring It is our belief that the impact from additional truck traffic on the discussed amen from Hi -way 82 will be negligible_ The State statue requires a least a 6 db increase aver existing noise leve]s, and since the DOSE noise measurement is concerned with a 24 hour time period, we can stoat see how the numbers weld achieve that ovuail increase. During the summer months sound does travel further_ This was our time of testing, iii -way 82 traffic with Tractor tram tri whizzing by at 60 mph did generate more incident noise than that of a truck taking off from the start. Considering the previous exposure of the residence, the time of day you propose to access l -Ii -way 82, the repetition ( not constant ), and the type of noise ( wide band width ), all leads us to believe that you will not violate the state noise abatement act. For final proof we could measure the area again over a period of time while your trucks are accessing the Hi -way on a consistent basis. Compare the results of the measurements of traffic noise levels we have previously recorded and submit the findings. It would be an chase that I would not suggest. I do riot like to generalize.. Please read the initial sound survey over again. That is mote detailed and our findings were just that, findings. Sincerely, Edward Ware A. A. Audio Engineering 0- tivated Air Audio EnginePing "A Sound Company" 1005 Colorado Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1-303-945-9873 Western Slope Aggregate A Measurement of Sound Pressure Level ( SPL ) Determination of Leq for assessment of noise annoyance Measurement of cyclical noise and Max. and Min. noise levels The above Testing was carried out at The Ranch of the Roaring Fork 7-06-94 thru 8-25-94. The use of a B & K 2230 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter using IEC 651 Standard. Factory calibrated for noise measurement. Taken at 3 location ( findings Loc. 1, Loc. 2, Loc. 3 ) Entrance 0210 Stage Coach El 2 Relay Station Putting Green Time of Day readings at 8:00 am - 10:00 arn, 1:00 pm - 3:30 pm, 3:30 - 6:30 pm. for three Locations. Definition of Terms: Sound Pressure Level -Lp (in decibels of sound) = 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the particle velocity of the sound to the reference pressure. Unless otherwise specified, the reference pressure is understood to be .0002 Nlm 2 ( 20uPa). Please see enclosed charts for reference of everyday incidence = db sound. Leq = is the sound pressure level averaged over the measurement period. It can be considered as the continuous steady sound pressure level which would have the same acoustic energy as the real fluctuating noise over the same period. The measurement of Leq is based on the equal energy principle. Leat ( SEL) = Sound exposure level is the constant level which if maintained for a period of one (1) second would have the same acoustic energy as the A -weighted measured noise event. • page 2 Measurement of Sound Pressure Level ( SPL ) Determination of Leq for assessment of noise annoyance Measurement of cyclical noise and Max. and Min. noise levels Classifying Sound Fields. A sound field is said to be a free field if it is uniform, free of boundaries, and undisturbed by other sources of sound. In practice, it is a field in which the effects of the boundaries are negligible over the region of interest. The flow of sound is in one direction only. Anechoic chambers and well above the ground outdoors are free fields. Outdoor Acoustics. Is best explained by an Example. If, for example, the ambient noise level measured 70 dba ( a not unreasonable readings outdoors ) and the maximum Lp ( sound pressure level ) you could generate at 4 ft. was 110 Lp, how far could you reach before your signal was submerged in noise. 110Lp-70Lp=40db 20 log x / 4 =40 db x = 4 x 10 40/20 squared x = 400 ft. A simple rule of thumb dictates that when a change in +10 db occurs, the higher level will be subjectively judged as approximately twice as loud. While computing loudness is more complex than this the rule is useful in midrange sounds. The sound at 100 ft. is half as loud as that at 30 ft., although the amplitude of the vibration of the air particles is roughly one-third. Similar, the sound at 30 ft. is half as loud as the sound at 10 ft. Considerations: I mention this to confirm that test site 1 was 90 ft from the highway shoulder, Site 2 was 150 ft from the highway shoulder, and site 3 was 165 ft. from the highway shoulder. The majority of the housing under consideration is much further away than our test area's. Please see rough drawing on page 1. Site 1 SEL = 86.4 Leq = 60.5 Max. = 75.4 Min. = 60.0 SPL = 67.1 page 3 Measurement of Sound Pressure Level ( SPL ) Determination of Leq for assessment of noise annoyance Measurement of cyclical noise and Max. and Min. noise levels Site 2 SEL = 93.0 Leq = 58.9 Max. = 85.2 Min, = 60.0 SPL = 70.1 Site 3 SEL = 99.6 Leq = 59.4 Max. = 84.0 Min. = 47.7 SPL = 69.1 Reference events, incident: 1) 90 ft from highway 2) 90 ft from highway 3) 6" inches from mic 4) 10ftfrom mic 5) 20 ft from mic 4) 30ftfrommic - gravel truck - tractor trailer = - finger snap = - expectant voice level - expectant voice level - expectant voice level 63.1 db peak 65.4 db peak 108.2 db peak 92.8 db peak 86.1 db peak 82.4dbpeak For subjectively understanding of db levels please refer to charts. A factor of complaint response is weighted by: 1) Previous exposure: 2) Time of Day: 3) Neighborhood: 4) Repetition: 5) Type Noise: much, some, none Day only, night Industrial, Commercial, Residential Suburban, Country 1lday, 2-4 day, 4-20 day 1-10/hour, 10-50/hour, continuous Impulse, No impulse Pure Tone, Wide bandwidth Few to none Complaints are expected some plus Pay only Suburban 1-10 per hour some impulse wide bandwidth • • page 4 Measurement of Sound Pressure Level ( SPL ) Determination of Leg for assessment of noise annoyance Measurement of cyclical noise and Max. and Min. noise levels Comments: As a long time " student of Sound " I have found that the thought of noise, the expectation of an increased noise level, the anticipation, is a more heightened emotion than dealing with the actual problem. We have found that the ear , after time, will tune out even noticeable sounds. I don't expect a metered level rise of sound ( dba ) when you start access to the upcoming Hwy 82. The listening of the truck taking off and going through the gears will at first be noticeable because they will be listening for it. The Doppler Effect of frequency changing as they drive away is a common occurrence. And will be more noticeable than the rise in outdoor noise levels. I suggest the trucks do not use a Jake Brake going down the access road. If not , a possible burm too reflect the sound could be in order. If we can be of further assistance in clarifying any aspect of this report please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Edward Ware A. A. Audio Engineering sei \C 4, f / re,,� ji 0.�� 04! or 1 .• _ tft -7. -71 0 CO r) co co ctii cv ��yy 0) rn 0 N w 0, 0 cca 10 0 r) 0 1:13N3ISI 1 01 H3)1V3dS 3DNtl1SIO 0 0 8 0 e) • Lin0 NOISE LEVEL (dBA) + 25 dB SIN Western Slope Aggregate #285 A6se64o'43 Map ReO&ence Weste'tn S.Lope Aggkegaues Jean and gee Btue (Land 0wneas) #265, 0267, #270, #271 Jean and Dee Bae 0404 County Road 104 Canbonda?e, CoIortado 81623 #005 Ranch at Rowc.Lng Pond Homeowners Association 14914 H�cghway 82 Cartbonda2e, Co 'o'ado 81623 #006, #007 Hako!d B .ue 4003 County Road 100 Canbondafe, Cota&ado 81623 #151 Edwattd Co.&um Cynth.ia. Chardonnay Post OWee Box 703 Cmbonda.Ze, Co!onado 81623 #150 Sheldon CA.oss Post ()Wee Box 1037 Cakbonda.Le, Co..onado 81623 #148 Phittip and Salty Mitten 5347 County Road 100 Can.bondate, CoZonado 81623 #149 Dave and Satt y Zdmme'.man 5344 County Road 100 Canbondate, Co okada 81623 #152 David and Robin Mytek 5349 County Road 100 Cakbondate, Co.to'cado ADJOINING LAND OWNERS #153 Gnegony and Bhenda Peters 5351 County Road 100 CajcbondaLe, Cotonado #154, #203 Haft►t.Ls FAm.iy Trtust 0323 County Road 104 Caibondaee, Cotokado 81623 #204 Gten and Susan Hakkis 0139 County Road 104 CartbondaZe, Co.ottado 81623 #158 Cti6iokd Cen-ise 0086 County Road 104 Cartbandate, Cotokado 81623 Lot 21 Wooden Deets Malik S. Kavas ch 152 Wooden Dee& Road Canbonda.Le, Coronado 81623 Loi 22 Wooden Deet David Powe. Post 06Aice Box 1186 Ca&bondate, Co!o',ado 81623 #181 M.ichaet Hammes 1490 Books.de Common Annapolis, Ma&y/and 21401 #142 Ck'u 4topheh Somme'. Past ()Wee Box 4953 Aspen, Coto&ado 81612 PQ. Box 910 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (970) 963-9424 H No/MP/Side: UN/014.700/LEFT COLORADO DEPARTME0 OF TRANSPORTATION Local Jurisdiction: Garfield STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT Dist/Section/Patrol: 09605516 DOT Permit No.: Permit Fee: • 0.00 Date of Transmittal: 03/21/96 THE PERMITTEE; APPLICANT: Western Slope Aggregall.--, Jean M. & Dee Blue 0404 County Road 184 P. 0. Box 910 Carbondale, CO 81623 0242 County Road 104 Carbondale, CO 81623 Jean M. & Dee Blue - (970) 963-2653 (970) 963-2296 is hereby granted permission to construct and use an access to the state highway at the,,locatiork.noted The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with the terms and The including the State Highway,Access Code and listed attachments. Th‘s permit may be authority if at any time the permitted access and its use violate any of the terms and conditions of advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers are required construction within State right-of-way in conformance with the MANUAL ON UNIFORM DEVICES, Part VI. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of r i�l1l illicit .:. `': "`"". GARHELD pGUXI-Y below. '— conditions of this permit, revoked by the issuing of this permit. The use at all times during access TRAFFIC CONTROL employees shall be held the exercise of the permit. LOCATION: On the north side of State Highway 82, a distance of 3696 feet east from Mile Post 14; 0242 County Road 104; Carbondale. ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO: PERCENT General Light Industrial (110 Acres) 100.00 % OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED SHEET(S) FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. - By (X) Date Title - Upon the signing of this permit the permittee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained herein. All construction shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to being used. The permittee shall notify Mike Moore with the Colorado Department of Transportation In Basalt at 970-927-3137 , at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction within the State Highway right-of-way. The person signing as the permittee must be the owner or legal representative of the property served by the permitted access and have full a hority to accept the per 't and all it's terms and conditions. Permittee (X) l 2-.2►1- Date -. - - Thi permit is not valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. DEPARTMENT OF RAA PORTAT ON , STATE OF COLORADO By (X) id Date Title Access Cccrdinator (sate of issue) COPY DISTRIBUTION: Required; 1. District (Original) 2. Applicant 3. Staff ROW Make copies as necessary for; Local Authority Inspector MTCE Patrol Traffic Engineer Previous Editions are Obsolete and will not be used COOT Form #104 7/91 The following paragraph are pertInen hlights of the State Highway Access Code. se are provided for your convenience but do not alleviate compliance with a,� sections of the Access Code. A copy of the Highway Access Code Is available from your local issuing authority (local government) or the Colorado Department of Transportation (Department). When this permit was issued, the issuing authority made its decision based in part on information submitted by the applicant, on the access category which is assigned to the highway, what alternative access to other public roads and streets Is available, and safety and design standards. Changes in use or design not approved by the permit or the issuing authority may cause the revocation or suspension of the permit. 1 Appeals 1 Should the permittee or applicant chose to object to any of the terms or conditions of the permit placed therein by the Department, an appeal must be filed with the Colorado Transportation Commission within 60 days of transmittal of the permit for permittee signature, The request for the hearing shall be filed in writing and submitted to the Colorado Transportation Commission, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222. The request shall include reasons for the appeal and may include recommendations by the permittee or applicant that would be acceptable to him. 2. The Department may consider any objections and requested revisions at the request of the applicant or permittee. If agreement is reached, the Department, with the approval of the local issuing authority (if applicable), may revise the permit accordingly, or issue a new permit, or require the applicant to submit a new application for reconsideration. Changes in the original application, proposed design or access use will normally require submittal of a new application. 3. Regardless of any communications, meetings, or negotiations with the Department regarding revisions and objections to the permit, if the permittee or applicant wishes to appeal the Department's decision to the Commission, the appeal must be brought to the Commission within 60 days of transmittal of the permit. 4. Any appeal by the applicant or permittee of action by the focal issuing authority when it is the appropriate local authority (under subsection 2.4), shall be filed with the local authority and be consistent with the appeal procedures of the local authority. 5. If the final action is not further appealed, the Department or local authority may record the decision with the County Clerk and Recorder. iI Construction standards and requirements 1. The access must be under construction within one year of the ,permit date. However, under certain conditions a one year time extension may be granted if requested in writing prior to permit expiration. 2. The applicant shall notify the office specified on the permit at least 48 hours prior to construction. A copy of the permit shall be available for review at the construction site, Inspections will be made during construction. 3. The access construction within highway right-of-way must be compieted within 45 days. 4. Itis the responsibility of the permittee to complete the construction of the access according to the terms and conditions of the permit. if the permittee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by the issuing authority and Department and included on the permit. The Department or issuing authority may order a halt to any unauthorized use of the access. Reconstruction or improvements to the access may be required when the permittee has failed to meet required specifications of design or materials. If any construction element fails within two years due to improper construction or material specifications, the permittee is responsible for all repairs. 5. in the event it becomes necessary to remove any right-of-way fence, the posts on either side of the access shall be securely braced with an approved end post before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining fence. All posts and wire removed are Department property and shall be turned over to a representative of the Department. 6. A copy of the permit shall be available for review at the construction site. If necessary, minor changes and additions shall be ordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site conditions. 7. The access shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that shall not cause water to enter onto the roadway, and shall not interfere with the drainage system in the right-of-way. 8. Where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a traffic control device or public or private utilities for the construction of a permitted access, the work shall be accomplished by the permittee without cost to the Department or issuing authority, and at the direction of the Department or utility company. Any damage to the state highway or other public right-of-way beyond that which is allowed in the permit shall be repaired immediately. 9. Adequate advance warning is required at all times during access construction, in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. This may include the use of signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers. This is also requiredby section 42-4-501,C.R.S. as amended. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit. III Changes in use and violations 1. if there are changes in the use of the access, the access permit -issuing authority must be notified of the change. A change in property use which makes the existing access design or use in non-conformance with the Access Code or the terms and conditions of the permit, may require the reconstruction or relocation of the access. Examples of changes in access use are; an increase in vehicular volume by 20 percent, or an increase by 20 percent of a directional characteristic such as a left turn. The issuing authority will review the original permit; it may decide it is adequate or request that you apply fora new permit. 2. Ali terms and conditions of the permit are binding upon all assigns, successors -in -interest and heirs. 3. When a permitted driveway is constructed or used in violation of the Access Code, the local government or Department may obtain a court order to halt the violation. Such access permits may be revoked by the issuing authority. IV Further information 1. When the permit holder wishes to make improvements to an existing legal access, he shall make his request by filing a completed permit application form with the issuing authority. The issuing authority may take action only on the request for improvement. Denial does not revoke the existing access. 2. The permittee, his heirs, successors -in -interest, and assigns, of the property serviced by the access shall be responsible for meeting the terms and conditions of the permit and the removal or clearance of snow or ice upon the access even though deposited on the access in the course of Department snow removal operations. The Department shall maintain in unincorporated areas the highway drainage system, including those culverts under the access which are part of that system within the right-of-way. 3. The issue date of the permit is the date the Department representative signs the permit which is after the permittee has returned the permit signed and paid any required fees. 4. The Department may, when necessary for the improved safety and operationof the roadway, rebuild, modify, remove, or redesign the highway including any auxiliary lane. 5. Any driveway, whether constructed before, on, or after June 30, 1979. may be required by the Department, with written concurrence of the appropriate local authority, to be reconstructed or relocated to conform to the Access Code, either at the property owner's expense if the reconstruction or relocation is necessitated by a change in the use of the property which results in a change in the type of driveway operation; or at the expense of the Department if the reconstruction or relocation is necessitated by changes in road or traffic conditions. The necessity for the relocation or reconstruction shall be determined by reference to the standards set forth in the Access Code. • 1 DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 2 ISSUED TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. If there are any questions regarding this permit, please contact Charles Dunn at (970) 248-7234. 2. The Permittee shall refer to all additional standard requirements on the back of this permit and any enclosed additional terms, conditions, exhibits and noted attachments. 3. This permitted access is only for the use and purpose stated in the Application and Permit. 4. The Permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary additional federal, state and/or City/County permits or clearances required for construction of the access. Approval of this access permit does not constitute verification of this action by the Permittee. 5. The Permittee shall submit a survey plat, warranty deed and legal description for all property to be dedicated to the Department as new right-of-way. 6. The Permittee shall provide the Department a copy of the recorded final plat. 7. Any work within State Highway right-of-way shall begin after 8:30 A.M. and all work and equipment shall be off the highway BEFORE 3:30 P.M. each day. 8. It is the responsibility of the Permittee to prevent all livestock from entering the State Highway right-of-way at this access location. Any livestock that does enter the highway right-of-way shall be the sole responsibility of the Permittee. 9. A FULLY EXECUTED COMPLETE COPY OF THIS PERMIT MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WITH THE CONTRACTOR AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS OR ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENT MAY RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION OF WORK BY ORDER OF THE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR OR THE ISSUING AUTHORITY. 10. All materials, equipment, installation, construction and design, including the auxiliary lane(s) and intersection improvement(s) within the State Highway shall be in accordance with the following Department standard references, as applicable: a. Roadway Design Manual b. Materials Manual c. Construction Manual d. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition e. Colorado Standard Plans (M & S Standards) f. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control. Devices (M.U.T.C.D.) for Streets and Highways and the Colorado Supplement thereto g. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), latest edition h. Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation manual, latest edition i. State Highway Access Code 2 CCR 601-1 j. Roadside Design Guide Some of the reference materials listed above (a through e) may be purchased from: Colorado Department of Transportation Bid Plans Room 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222-3400 • • DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 3 ISSUED TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CONT'D) Telephone Number: (303) 757-9313 The Access Code may be purchased from: The Public Record Corporation 1666 Lafayette Street P.O. Box 18186 Denver, Colorado 80218 Telephone Number: (303) 832-8262 11. Survey markers or monuments must be preserved in their original positions. Notify the Department at (970) 248-7220 immediately upon damage to or discovery of any such markers or monuments at the work site. Any survey markers or monuments disturbed during the execution of this permit shall be repaired and/or replaced immediately at the expense of the Permittee. 12. Prior to starting construction or any work within the State Highway right-of-way, the Permittee/contractor must provide the following to the Department: A. A construction traffic control plan prepared by a professional traffic engineer or an individual certified by the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA), using the latest edition of Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and other applicable standards. The plan must be submitted a minimum of 72 hours in advance of construction. B. A copy of the work and phasing schedule. 13. The Permittee, through a Colorado registered professional engineer shall provide design, construction, pavement striping and signing plans to the Department for approval 45 days prior to commencement of any work. Design plans must include but not limited to layout of speed change lanes, utility locations, present and proposed drainage, present and proposed right-of-way lines, traffic control plan (if any), present and proposed traffic control devices, cross sections on 50 foot intervals and clear zone analysis. (Par. 4.10.17, 2 CCR 601-1) 14. Upon completion of the work, the Permittee/Contractor/Engineer shall submit an "As Built" plan, showing in detail all construction changes, modifications and revisions. All changes, modifications or revisions shall be stamped by a Colorado registered professional engineer. 15. It shall be the responsibility of the Permittee to verify the location of the existing utilities and notify all utility owners or operators of any work that might involve utilities within the State Highway right-of-way. Any work necessary to protect existing permitted utilities, such as an encasement will be the responsibility of the Permittee. Any damage or disruption to any utilities during the construction shall be the Permittee's responsibility and shall be repaired or replaced at no cost to the Department. 16. Any damage to any present highway facilities including traffic control devices shall be repaired immediately at no cost to the Department and prior to continuing other work. Any mud or other material tracked or otherwise deposited on the roadway shall be removed daily or as ordered by the Department inspector. 17. Areas of roadway and/or right-of-way disturbed during this installation shall be restored to their origional conditions, to insure proper strength, drainage and erosion control. • • DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 4 ISSUED TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CONT'D) 18. Any incomplete construction activity on the State Highway that must be left overnight, shall be barricaded and signed in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and other applicable standards. 19. Open cuts which are 6 inches in depth, within 30 feet of the edge of the State Highway traveled way will not be left open at night, on weekends, or on holidays. 20. No more than 6 feet of trench areas shall be opened at any one time. Open trenches and other excavations within the State Highway right-of-way shall be backfilled and/or paved before 3:30 P.M. of each working day or be protected in accordance with the M.U.T.C.D.. 21. The area around the new work shall be well graded to drain, top soiled, fertilized, mulched and re -seeded in accordance with the Department standard specifications. 22. When it is necessary to remove any highway right-of-way fence, the posts on either side of the access entrance shall be securely braced with approved end posts and in conformance with the Department's M-607-1 standard, before the fence is cut, to prevent slacking of the remaining fence. All posts and wire removed shall be returned to the Department. 23. Highway widening for the right turn deceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 485 long, including a 270 foot taper. 24. Highway widening for the right turn acceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 960 feet long, including a 270 foot taper. 25. A left turn lane shall be installed. The deceleration portion shall be 16 feet wide and 485 feet long, including a 270 foot taper. Redirect tapers for through traffic shall be at a 50 to 1 ratio. 26. The left turn acceleration lane shall be 16 feet wide, with an approximate total length of 960 feet. The components of the lane will be a 690 foot acceleration length and a 270 foot taper. 27. All excavations for utility lines, culverts, trenches or tunnels shall meet the requirements of the Occupational, Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Colorado Industrial Commission, Colorado Division of Mines or the Colorado Department of Transportation, whichever applies. 28. All work that requires traffic control shall be supervised by a registered professional traffic engineer or by a traffic control supervisor certified by the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) or the Colorado Contractors Association (CCA). When flagging personnel are required, they shall be certified by the contractor in accordance with the Department standards. 29. Construction traffic control devices, when not in use, shall be removed or turned away from traffic. 30. All temporary pavement striping shall be done by the Permittee/contractor in comformance with section 627 of the Department's standard specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (latest edition). • DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 5 ISSUED TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CONT'D) 31. All final signing and pavement striping shall be done by the Permittee or the contractor in conformance with the Department's M & S standards and the M.U.T.C.D., unless otherwise agreed to by the Department and the Permittee. A final signing and pavement striping plan shall be submitted to the Region 3 Traffic Engineer a minimum of 45 working days prior to commencement of work. No work shall begin without prior approval and authorization from the Department. 32. The roadway shoulder shall be widened to 4 feet along the speed change lanes and surfaced with HBP in accordance with the Department specifications. The shoulder widening along through lanes shall be no less than 4 feet paved or match existing and paved. 33. The access shall be constructed perpendicular to the travel lanes of the State Highway for a minimum distance of 50 feet, and shall slope down and away from the adjacent pavement edge at a rate of 29,T grade for a minimum of 20 feet. If curb and gutter are present, the slope shall be calculated from pan line to pan line. Any revisions to this requirement shall be subject to Department review and approval prior to commencement of any work within the highway right-of-way. 34. The access shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation of construction within State Highway right-of-way. 35. Pursuant to section 4.10.2 of the State Highway Access Code, the access roadway shall not exceed a maximum grade of 10 percent within the highway right-of-way, as measured 50 feet beyond the pavement edge and extending to the right-of-way line. The access vertical grade shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the Department M & S standard M-203-1. 36. The design of the horizontal and vertical sight distance shall be no less than the minimum requirements, as provided in section 4.9 of the State Highway Access Code, 2 CCR 601-1. 37. All required access improvements shall be installed prior to the herein authorized use of this access. 38. The access shall be surfaced immediately upon completion of earthwork construction and prior to use. 39. Compaction of Hot Bituminous Pavement shall be in accordance with section 401.17 of the Department's standard specifications. Compaction of the Aggregate Base Course shall comply with section 304.06. 40. Compaction of subgrade, embankments and backfill shall be in accordance to section 203.07 of the Department's standard specifications with the test results sent to and approved by the Department inspector. 41. Placement of base course materials shall be in accordance with section 304.04 of the standard specifications. Compaction shall be in conformance with AASHTO procedure T-99. 42. The surfacing shall meet the Department's specifications with the following material placed for final grade: 12 inches ABC, Class 1; 6 inches ABC, Class 6 and 4 inches of DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 6 ISSUED TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CONT'D) Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading C or CX) placed in the following lifts: 2 - 6 inch lifts Class 1; 1 - 6 inch lift Class 6; 2 - 2 inch lifts HBP. 43. The new State Highway pavement shall slope on the same plane as the present pavement surface. 44. Slopes shall be at a 6 to 1 ratio on the roadway and a 6 to 1 ratio on the approach. 45. The existing asphalt adjacent to all new pavement shall be saw cut and removed a minimum of one foot back from the existing edge, or until an acceptable existing cross slope is achieved to assure a straight edge for the joint. 46. The top layer of plant mix bituminous pavement shall not be placed between October 1 and April 1, unless oterwise approved by the Department. 47. If frost, water or moisture is present in the subgrade,• no surfacing materials shall be placed until all frost, water or moisture is gone or removed. 48. No drainage from this site shall enter onto the State Highway travel lanes. The Permittee may be required to detain all drainage in excess of historical flows on site. 49. All existing drainage structures shall be extended, modified or upgraded, as applicable, to accommodate all new construction and safety standards, in accordance with the Department's scanaard specifications. 50. All culverts installed in open ditches shall have flared end sections. • GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. BOX 2254 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-2254 Phone 945-6111 8��� o��� � DATE: March 1, 1996 TO: Mark Bean FROM: King RE: Co Rd 103 & Western Slope Aggregates on Co Rd 104 I understand Wetern Slope Aggregates is making application for access onto State Highway 82. This would be an opportunity for the County to delay a future financial Ilabil1ty. Most certainly the day is coming for Co Rd 103 and Co Rd 104 to be rebuilt, but the relief from the wheel -loads it is presently experiencing would postpone that expenditure. Even though the County has maintenance agreements on Co Rd 103, and Co Rd 104, I don't believe they address the financial responsibility for a rebuild To complicate it slightly, the agreements are with' two separate entitiesone not dependent upon the other, ' i.e., the concrete operation could shut down leaving the County solely responsible for Co Rd 103, which is the primary road. The AaphaIt Institute calculates the strength to thickness ratio of a road based on the number of Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL), that the road might be expected to support. A factor of 2,900 passenger vehicle counts equals one ESAL. State Highway 82 is rated at 85,000 lbs` for 5-a xles" and n d54,OOO lbs. for 3 -axles. It is hard to say'using tube counters, how many loads are 5 -axles or 3-a^las` but the is still pretty dramatic, whereas 85.000 lbs. is 6.6 ,0ESALS" or 18^480 passenger vehicles, and 54`000 lbs. is 5'2ESALS, or 14"560 passenger vehicles. Using the attached graph. you can calculate that 233 vehicles utilizing Co Rd 104, were primarily trucks that would of equalled 1,211.6 ESALS with the net effect of 3,392 48O passenger vehicles. " Maintenance will not prolong the life of these roads indefinitely. Eventually they will have to be rebuilt to sustain this kind of use. Obviously State Highway 82 was constructed to support this traffic which was never the purpose of Co Rd 103 and Co Rd 104. From the viewpoint of finances for the Road & Bridge Department, 1 feel this is a logical change. Should you have any questions, please call. King attachments Traffic Analysis Graph Road Counts cc: Shawn, Western Slope Aggregates (Fax - 963-2412) '29 -Feb -96 •GARFIEIO COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT <+' < Road Count Data > Pagel COUNTY ROAD NUMBER (VEHICLE COUNT( DATE TAKEN 1 FROM I TO IN YOURS I LOCATION ALONG ROADWAY -> -> -> I PER 24 HI CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 377 1 11-08-95 0900 0900 24 382 1 11-09-95 0900 0900 24 1223 1 11-13-95 0900 0900 96 349 0900 0900 24 426 -15-95 0900 1100 26 296 p 11-16^95_ 0900 0100 22 429 ( 11-17-95 1) 0900 0900 24 1141 I _fid -95 0900 0900 72 419 i 11-21-95 0900 0900 24 368 1 11-22-95 0900 0900 24 5416 Totals for Comments CO RO 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 1372 1448 4113 1501 1617 1207 1361 3318 1366 1446 18749 11-08-95 0900 11-09-95 0900 _ll;50900 11-1495) 0900 11-15-95 0900 11-1_+ 0900 0900 0900 11-21-95 0900 10900 11-20-95 I11-22-95 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO R0 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 CO RD 103 0900 0900 0900 0900 1100 0700 0900 0900 0900 0900 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR103A 100 YAROS SOUTH OF CR103A 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR103A 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR103A 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR103A 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR103A 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR103A 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR103A 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CRIO3A 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR103A 317 382 323 382 419 3681 00 YARDS SOUTH OF CR103A 360 Mean.,.,,.,,,, 24 24 96 24 26 22 24 12 24 24 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR104 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR104 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR104 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR104 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR104 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR104 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR104 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR104 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CR104 180 YARDS SOUTH OF CR104 3128 Totals for Comments 100 YARDS SOUTH OF CRi04 . , , .. , . , 360 Mean 312.8 1312 1448' 1028 D1 1493 1317 1361 1106 1366 1446 13438 921 1 11-08-95 0900 0900 24 936 1 11-09-95 0900 0900 24 3230 1 11-11-9.5. 0900 0900 96 904 11 11-14-95 0900 0900 24 1064 1 `11-15-95 0900 1100 26 822 1 11-16- 0900 0100 22 930 11-11-95 0900 0900 24 2520 1 11-2 -95 0900 0900 72 871 i 1-21-95 0900 0900 24 980 X11-22-95 0900 0900 24 BETWEEN CRi04 & WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION BETWEEN CR104 & WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION BETWEEN CR104 & WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION BETWEEN CR104 & WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION BETWEEN CR104 & W000EN DEER SUBDIVISION BETWEEN CR104 & WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION BETWEEN CR104 & WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION BETWEEN CR104 & WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION BETWEEN CR104 & WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION BETWEEN CR104 & WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION 1343.8 921 936 1 904j 982 840 871 [980 29 -Feb -f6 •GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD 8 BRIDGE DEPARTMENT <111/1 Page 2 < Road Count Data > COUNTY ROAD NUMBER IVEHICLE COUNT' DATE TAKEN I FROM I TO I# HOURS I LOCATION ALONG ROADWAY -> -> -> I PER 24 HR Totals for Comments BETWEEN CR104 8 WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION 13118 360 9068 Mean 906.8 Totals for County Road Number CO RD 103 31343 1080 26234 Mean 814.5 GRAND TOTALS 31343 Totals 1080 26234 Mean 814.5 E N ® u\\7 T xm mormwavrAm mommoco m,\\C\Y,^,(X11 mff\'Ibbbd\\\\VXXXI seteasinwm morzamvm x\\\\iXXXI ___Frrit, ;rx 1 \\\\Y X -X1 EIERM -IX` x1 t\\\\\ ANI Jl t;\MYVvi SA\\\\\Y,XxJ gimmqmvv�'xJ moi\\\\\a-sa mormwmfx.xxi muszCx\\`�fixyiyo 4,\\\\i yyl mrim\\\\x3wrlIMM miazawm Nokammuou mEma \`kwi mortyxtaam Wi t\\\\ ,„vj fi u ni Lr - L1 1-1 n III Y1 LLJ w , LJ T nI • - yL h V \x\\LYJYvxI = Vehicles Per Day 1-6 JANUARY 1930 • a � � � REQUIRED DESIGN TYPE §§ a§\ • ] uj w < / )Q. � « 6- L;." Z CO o—J Z go • 2 corl0 U LU _■ c _ - 0 co 2 > _ 1-- 0 {VEHICLES PER HOUR) z 0 (I a§ / /0 0 •BASED ON 1965 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (VEHICLES PER DAY) 33HS 1X3N NO S310N1004 33S 0 0 -' - -0 O O m A^ Q ^Y 4 rt m 1 - 0 0 - m ® 0 2 -4 .n w LT Cr.) I s V tri O O rn N LJ N cn cn A V' 0 1 f 0 0 co SEE TABLE 202.3 rn d0 a 0 l=1 Ln O SEE TABLE 201.2 2'1.01 31 VI rn x c2'�"= 6 c✓ 0 Cr1 e 2 rn Co O LAJ O e 7- O 0 m v m 0 rri z -0 LA -0 m zmO 0 2 (/1 r m a G`s m m S-7 rrlm O 2 - ›s m Li c= anis rn t7 33 ▪ ▪ i 3 a 2 m-zi C a -4 s 2-1 1\ AT ROARING FORK 3/19/96 To Garfield County Planning Department Attention Mark Bean Re: Western Slope Aggregates SUP Public Hearing The Ranch at. Roaring Fork Homeowners Association wishes to protest the vote taken at the Public Hearing held March 13, 1996 by the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission because the notice of the meeting was published in accordance with Sections 9.02.02 and 9.03.04 (1). Our Board of Directors therefore did not have sufficient opportunity to review the proposal. Accordingly, the Ranch objects to the transmission of the Commissions' recommendation to the County Commissioners. Sincerely, Ranch at Roaring Fork Home Owners Association BY 14913 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 81 623 nFR-1E-1906 16:13 ROHR I NG FORK NH I HT & CON .'RE -1 ; F -QnQL D .STRT ic k RANSPOR '' ""' C N, DEPARTMENT xt .BOX20 GLENWQ®D>SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602. 945-5864 r • Charles W. Cloud Administrator Mr, Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 51601 April 10, 1996 Dear Mark: P.02 After having several discussions with different parents and community members regarding the road coming out onto Highway 82 instead of 104 Road, I feel that the Roaring Fork School District Transportation Department needs to withdraw their previous recommendation. f feel that we need to have all the facts presented to us before we can make this decision. If you have any further need to discuss this matter with nye, please give ane a call at my office (945-5864 or 945-1207). Sincerely yours, Larry Estrada TOTA! P 07 m 0 n a 0 u an z Z 4 z 4 2 w CZ a Hi=r 09 '96 10:03A'i CI j. . ' [,EL1CR 3 b PPI-<-1erd- a L as e L 410 A a TRArfti. • TRANSPCI Tk3ON r CIVIL EHGJNEEAIKG 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT MEMORANDUM 703GEOSI 3 Frank Hallowell, The Ranch at Rearing Fork Sherry Caloia Garfield County Matt De 11 ch April 8., 1996 Western Slope Aggregate proposed traffic engineering evaluations (File: 9622MEM2) access to SH82, I have been requested to pr-uvide traffic engineering evaluations and opinions pertaining to the proposed access to SH82 for the Western slope Aggregate operation, known as the Blue Pit. Vehiclos (trucks and passenger cars) currently accessing the Blue Pit from/to SH82 tine County Road 103 (CR103), County Road 104 (CR104), and a private road. Roth CR103 and CR104 are paved. The private road is gravel. The proposal is to improve an existing gravel road that currently intersects with SH82 across from the access to the Ranch at Roaring For. The existing access to SH82 la currently gated. During a number of site visits, the gate was always open, however no vehicle;, were observed using this access. It is my u0derstanding, based upon canversatiOns and review of available documentation, that this access had a temporary access permit granted by they Colorado Department of Transportation (Cr7OT). The temporary nature of the access permit was related, to the construction of the four lane cross section of SH82 in 1993 and 1994. The current access route (described above) Xs expressly defined in Resolution 81-384, which relates to the approval of the epeoial use permit for the gravel extraction operation. Na limit on the number of vehicles utilizing the 131ue Pit was found in the :available documentation. The access permit application (signed on 3/15/96 and 3/18/96) states that the estimated daily vehicle counts using the proposed access will be 30 passenger cars and light trucks, 80 single unlit trucks in excess of 30 feet, and 40 multi -unit trucks. This is a total of 150 vehicle trips. The aCCGS4 permit states, "Leaving property then returning is two counts_ The auxiliary lane requirements defined in the State Highway Access Code are based upon the estimated number of vehicles that will utilize the access. The following are the auxiliary lane requirements taker, from the approved State Highway Access Permit: 23. Highway widening for the right turn deceleration lane shall be 1.2 feet wide and 485 long, including a 270 foot taper. iiPP 10;u841 F. Fif'Fti' ;� 1 `Ja lc;z1 _itIZe:il=950J -4 • 24. Highway widening far the right turn acceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 960 feat long, including a 270 foot taper. A loft turn Dana shall bre installed. The deceleration portion shall be 16 feet wide and 4$5 feat long, including a 270 foot taper. Redirect tapers for through traffic shall be at a 50 to 1 ratio. 26. The left turn acceleration lana shall be 16 feet wide, with an approximate total length of 960 feat. The components of the lane will be a 690 foot acceleration length and 270 foot taper. In a memorandum and attachments dated March 1, 1995, from King to Mark bead, traffic volumes on CR103 were discussed. Traffic counts on CR103, at a location 144 yarda south of CR104, average 1344 vehicles per weekday, 4nd on CR103, at a location between CR104 and Wooden Deer Subdivision, average 907 vehicles per weekday. A simple calculation would indicate that the difference between these two count locations would, be the number of vehicles utilizing CR144. This difference is 431 vehicles per weekday. A cursory observation indicates that there are 8 single family dwelling units that have primary access to CR104. Using conventional trip generation rates, results in 76 weekday vehicle trip ends for these eight dwelling units. The only other users of CR104 are the Blue Pit vehicles. This results in 361 vehicles that are likely to be related to activity at the Blue Pit. This number of vehicles is 2.4 times the number of vehicles stated by the applicants in the Stafe Highway Access Permit Application. This discrepancy should be explained. The increased vehicle activity would directly impact the Ranch at Roaring Fork at the proposed access. If there will be higher trip generation than that indicated in the Permit )qop1 ication. khen the maxi 1_ iazy lane reQtiir4ments will likely be different than thaeG indira.ted in the State Highway Access Permit approved by_ CDXT, In light of the above, the weigh station tickets for the currant Blue Pit operation should be obtained for a number of wecl;.clays during each month of the year. 1 am suggesting data from Each month, since truck activity is higher during the construction season. It should be noted that the traffic counts performed by Garfield County were in November 1995, and I believe that truck traffic was probably lower during this time than during construction season months. There are currently 133 dwelling units in the Ranch at Roaring Fork, a 5 hole par 3 golf course, and a bar/antertainment facility. The vehicle activity from 133 dwelling units is approximately 1200 average weekday vehicle trip ends. Comparing the residentially generated traffic an CR103 to traffic generated by 133 dwelling units of the Ranch at Roaring Fork indicates that the vehicle 2 =IFR 0 96 10:091-1H CML, L, lir f i�R-0 3- i �35 1G:22 MUCH PE 1 activity at the Ranch at Roaring Fork will be higher than the residential vehicle activity on CR103, just north of SH82. The Ranch at Roaring Fork is not fully developed. The total number of dwelling units could be 190. This number of dwelling units would raise the vehicle activity to approximately i800 average weekday trip ends. It is not known what the future development activity will be along CR103. This is a function of future development approvals by the Barfield County Commissioner,. However, it should be noted that the Ranch at Roaring Fork pre- dates the 1981 blue Pit approval and much of the ve 1 opment to the north alone CR103. Actually, a significant amount of the development along CR103 came after the Blue Pit was operating trucks on CR103. Based upon the foregoing comparisons, it can be concluded that more residential traffic may be impacted by moving the Blue Pit access than by allowing it to remain where it currently is. The current route fur the Blue Fit trucks involves a T intersection with 81162, The proposed access will create a four - leg intersection. By its very stature, a T intersection has less conflict points than a four -lay intersection. In that respect, a T intersection is safer due to less conflict paints, Since it has been demonstrated that vehicle activity at botlI intersections is almost the same at the present time, then the SH82/CR103 intersection is safor since there are fewer conflict points. If the Ranch at Roaring Fork continues to develop according to approved plans, then more "residential" traffic can be negatively impacted by the proposed access location. Conclusions Basad upon my evaluations and research, thn following can be concluded: - There appears to be a discrepancy between the estimated vehicle activity at the proposed access and the current vehicle activity using CR103. The vehicle counts have a hearing ❑n the design of the proposed access. If there are differences, they should be resolved e{] that a proper design can be implemented. - The "residential" traffic at the access to the Ranch at Roaring Fork is higher than the "residential° traffic on CR103. With additional traffic from build out of approved development at the Ranch at Roaring Fork, it appears that more "residential" traffic is impacted by moving the truck activity to the proposed access location. - The existing route goes through the SH82/CR103 ititer!eotion, which is a T intersection. The proposed access will. 3 ADIW 41 iav E a u 0: W r J 4= J i :.L , f. i�a �l.� �JL�. Fl���410 303 g534 create a four --leg intersection. By their very nature, T intersections have less conflict paints than four --leg` intersections and are, therefore, safer. TOTAL P.05 :if'f.R 09 ' • t 119: 0'a -di CH2 1. , F' + . C-0 U , I C; & J4dirr sfAr y SHERRY A. CALOIA JEFFERSON V. HOUPT SAMUEL J. LIGHT Date: 1 1204 GRAND AVENUE GLEIWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-6067 FACSIMILE: (970) 945-6292 I CSI.4�MILE TT` 1" ITTAL S ET To: (Name) (Company) (Bus phone) (FAX phone) From: Time: Number of pages. -to be transmitted: Document Description; S.-- (including cover page) (4/5 ,..1 NOTE: If you encounter any difficulty in receiving the total number of pages indicated above, PLEASE CALL (970) 945-6067 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. REMARKS: a e -et -e -e 14PR-09--1 ]'36 z2: J2 fit I ri tLul 6=1.1 CI ffc aa.ary aLg AFf MEfV7 Cites H IGH APLICATION FOR STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT Instructions! contact the Department of Highways or your local government to determine your issuing authority. - cont;..'( the issuing authority to determine what plan and other documents are required to bei submitted with your application. - compitete this form (some questions may not apply to you) & attach all necessary documents and submit it to the issuing authority. Submit an application for tach access requested. - if you have any questions contact the issuing authority. owner (Parr/throe) and flee. Blue street addrea3, city, 0404 County Road 104, Canbandaie scat e & alp Co-ea/tad° 81623 Issuing authority application acceptance data Property Jean Phone K 970-963-2653 ) Address of property to ba IteFrved by permit (if kn owri 2) Applicant wee-tgxn SAgcnega-tae, Ina. treat address, city• Peat OKiiice Sox 910/0242 County Road 104, Carilaondate tate a zip _ Phone tr Please print or type Ca.Po'ttz4o 81623 1 970-963-2296 0+242 Count Road 104, Cartbanda.P.el, Co.okadex 81623 4) Legal dsscriptidn of property: - - - - County subdivision Gee/Li-.e-Ed I block lot S section 1 36 township 5) What state h; pp 7S shwas rare you raquga[Yna access from? S.ta...t (�S,ua 8) What Olde of the highwey7l i� L r 8 2 7) How many feet is the ro Nock 36 96 p posed access from the nearest mile post or Cross :tree fent t N S W) from M.L . Peat 1 4 8) Check here if you are requeSting17. new access ti temporary access Ci improvement to existing access What is the approximate date you intend to begin construction? 1t1)Q ouhavr knawled a or an - May 1996 (P2ndcnq Ga�tic.te.ed Cou.rt.ty Appi o j&..) 9 y State Highway access permits serving this property. or for adjacent properties In which you have a property interest. O Qs i� no If "yes'* - wrist are the permlr number(s)7 393015 11) Coes fee property owner Own or tissue _ and /or, permit date F '>4 18r 1943 @ any interests In any adjacent property? lC yes ❑ no If "yes" - please describe: ) range tax i Cis D e C7 w 88w change in access use Agn.i cut t ire 0 12) Are mere existing or dedicated public streets, roads_ highways or access eusernents bordering or within the property? x.In( yes 0 no If "yes" - list there on your plans and indicate the proposed and existing access points, 13) If you are requesting commercial or industrial access please Indicate the types and number of businessde tend provide the floor area square !dotage of each? bt,siness square footag 110 ar...itez 14) If you are requesting agricultural field ac ass buseseg9 square ioorage - how many at OS will the agCtlss serve? 35 15) if you are rag ling residential rlevelopment a0Ceee, - whist le the type (single family, apartment. t0u tsps numbar of units nhouse) and number of U TS? NIA number of units 18) Provide the following vehicle count estimates for vehicle � that will use the at ce66. Leavin your counts are peak hour votumaa 0 c average daily volumes IX f g property then returning i [J: 30�rt �: 30prr r of paarsenears cars and Ilght truck 30 M of single unit vehicles in excess of 30 ft M of farm vehicles Mew ■qulpmunt) 80 Tata 4 Count o! Ali Vehicle■ 150 17) Check with the issuing authority to de[ermine whlchiof the following documents are required to complete the review of your application. should be no t4rger man 24- 3d"] q of multi unit trucks 40 wo counts. indicate it of otnervehicles a) Highway and driveway plan lino profile. la) Drainage plan Showing impact to the highway right -of -way - 0) Map and letter* detailing utl Pity locations before end after development in and along the right-of-way, d) Subdivision. zoning, or development plan. a} 11 0) n) i) 1) Property map Indicating other accass, eordering roads and streets. Proposed access design. Parcei and ownership maps Including easements. Signing and Striping plans. Truftlo t;pntrol plan Proof of liability insurance If an access permit is issued to you it will state the terms and conditions for Its use. Any changes in the use of the permitted access n not consistent with the terms and conditions listed on the permit may be considered a violation of the permit. THE APPLICANT DECLARES UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN THE SECOND DEGREE, AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS. THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED ON TFIIS FORM AND SUBMITTED ATTACHMENTS ARE TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE TRUE AND COMPLETE. Applicant signature _ _ litl I7iaet-57tJ If the applicant is not the owner of the properly. we require this application also to be signed by the prop owner or their legaily authorized representative (or other acceptable written evidence). This signature shall constitute agreement with this application by all owners -of -interest unless stated In writing. If a permit is authorized, the property owner will be llstud as the perrnietee. ;roperty owner ylpnutures Previous ■dltlen• tnry b. urea unlit sueetiesare exhausted Clalse J/r C -13 0H Farm 11137 J@9 t-115--1996 12:32 4111 THE s.L16'tl,f2iL I COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE; Jean M. & Dee Blue 0404 County Road 104 Carbondale, CO 81623 1-i No/MP/5+det; Local Jurisdiction: Dist/Section/Patrol: 00 r Permit No.: Permit Fes: Date of Transmittal: APPLICANT: 6St1/01..712e/tipT u.rtieid 03/32/16 396055 0.00 03/21/96 Western Slope Ag"'greyates, Inc. P. O. Scx 910 0242 County Road 104 Jean M. & Dee e Blue - Carborndale, CO 81623 (970) 963-2553 (970) 963-2296 is hereby granted permission To construct and use an access to the state highway at the location noted below. The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit. Including the State Highway,Access Code and listed attachments. This permit may be revoked toy the issuing authority if at any tirne the permitted access and its use violate any of the terms and condltipna of this permit. The use of advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers are required at all times during access construction within State right-of-way in conformance with the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, Part VI. The issuing authority. the Department and their duly appointed harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sesta ne try reason of the exeorcise frthe pbe hel e mit LOCATION: On the north aide of State Highway 82, a distance of 3696 feet` east from Mile Post 14; 0242 County Road 104; Carbondale. ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO: General Light Industrial (110 Acres) PERCENT 100.00 $ OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED SHEET ( S ) FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains Issuing authority. - By (X) Date Title Upon the signing of this permit the permittee ag```es tp the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained herein. All construction shall be completed In an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation_ The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to being used. The permittee® shall notify Mj.ke Moore with the Colorado Department of Tranaportistlon in Basal r at at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction wltrtin the State Highway rtght-a -way0 The person signing as the permittee must be the owner or legal rapresentative of the property served by the permitted access and have full al{ihomy 10 accept the per and ail it's terms and conditions. i Perrnittee (X) Date This permit is not valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. DEPARTMENT OF TRA.PORTA SON, STATE OF COLORADO Sy (X) COPY !? 1STRIUUT16N: Ar .Ir • Cate >Aeke vovle:.la naca3aary far: Title Pru,do.,a Ealtior.6 are dt,.uiecc nnc will not ne used C1/0-1• Fars 21411 7/111 i 11-W I l'ir_•W I 1 Hz :3 . rl.! • • DATE; March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHUT 2 ISSUED TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue TERMS AND CONIJITIONS 1. If there are any questions regarding this permit, please contact Charles Dunn at (970) 248-7234. 2. The Permittee shall refer to all additional standard requirements on the back of this permit and any enclosed additional terms, conditions, exhibits and noted attachments. 3. This permitted access is only for the use and purpose stated in the Application and Permit. 4 The Permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary additional federal, state and/or City/County permits or clearances required for construction of the access. Approval of this access permit does not constitute verification of this action by the Permittee. 5. The Permittee shall submit a survey plat, warranty deed and legal description for all property to be dedicated to the Department as new right -of --way. 6. The Permittee shall provide the Department a copy of the recorded final plat. 7. Any work within State Highway right-of-way shall begin after 8:30 A.M. and all work and equipment shall be off the highway BEFORE 3:30 P.M. each day. 8. It is the responsibility of the Permittee to prevent all livestock from entering the State Highway right-of-way at this access location_ Any livestock that does enter the highway right -of --way shall be the sole responsibility of the Permittee. 9. A FULLY EXECUTED COMPLETE COPY OF THIS PERMIT MUST SE ON THE JOB SITE wITt THE CONTRACTOR AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS OR ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENT MAY RESULT TN THE IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION OF WORK E3Y ORDER OF THE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR OR THE ISSUING AUTHORITY. 10. All materials, equipment, installation, construction and design, including the auxiliary lane(s) and intersection improvement(s) within the State Highway shall be in accordance with the following Department standard references, as applicable: a. Roadway Design Manual b. Materials Manual c. Construction Manua]. d. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition e. Colorado Standard Plans (M & S Standards) f. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control, Devices (M. U , T. C _ D . ) for Streets and Highways and the Colorado Supplement thereto g. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) , latest edition h. Institute of Transportation Engineer's 'Trip Generation manual, latest edition State Highway Access Code 2 CCR 601-1 j. Roadside Design Guide Some of the reference materials listed above (a through e) may be purchased from: Colorado Department of Transportation Bid =1¢n:; Room 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222-3400 iLiPk-ii..9 '119E. 12:3-1 0 DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 3 ISSUED TO: Jean M- &. Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CONT'D) Telephone Number: (303) 757-9313 The Access Code may be purchased from: The Public Record Corporation 16E6 Lafayette Street P.O. Box 18186 Denver, Colorado 80218 Telephone Number: (303) 832-8262 11. Survey markers or monuments must be preserved in their original positions. Notify the Department at (970) 248-7220 immediately upon damage to or discovery of any such markers or monuments at the work site_ Any survey markers or monuments disturbed during the execution of this permit shall be repaired and/or replaced immediately at the expense of the Permittee_ 12. Prior to starting construction or any work within the State Highway right-of-way, the Permittee/contractor must provide the following to the Department- A. A construction traffic control plan prepared by a professional traffic engineer or an individual certified by the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) , using the latest edition of Manual, on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and other applicable standards. The plan must be submitted a minimum of 72 hours in advance of construction. B. A copy of the work and phasing schedule. 13. The Permittee, through a Colorado registeredf onal construction, engineer shall provide design,pro meneni striping and signing on, pavemt Sn g plans to the Department for approval 45 days prior to commencement of any work.. Design plans must, include but not limited to layout of speed change lanes, Utility locations, present and proposed drainage, present and proposed right-of-way lines, traffic control plan (if any), present and proposed traffic control devices, cross sections on 50 foot intervals and clear zone analysis. (Par. 4.10.17, 2 CCR 601-1) 14. Upori completion of the work, the Permittee/Contractor/Engineer shall submit an AAs Built" Plan, showing in detail all construction changes, modifications and revisions;. All changes, modifications or revisions shall be stamped by a Colorado registered professional engineer. 15. It shall be the responsibility of the Permittee to verity the location of the existing utilities and notify all utility owners or operators of any work that might involve utilities within. the State Highway right-of-way. Any work necessary to protect existing permitted utilities, such as an encasement will be the responsibility of the Permi.ctee. Any damage or disruption to any utilities during the construction shall be the Permitcee's responsibility and shall be repaired or replaced at no cost to the Department. 16_ Any damage to any present highway facilities including traffic control devices shall be repaired immediately at no cost to the Department and prior to continuing other work. Any mud or other material tracked or otherwise deposited an the roadway shall be removed daily or as ordered by the Department inspector. 17. Areas of roadway and/or right-of-way disturbed during this installation shall be restored to their origional conditions, to insure proper strength, drainage and erosion control_ RPH-0 zI._1S 6 i2;,4 f' r 1 h 1 i.t „L i L 1 h, 411 411 DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 -- SHEET 4 ISSUED TO: Jean M_ & Dee Blue TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CONT' D ) 18. Any incomplete construction activity oil the State Highway that must be left overnight, shall be barricaded and signed in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and other applicable standards.. 19. Open cuts which are 6 inches in depth, within 30 feet of the edge of the State Highway traveled way will not be left open at night, on weekends, or on holidays. 20. No more than 6 feet of trench areas shall be opened at any one time. Open trenches and other excavations within the State Highway right-of-way shall be backfilled and/cr paved before 3:30 P.M. of each working day or be protected in accordance with the M.U.T.C.D.. 21. The area around the new work shall be well graded to drain, top soiled, fertilized, mulched and re -seeded in accordance with the Department standard specifications. 22. When it is necessary to remove any highway right-of-way fence, the posts on either side of the access entrance shall be securely braced with approved end posts and in conformance with the Department's M-607-1 standard, before the fence is cut, to prevent slacking of the remaining fence. All posts and wire removed shall be returned to the Department_ 23. Highway widening for the right turn deceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 485 .long, including a 270 foot taper. 24. Highway widening for the right tuxri acceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 960 feet long, including a 270 foot taper_ 25. A left turn lane shall be installed. The deceleration portion shall be 16 feet wide and 485 feet long, including a 270 foot taper. Redirect tapers for through traffic shall be at a 50 to 1 ratio. 26. The left turn acceleration lane shall be 16 feet wide, with an approximate total length of 960 feet. The components of the lane will be a 690 foot acceleration length and a 27Q foot taper. 27. All excavations for Utility lines, culverts, trenches or tunnels shall meet the requirements of the Occupational,. Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) , Colorado industrial Commission, Colorado Division of Mines or the Colorado Department of Transportation, whichever applies. 28. All work that requires traffic control shall be supervised by a registeredprofessional traffic engineer or by a traffic control supervisor certified by the American Traffic Safety Services. Association (ATSSA) or the Colorado Contractors Association (CCA). When flagging personnel are required, they shall be certified by the contractor in accordance with the Department standards. 29. Construction traffic control devices, when not in use, shall be removed or turned away from traffic. 30. All temporary pavement striping shall be done by the Permittee/contractor in comfnrmance with section 627 of the. Department's standard specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (latest edition). Hek Ic1--1 ee6 12 ; .S7 iii! l I I!_0 Lel. Y l_; 't DATE: March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 5 ISSUED TOa Jean M. & Dee Slue TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CONT' D) 31. All final signing and pavement striping shall be done by the Permittee or the contractor in conformance with the Department's M & S standards and the M.U.T_C.D., unless otherwise agreed to by the Department and the Permittee. A final signing and pavement striping plan shall be submitted to the Region 3 Traffic Engineer a minimum of 45 working days prior to commencement of work. No work shall begin without prior approval and authorization from the Department. 32. The roadway shoulder shall be widened to 4 feet along the speed change lanes and surfaced with HBP in accordance with the Department specifications. The shoulder widening along through lazes shall be rio less than 4 feet paved or match existing and paved_ 33. The access shall be constructed perpendicular to the travel lanes of the State Highway for a minimum distance of 50 feet, and shall slope down and away from the adjacent pavement edge at a rate of 2 grade for a minimum of 20 feet. If curb and gutter are present, the slope shall, be calculated from pan line to pan line. Any revisions to this requirement shall be subject to Department review and approval prior to commencement of any work within the highway right-of-way. 34_ The access shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation of construction within State Highway right -of --way. 35 Pursuant to section 4.10.2 of the State Highway Access Corse, the access roadway shall net exceed a maximum grade of 10 percent within the highway right-of-way, as measured 50 feet beyond r.he pavement edge and extending to the right-of-way line. The access vertical grade shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the Department M & S standard M-203-1. 36_ The design of the horizontal and vertical sight distance shall be no less than the minimum requirements, as provided in section 4.9 of the State Highway Access Code, 2 CCR 601-1. 37. All required access imprcveroents shall be installed prior to the herein authorized use of this access. 38. The access shall be surfaced immediately upon earthwork construction and prior to use. 35. Compaction of Hot Bituminous Pavement shall be in with section 401.17 of the Department's standard specifications. Compaction of the Aggregate Base shall comply with section 304.06. 40. Compaction of subgrade, embankments and backfill accordance to section 203.07 of the Department's specifications with the test results sent to and the Department inspector. completion of accordance Course shall be in standard approved by 41. Placement of base course materials shall be .n accordance with section 304.04 of the standard specifications. Compaction shall be in conformance with AASHTO procedure T-99. 42. The surfacing shall meat the Department's specifications with the following material placed for final grade: 12 inches ABC, Class 1, 6 inches ABC, Class 6 and 4 inches of PPR --0 —1 Eo6 12:35 NATTi fi~j IEL I Lai DATE March 21, 1996 ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER 396055 - SHEET 6 ISSUED TO: Jean M. & Dee Blue 3U346950_1 i' 4')6 TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CANT' D) Hoc Bituminous Pavement (Grading C or CX) placed in the following lifts; 2 - 6 inch lifts Class 1; 1 6 inch lift Class 6; 2 - 2 inch lifts HBP. 43. The new State Highway pavement shall slope or the same plane as the present pavement surface. s_ 44.. Slopes shall be as a 6 to 1 ratio on the roadway and a 6 co 1 ratio on the approach. 45. The existing asphalt adjacent to all new pavement shall be saw cut and removed a minimum of one foot back from the existing edge, or until an acceptable existing cross slope is achieved co assure a straight edge for the joint. 46_ The top layer of plant mix bituminous pavement shall not be placed between October 1 and April 1, unless oterwise approved by the Department. 47. If frost, water or moisture is present in the subgrade, no surfacing materials shall be placed until all frost, water or moisture 15 gone or removed. 48. No drainage from this site shall enter onto the State Highway travel lanes. The Permittee may be required to detain all drainage in excess of historical flows on site. 49. All existing drainage structures shall be extended, modified or upgraded, as applicable, to accommodate all new construction and safety standards, in accordance with the Department's standard specif'icati.-ns. 50. Ali culverts installed in open ditches shall have flared end sections. TOTAL P. Western Slope Aggregate Mark Bean Garfield County Planning and Zoning 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623 Dear Mark, April 10, 1996 • PW4/14/ The following information is presented to explain the traffic count discrepancy question in regards to the report dated April 8, 1996 by Matthew J. Delich. Mr. Delich refers to 361 vehicles trips per day associated with the gravel pit operation and compares that to the CDOT permit of 150 trips per day. On the ten (10) days that King performed his vehicle count, we had 586 loads out or 1172 trips (see attached scale print out). This averages out to be 117 trips per day. I understand that King Lloyds traffic counters count axles, this means that a tandem dump truck equals one and a half vehicles and an end dump equals two and a half vehicles. Averaging this out the 117 truck trips is equal to 243 vehicle trips. The additional 1 1 8 trips are most likely due to work pickups, and personal employee vehicles (± 50 people at two trips per day equals 100 trips). The employees, ± 100 trips per day, will continue to use County Road 103/104 with there personal vehicles due to the fact they usually arrive and depart before and after the gravel pits' permitted hours. The following table should simplify my explanation: Actual Truck Trip (10 day average) = 117/day (58.5 loads) Multiple axle adjustment by 2 117/day Adjusted trip count = 234 Add 15 work trucks (in/out) 30 Add + 50 employees (in/out) 100 364 Trips/day This explains the discrepancy between my CDOT permit and Mr. Delich's report. P.Q. Box 910 • Carbondale, Colorado 81 623 • (970) 963-9424 Page 2 Mark Bean April 10, 1996 In addition, our access permit was submitted, designed and approved, using daily averages as required by the CDOT. Using only a five day work week we would truck 286,000 tons per year based on the average 120 truck trips per day (1100 tons per day) submitted to CDOT. Our past three year average is only 200,000 tons per year. Thank you again for your time regarding this matter. Sincerely, 5---/Z7r M. Sean Mello Engineer Material :3 12:a8 5634424 • ,5 • Material Summary page 1 Time 10:39;40 Period Transactions Date 04/10/96 4 of Loads Net Weight 1.5R8 1.5 ROAD BASE 1.5SR 1.5 SCREENED ROCK 3"RB 3" ROAD SASE 3/4RD 3/4 ROD BASE 3/458 3/4 SCREENED ROCK MATERIAL CODE - BR MATERIAL CODE - BR MATERIAL CODE - BR MATERIAL CODE - BR MATERIAL CODE - SR MATERIAL CODE - 8R MATERIAL CODE - BR MATERIAL CODE - 9R MATERIAL CODE - BR MATERIAL CODE BR MATERIAL CODE - DR MATERIAL CODE - BS CO$BLE,S COBBLES RA RIP -RAP 1 2 8 16 33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34660 lb 17.33 tn 48340 lb 24.17 tn 365420 Ib 182.71 tn 461000 Ib 230.50 tn 1079700 lb 539.85 tn 27260 lb 13.63 tn 25540 lb 12.77 tn 24920 lb 12.41 tn 27120 lb 13.56 tn 26360 lb 13.18 to 24460 Ib 12.23 tn 25540 ib 12.77 tn 24480 Ib 12.24 tn 25500 lb 12,75 tn 25600 lb 12.80 tn 28320 lb 14.16 tn 29360 lb 14.68 tn 4460 Ib 2.23 tn 30720 lb 15.36 tn F i;GE 0: Tot Charge 62.62 93.58 45:.77 853.49 2229.16 35.19 32.97 32.04 35.00 34.02 31.57 32.97 31,59 32.92 33.04 36.55 139.08 14.97 2222.03 Report Totals End i2:a8 1 # of Load 74 of Report * Net Weight 2330660 3b 1169.33 tn.') { Tot Charge 4384.56 • 9 • Time 10:52,35 Period Material iodTransactions Date 04/10/96page 1 Material R of Loads Net Weight Tot Charge 1.5SR 1.5 SCREENED ROCK 3 91960 lb 161.22 45.96 to f.ti3E 04 3"R$ 3" ROAD BABE 9 307540 lb 397.63 153.77 to 31488 3/4 ROAD BASE 11 364700 lb 645.18 192.35 tn 3/4SR 3/4 SCREENED ROCK 28 825020 ib 1559.79 412.51 to 3/9WR 3/8 WASHED ROCK 2 55400 lb 200.37 28.20 tn MATERIAL CODE - DR 28120 lb 36.29 14.06 tn MATERIAL CODE - BR 1 23240 lb 37.69 14.60 tri MATERIAL CODE - 8S 1 29700 1b 76.66 14.85 tn MATERIAL CODE - 83 29720 lb 76.71 14.86 tn MATERIAL CODE - 85 1 29220 lb 75.42 14.61 to COBBLES COBBLES MASON SAND MASONRY SAND 1 78800 lb 153.55 14.40 tn 1 3200 lb 10.74 1.60 tn uBr t1N6CREENED DROWN TOPSOIL 2 62360 lb 225.36 31.18 tn Report Totals K of Loads Net Weight Tot Charge 62 1885940 Ib 3686.61 0942.97 tn) End of Report %?g=i6{1 12.98 SE344 //-1111-1,1 ial Tiee 11:30117 PerrlodYTransactions Date 04/10/96 ry Material page 1 N of Loads Net Weight Tot Charge 1.SRR 1.5 ROAD BASE 6 193650 ib 269.97 96.84 to FtiGE OE • :. iSR 1.5 SCREENED ROCK 3 15180{) lb 3I3.46 75.90 tn 3 "RB 3" ROAD BASE !0 411020 lb 557.94 205.51 tn 3/486 3/4 ROAD BASE 17 512540 lb 877.40 256.27 tn 3/458 3/4 SCREENED ROCK 22 772100 lb 1419.96 386.05 tn 3/8WR 3/8 DASHED ROCK 5 150700 lb 527.45 75.35 tn MATERIAL CODE - BR 1 25220 lb3� h. 55 18'.61 tn MATERIAL CODE •- RR 1 22790 lb 29.41 11.39 tn MATERIAL CODE - BS 1 26780 lb 42.48 13.39 tn MATERIAL CODE - SS 1 28360 lb 43.32 14.18 tn MASON SAND MASONRY SAND 1 25360 lb 136.38 12.68 tn Report Totals M at Loads Net Weight Tot Charge b8 2320340 16 4329.92 (1160.17 tn') End of Report 7 ; u . ':.b -J%1424 Time 11:43119 PerMaterial Period Transactions Date 04/10/36 page 1 Material 1.5RD 1.5 ROAD BASE 61360 lb 110.87 30.68 to 3"a8 3" ROAD BASE 3 94340 lb 146.11 47.17 to Fi-GE DE M of Loads Net Weight Tot Charge 31488 3/4 ROAD BASE 11 327700 lb 537.18 163.85 to 3/458 3/4 SCREENED ROCK 38 1446660 lb 2628.29 723.33 tn MATERIAL CODE - 8R 1 24520 lb 31.65 12.26 tn MATERIAL CODE - DR 1 25840 1b 32,30 12.92 tn MATERIAL CDD(- FR 1 26100 lb 32.63 13.05 tn MATERIAE CODE - DS 1 28500 lb 44.14 14.25 to MATERIAL CODE - 8S 1 29400 lb 45.53 14.70 tn MASON SAND MASONRY SAID 2 30160 lb 233.sb 15.08 tn OST UNSCREENED BROWN TOPSAIL 2 55424 1b 27.71 to 193.37 Report Totals if of Loads Nat Weight Tot Charge 62 2150000 2b4096.: 22 (1075.00 t,9 End of Report E,::10115:16 12:08 563S424 Material • Time 12105:45 Per4iodrTransactions Date 04/10,96 page 1 B of Loads Net Weight 1.5RE 1.5 ROAD BASE 34R8 3.1 ROAD BASE 3/4RB 3/4 ROAD BASE 3/4SR 3/4 SCREENED ROCK MATERIAL CODE - 8R MATERIAL CODE - PR MATERIAL CODE - BS MATERIAL CODE - 85 PST BROWN SCREENED TOPSOIL PIT RUN PIT RUN RR R1P,-RAP 1 1 7 9 26 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 Report Totals N of Loads 52 Net Weight Tat Charge 1717460 lb 3396.10 (858.73 tri) End of Report F1;GE 87 Tot Charge 31960 lb 57.75 15.96 to 221600 lb 237.48 110.80 tn 306720 lb 593.80 153.36 tri 919020 lb 1817.49 459.51 tn 25500 lb 32.92 12.75 to 25500 Ib 32.92 12.75 to 29920 lb 77.23 14.96 tri 28020 1b 72.33 14.01 to 79540 lb 229.94 39.77 tn 28220 lb 29.14 14.11 tn 21460 ib 155.10 10.73 tn L L;. _Fj:13b 12:+33 c 6.39424 Material 7152 12.18147 Peraaterial Summar ransactions Date 04/10/96P age 1 M of Loads 3 "RI+ 3" ROAD BASE 3/4R! 3/4 ROAD BASE 3/458 3/4 SCREENED ROCK 3/8WP 3/8 WASHED ROCK MATERIAL CODE - 8R MATERIAL CODE - 8S MATERIAL CODE - BS MATERIAL CODE - BS MATERIAL CODE - 8S RST BROWN SCREENED T0F'SO:L deport Totals 18 13 • Net Weight 443140 ib 221.57 tn 394620 Lb 197.31 tn 35 1352400 1b 676.20 tn 1 1 1 1 4 of Loads 73 Net Weight Tot Charge 2377620 Ib (11:..81 tn) 4614.87 End of Report 29660 Ib 14.$3 tn 14900 lb 7.45 tn 29840 Ib 14.92 tn 25560 lb 12.78 tn 30260 lb 15.13 tn 30240 lb 15.12 tn 27000 lb 13.50 to FAGE OE Tot Charge 666. 15 750.47 2718.79 103.81 19.24 40.2$ 34.51 78.11 78.06 125.45 .'G;10/1996 2:08 S63942a Material Time 12:31158 Per edTrinsac� u s Date 04/10/96page 1 M of Loads Net Weight 1.5RB 1.5 ROAD BASE 1.5SR 1.5 SCREENED ROCK 3/4RB 3/4 ROAD BASE 3/4SR 3/4 SCREENED ROCK ,BST BROWN SCREENED TOPSOIL. MASON SAND MASONRY SAND PIT RUN PIT RUN Report Totals • 2 3 2 i 22 61983 lb 30.99 tri 80120 ib 40.06 tn 61080 ib 30.54 tri 772480 lb 386.24 tn 5 111600 lb 55.80 tn 1 18 $ of Loads Net Weight Tat Charge 53 1664080 lb 3074.06 (832.04 tn) End of Report 25240 lb 12.62 tn 551580 lb 275.79 tn FACE Oe Tot Charge 111.17 161.88 118.26 1501.78 518.51 143.33 519.13 r„..Jlt7fl�.yb 55:' 4 11111--2 MaterialTime 12:44:59 Rerloririnsactiois Date 04/10/56Page M of Loads Net Weight 1.588 1.5 ROAD BASE 3 92320 lb 46.16 tn 3"R8 3" ROAD BASE 2 82720 lb 41.36 tn 3/4RB 3/4 ROAD RASE 3/4SR 3/4 SCREENED ROCK 11 287080 lb 143.34 tn 3/8UR 3/8 BASHED ROCK 3 88760 lb 44.38 tn 5 146960 lb 73.48 tn MATERIAL CODE - BR 1 27860 lb 13.93 tn MATERIAL CODE - HR 1 27780 lb 13.89 tn MATERIAL CODE - OR 1 23540 lb 11.77 t„ MATERIAL CODE - RR 1 30084 1b 15.04 to MATERIAL CODE - BR 1 25200 lb 22.60 tn MATERIAL CODE - BR 1 25960 lb 12.99 to MATERIAL CODE - BR 1 25700 lb 12.65 tn MATERIAL CODE - BR 1 28180 lb 14.09 tn MATERIAL CODE - 8R 1 25160 ib 12.58 tn MATERIAL CODE - BR 1 27820 lb 13.91 to MATERIAL CODE -- RR 1 22960 lb 11.48 tn MATERIAL CODE - BR 27260 lb 'T BROWN SCREENED TOPSOIL 13.63 to 3 74840 1b 37.42 tn F .6E 1C Tot Charge 166.81 109.83 351.39 601.20 310.66 35.56 35.86 30.39 38.82 32.52 33.50 33.17 36.37 32.47 3;.91 29.63 35.19 347.73 • PIT RUN PIT RUN 9639424 4111 MATERIAL CODE - NS 6 1 Report Totals 4 of Loads 47 Net weight Tot Charge 1326040 1/+ 663.02 to ;j 2?47.51 End of Report tin 184240 lb 92.12 to 26300 lb 13.15 to FAGE 11 156.96 /49.35 e4/ -0/1S96 12: 9639424 • rl -tea -sem Time 12158:10 Peer rfralnz cool sPa e 1 Material Date 44/10196 9 #I of Loads Net Weight Tot Charge 3"R8 3" ROAD BASE 9 328380 lb 446.65 F4,GE 1: • 3t4Rg3t4 ROAD RASE 164.49 to 9 283480 lb 323.08 141.74 to 3/45A 3/4 SCREENED RUCK 9 279340 lb 318WR 139.67 tn 542.41 3/8 WASHED ROCK MATERIAL CODE - 8R MATERIAL CODE - RR MATERIAL CODE K SS 1 23740 lb 12.87 tn 66.44 MATERIAL CODE - 85 IT RUN P I T RUN 2 S8940 16 WASHED SAND 29.47 to 50.21 2 29940 lb 14.97 tn 105.17 25780 lb 33.28 12.89 tn 27240 Ib 35.16 13.62 tn 31040 lb 48.07 15.52 tn 'port Totals w of Loads Net Weight 37 1145320 lb `572.66 tn End of Report 2 Tot Charge 2161.69 54840 lb 27.42 tn 311.42 03/06/1996 10:12 9709632412 EARTHWORKS PAGE 02 • 1 T Page 3� �$ s 'too versy. o the damn pproyal liesiiiiitivat 'preI pitprpy. ",acr ss : Fo liubdfvisfoii av not`be settled by the laitweek.VO" oad Ifor--access :till the commissioners le r — ,,. trucks =t rueiday6they were; t'? alit the approval t 0 mailer -the gravel + R' ti_ ^ Tills r ,+ 4s wG;,��% � ,J,e3 t � � !r- ,s. i 'gene ed from the pit ration use the accasiona1Iy steep; ` coding, chip -and- s eat county�road 4' hey edt 'ar*ri Ther pu tic hearing to get --the view of the •iCrystal. Springs Rod residents, iitce - the" Manch at ' Siring' Fork residents F . ►Irea ^ had been herd"4'4444: ,' Ir tc.. r •►' t `,;, commissioners ioxiers `'{i ca would be. - 1 ho. ` r ow the trucks to nrrsm�cc ti -"a Y �!r'Ni % --Kt- Nri1- 4. .; ht";St.. .Y. a �aceessro ifo the oloTan Om of~Hig wa 4hut�said one R'ighway B2 is widened tci four lasses, as is teotatij y pi -wined; by the state, they *cilia allcfw x .. r.r '5 e w— :.x.y- s• t 1 ''' a .�-directly `is the conpany.`o air onto Highway possiblydi tfyacrass from Ranch a t t6+l:tk f,'. • �In the mean e, nsideral on wUl he given by -J,-3mpr�ovemeiits t -Cryst ..SpringsRoad'' •Wp `4, Y 7. to perform safety. • • RLHIIWOOD POST • FRIDAY, .4901E.4, 1393 • PAGE 3 Truck access one -82 near home: granted By JOHN STROUI3 anon board recently and convmeed°them to agree to Post staff writer the direct access, at lease ternporariy. Garfield County commissioners will allow tempo- The other option would have been for CDOT to lo- rary truck access onto,Highway 82 from,the Western ,cafe a rock crusher at the construction site, he said, ,dope Aggregates gravel pit near Carbon jlal'e, a move F;lwhich alseironlcrhiverneant him losing the contract. that could lead to permanent access in the.future. Roberts tsn t the a rnJ one who thinks the direct ac - According to pit operator Bill Roberts, the access cess is the best Tong -term solution. is needed to fulfill a contract with the Colorado De- a'.'iCounty..Cominissioner Buckey-Arbaney said that if partment of Transportation, whichirusin shed =;, Wesicm Aggrepat wi,,n, snore contracts for work on rock from the pit (also known ') for Highway 82, it makes sense that the direct access be the Highway 82 four-Ianing project ;allowe.pexanentlyg "I do think we're going to have to deal with this on, .«,_ "I'd personally like:to see'them use that route, Ar- a permanent basis in the future,"Roberts said in a baney said It only makes sense to get (gravel trucks) hearing before the conimissioners'fliui�day''" headed itt that- direction,'(up'valley). It would also The main opponents to the' higtirway access have =' eliminate this redundancy " ; .1" been homeowners in the'Ranch=atrRdaring Fork sub- Ranch at Roaring Fork resident Mike Ramonos division, located 'directly across. the qiighwayi from: ,said the idea of a pelt access is exactly why he where the access road exits the pit,: ; r:,uttta s r i. ;,, r, lopped even a; temporarryaccess. Even though the direct access exists, under, cxmdt 1 -. `,"To me, it doesn't seem tie be to our benefit when tions imposed by the county, when the,p tAy,ss ap ,ewe try to work these things out, because we always proved in 1981, trucks from the pit ;have: tO use aseay''.,out on' the short end of the stick, he said, refer - ries of county roads. The route tritersecLs �tlie'�laighw, ring to' Staitements trade during approval of the con - about a half -mile to the west. The'lamneate was re -'t f'crete plant that'no'direcr<access would be allowed. quired this year when a concrete plant was`allowed on For now, the direct access will be temporary, last - site. fi -"ri-ing grily::untii..Nove aber;;.according to the plan ap- Roberts met with the Ranch HomeownersAssoci 4 s4; -proved by missioners Thursday. a' pi • EXHIBIT 10 — View of Proposed Access Road Across from Ranch Houses • • I I r = • EXHIBIT Proposed Illustration of the Access Road and Trees to be Removed PROJECT MANAGER, ASPEN TO SNOWMASS TRANSPORTATION PROJECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS PRINCIPAL PLANNER AND PROJECT MANAGER, PRIVATE DEVELOPERS PLANNER, POLICY AND SPECIAL PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT FOR SEVERAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CITIES PLANNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, U.S. FOREST SERVICE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISOR (ON CALL), STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS BOARD MEMBER AND SPEAKER, COLORADO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT BOARD Leslie Klusmire, AICP, ASLA, has eighteen years of experience in land use planning, government administration, citizen participation and project management. She served as the Community Development Director for the City of Glenwood Springs for eight and a half years, and most recently as Project Manager for the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Project. The Aspen Times had this to say about her: "Klusmire ...[has] management expertise and knowledge of local issues. The fact that she has such an important job can be attributed to her alone. She took it because it represented a challenge - a huge one - to push political leaders, technologists and the public to agreement ...." ❑ Initiated and managed plans for a $46 million base -to - base transit system. ❑ Directed planning, building, recreation, special projects, and public information for the City of Glenwood Springs. ❑ Initiated and implemented extension of valley -wide comm.uter bus service/public transit, river trail system, alternate route/bypass and low-income housing project, including environmental assessment. ❑ Developed Interim Growth Management Plans and impact fee ordinances, new zoning concepts, revised zoning codes. Rewrote and revised numerous comprehensive plans, application procedures, development and design regulations, sign codes, recreational vehicle and mobile home ordinances and planned unit development zone requirements. ❑ Co-founded Roaring Fork Forum, an informal coalition of governments designed to address regional growth problems across jurisdictional boundaries. ❑ Managed development projects ranging from small (100 unit) to large (2,000+ acres), from raw land to building permit stage. ❑ Developed land use and financing plan for $47 million flood control project; restructured budget process for cities; developed concept for non -city funded labor supplements in response to tax limitation cutbacks. Developed comprehensive Joint Use Program to avoid duplication of services by public and private non-profit agencies, and cut maintenance and utility costs at site. ❑ Project Landscape Architect for proposed Mineral King Ski Resort. Project Manager for RARE II inventory; EIS EXRIBIT • • MEMORANDUM To: Sherry Caloia From: Leslie Klusmire, AICP, ASLA RE: Western Slope Aggregate Date: April 15, 19% You have asked me to analyze and comment on a recent application to Garfield County for a Special Use Permit amendment for the Western Slope Aggregate gravel pit. The amendment would allow the gravel pit to access SH82 directly out of the pit and adjacent to the residential area at the Ranch at Roaring Fork instead of using the current CR 103/104 route located across from permanent open space within the Ranch at Roaring Fork P/D. 1 have reviewed all the files and documents I could find concerning the gravel pit and related land use applications on this site. Background: Prior to commencing a discussion of planning issues, I believe it may be helpful to look at the history of approvals/denials and findings on this site. There have been a considerable number of applications, requests and hearing concerning this site since 1981. These include: The original Special Use Permit approval for the operation of a gravel pit for Jean and Dee Blue and Zemlock and Sons in December of 1981: In 1981, the Ranch at Roaring Fork was already approved for 190 units and there were a significant number of homes already built. The neighbors at the Ranch protested granting the permit on the grounds that the development was incompatible with their residential neighborhood. In response to the neighbors concerns that impacts of the mining operation could not be buffered from their neighborhood, Jerry Gamba, the applicant's engineer stated that "the high ridge will screen The visual and noise pollution" . I assume this is the same high ridge that was cut into the during the widening of SH82 and now contains the temporary access road from the pit to SH82. In response to the neighbor's concerns, the minutes state that the Commissioners decided to approve the SUP with the condition that the access be located V2 mile to the west, on CR 103 and that "for the life of the project, an aesthetic berm shall be provided separating the project area from Hwy 82." The current 7 am to 5 pm operation hours were set at that time. Although the minutes from that year were abbreviated and not complete, there is an inference through the Resolution of Approval findings (81-384) that the access point condition was affixed to the SUP to make the project more compatible with the neighborhood nearest to the site, the Ranch at Roaring Fork. In minutes from the February 8, 1993 BOCC meeting, Commissioner Mackley is quoted saying that he had interviewed then (in 1981) Commission Chairman Larry Velasquez who told him that "the major concern [in the original SUP] was the fact that the road was not going to come down off the face of the pit directly onto Highway 82 and that is why they [1981 BOCC] were so explicit in saying that CO RD [sic] 103 and 104 would be used." The applicant was also required to make improvements to both 103 and 104 Roads. :`tiztIBi_`I In 1983, there was an SUP application for a concrete and asphalt batch plant which was denied because the Commission judged the use as expanding the industrial use of the area past the point at which the industrial use could be judged', Compatible with the neighborhood. Within this process, the gravel pit's "affected neighborhood" was determined to be within one half mile radius of the Zemlock Pit. The Ranch at Roaring Fork was clearly within this area and staff has continued to the present to affirm their agreement with this determination. There were only a few homes in the CR103 and 104 areas at the time. Although this proposal did not include moving the access for the industrial operations from the CR103 location, the project was denied because the additional uses were judged to be an extension of the industrial use and as such had a cumulative adverse compatibility, environmental (air and noise pollution) and economic impact on the Ranch at Roaring Fork . In 1992, another application for a SUP was received for a concrete batch plant. A memo from King Lloyd (December 21, 1992) infers that there were some attempts to move the access to the direct SH82 Iocation. There is an indication of a concern about children walking in CR104 from the school bus stop, however, Mr. Lloyd indicates it can be solved by moving the bus stop to CR103. It is evident in this memo that there are some road maintenance concerns on CR103. This is the only time throughout the history of SUP applications on this site that Mr. Lloyd discusses safety issues of any kind. During the January 4, 1993 hearing, Mr. Lloyd's commented that he encouraged the lessee of the pit to obtain direct access to SH82 because extensive improvements were needed on CR103. The packet also contained a letter from the Town of Carbondale indicating that the Town was in favor of keeping the access at CR103/104 instead of a direct SH82 access. The staff report contains a detailed discussion of compatibility issues. It requests discussion of road improvements and access issues but makes no recommendation on the access issues other than using the existing CRI03/104 route. The necessary finding of compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods appears to be addressed by declaring this an accessory use the 1981 SUP with the condition restricting access to CR103/104. The County Planner stated he thought that a direct SH82 access would be safer because of the additional residences (since 1981) that had been approved in areas served by CRI03/104. There is no other discussion of safety issues by other staff or experts. At the February 8, 1993 hearing, the County Planner affirms that the SUP is clear that the only access allowed is from CR103/104 and a direct access to SH82 would require amendment of the SUP. Commissioner Mackley stated that "the only impact that the residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork would see from this batch plant would be if the road came directly from the pit onto Highway 82 ..." He goes on to affirm that "they were sticking with the promise by the previous Commissioners to use CO RD 103 and 104 as the access for the gravel pit." This permit was approved with requirements to upgrade CR103 and 104 but apparently was never acted on by the applicant. I understand that in 1993 the Conn ave approval to the Colorado De artment of Transportation for a temporary direct access to the pit in order to conduct the widening project in the same year. I also understand that the Ranch at Roaring Fork homeowner's association agreed to the temporary nature of the access that in light of the significant construction planned in the widening project, the additional trucks that would be seen and heard on the berm directly across from their homes would be a necessary intrusion during the time of the project. They gave their cooperation understanding that the access would cease • when t he project was completed. In 1995, an SUP amendment application for a direct access to SH82 was apparently submitted. The 1995 staff report does not include a discussion of compatibility. This appears to be an oversight as there is clearly a requirement of finding of compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods in the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. It appears to me that compatibility issues are most important since the 1981 SUP approval clearly indicated that the access was not allowed directly from the pit to SH82 to ensure compatibility with the then only neighborhood in the area, The Ranch at Roaring Fork. A hearing was held at the Planning and Zoning Commission which recommended denial. There are differing accounts as to whether the Commissioners denied the request due to lack of information or because of the commitments made to access and compatibility issues with the original permit. The minutes do not include any discussion from Planning and Zoning Commission members except the actual motion to deny. The application was apparently withdrawn and did not go on to the Commissioners for hearing (according to the County Planning Director 4/12/96). In 1996, the same SUP amendment request was made by the same applicants. A similar staff report was prepared with no discussion of adjacent land use or neighborhood compatibility. Again, there is clearly a requirement of finding of compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods in the former Comprehensive Plan as well as the newly adopted plan for Study Area 1 (including this area). There is another memo from King LIoyd urging moving the access from CR103/104 due to road deterioration, this time stating staffs concern about pursuing the needed heavy maintenance on the road in even clearer financial terms, "This would be an opportunity for the County to delay a future financial liability." (March 1, 1996) There is a noise study submitted by the applicants that states that although the overall 24 hour period decibel level would not increase beyond current levels and the additional trucks would not violate State Noise Abatement Levels (which are written for urban areas and are very liberal in my opinion), individual trucks traveling down the proposed access would be heard by Ranch at Roaring Fork residents until "the ear, after time, will turn out even noticeable sounds." (March 5, 1996 Report - Activated Air Audio Engineering) The applicants in their own "Impact Report" acknowledge the noise increase and cite the nearest neighborhood as being The Ranch at Roaring Fork. Issues: I have organized this report in by the importance of the issue. Consistency There is an apparent reversal in the staff and Planning Commission recommendations in respect to what was deemed as compatibility mitigation in 1981. The staff is now recommending removing the mitigation calling for separation of the access from The Ranch at Roaring Fork neighborhood. This seems to only be based on the Road and Bridge Superintendent's financial concerns about the need to rebuild CR103 due to use. The County approved use of that road by the gravel pit throughout their approvals on this site. While the planning staff brings up a safety issue, the Road and Bridge Superintendent never expresses • • safety concerns about the road either in periodic memos or minutes from any planning action. Another apparent oversight is that staff discusses required compatibility findings in prior planning issues but not in the application. From what 1 can tell, there are essentially the same compatibility requirements in the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan for Study Area as were int the former Comprehensive Plan. This seems especially important in light of the fact that the BOCC made specific and very conscious attempts to mitigate the impact of this industrial use by removing the access to Highway 82 from directly impacting the Ranch at Roaring Fork neighborhood. Then Commission Chairman Larry Velasquez is quoted as saying this was the main issue at the time. Usually zoning actions, including Special Use Permit amendments, require some evidence of changed circumstances in order to modify the mitigation measures placed on the project. The only changed circumstances I can see since 1981 is that a few subdivisions with expensive homes have been built up CR 103 and the original requirement for a berm to mitigate the impact of the industrial use on the Ranch at Roaring Fork has been altered by allowing a temporary road for the purpose of widening SH82 and by CDOT for cutting into the berm to allow the widening. I understand from you that the County is saying that the widening of SH82 has nullified the effects of the trucks entering directly onto SH82 from the pit. This seems contradictory to me because noise, dust and the visual impact of an industrial use on the adjacent residential neighborhood was the original complaint that resulted in the mitigation Locating the access fZ mile west- not traffic impacts from truck entry on to the highway. The current applicants propose to mitigate the dust aspect by paving the road. However, by the account of their own noise expert, while trucks using the directly adjacent entry point will not raise the overall average decibel level over a 24 hour period - The Ranch at Roaring Fork residents will hear each truck (estimated at an average of 6 to 15 per hour - or one every ten to four minutes). I have a hard time digesting the noise experts dismissal of this significant impact by saying essentially - 'but they'll get used to it.' The Ranch at Roaring Fork still has the most number of homes in the highest density concentration directly fronting this industrial use. Approximately 133 homes have been constructed. By the applicant's own statement, they are the closest neighborhood to the industrial use. Therefore, it appears to me, mitigation of these significant impacts continues to justified according the County codes and policies. One last note, the Town of Carbondale was consulted on previous actions on this property and stated their opinion that the access should remain at CRI03 and not be moved to directly across from the Ranch neighborhood. There is no record of Carbondale being consulted on this action although it is in their sphere on influence. Compatibility Land Use The current access is surrounded by open space and is directly across from Ranch at Roaring Fork's permanent open space area. The proposed access is directly across from the residential area at the Ranch including around 60 homes which directly front on the SH82 and the • • industrial site. The current access causes less impact on surrounding uses because there are far less directly effected residents at that location. County Plans, Codes and Policies The current Comprehensive Plan for Study Area I requires these cbmpatibility issues to be addressed in this type of a situation. Many of these requirements are listed as "policies" which the County defines as "the basis upon which detailed decisions must be made." They are: 4.0 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES (page 1II-8) (under ISSUES): "Vehicular access, based on a strip development pattern, has been characterized by multiple driveways accessing major arterials or highways. These access patterns hinder smooth access/egress and encourage competing vehicular and pedestrian movements." (under POLICIES): "4.3 Landscaping and screening will be required to address specific visual impacts of industrial and commercial development." NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION Any proposal regarding mineral extraction that cannot mitigate adverse impacts may be denied based on a finding of incompatibility, for the fallowing 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 residences; "D. Showing a lack of equality or function in operational planning arid/or design. "E. Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas; "F. Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the entire community." The denial of an asphalt plant in 1983 which proposed to use the CR103 exit used these criteria to justify the denial. These criteria were listed in the 1993 approval of a concrete batch plant that proposed to use CR103 (interestingly enough, this proposal was deemed compatible because it would conform to the 1981 permit conditions which declared the use of CR103/104 as a mitigation for the impacts on The Ranch at Roaring Fork.) • • The Garfield County Code requires that Industrial Operations file an impact statement that proves the project meets the following criteria: "(A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off. stream flow or ground water; "(B) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; - "(C) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions: "(D) Affirmatively show the impacts and automobile traffic to and from such uses and their impacts to areas in the County; "(E) That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s); "(F) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for the standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution;" From the evidence presented in the applicant's noise study, the traffic impact study and from past findings of the County indicating that the Ranch at Roaring Fork is in the impacted neighborhood and requiring mitigation to those impacts, it appears that criteria (B), (D) and (E) cannot be met. Based on this criteria, I believe a denial of the direct S1-182 access would be justified based on these significant and unmitigated impacts: Truck Traffic Amount - The planning staff cites in their most recent report that a reason to remove the mitigation requiring access to be at CR 103 is the "incompatible traffic mix between industrial, residential and school bus traffic on County Roads 103 and 104." This situation existed when all the other planning applications were reviewed but only recently seems be a problem for staff. The only problem consistently documented by staff was that improvements made by the gravel pit in 1981 were accepted but did not. adequately fix the road. This could be solved by road maintenance and the addition of acelldecel land - but not grounds for changed circumstances. The only traffic engineer who has evaluated this situation has found that there will actually be more residential trips effected by this truck traffic at the proposed direct access point - not less. In addition, the Ranch at Roaring Fork instead of only having to contend with the trucks heading upvalley, would now be impacted by all trucks existing and entering the gravel pit. • • • Noise - Activated Air Audio Engineering, the applicant's noise expert, says on page 4 of their report that Ranch at Roaring Fork residents will hear each truck (estimated at an average of 6 to 15 per hour - or one every ten to four minutes). This is different than the statement that trucks using the directly adjacent entry point will not raise the overall average of a 24 hour period noise rating - this means the trucks won't made a difference in the overall noise - but the residents will still hear each truck "taking off and going through the gears." have a hard time digesting the noise experts dismissal of this significant impact by saying essentially - 'but they'll get used to it.' Unfortunately, there is no easy way to mitigate this impact on the Ranch at Roaring Fork residents. A sound wall could be installed on the south side of SH82, however, it will mostly mitigate some sound from the already existing traffic on SH82. Because the noise of the gravel trucks comes from higher on the berm, it will most likely travel over the wall and the residents will still hear each truck unless a very high wall (over 8') is built. Contrary to staff's comments that the lack of complaints from Ranch residents is justification that this significant impact would not harm the Ranch neighborhood, I would see this instead as residents who in good faith have honored their cooperation with the promised "temporary" direct access by not complaining during the life of the highway widening. This does not mean that all went well and that the real impacts of increased noise and industrial use impacts were never noticed. It would be most unfortunate to use a neighborhood's altruism against them in a future land use decision. Visual - Allowing trucks at an average of 6 to 15 per hour - or one every ten to four minutes, to come down the berm slope seems to me to be a significant extension of the mining activity directly in view of the residents. It appears the berm was originally required to separate the industrial mining use from the adjacent Ranch neighborhood. This seems to directly fly in the face of the original approval. If mitigation were possible, the most effective measure would be to plant tall trees on the south side of SH82. However, there does not appear to be room to do this and maintain safe sight distances on the highway. Plantings on the north side adjacent to the road would have to be substantial to screen the switchbacked road. The recent revegetation on the north side has had limited success due to the slope and soil conditions. Many plants have died. Summary: As a planner, 1 would assess that this SUP permit amendment is not justified because: 1) There are no changed circumstances indicating that a direct access causes less impacts on and is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood according to the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan or Section 5.03.07,E of the Garfield County Code. 2) The noise resulting from 100 to 150 trucks starting up and down the slope, and changing gears on this road, is a significant impact on the Ranch at Roaring Fork neighborhood that cannot be mitigated and therefore would not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan or Section 5.03.07.13 of the Garfield County Code. 3) That the proposed entry would increase vehicle and truck conflicts beyond those present at the current access point and therefore would not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan or Section 5.03.07.D of the Garfield County Code. 4) That the visual impact of extending the industrial use over the berm of the gravel pit brings an industrial use in direct view of an existing residential neighborhood and cannot be adequately mitigated as required by the Comprehensive Code. 5) Alternatives and other mitigation measures have not been proposed nor evaluated as required by Section 5.03.07.F of the Garfield County Code. EnIBIT MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 3413 Banyan Avenue Loveland, Colorado 80538 (303) 669-2061 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 1980 to present, Loveland, Colorado A consulting Engineer providing professional engineering services in the areas of traffic and transportation engineering, transportation planning, and civil engineering. He has worked as a technical consultant tonumerous governmental agencies, engineering consultants, and private industry. BRW, Inc. 1978-50, Cheyenne, Wyoming Director of Transportation Engineering Studio providing transportation and traffic engineering input on numerous multi- disciplinary projects. Conducted transportation engineering analyses in Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, and Montana. Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments 1975-78, Loveland Director of Transportation Planning directing the 3-C transportation planning process in the Larimer-Weld Region. Conducted traffic and transportation engineering analyses for local communities. Prepared the Regional Air Quality Plan. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission 1967-75, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Principal Traffic Engineer responsible for: carpool/buspool planning; small area transit studies; regional transit development program; highway corridor analyses; travel surveillance; and regional transportation planning. EDUCATION B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Cincinnati, 1966 M.S. Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, 1969 Numerous courses and seminars to maintain professional proficiency and understanding of current technology. REGISTRATIONS AND AFFILIATIONS Professional Engineer in Colorado, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Fellow. PUBLICATIONS Intersection Delay At Unsignalized Intersections. Presented at the ITE Western District Meeting, Boise, Idaho, July 1990. Transportation -Related Impacts of Land Use Alternatives in the Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland Triangle. 1977 -- Presented at the ITE Western district Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 1979. Trip Generation for Mixed -Use Developments. Colorado/Wyoming Section Technical Committee - Trip Generation, ITE, 1987. • EXHIBIT Current Traffic on Highway 82 A- APR 15 'S6 87:27AM RANCH AT ROARING FORK • April 15, 1996 Caloia, Houpt & Light, P.C_ 1204 Grand Ave Glenwood Spgs, CO 81601 Dear Sheri: Frank Hallowell requested our staff to count cars on Hwy 82 each morning from 730 0 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on the mornings of April 9-12 in front of the Golf Course shop at the Ranch at Roaring Fork. Cars were counted both directions with tractor trailer trucks counted separately. The following were counted: Date Cars Trucks 4/9 1249 134 4/10 1155 395 4/11 1237 123 4/12 1336 131 If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, zb4.7# 14913 Highway 82 • Carbondale, Colorado 81523 P.2 EXHIBIT NUMBER OF ROUNDS OF GOLF PLAYED IN 1995 BY PERSONS NOT RESIDING AT THE RANCH AT ROARING FORK Month # Rounds Played April 588 May June July August September 585 1,001 1,549 1,481 698 October TOTAL 161 6,063 GAWPS 1 IDOCSIRANCH.1 TB April 15, 1996 1 • EXHIBIT Application for Gravel Extraction SUP 1981 Resolution of Approval Minutes of Meeting i IL!r ..r ATE OF COLOit } tl. County at Garfield At m:elhlq of the Board of County ConrtnisUonerr for Garfield County, Calorsdo, h I1 it the Cairn (louse In Glenwood SprIngs on tiQnd.OEy -� 1 ^] lha,...,.15.t Jay of �......-... r ff t. D. ISeI. �....---.., rhero wen prasewl .!-f. a.rry Ul'_l,il .i r� l liar V e. , Commirsianer Chairman VIa S j •r . Ca 1. :. S t? L'wnneiaidc�ner Eugene Or nkhowse Ea 1. G. Rhodes Camr77istianer Leanne Cleland, Deputy County Attorney , Clerk of the Board when the following proceedings, among others were had and ,lane, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 81-384 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITFI THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION BY JEAN AND DEE BLUE AND ZEMLOCK AND SONS, INC. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County has received an application from Jean and Dee Blue and Zemlock and Sons, Inc., for a special use permit for extraction of natural resources; specifically, an open pit sand and gravel mine, on the following described tract of land: The following described lands in Sections 25 and 36 T?S, R88W of the 6th P.M. Those portions of lots 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 Section 25 lying in the Si of S, of Section 25 and lots 2 and 3 in Section 36 excepting • any part of the above named lots in Sections 25 and 36 lying southerly of the' northerly ROW of State Highway 82 and excepting any part of the above named lots in Section 25 lying within^the parcel of land described in the Quit Claim Deed document number 288920, Book 516, Page 393. Also, excepting that portion of tut 16• in Section 25 lying southerly of the centerline of the Basin Ditch. WHEREAS, pursuant to required public notice, the Board conducted a public hearing an the 30th day of November, 1981, upon the question of whether the above described special use permit should he granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said special use permit; and WHEREAS, the Board an the basis of the evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the fallowing determinations of fact: 1. The proposed use is compatible with the uses existing and permitted in the district in which it is to be located, provided that.certain hereinafter contained conditions be complied with. 2.. That neither the impact on traffic volume and safety or on utilities, or any other impact of the special use will be injurious to the established neighborhood or zone district in which the special use is to be located. provided that certain hereinafter contained conditions be complied with. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners of Garfield County, that a special use permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above described tract of land for extraction of natural resources; specifically, an open pit . sand and gravel mine, upon the following specific conditions: 1. That the use of the tract of land comply with all of Garfield County relating to extraction of naturae lresourcessent and finutherzoneadistrict in which the property Is now or may later be located; 2. That; prior to the issuance of the authorized special use pernlit,'the above described tract of land shall be severed from any other tract of land upon which there may exist a principal use, unless such other such principal use has been terminated at the time of the issuance of the special use permit; 3. That mining area #5, as designated in the application, shall be entirely eliminated from the approved project area, and no mining activity shall occur south of a survey line, which line is described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. V c TeL.4- .� . / , J ,'-!': rr.i. Vii.... 4111 4111 4. That water shall be used as a dust suppressant in a frequency and manner sufficient ptn 111tigatenany eativerseeimpact from dust; 5. That the hours of extractive operations be limited from 7:110 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily; 1i. That access to the proposed project area From Highway 82 shall be by the Crystal Springs Road (County Road 103); 7. That the applicant shall make improvements to the Crystal Springs Road (County Road 103) from its intersection with Colorado Highway 82 to its intersection with Road 104, which improvements shall be paid for by the applicant and shall be to the satisfaction of the Board of County Couvnis- stoners upon the recommendation of the County Road Supervisor; 8. That the applicant shall make improvements to the intersection of Road 104 and County Road 103 to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners upon the recommendation of the County Road Supervisor; 9. That the access route for the project shall access directly onto Road 104 instead of through the adjoining sawmt•)property; and that the access route shall be kept a minimum of CC1 feet away from the adjoining property owners fence line; 10. That the applicant shall make improvements to Road 104 extending to the pit.site to bring it in compliance with County Road Specifications; specifically, that a 24 foot driving surface be created, that a chip and seal mat surface be put in place and be adequately maintained by the applicant for the life of the project; as determined by the Board of County Commissioners, upon the recommendation of the County Road Supervisor. ATTEST: fie.', , Y.l (' � �� L. De uty Clerk of the Board BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO LLL Chairman ( \i./() , Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregaln9 Resolution tees adapted by the Larry Veaascauez Pleven .7.' Cerise Euuene Drinichouse STAT£ OF COLORADCI County of Garfield 1, - - , County Clerk and ex•afflcia C1er1 hi end for the County and Sisse atareaald da hereby certify that the annexed and forego. the Proceedings of the hoard a! County Cammuuonees rar said Garfield County, now lit n 111 W1TIft ss W1lEItI•`OF, 1 haves hereunto set day Bold and Wilted in talo Jay u1 i1. D. 19 C.aunty Ctesti and • �J�_'llhllSU ii4OC,-d111P;a L!! Ilk 11,!,14,1 Ul 1..n111!) C 4.11114111-..,11J11(11 ], 1i.41 CIe 91 4woLit „ Atveiney 3111 !Fudges, at cOu rete of rllelt' wnr,r _u11.1 .. ..,.. Us what's ,[al[II CO ......... .1413 :Ir. Ch.lrlgv,A 41 i recir{:ai.1t'-;,. duvv,x Wil ... 1!41 had 1 queticion Ear the applicant. ,act+It �� .1 v:f L>'_,i Lill' 1O5 .i.:4y$ 3 jw.ar th,.re l.lr� 1 year! r Ibi .la vv d ye j The ac�orscv r.�preseee- 1x11.1 the arher [05 days [he .dt1:r ',out,' be 'Ir, ;1.4 Ic 1.1 L 1:. CJs..; 1 :110 ',,, .., 1 awl 1,• '- .,., rel. .: L Lowed, 1411 Left 131.1 .:111•,1 .., .1. .n tJ nes tr.:: ... .._. �.. '' 511,1.1 xravt" ,'1_ ..Ie., .. .L "; i.1V111 111.1 1rr !tLllrulu„ .t li Je1 L 'i,..1u LOO. 4 1' ,.a.,,.., - diret. Lv across :rum :the in n t gravel pit and it i.. vevy J. IJlay, i. ]lctj 1 anti Ju1S♦,{_•u1 She tsen ed,e It ewe 11oard 1 ,ietiC'on trim Cite ,1e Jp Le who are opplse,l to 4r...vala,:4's ,rrcoosed ,tt J Sv1 sre sen iCod to the to her pr.lperty or an .u -a.. ice revl.w at the lrusen[ lei. .And _nv '.d the 4..1511 as LJ ne rs V ,liL ,te:Ir 1 ,16. Dawtean antecSJ [hc 'etitlan as � Exhibit N. 4 Mr. Oun Adis or 0280 furry 3treec, Caroundalc, was then sworn tn. He.scaced 10 rhe lioard chat he Lives directly withia 100 yards of the proposed rite and Asked the Board i.'f they Lived there, would they Like a pic aCCOSS the street? Chairman Velasquez Chen asked it there was anyone wishing to testify in favor of the proposed gravel pit? Chairman Velasquez then swore in Yrs, Det Blue of 0406 County Road 104, Carbondale. Mrs. Blue iadicaced co the Board Chac she wasn't very good ac 15prompcu speaking, so she had prepared a speech she would like co read, 'which stared site and Yr„ Blue telt chat Mr. Zemlock has a very sound, good plan for rhe gravel pic and it would create agricultural land after reclam5Clun. She also indicated Char because of the high cox structure In the area they reside, lc would be be neticial for some industry ca or"t-sec the taxes for the residencies area. My. Bowman marked Mrs. Blue's prepared speech as Exhibit O. Yr. Ken Kriz of 0447 167 Hoed, Carbondale was then sworn in. [Ie stated he has a business that depends on Che resource or aggregate. [Ie feels Chac if these people don't like the operations, Chen they should go back to live where they came from (I.e. Aspen). He indicated chat the shipping of raw aacerxass from gteac distances increases the prices and feels Yr. Zemlock has a sound plan and cakes every pracaucion co keep high standards on his operations. Chairman Velasquez then turned Sack to the opposition. Mrs. Perry Robbins wished to express chat she was not opposed co the gravel Plt, per se, but the Locacian was totally unreallsric, in view of the cesidencial area. Mr. .terry Camba, Engineer for Yr. Zemlock, then reiterated their company has done considerable research with regard ro finding "good" Locacians and chis was a sensible one in chair eyes. ir. Robert Aden of 0055 Stage Coach Lane was then sworn in. He asked of Mr. Camba how could chey possibly control the noise and dusc siCuaCidn created by a gravel pic? Mr. Camba scaled that the location is 100 feet above and no draw lines for audio waves for noises will be able co transmit. The high ridge will screen the visual and noise pollicion. Chairman Velasquez then expressed to the audience chat che present gravel pic was granted permission many many years ago and Che Board had no power ac chat time and in addition, che presenc pic is nuc the issue here today. Hrs. Rica Ball stated chat she had testified previously against the pic end wished co express again her deep concern over this proposal. She feels it is the duty of che Commissioners co "protect" the people in the community from a gravel pit char could be hazardous to che health of the people. Chairman Velasquez then turned the discussion co the legal counsel. Attorney Robert Cutter of Clenwood Springs, represencing Mr. Zemlock indicated co the Board and the audience chat chis gravel pit has the oppor- cunicy to create 97 acres of Lrrigaced agricultural land. He feels Hr. Zemlock should be judged an his good gravel pit running operaclon and he Ls the only one in the valley who operates a chemical dust control system, Accorney Bill Hodges spoke for Roaring cork Ranch community. Ile indicated this is a very difficult situation, and che people are not opposed co the gravel plc, but the Location, yet the objections are valid and well -seeded. He also indicated chat legally, a Special Use Permit cannot be granted unless there are no subatancial impacts an the adjacent land usage. Approximately L25 landowners petition against che pic, bur 5051 importancly, it is incompatible co the community. Chairman Velasquez then asked for any further commencs. Ms. Bowman indicated Chac ac this time the regu- lations tions do point coward inc0mpacibilicy for the gravel pic, and char Cha Planning Commission recommends hoc approveco che permit application. Commissioner Cerise stated he felt that the proposed gravel pit site was not put directly in che Ranch ac Roaring Fork area. Chairman Velasquez then asked the Councy Attorney Earl Rhodes what exactly happens 10 the existing permit of the presenc gravel pic; such as non-conformicy regulations, Mr. Rhodes stated chat che perlait runs wick the land. Commissioner Drinkhouse made a motion Chac the Public ?Searing be closed. Commissioner Carise seconded the motion and Lc was carried. Commissioner Orinkhouse made a motion for final decision for a Special Use Permic for a gravel pit located L 1/2 miles east of Carbondale on Hwy. 82 for Zemlock 5 Sons. Inc. be made an November 30 ac 1[:15 a.m. Commissioner Cerise seconded the :motion and Lc was carried. Commissioner Cerise made a motion chat the Comrmissionars go into executive Session for discussion or the pending jail suit. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and is was carried. Commissioner Cerise made a motion chat the Commissioners retire from Executive Sesaidn and return ca regular session. Com- missioeer Orinkhouse secon.led the motion and Lc was carried. Co�c.sioneissrLlr Ceri`e mode a marine char the Cauncy Attorney suoaic a letter to [!r. Caldcoln thiamine him char .0 I.as and, is ho make an ei tfc1 tw cotre._1 Ole coiot.ull, that the .11111 .milt.: 1 't,:1 1g11110r r tm. I.,,ae, n 171111' 111.:1,1c'i] F.,.. ;.-_chis! :nu ,11111.11 l.u1 IC 4.1, aarr:1:,1. 310 • Pt0Cct:Llinls He the Hoanf or l:ohnty 1 'I LPIlIlySit]naa ti, + r..111eld County, Co1v.,._. JA t.dulliiueLl .ma .LL.. .,,. amm Special Uae taarmit .'1M1.aatt.at ter +1r. Leroy anal ;a.. .IIII e.Ar:ii ,; .e .,,l :u.A rJ -+.s .1 .w • ,LL 15,h1.41%,11 .nu 1 .,.d I e..a 111.:l LILLY 'A L ctaiai nicantt III ae f o:evtow 11 tl r.: .. +da �.n 4• :hdy, tll Aosi LO 01"CU Ldr�'Lf manila some while eulidille. .a l+,rmanuut :!oustled stunt+ ertnl+lluus mane , sutlui r. i.,Ae the 1'uolil. Heaney be continued for decision en dutemdter 7 at 1.30 p.+1. CJmWILsieeer .;.else saaoaueu rhe holier Jnd It was carried. Appearing before rhe Board were lay helewih .Gnu ;Ir. Keri Stauss regareiag .. deck toll an t'reLimtnary Plat for Battlement Village No. 2 fOim.latclemeuc. ?feed, tile. T. Baldwin ptese1CeJ the plat to the Boa= .tnd Lnd Le.aced is was a +Quote+ fur 53 single Tamil/ lets an 33.6 acres appruximucelv!L mile ease ac L'arachuee within Che Becciemeec Mesa PGO and had reconlmrenueo .tppruval with no conditions. The Board could see no ob- jections co clic preliminary pier, Commassioner 1rinkheuse made a mnrida for approval of the preliminary Plat for llacclemenc Creek Village No. 2, Cohmtlasiunar Cariee seconded the motion and Lc was carried. Appearing before the Board wus Attorney (,irald alarcert along with Leland Hulrcer, Councy Assessor, regarding a Decision on Colorado Muullrain School :old Vittorio Lnvestmenc Ca., Lcd, cox abatement Mr. Harcerc indi- caced co the Board chat he felt since the property has been previously exempted, as this property was used for meinly school purposes, sod is subsequently leaned land and used by ocher entities for privace, then Lc is taxable, bac only used by ocher entitles for privace, then ic is taxable, but only Phase I of the pro - perry should be taxed. The ocher fuer phases which are not being uaed by the company for private encerprise,i so they should be abated, Lee Rueter stated the land is carried as one parcel and has never been through full subdivision process; ao the Assessor's office does net have the four phases recorded. There was lur- cher d4seusaion regarding the legellcies of the "owned" land by the school, as opposed co chs leased /and by Vittorio. Mr. Hartert anal Commissioner Cerise both indicated they would like co see chis further research ed, mainly through the school officials and examined whac exactly is being used by the school and what is used privately. Commisioner Drinkhouse made a motion chat the tax decinlon be continued co December 14 at 11;30 a.m. Commissioner Cerise seconded the motion and LC was carried, Appearing before the Board were Asaiscant County Planner Terry Bowman for a referral to Planning and Zoning regarding a Special Use Permit Application Lecween Zifle and Parachuce by Colorado Ute. Ms. Bowman Lnd.i- eared chis was a request to place 138 KV Transmission line between Parachuce and. Rifle. She also indicaced the Planning Jepc. neededa letter from Colorado Ura for an excansion on the review period, and if chey don't! receive the letter, chs application will have to be denied. There was nu oua present co reprasenc the Colorado Ute Company, Commisioner Drinkhouse made a motion that chs Special Use Permic Application be re- ferred co Planning s Zoning. Seconded by Mr. Cerise and carried. Appearing before the Board were Ms. Bowman and Mr. Zemlock wich Mr. Jerry (Jamba regarding a decision for a Special Use Formic for a gravel plc located 1 112 miles ease of Carbondale on Highway 82. The Board indica- ced chey cook an on-site review of the area co be mined and they decided co approve the permit wich several limicing conditions: 1) chs access co the project area should be from highway 82 and should be the Cryscal Springs Road and the privace road from Cry3cal Spring Road to the prolecr road should be chip and sealed; 2) Mine area no. 5 as designated in the application Should be entirely eliminated from the approved projectarea;; ]) for the life -of the project, an aeschecic berm shall be provided separating the project area from Hwy. 82; 4) the scope of which shall be approved by the Board and shall be designated by a plat: filed with the Gar- field Courcy Clerk and Recorder; 5) water be used as a dust suppressant in the pic and applied in frequency and manner ro mitigate any adverse impact and 6) the hours of extract operacions should be limited from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Commissioner Cerise seconded the motion and la; was carried. • Appearing before the Board was Ms. Bowman and Mr. Kraush regarding a subdivision exemption 1/2 mile east of Carbondale, Is. Bowman indicaced chis is a request co split 24 acre parcel ince cwo parcels of 12 acres each.. The parcel on the south side is co be contributed to Carbondale as a park. Lc is zoned A/R/RD which quali- ties as dedicacioa. There was further discussion regarding trouble with a well permic for one of the parcels, and the exemption was tabled until chis afternoon co give Paul Kraush some time to submit a leccer.amending rhe 2 -acre split to a 3 -acre spilt. City Planner, Ralph Freedman, and Mr. Jan Erdal appeared before the Board requesting a County annexation of County Rd. 215 of 3,700 co 3,800 feet. Mr. Freedman explained they needed abawc a 10 -foot scrip co the area of prnpercy designated on his map so chat can get she water and sewer lines co the property owners. The Board indicaced they saw no problem with ic, buc needed a petition by Che people of 512 to approve ic. Mr. Freeman indicaced they would obtain chis, The meeting recessed ac noon for lunch. The regular meectng of the Garfield Councy Board of Commissioners reconvened ac 1;35 p.m. with all Commission- ers present including Courcy Attorney Earl lUtudes and Depucy Clerk of the Board Leanne Cleland. Mr. L.aweil Torkelson of Union 011 Company of Calfocnia appeared before the Board to present r review of their current permits. He summorLzed the areas of the construction camp.; the apart viding financial assistance for law enforcement; help financing of school for District 16 to in 1983; Easc Bypass road was completed and Councy Road 215 Ls being worked on; and water an agreement with Parachute has been consummated. The shale oil will be purring out probably R misaloner Drinkhouse inquired as co wha.c. was Union 011 doing about: the 802 of chs work Force Torkelson indtcaced char 750 housing units were available and chat is approximacaly enough 1 of the work force. There was further discussion of char ongoing progress made by Union 011 The next six mooch review of permits was fur Caluny 0i1. Mr. Ken Koebel presented co the P will convey Parachute the access road, the mine lench, and process shale oil disposal area. also prevented the Beard wich 3111 pictures Lndle;acing the prngresaton of cheLr ininr_s and A. 011 Is spe,fdlllg approxtanace Ly 51,000,300 a '+eek rt 11l1i, and au coral Laves eme,et is estlm 5120-o1J0,0170,000 a year. 'L'hu work force entails niZ of cne local people, >1: nr . •c nit; A:LA :1a1l. 314 1lrocceLlings Liu! Board or C:11ui1y Camiiiisatunufs, Croulily, COLO I (.;.airman VL'Lusquez L:11:11 airarney representing ;noes 91.ut. Ile Coit [hat .he ul.ii was CIle JppUrtdnity at arinexacun ro Ilurb lcanr race :ur the Se cite. Ile,: enc r .11 retic .4e;awt, .' but ::wr, •4,441:4 ala ill.. . .t-t.:!luny fat ar ., g,l In St Lhe pL.11 rata', aaJ CLren len c'n in. .•IC. vLucer Ea rrnuL,ired C4 se cv;:e .L smaLi !;.roan r the adjoining boundary landowner.. 4 tram the Judleo,e. `Lr. :;lw®.,s 4, Stover,. wished to know IIUw they assessed [he .Yr pricer.: +en'_":Cees and -, ,: J hinder Ile felt they could he _;larded 1n ex= Mr. John Armstrong, of 709 Elder Ct., Rifle was then sworn in. De indicated chac he I lad.:icrended .mdny meec- Lngs warn regard co the proposal and ha would LLku very much co be annexed (his property) into rhe $revue Plan, bac their risking was nuc che hest .and, even though they arc taking a chance, hu L.N. in favor of the plan. Mrs, Joanne Savage, 122 293 Rand, Rifle, was then sworn Ln. She ;asked Mr. Pence exactly what people were asked co be included LLi rhe plan and how were they nociELtd, and the adjoining property owners. She indi- calced chac she has awned the adjoiuing property fur 25 years and nu one ever notified her of the Service Plan or included her in the district. 'Ir. Ralph Frcedmee, City PLauaer, 941 ELdelwels CC.., Rifle wee then sworn iw. Ile represents he coven of Paraceuce and chey Are in suppurc of the creation of the wirer and sewer dLsCrlcr. Two of Che conditions, however, are I) a leccer acactng Choy are co be served in clic BLscrLct and 2) would like co see a joint planning agreement between Parachute and the District that Cha cwu entitles can deal witheach ocher, Mr. Baldwin polnced out char Item 3 on the conditions stated should pertain to BML and. Parachute. Commissioner Cerise made a motion chac the public hearing be closed, and chat a decision be grade on Decemb 21 AL 9:•15 a.m, Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded and it was carried unanimously. er Commissioner Drinkhouse made a unciae the Garfield Councy Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing [be .jail lawsuit. Commissioner Cerise seconded tc and it carried. Commissioner Cerise Itade a motion the Commission return co regular session. Urinkltoese seconded it and is carried. The meeting recessed ac 3:45 p.m. The regular meeting came cu order ac 9:00 a.m. on 1218/81. Commissioners Velasquez, Cerise and Drinkhouse were present. Commissioner Cerise made a motion chac the following resolutions be adopted and recorded into the 3esolucions Book: DBL -364, Exempcian from subdivision for Charles and Mona Beck; 181-365, Exemption for Eugene and Norma Leven; 981-364, Exemption far Rex and Joann Coffman; 981-367, Amendment oc Resolution Mo. 81-327; 181-268, Special Use Permit for Bob and Cloria Arnold; 081-369, denial of Special Use Permit for Western States Canscrucrlon; 981-370, Vacation of Councy Road 300 for Bacclemenr Mesa, Inc.; 181-371, Providing access co Development ac Ranch ac Boaraing Fork; 081-372, Providing U.S. Government with a Priori- ty Lien for equipment purchase under NTIA Crane 1161T; 1181-373, Expenditures for November, 1981. Commis- sioner Drinkhouse seconded it and is was carried unanimously. A discussion with Mr. Bob Barnes and Cliff Haycock of Dan Handy S Associates regarding the 1980 County Audit res held with the Commissioners. They presented rhe Commissioners with the breakdown of the specific De- partments (Assessor's, Sheriff's, Commissioners, etc.) and indicated some improvements. Commissioner Cerise made a motion chac we transfer $974.00 out of the General Fund into the Revenue Sharing Fund co correct a deficiency, Commisioner Drinkhouse seconded and it carried. Commissioner Cerise made a :notion they prepare a resolution co "write-off" $505.30 in the General Fund. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded andit was carried. Mr. Dave Weitzel appeared before che Boardrequesting rhe desire of the Town of Silt to realiucace $60,000 of the $108,000 in its proposed 1982 Budget co the development of a comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Funding of a "Land Use Planning Position" for the Town of Sllc. The 8108,000 was earmarked for lighting of an achlecic field. lie indicated co rhe Board chat chis request was due Co the unexpected impact of the sub- II division activity in and adjacent co the town, The Board indicated that once the money ailoted co a certain fund is "cransferred", the likelihoodof is every being reapplied is nill, therefore they could not approve it. • The County Nurse, Janice Simons, cane before che Board Inquiring as co che possibility of getting more space in Parachute, plus a secretary. Chairman Velasquez Indicated co Janice Simons char they would be much better' off talking co Battlement Mesa. Cammissloner Drinkhouse made a motion chac Garfield Councy accept the 1980 :ludicas presented by Dan handy b Associates. Cerise seconded it and it was carried. Mr. Bud Milner, Building Inspector, indicated co the Board the Building Permit Manchiy RLipurc and stated chac for the month of November, it is now 99,5 million, which brings he rocal for Garfield Councy up co $53 million for che year. Mr. Karl Stauss of Bacclement Mesa, Inc. appeared before che Board regarding the Willow Creek Filing 12. Commissioner Brinkhouse made a motion to approve the change of rhe Willow Creek Filing 92 and chat the .E Chairman be auc.11orized to sign the pier. Commissioner Cerise seconded che motion and lc was carried. The: meeting recessed for lunch at 11:30 a.m. and reconvened ac 1:09 p.m. wick ail Commissioners present, Commissioner Ceris4 mads a minion chat rhe Chairman be authorized co sign an Agreement becveee Colorado n,-,l.lrr.ment •it u.,;[."1 and Iia rfiu LJ !'aunty (fere Of tial, S.en Ltarian, Terry IIuw:1r;1). Iyaelnm1Ja toner ,L41. .....5u ,uLelu.ca LL .l .l ...„4lr ;e 14•1.0Ia ... i,.,t .. ra_•: ['. 11 , ..,, .r. .eu„ .110 4711w 1h nrryuslings ui the 13s.n( rat Comity t.0 ldnIs Jei eels, lrilillc111 f,uurll i' 1;U10„ '!'n„•t.... 'J. . Au at December 31, 19111, Mr. nun. A1ws lrrdl Tar Garfield c.rteJ co the ;u�iru rho, Iii 1:: r•,:y i 'n1r,: 'r old C,uruty. 14• ,cased served,, • ti Il:Lrc,rri,.0 r,,ri_t.,r csat:un and • b a .: ,r_.,r�. Alt ,;rr ..rni�si�t.nn:er-: ,ere au Cr'f LU see larm`he,, v,:. ='x uressc�d 4rpt :l a.lr ..14,! .,1,;.1r - : .I; r Mu., 'fancy Page, Finance Uf1icer presented the 1ackayu turnr.rr or mine l;:ni;le :u,rrnuc.•r S,StCM mitt, rhe County +a kuiee to 1e.rae. She introduced Hr. Pave Kunkel who is geiag to pub :he system ,and trace. Mr. Ray Baldwin been presented t!re Cee rgy Impact Crani, C.nmra.aa,unr.•s ;Jrinkirwese made a morian :hat the Chalrmnn ae authorlred to sign the Caergy Caipaut r:a•aslt request ter the Coir:hOnse and for rhe COrmpot r tyer,m, ,_x,4n Vu:as(Junt :itur,p.,.i dew,. ub Ur,,rr. rmen .end aetuno..e ,:lie mot:on and it errs carr:cu. 1 I Commissioner Urinkhoese wade a minion chat the County purchase the L982 Ford Eacorc and trade in the 1977 Cremlln. Chairman Velasquez stepped clown as Chairman and seconded the moclon and ic was carried.I I A general discussion was held ❖ith Mr. li16aeibaem from Ranch ac Roaring Fork; the surrounding owners; and the Board, regarding an access ince and through the Srage Coach Inn. The access isoauhazard and in had need of repair. The dicuasion stemmed around amuse responsibility chis should be and couldn't Ithe Commissioners force something to be done regarding improvements, otherwise someone is going co be hurt or kilned there loan.. Mr. Kasselbaum indicated he could nothing shout lc because the piece of li is now owned by a "disinterested" party who duase c care. Commissioner Cerise made a motion char unless property some ocher settlement is reached by the individual property owners, the County shall stare condemnation G procedures on Che access in 45 days. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded she motion and it was carried. Commissioner Cerise made a motion char the Renewal for Liquor License for 1,111P, Inc., aka Sopris Restaurant Ibe approved. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the moclon and ic was carried, Commissioner Drinkhouse made a. moclon authorizing Nancy Page co obtain Centennial Landscaping Co. to do the landscape for the Rifle Court Building, Commissioner Cerise seconded the =clan and lc uas carried, Commmissloner Cerise made a motion authorizing the Chairman co sign the Client Liabillcy Representation Documents for our auditors. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and is was carried. 1 Commissioner Cerise made a motion chat che Chairman be authorized co sign a letter co Roy Romer in regard co the mineral leasing funds paid to schools. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and it was carried. Commissioner Cerise made a motion chat the following resolutions be adopted and included in cha Resolut a Book: $81-340, Temporary Closure of County Road 115; 981-341, Denial of Abatement for Property Owners l ns in Aspen, Cryscal River, and Te -Ke -Ki Subdivisions; l81-342, Exemption from the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations for Al Koeneke, ‘\ Commissioner Cerise made a motion that rhe Chairman be authorized co sign a refund for Two Rivers Invest- meet Co. for $77,74. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the minion and it was carried. . ! Commissioner Cerise made a :onion chat the Chairman be authorized co sign documents for the Airport Auchor ty and FAA Crane. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and it was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. ATTEST: C1er)t of the Board BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY Chairman November 16, 1981 The regular meeting of rhe Garfield County Board of Commissioners was held on Monday, November 16, 1981, beginning ac 8:00 a.m, lresenc were Chairman Larry Velasquez, Commissioners Pleven J. Cerise and Eugene "Jia;" Drinkhouse. Also present were County Attorney Earl C. Rhodes and Deputy Clerk of the Beard Leanne Cleland. The first item on the agenda is County Business, and Leonard 8owlby, Road and Bridge Supervisor presented the bids for rhe design of the New Stic Bridge, He indicated chat Schmeuser and Associates had submitted the lowest bid at $27,500-30,500. Mr. Bowlby indicated he would now cake it co the Highway Department for thief approval. Commissioner Cerise made a motion char Schmeuser and Aasoclaces be recommended to rhe State Highway Department to contract for the design of Silt Bridge. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and it was carried. Commissioner Cerise made a motion chat rhe Chairman be authorized co sign che contract agreement with Glenwood ?Mobile Radio Unic, starting the first of December, Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and it was carried. A Concinued public Hearing was held regarding the Special Use Permit Application for a gravel pit located 1 1/2 miles Easc of Carbondale on Highway 82 for Zemlock S Sons, Inc. Chairman Velasquez indicated to the audience that all testimony previously given will still be considered under oarh and all exhibits have been recorded and are part of the permanent record. Assistant Councy Planner Terry Bauman presented a lercer From Rodney Jacobs opposing the gravel pit operation, which she labeled Exhibtc K; a letter from Ms. Nancy Gould expressing she was in favor of che gravel pit and Hr. 2emlock's plans were sound; Exhiblc L; and a letter in favor of chs gravel pit from Mr. H. Batley, as Exhibit M. Chairman Velasquez then asked it there was nay further Cesciwony opposing circ gravel pit. Mr. Jim Vogelsang of 0481 Stage Coach Lane, Carbondale, indicated co the Board there was going to Ire a lot of heavy industrial eeulp,mmenc back and forth on Lhe road, and evuucuelLy che company will need co put in a cement factory, causing the traffic CO increamu cremnuduusly and what a hazard 1t weu1J bo to the sehuol children and craft1e 1n general. Mrs. Vogelsang elated co the Beard that she end her l muabund came from Grand Rapids, Michigan acid all of chair gravel pies were lecacee oucsgdr. tr.e :1[y 1!rmirs and away from :ne c.loceunit';. A R'[]laiic Bearing; was ' ^!rl Ia/Lard:ng .,.Ilu wl CenitL)' land, 1.,]q;,, I ., d 1, or Spent:er e di lt�, , lir tll 1 indicated • I t :llieuorine before Lhe 1k/eta wile `i u,tt. Sfi, !Block [d tffu Sart 1 [h,a[ Mr. tli,Rt: 19 a,1 enL .i tette: itl 1u1, 1titt c t: t 11oerc, Attorney Earl Rhodes ndi'ated ji M:. ii h,..lus 7!141 Il:.tt C41 tlly ha,.: t 1 0~"141 to r',Inik nut Ur 9U .4a, , ia w. yll a=[: . u , ,e Iwve !'rile! the {.aunty. wtailei •.c:1 ,a nil .t:; le �i an:chum whether rcyy, uL .ct ,1 lu ",ttl=ulllt! For the}l'Cl{i:r L{M1ay Illh r.l l> i1 aIC r111Y ri ,.:1 had a eurrl:Cit lte 1 t::d d ,..1; man Velasdnea {t: ..n M . ,draw r 5,Jc1t) ter these ldt.s Intl I, Rhodes ;r]uld find nu other dereon Idt�:aied We uttered I t. Rhod s indizdted the n nt f li l7 aLtual value of P ar' present W{IL L ISL u lots. L;tat Ll: S 4vt iu:t �],' ,i��Y :or one nlu 11 L'kl �4il al 111 d ]; .. amu 11111 LJlnmisslantr ':,erase Wade a motion secoatlned the ;motion and pl - a4 ic.]u� od r}t�sL. Lots. t..tmmissYunre:. 0r: f was irrieu• nkhuuse A Public Hearing was he_e regarding a Special Use site 1 mile sauch of Parachute un County !toad Permit Application for temestern porary onstaue on a ompatyuc[ion and Battlement Mesa did not appear. Assistanc3CauncyllPlannerLTarry WBowman appeared Construction the Board indicated chat che Board neeaed to make a determination as to whether this is aqualified eprojecaafor atem- porary housing and does it fit within the three zoning categories which are industrial, commercial and Highway Construction. Further discussion among the Board turned to the availability of housing already furnished in Battlement Mesa, one being Brown and Root's 600 spaces available, The Board felt that there was indeed enough temporary housing for the area. There was Eurcher discussion among the Board as to whether Battlement Mesa was falling outside the initial guidelines they had set up for this temporary housing permit, Commissioner Cerise made a motion chat the Public Hearing be closed. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and it was carried. Commissioner Cerise than made a motion denying the request for a Special Use Permit for Temporary Housing on a construction site 1 mile south of Parachute on County Road 307 for Wes- cern Scares Construction Compnay and Battlement Mesa, Chairman Velasquez stepped down as Chairman and seconded the motion and it was carried, Commissioner Cerise made a motion chat che following resolutions be adopted and included in the Resolutions Book: 081-331, Approval of Special Use Permit for Albert Frei and Sons; 081-332, Approval of Special Use Permit Application for Betty llollenbaugh; 081-333, Approval of an Amended Preliminary Plan for Wescbank Ranch PUD Subdivision; and 081-334, Approval of Vacation of a Roadway in Seccion 1 and 2, Township 7 South, Range 96 West of the 6th P.M. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and ic was carried, Commissioner Cerise made a motion that Colin Clem be appointed co the Grand Valley Cemecary Board replacing Dan D. Duplice. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded .the motion and it was carried- The meeting recessed at 11:35 aim. for lunch. Appearing before the Board were County Planner Davis Farrar and Mr. Tom Emmer regarding a decision on a Preliminary Plat, for Rifle Creek Estates, located 1 1/2 miles north of Rifle on County Road 325. Mr. Farrar indicated the proposed plat is for 15 single family units on 40.08 acres with individual septic sys- items and a cie-in into the exiling water system on che property, The Planning Commission agreed to the plat wich the following conditions: 1) that there be 10 -foot utility easements along all lac lines, 2) that there be 2 wells, 3) chat Mesa Drive meet the County Road standards, 4) that building envelopes be designated;; on lots 13, 14, and 15 and site specific soils analysis be performed locs by irrigation lank be covered or a ehainlink fence with barb wire onmtheotophtoesurround thea l tanplat,k, and) 6)char thele the road be asphalt mac. Commissioner Cerise made a motion that a resolution be drawn approving the Pre- liminary Plat for Rifle Creek Estates located 1 1/2 miles north of Rifle on Councy Road 325 with the afore- mencioned conditions stipulated. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and it was carried. Commissioner Cerise made a motion that Resolution 081-335 regarding approval of the October 1981 Payroll he adopted and included in the Resolutions Book, Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and it was carried, A Public Hearing was held regarding a Mobile Home Special Use Permit Application located 12 miles northeast of Rifle on Councy Road 226. Appearing before the Board was Assistant County Planner Terry Bowman along with Davie Guches. Chairman Velasquez asked if there was anyone who wished co testify for or against the appli- cation. No hearing procedures were read. Chairman Velasquez then swore in Ms. Bowman and Ms. Guches, Ms. Bowman then presented the following exhibits as evidence: Exhibit A, Application; Exhibit B. Proof of Pub- 1licacion; Exhibit 0, Letter from Karen Scheffelbind, an adjoining property owner stating opposition; Exhibit E, Letter from Mrs. 11, Vagner in opposition; Exhibit F, Letter from Sharon Mackey, who is not a property owner, but is in opposition. Exhibit C, Recurn Receipts- Chairman Velasquez accepted these exhibits1 as part of the permanent record. Ms. Bowman indicated to the Board this is a request to place a mobile home on a IO -acre lot with the access off of Councy Road 226. The area is zoned A/R/RD. Ms. Bowman indicated the mobile home is only 500 square feet and this does not meet county requirements, The Planning Commission recommended approval if they had a trailer that met the 750 square foot minimum requirement. Steve Bell owns the property on which they wish to put rhe mobile home, Commissioner Cerise made a motion the Public Hearing be closed, Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded the motion and it was carried, Commissioner Cerise made a motionp that a resolution be prepared denying the Mobile Home Special Use Permit Application for Richard E. Stour and Davie Guches, based upon the reasons there are no other mobile homes in the area and che many letters received in opposition. Commissioner Drinkhouse seconded che motion and ic was carried. I+ Appearing before cite Board was Assistant Councy Planner Terry Bowman representing Rex Coffman requesting a rg Subdivision Exemption 1 1/2 miles Easc of Carbondale on County Road 100. Ms. Bowman indicated cu the Board this was a request for an adjustment of properry lines adding 1/3 acre to Mr. Coffman's adjoining 2 acre parcel- Commissioner Drinkhouse made a motion approving [he Subdivlsiun Exemption located 1 of Carbondale un Councy Road 100 with the condition at it would lint create a 3rd lot and no bui{!di g per- th nit fur the new 1 is re be issued- commissioner Cerise seconded the moi.con and it was carried. i P',hlie :lroarlee wes IaLIJ regarding u Special Use j7 .^mit � ,_ Application Fur a travel Fie 1 .J, mile+ gay[ ui arbondai.: an Hwy. 41 far ,emlorm i dryli:r. l!¢;1e,^.r:na iaet eu t'4 -5 .:card au.. Cf,t "t [It i:d nit r'. Planner Ter r'f i ,,,111.,r, ,[!„pt ,f i!, Mr. Marc', ,,no Mr. .Jerry C“rrltl,f r'::, oil 1elai7Ji.:: theft aaKed :[ 1 c`�L .uu nv - ur: t � t .�,,.I „I..t fl ISru;YnCe ul L;tl9S there way any r]; tae r"1=L. 41nLy :iLtUrllt* Lori Rhodes read the hearing ,•alI t... i..4 :. ., 47 !Jells s Im Mr. tt,-fl. ,-!. •{.,^-Z 't -i, ..Yrtr.; r J „ , Mr. ,;,,,iib ic. and MA. iauwm.:eii . *!s s,nwatrrn prr:senLed J • • EXHIBIT Application of Mid Valley Paving, Inc, for Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plant Denial & Minutes (1983) siwi CULORAfO County of Garfield ss. Ata regular meeting of the County, Colorado, held at the Colorado, on Moarda A.U., there were present: • Board of County Commissioners for Garfield Commissioners' Annex in Glenwood Springs, , the 25th day of July 1983, Eu erre "Jim" Orinkhouse Larr Velas uez Flaven J. Cerise Earl fihodes Starr Broome Flildrecl Aladorf` ' Commissioner Chainnan Cornniss inner Commissioner County Attorney County Manager County Clerk when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to wit: RESOLl'1`If ! NO. 83- 170 RESOLUTION OONCERNED WIT Ilii♦ DENIAL OF AN APPLICAI"ION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY MID VALLEY PAVING, INC. WHEREAS, an application has been submitted b for a special use pennit for processing, storageorim md aterial Paving, Inc.,f natural resources, specifically, the installation of ratneitl oncreieg of asphalt batch plants, in accordance with Section 9.03 of thet concrete andy Zoning Resolution, on the following described Garfield County tract of land: Government Lot 14, Section 25, Ibwnship 7 South, Range 08 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; Colorado,AS, e of County lhas reviewedBthedapplication andonmissioners of impact statementsGsu mitt County,ynty applicant, and received the recommendations of the Garfield County Pla nning ming Commission, as authorized by Section 9.03.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has conducted public hearings, duly advertised and held, in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.03.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, regarding the question of whether the requested special use permit should be granted or denied, and during such hearings, received extensive testimony and other evidence from the applicant and interested parties; Wl1EflJS, the Board of County Corrrmrissioners has considered said application and impact statements, the recommendation of the Garfield County Planning Commission and the Garfield County Department of Develo, and the testimony and other evidence presented at said public hearings,xandtbased thereon, said Board of County Commissioners does hereby make the following findings in respect to such application, to wit: 1. 'That all procedural notice requirements, set forth in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution with respect to special use permit applications, have been met, and_ this proceeding is properly before this Boai°d; 2. Mat, except as hereinafter noted,the a statements are complete, and the applicant has ppllqufee in the sum of Five hundred Dollars and No/Cents paid time required red fee in the {:G500.00J ; 3. Mat in accordance with general principals of administrative law and Section'24-4-105(7), C.R.S. '73, as amended, the burden of proof is upon the applicant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it's land use application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; he Board must, for the purpos analyzing the subject application in accordance with the provisions of. the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, establish the neighborhood which may be affected by the possible granting of the proposed special use permit, and further, the Board has determined that, except as otherwise noted herein, such neighborhood is the area of Garfield County, Colorado, within a une half (1/2) mile radius of the Zemlock and Son, Inc. Gravel Pit, locate at 0242 County Road 104, Garfield County, Carbondale, Colorado; 5. That the general character of the neighborhood of the tract proposed to be subject to the special use permit is Agricultural/Residential and includes the Ranch at the Roaring Fork Planned Development; 6. That landowners, adjacent to and in the area of the subject property, and other citizens of Garfield County, have indicated concern regarding the effects of the proposed .concrete and asphalt batch plants and associated operations on the agricultural and residential nature of the neighborhood, upon the value of adjoining properties and other properties in the area, and its inaact upon the Ranch at the Roaring Fork Planned Development; 7. Mat there is substantial evidence in the record that the irrrpact of the special use permit will be injurious to the established character of the neighborhood. Specifically, that the operation of the concrete and asphalt batch plants will have a emulative impact upon residential properties within the neighborhood with regard to air and noise pollution, and have the potential for the creation of fumes, and other undesirable environmental effects and impacts beyond the boundaries of the property in which the use is to be located. There is competent evidence in the record that the proposed use would generate objectionable levels of such undesirable environmental pollution, and that the proposed use would thereby be incompatible and detrimental to• other uses in the neighborhood. The proposed uses would 'substantially interfere with the existing uses of the adjoining property and other property in the neighborhood; 9. That there exists a lack of physical separation in terms of distance from slunilar industrial uses on the same or other lots. This accumulation of industrial uses, which creates detrimental pollution of the environment, which is the cumulative effect that the proposed uses. would have, in conjunction with the operation of the gravel extraction operation at the Zemlock/Blue Gravel Pit, is such as to have an impact which is injurious to the established residential character of the neighborhood and zone district; 9. That Section 5.3.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, requires the applicant to conduct all industrial operations in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor, and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property, where said uses are located, such that those impacts are not perceptible, or do not, in any substantial manner, interfere with the existing uses of adjoining properties. That there is competent evidence in the record that the proposed uses would generate objectionable levels of such environmental pollution with regard to adjoining property, and would substantially interfere with the existing uses of property in the neighborhood. The information supplied by the applicant is insufficient for the Board to find competent evidence that the proposed uses would meet the standards set forth in Section 5.3.00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; 10. i1re City of Carbondale, in a letter dated June 17, 1983, signed by Davis Farrar, City Manager of the City of Carbondale, has found that the applicant's proposed use of the subject' property for concrete and asphalt batch plants is generally incompatible with the adjacent and neighboring land uses, and has recommended that the Board of County Commissioners deny the applicants a special use permit for such operations; 11.'Mat there is competent evidence in the record of inadequate road access from the proposed site of operations of the applicant to the interchange with State Highway 02. The applicant's proposal to remedy the access situation, in accordance with the [phasing schedule set forth in their application, is inadequate to protect the safety of the public upon the County Roads in the vicinity of the proposed special use; 1.2. That, on May 11, ado die Garfield Count 1901, the Gar(' d County County Comprehensive 1 Planning Cto 30 06, C.R.S. '73, as amended' of 1nthesmast ro plan for 'Garfield County. That ` which plan is now master Garfield Plan of at19the erelevant elements of the Fl Co fty Comprehensive for a s been considered in evaluating theapplicant's ounts lapaw special use permit, in accordance with thea aColorado wluerycee and edltsite does fall within the applicable areaearaof influence, ands hes incompatiblety b! ndale has gone on ecorddthat usaid proofd existing in the area. pwith the low density, proposed applicant is inconsistent with tlreomaster use ofinl9theubjectpr intensity uses Sect ietp by the a. Part 1,following respects: Activities, Objectives; Concerns and Policies, Re; Industrial, Federal, State and requires a heavy industrial development to etc all Local Standards for air and water quality, and requires industrial developments to use buffers between less intensive land uses. b. Part 2, Management Districts,' Area of Influence. The City of Carbondale has found that A Carbondale Urban proposed uses may have a detrimental impact upon Cit that applicant seek to obtain w Y services, rashouldntfre of the Ater or other services necessary for the o ,proposed special use.Aeration c. Part .1, Concerns and Policies, Re: Transportation, Page No. 12, which provides: b 1 of hick provides: "Throae County may deny developmentg 2he with large, access, which will create proposalsiadon the g , daily "traffic volumes." Greats an inadequate road d, Part 3, Performance Standards Re: Compatibility, Pages $g-9qwhich section sets forth criteria, including that the standards to insure the compatibility of proposed The purposeuof which is to ay d p posed land used and existingare intended me c oeaof hi hdiscto or surrounding problems with the eation land uses. desirability of neighborhoods or the entire corrnunity, alto ic character of adjacent uses, and the impairmenteffects to the of the �stability oor value ns of sof adjacent or surrounding properties. Any proposed land use may be deemed incompatible for the following reasons: neighborhood i. ordversely affecting the desirability. of the immediate the entire c©ncnurri tyg ii. Invairing th properties, affecting stabilit Y or value of exists iii. Adversely existing adjacent residences; a lack ng the quality of life of existing ad' iv. Showingyg acent design;of quality or function in site planni v. Creatingng.aryd - areas; and a public danger or nuisance to the surrounding vi. Altering the basic character of adjacent land areas or the entire community. Dust genera , odors and fumes shall be contained within the site ng such eunissions, and shall not negatively effect any land use. Proposed land uses, which may cause a or nuisance to adjacent or surrounding Surrounding noise disturbance can be effectively be prohibited, the site. within the proposed used project 13. That, based upon the above finds County Commissioners finds that thea �s of fact, the Board of Commissioners Bance pplicant has failed, in his burden of proof, to show compliance CoruprehensivetPlan, andCfurtlrerr, L atield County onthere is substantial inevidence g Resolution and the Garfield the record to support a denial of the land use requested; and encs in 14. That there is competent evidence in the record that the allowance of the proposed use will cause economic injury to other property owners in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b the County or: Garfield, State of Colorado, thatoftlhee County special Commissioners a for application of Mid Valley Paving, Inc., with the consent thee owners, ,Tears Blue and Deepermit andwasp Blue, for the installation of property halt batch plants adjacent to the Zemlock and San, Inc. Gravel pit, 0242 County !toad lf}4 permanent concrete Dee Blue, Carbondale, Colorado, on the property of ,Tears Blue and be oad hereby01,rs ndale, lap Allip n motion duly node and seconded the by t llowing vote. joirxl Resolution was adopted E¢id;one "Jlrn" Drinkhouse r Aye Larry Velasquez , Aye Flaven J. Cerise • Aye ATTEST; Clerk of the Board STATE OF OOLORA Q County of Garfield 1, County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the of Count , Y Corrsnissionets in and for the Count and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing y ofe the Proceedsg ng order is trulycopied from the Records now in my of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, office. said County, at Glenwood Springs, this IN WI7'NI s y 1 EJF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of A.D. day of 1983, County Clark and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Coninissioners. 4 ow /0 tw ) ss. Coo nissiof ors Aivn L OF c R, 1b3/1o9 i1PP_nvl+rerf June, 1903 Pa 25 iiik IIII EEDINGS i)F THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMmISAIIFERS, GARFIELD] COUNTY, =MAD() lire next item on the agenda was a discussion with Frank Rose, of Transamerica occidental Life regarding the County Employees' Health Insurance Program. Mr. [lose indicated that the new policy will be be effective June 1, 1903. New booklets will be printed up for the employees reference. The dental policy will remain the same. . There was a brief discussion with Lee Merkel, Director of Administrative Services, concerning the County's' Wang Computer system. Mr. Merkel indicated that the computer agreement, for servicing the software portion of the system, with Eagle Computer Systems ended on June 1, 1903. The new agreement will be predated to June 1, 1983. With regard to the present lease -purchase agreement for the computer system, for the hardware portion, Mr. Merkel indicated that the interest rate was at 18 percent. Upon the request of the board, Mr. Merkel had checked into the possibility of a new lease -agreement with a lower interest rate. Ile summarized two proposals, one from the Colorado National Bank and one from the First National hank. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Velasquez moved that the boars] authorize Lee Merkel, Director of Administrative Services, to have the banks prepare the final documents for a proposed lease -agreement for the purchase of the county computer system, after which a decision will be made on the best proposal; Com. Cerise seconded the motion; carried. • Mr. Merkel indicated that the City of Glenwood Springs had. requested the second payment for the balance of the recreation allocation. The first payment was made in March of 1983, in the amount of 46.902.50. Bill Brewer, City of Glenwood Springs, had submitted the proper documentation for the remainder of the funds. With the approval of Mr. Merkel, the board authorized that the second payment be made. Mr. Merkel resented a bill for the board's approval. August Jewell, Predatory Control --41580 for salary and mileage for June of 1983. In the past, the board had not required a budget from this entity. this service is paid out of the Revenue Sharing Fund. The board agreed that a budget shall be required in 1989 for accountability. The board authorized the County Manager to approve the payments for the remainder of 1983. Mr. Merkel presented the board with the following oil Shale Trust Fund Requests, which the board approved. City of Rifle Collector Streets City of Rifle Water & Sewer Improvements City of Rifle Recreation (architects) 171,286.35 12,377.46 10,668.78 • Mr. Merkel indicated that. Tom Shoup, on behalf of the merchants of the City of Rifle, requested reimbursement from the county for 'additional advertising costs due to the construction in process on Third Street. Conanissioner Cerise moved that the request for reimbursement of advertising costs for the City of Rifle merchants be denied. Com. Velasquez seconded the motion; carried. Mr. Merkel indicated that there was a request at Lhe CORE Group meeting for Crane & Associates to prepare the West Garfield County Recreation Service Plan for 43960. .The board agreed that this decision should be delayed until after an Executive Session can be held with the County Attorney. The next item on the agenda was a discussion with Bob Schenk regarding County Road 103 and the Zemlock Gravel Pit. Mr. Schenk indicated that he was against"!heavy truck traffic on this county road, which was not in adequate condition for this purpose, and felt that the Zemlock Pit should be responsible for its in6provernents, since it was a condition of the resolution approving the pit. Mr. Schenk indicated that he had reported to the board on these matters since December of 1901. Mr. Schenk felt that it was not fair for the county to da the improvements with taxpayers' money. He requested that the board file a restraining order against the Zemlock Gravel Pit until the conditions of the resolution have been met, and that no consideration should be given to the proposed hot mix plant on the Blue property until the road is improved. To the board's knowledge, all of the conditions of the resolution had been met. County Road Supervisor Leonard nowlby confirmed that lISLLy Zemlock had complied with the conditions of the resolution and did all of the work that was requested by the county. lir conclusion, the board agreed that June, 1903 - Page 26 PR EDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSISU3, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO this matter should be checked into with the Planning Invision to make sure that the 2enlock Gravel Pit was not in violation. A letter will be prepared for Mr. Schenk with the findings. The next item on the agenda was a lengthy discussion with the Young Farmers Association and the Colorado River Wool Growers regarding the recent new tax assessments. Lee hunter, County Assessor, and Elmer Roberts, Sheep Raiser of Rifle,'were present among others. Mr. Roberts served as a spokesman for thle organizations and indicated that the farmers could not afford this tax increase, which the assessment had at a minimum doubled. County Assessor Lee hunter explained the reasons for the increase and indicated that the State ordered the Assessor's Office to reappraise the entire County. He indicated that all properties were increased., Mr. Hunter stated that everyone's complaints would be heard and re-evaluated, if necessary, before the end of the year. The appeals must he filed at the Assessor's Office before June 27, 1983, for the Board of aquilizat-ion Hearings in July. The board suggested that the farmers attend the budget hearings which decide the mill levy. The last .item on the agenda was County Business. There was a brief discussion .with Roger Ludwig, Human Services Director, regarding the applications'by the Valley Senior housing Group for funding to rehabilitate the Battlement Schoolhouse. Ile indicated that the two funding sources that will be applied to are the State historic Preservation Office for funding from the "Jobs Bill" money and the Energy Impact Office. : In the near future, an .appraisal of the land that the Battlement Schoolhouse sits on will be done. • Upon the request of Lee Merkel, Director of Administrative Services, the Chairman signed a letter indicating the board's willingness to lease a site at the Garfield County Fairgrounds to the Rifle Chamber of Commerce for a beer tent during the 1983 County Fair. In return, the County will receive 30 percent of the profits generated by the beer sales. - The Chairman also signed a letter indicating the board's agreement to lease with no fee the Garfield County Fairgrounds to the Western Slope Race Association, to include the use of: race track, arena, grandstands, concession stands, horse stalls, parking lot, and restrooms.- The term of 'the lease will be from June 20th to July 12th, 1983. The profit generated during the term of the lease will be used to improve the fairground facilities consistent with the direction of the Garfield County Fair Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Upon the request of Mr; Merkel, the Chairman signed a letter to Morgan Smith, Director of the Department of Local Affairs, regarding the Garfield County Board of Commissioners' strong objection to the manner in which the Town of Parachute Administration request (1866) was granted from the Energy Impact Assistance Fund. Upon the request of Lee Merkel, Director of Administrative Services, Commissioner Cerise moved that the Chairman be authorized to sign. a resolution (183-139) concerned with approval. of the transfer of funds and changes of use of certain Oil Shale Trust Funds, more specifically, $150,000 from the City of Rifle Sewage Treatment Facility project to the City of Rifle City Hall project. Corn. Velasquez seconded the motion; carried. Commissioner Cerise moved that the board adjourn from the regular meeting for an Executive Session. Com. Velasquez seconded the motion; carried. Commissioner Cerise moved that the board adjourn from the Executive Session and adjourn from the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Corn. Velasquez seconded the motion; carried. '11e meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY comrsSIONEILS GARFIELD COUNTY, CijO8ADO fI ClerIi of the Board July, 1983.-.Page.74 PROCEEDINGS *HE BOARD OF COUNTY' COMMISSIONERS, GAR D COC tYI7 r COIARADO 9) That there Is competent evidence in the record that the allowance of the proposed use will cause economic -injury to other property owners in the neighborhood. Commissioner Velasquez noted that at the time of the Zemlock Special Use Permit approval, the Board of County Commissioners gave a moral commitment that there would be no further expansion of the industrial uses within that area. With this in mind along with the given testimony, Cofntnissioner Velasquez seconded the motion; carried. Commissioner Velasquez moved that the Chairman be authorized to sign the resolution (183-170) concerned with the denial of.an application for a Special Use Permit by Mid --Valley Paving, Inc. Com. Cerise seconded the motion; carried. Upon the request of the County Attorney, Commissioner Velasquez moved that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the Hawk Ridge Subdivision, along with Final Plat which was previously approved. Com. Cerise seconded the motion; carried. The letter of credit had been received. • The next item on the agenda was a discussion with Roger Ludwig, Director of Human Services, and. John Fernandez,' of the...City of Glenwood Springs, regarding a•bus system for. the. area. Mr., Fernandez indicatedthat the business counumunity had expressed an interest in the transportation. He was advised by the State Highway Department to have a Transit Development Program (TDP) Study done for the area to look at the issues.of the need, cost, and who will pay. Mr. Fernandez also indicated that Glenwood Springs had requested to be placed on the State's work program for a TDP next year to begin in January. The project would cost approximately 20,000: The City of Glenwood Springs would like to join with the County and the Chamber of Commerce .on.this project. The board agreed'that the County would draft a letter of interest, but would not make a.firm commitment at: that time. The matter will be discussed further at the County budget hearings, only if the bus transportation would cover the entire county. The next item on the agenda was County Business. County Manager Stan Broome indicated that each County translator site was being video taped inside and out for the insurance companies in the event if an accident occurs and for benefit of the County with regard to inventory. The VanGaalens will present the tape to the board within the near future. Mr. Broome reminded the Commissioners of the Board of Bquilization hearings which will be held on July 26, 27, & 28, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the estimated 100 filings. Attorney Rhodes will review the late filings and make recommendations to the board. With regard to the Court House construction, Mr. Broome presented an update to Change Order /4, concerning the sidewalk replacement,. grade, and sodding & seeding.. Mr. Broome was not satisfied with the 455,000 figure and felt that the sprinkler System should be to the contractor's expense. Mr. Broome reported that Gerald Ortloff, the Exxon Colony Project Manager, was taking an early retirement to start on September 1, 1983, and would be replaced by William.N.-Ekstrand. The next item on the agenda was a Senate Bill 35 Exemption request, located 4 miles south of Silt on County Road 331, applied for by Kenneth & Opal Kuhns. Mr.'Bean indicated that the Kuhns were on vacation and would not be attending the meeting. He continued to proceed with the project information.' The purpose is to split a 40 acre parcel into 3 tracts of 10, 15, and 15 acres each. The applicant wishes to convey 10 acres to a daughter, but has owned the the property for only 9 months and has not evidenced any qualification to apply through the Senate Bill 35 Exemption process for the two 15 acre splits. Mr. Bean indicated that this was approved as a S.B. 35 Exemption in January 1983 with a conditions of approval. One of the conditions was that the applicant convey a minimum of five gallons per minute of water to each of the two parcels; this would be a shared well. The Kuhns drilled a well an the property which would yield only .87 gpm. The applicant wanted to know if they could provide storage of the water. The Division of Water Resources indicated that normally e single family dwelling would require 300 gallons per day (.21 gpm). The Silt Fire District requested that the applicant use a 5000 gallon storage • EXHIBIT • Application of Casey Concrete for Concrete Batch Plant Approval and Minutes of Board (1993) RECORDED Al/, L- a-CLaCK /.r,. MAR 0 9 1991 t`,/:.9 MILDRED at,SDDRF. CUUMfY CLERK STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Garfield }ss At re ular meeting Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Springs on Monr7a the present: eilOX 856no4 8 of the Hoard of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood tt3 day of �larrh there were Commissioner Chairman �M1an T , , Commissioner Commissioner , County Attorney. Clem of the Hoard County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO, 93--02D A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECfAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR DICK CASEY, DBA CASEY CONCRETE COMPANY. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County Colorado, has received application from CASEY CONCRETE COMPANY for a Special Use Permit to allow for the Processing and Handling of Natural Resources in the AIR/RD Lone District (Concrete Batch Plant), at the following location: See Attached WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing an the 8th day of February of 1993, upon the question of whether the above-described Special Use Permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact: That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law` for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and !hat all interested parties were heard at that hearing, 3. The proposed use is compatible with the existing and permitted uses in the A/R/RD Zone District, provided that Certain hereinafter conditions be complied with. • en�x 85f ;l{:i 4.8.E 4. That neither the impact on traffic volumes and safety, or any other impact of the special rise will be injurious to the established neighborhood orzone district in which the special lyse is to be located, provided that certain conditions be complied with. 5. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, 13E 1T RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Special Use Permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the Processing and Handling of Natural Resources (Concrete Batch Plant), subject to the following specific conditions: 1, All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated before the Board ofCounty Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Board. Copies of all updated Colorado Department of Health APEN permits will be submitted to Garfield County prior to issuance ofa Special Use Permit. 3. That all conditions of approval contained in Garfield County Resolution No. 81-384 shall be complied with by the applicant. 4. The applicant will identify and maintain an area to be used for washing trucks or related equipment. The applicant will be responsible for constructing a non -permeable settling pond, orretrofit theexisting pond with an impervious liner. The lined pond will isolate con tainments, and will result in no surface runoff that may pose a threat to live streams or groundwater, consistent with the non -discharge permit issued to the existing gravel pit. Prior to the issuance ofa Special Use Permit, certification of the completion or retrofit oldie pond will be required by a Registered Engineer. 5. Water will be used as a dust suppressant in the pit area and the immediate staging area on a regular basis to mitigate any adverse impact from dust emissions extending beyond the immediate pit area. The applicant shall enter into a Roadway Improvement and Maintenance Agreement, approved by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit. The safety of existing and future traffic and pedestrians, Including school buses and existing stops, shill! be addressed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the County Road and Budge Supervisor. 7. Power requirements for the permitted batch plant will be from existing l Inly Cross service. Generators will not be permitted, except during isolated power failures, 8. Berming will be required to screen the batch plant from adjacent residential development. A screening plan will be submitted to the Planning Department showing the proposed location of the plant and berm. The berm shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit, •1 .3„,x856'r1r.; 490 The Specialis issued for the fallowing specific equipment, as defined in the =application: Use Permit A). One (1) conventional 40 -foot van trailer used to house compressors, generators, water pumps, water tanks and boilers; 11). One (1) 30 -foot silo used for storage of bulk cement; C). One (1) weigh bin with an attached 12 -foot load conveyor. Dated this 80day of March �A.D.19133 ATTEST: Cl k of the Board GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO vote: Uponmotion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following Elmer (8uckey) Arbaney Marian I. Smith Arnold L. Mackley STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) , Aye , Aye , Aye County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this dayof , A.D. 1 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 1 which amounted to closing on the Seaver 2 into P IA of Phase 2 depending upon and they will be moving 3 prelim y her they choose to plan before theycommence con cdoourse. a 4 If they want to start construction of the golf tcourse befoion of the rreltheyurse. 5 y pan they submit a preliminary r do have to submit a detailed drainage 7 plan to the County and receive approval before they start construction. 8 Dave Michaelson stated that Staff does have of the drainage some concern of the tinning 9 g plan. The drainage plan is complicated to review. Dave suggested that going to be ratherd 10 Aspen Glen reiterating that the drainage the County send a 11 prior to anyg plan needs to letter d 12 approvedpps of time name construction and dmtthat lthe Countybe ldblik s and would pian same the drainage plan, 13- 14 There was discussion that an outside engineer would be obtained at. the expense to review the drainage plan. 15 16 Dave stated that it was appropriate now to let Aspen Glen importance of notifying the Countknow of y he 17 make them aware that the County does nintendctoe obring g inbantenl engineer ttatoo 10 assist staff. Dave and Don will assemble a draft letter n 19 for the Board's approval. gander to to Aspen Glen 20 EPSDT 21 22 Margaret Long stated that the State has additional and there is no County share in this program. Theymoney offeredo reallocate 23 $3,500.00 to $4,000.00 to increase thecurrentEPSDThCas n 24 position from .4 to .65 FTE. p Case Manager 25 any benefits. The The position would not be eligible for 26 no CountyCommissioners said there was no problem as long as funds were involved. 27 28 PUBLIC HEARING FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROCESSING A MATERIAL 29 HANDLING OF NATURAL RESOURCES AT THE BLUE PIT; LOCATED ON NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 82 APPROXIMATELY 2-1/2 MILES EAST OF CARBONDALE. 30 APPLICANT: CASEY CONCRETE r� 31 Don DeFard, County Attorney,ben e`9 32 publication from the applicant. requested retire receipts and proof of 33 owners were identified. Shawn VonoDetten estated d how tthat he dthe einformation 34 was obtained from the Assessor's office and they checked property 35 records the first 36 notices to all theadjacentof November.mShawn stated that they sent 37 included one for each adjacent property toe proof of that 38 Chairman pro Tem needed to accept into yevidence Exhibit tAd tthe the 39 of publication which is adequate and Exhibit B 40 which are adequate and the Board is entitled to - the proof 41 - the proof of mailings Hearing. proceed with the Public 42 43 Chairman Pro Tem Arbaney swore in all the people, including the applicant, who wished to testify. 44 45 Don stated that the Board had indicated that they may wish to continue 46 the Public Hearing until Chairman Mackley is able to be Chairman Pro Tem Arbaney asked the audience how many people had made 47 trip from out of town and theypresent. 48 with the a were all local people. Atter discussion 49 applicant regarding Chairman Mackley's absence Smith made a motion that the Public Hearing be continued tom January 4 50 1993 at 3:30 P.M. at which time all continents will be r 51 anyone wishing to speak. Choi January 4. 52 amore and wishing the. Chairman Pro Tem Arbaneystepped from carried. stepped down as 53 PAYABLE CLAIMS 54 55 After discussion, Commissioner Smith made a motion that the claims against the gaunt for the 2nd 56 and the Chairman Pro Ternybe authorized to signothebresolutioneyble 57 concerning these approvals. approved 58 Chairman and seconded the motion; carried. Pro Tem Arbaney stepped carried. pP d down as 59 60 61 62 63 4W DRIVE MOTOR GRADER CONTRACT Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Chairman Pro Tem be authorized to sign the guaranteed repurchase tor grader contract. Chairman Pro Tem Arbane part of the sW drive seconded the motion;carried.4' stepped down as Chairman and Page 4 1 0 foundation design and drainage aced bya 2 Registered Engineer. p Colorado 3 13. All lots may be subject to the requirement of engineered 4 wastewater systems. s . 5 Y' At the time of building Permit Application, proof will be required by a licensed Colorado 6 Engineer regarding specific wastewater system needs on each 7 lot. 0 5. The applicant shall submit $200.00 in School Impact Fees prior 9 to the signing of an exemption plat. 10 11 Ater further discussion, Dave said that there should be an additional 12 condition of approval stating that a driveway permit needed to be 13 obtained from the County. Allen stated that they might use a common 14 driveway. Dave stated that if a common driveway was used, the easements would need Lo be indicated on the final exemption plat. 15 16 Commissioner Smith made a motion that an exemption from the definition 17 of a subdivision be granted to Otto and Catherine Zinko for a tract of 18 7.25 acres of land located on the South side of Midland Avenue with all 19 the issues, concerns and recommendations of Staff being a part of that approval. Chairman Mackley stepped down as Chairman and seconded the 20 motion; carried. 21 22 PAYABLE CLAIMS AND PAYROLL EXPENDITURES 23 After discussion with Chuck regarding the bills for the month of 24 December, 1992 and the December payroll expenditures, Commissioner 25 Smith made a motion that the payable claims against the County for the 26 first run of December, 1992 and the payroll expenditures for the month 27 of December, 1992 be approved and the Chairman authorized to sign the resolution. Commissioner Arbaney seconded the motion; carri d CONTINUED PUB 20 FOR A SPECIAL DMt i SO�� 2Q R 29 MATERIAL I[ANDLING. O1' NATURAL RESOURCES ATBLUEPIT; IT OLOCATEDNNN� 30 SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 82 APPROXIMATELY TWO AND ONE-HALF ( 2-1/2) O 31 MILES 32 EAST OF CARBONDALE. APPLICANT: CASEY CONCRETE 33 Don DeFord stated that previously the noticing of hearing was adequate and the exhibits need to be accepted into the record. 34 Chairman Mackley swore in everyone wishing to testify. 35 36 Dave asked that the following Exhibits he entered into the record: 37 Exhibit "A" - Proof of Publication 30 Exhibit "8" - Return Receipts Exhibit "C" - Staff Report 39 Exhibit "D" - Application 40 41 Exhibit "E" - Adjacent Land Use Map 42 Exhibit "F" - Access Route, taken from original application when 43 the Blue Pit was permitted in 1901 Exhibit 44 - Petition with 25 signatures stating "We, the 45 undersigned, request the Casey Permit to allow the installationoofratconcretee Seel Use 46 batch 47 plant at the Blue Pit off County Road 104 not be 48 approved for the following reasons: 1. The cu traffic volume created by the pit operations isrnott 49 50 compatible with the approximate 20' width of CO RD 51 103, is not compatible with the school bus stop at 52 the intersection of CO RD 103 and CO RD 104. 2. An increase in traffic would make the present dangerous 53 situation even worse. 54 to be developed to eliminate the gcurrent otrafficneeds lution 55 56 hazards. This would be either widening 103 or 57 routing truck traffic directly to Highway 82 via the 50 access road South of the pit." Exhibit "[I" --12/1/92 letter of o 59 Exhibit Exhibi12/7/92 letter of opposition from Michael Romanus 60 Exhibit "J" - 12/9/92 letter of opposition from StaceCLuffn osition from Jon 61 62 Exhibit "K" - 12/9/92 letter of opposition from John and Martha Henderson 63 Exhibit "L" - 12/13/92 letter of opposition 64 Exhibit "M" 12/14/92 letter of opposition from Gor 65 don Greiner 66 Exhibit "N" --12/21/92 letter from King Lloyd 67 Exhibit "0" - 12/17/92 letter of opposition from James and Barbara Ransford Page 8 1 Exh "p" - 12/22/92 letter of oppos n from Scott Writer 2 Exh' "Q" - 12/31/92 letter from Mar lain, Town Planner, 3 Carbondale 4 Chairman Mackley entered Exhibits "A" through "Q" into the record. 5 Dave explained that this was a request for a Special Use Permit for the and h ing of natural resources, a concrete batch plant. Th 8 applicant is Casey Concrete. The parcel of land that the Special Use 9 Permit is being requested for is located North of State Highway 82 10 across from the Ranch at Roaring Fork, more commonly known aa the Blue 11 Gravel Pit. The pit is approximately 110 acres in size. Water is 12 currently hauled in by truck although there is existing industrial 13 water rights. Sewer is handled by portable chemical toilets. Access 14 is from Highway 82 via Crystal Springs Road, CO RD 103. The existing 15 zoning is A/R/RD. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan, the property is 16 located in District A, Town of Carbondale the urban area of influence. 17 The applicant is requesting the issuance of a special use permit to 18 allow the placement of a concrete batch plant with the Slue Gravel Pit. 19 The batch plant consists of the following: ane conventional 40 -foot 20 van trailer used to house compressors, generators, water pumps, water 21 tanks and boilers, etc.; a 30 -foot silo used for storage of bulk 22 concrete; one weight bin with an attached 12 -foot load conveyor. 23 However, the applicant has stated that additional water tanks, 24 aggregate bins and conveyors may be required at a later date depending 25 on market demand. The entire operation will be located in the 26 immediate pit and the staging area currently used in on-going pit 27 operations. Work hours would coincide with current pit operations, 26 which are 7;00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The applicant states that 3 to 4 29 truck trips will be necessary for the batch plant operation. Staff 30 disagrees with that number. They are proposing to use the existing 31 gravel pit access which is CO RD 104 to CO RD 103 and then out to 32 Highway 82. Present plans call for transporting water to be used in the batch plant by water trucks or use the existing industrial water 33 rights. 34 Dave stated that the existing pit was approved in 1981 (Resolution 35. 81-384) with several conditions placed on the development, including 36 the following; 37 38 1.) That the hours of operation be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. 39 2.) That access to the project area from State Highway 82 shall be the Crystal Springs Road. 40 41 3.) That the applicant shall make improvements to both Crystal Springs Road (CO RD 103) and CO RD 104. 42 43 Dave stated that in June of 1983, Mid -Valley Paving applied for a 44 Special use Permit to allow for both an Asphalt and Concrete Plant on 45 the same site. The application was denied based on compatibility issues. 46 47 Dave discussed the major issues and concerns. Because the zoning 48 resolution does not have a provision for modifying or amending a 49 special use permit, the requested permit has to be considered a new 50 permit to be added to the existing permitted uses. Any approval of the 51 proposed SUP should require compliance with previously approved 52 resolutions of approval, as well as any new conditions of approval. 53 The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan states 'The County may deny 54 development proposals on the basis of; (1) Lack of access to the site; 55 (2) Inadequate road access which will create an inadequate road with 56 large daily truck volumes; or (3) A road which is already at or above 57 its design capacity and due to the terrain or geology of the area, 58 cannot be further improved to safely accomodate additional daily traffic." 59 Compatibility is the main issue relating to the 60 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states "Any proposed land 61 use may be deemed incompatible for the following resons: (a) 62 Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate neighborhood of 63 the entire community; (b) Impairing the stability or value of existing 64 adjacent properties; (c) Adversely affecting the quality of life of 66 existing adjacent residents; (d) Showing a lack of quality or function 66 in site planning and designs; (e) Creating a public danger or nuisance 67 to surrounding areas; (f) Altering the basic character or adjacent 68 land uses or the entire community." Another concern is smoke dust, odors and visual unsightliness. Air quality is another concern. pave Page 9 1 stated t Staff conferred with Scott Mi of the Colorado 2 Departm of health, Air Pollution Cantr ivision regarding the 3 permitti g process for Concrete Batch Plants in the State of Colorado. 4 An APEN (Air Pollution Emission Notice) form is necessary. The EPA 5 states that a concrete batch plant is considered a ",minor pollution 6 source" and is only regulated by the State. The bag filters used to 7 filter and isolate pollutants is approximately 90% efficient. 8 Dave discussed the regulations pertaining to industrial operations. 9 Dave talked about the potential problem of pollution of surface 10 11 runoff. He explained the conditions that would be placed on the 12 proposal. Dave Said that Staff felt that there would be more traffic 13 than the applicant claimed. He stated that Staff felt that the 14 worst-case truck generation would be approximately 27 fully loaded 15 trucks per day using CO RD 103 and 104 to access State Highway 82. 16 Staff stated that a condition should be placed on the proposal 17 requiring the applicant to make. improvements to CO RD 104 and 103. He 18 also discussed the possibility of accessing Highway 82 directly and the impacts of the additional traffic on Highway 82. 19 Dave stated that the existing gravel pit, in all likelihood, will 20 remain in operation for the next 20 years. With that probability, the 21 issue becomes not the compatibility of the gravel pit, but rather the 22 compatibility of the proposed SUP. In Staff's opinion, if the road and 23 traffic safety issues can be addressed, the impacts of the project can 24 be mitigated. The SUP will not represent a level of incompatibility 25 not already experienced in the area. 26 On December 9, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended approval of 27 the SUP subject to the following conditions; 28 1. All proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of 29 approval unless stated otherwise by the Board of County 30 Commissioners. 31 2. That copies of all updated Colorado Department of Health permits 32 shall be submitted prior to issuance of any special use permit. 33 3. That all conditions of approval contained in Garfield County 34 Resolution 61-384 shall be complied with by the applicant. 35 4. The applicant will identify and maintain an area to be used for 36 washing trucks or related equipment. The applicant will be 37 responsible for constructing a settling pond, or other option 38 satisfactory to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, 39 that will isolate contaminants, and will result in no surface 40 runoff that may pose a threat to live streams or ground water, 41 consistent with the non --discharge permit issued to the gravel pit. 42 5. Water will be used as a dust suppressant in the pit area and the 43 immediate staging area on a regular basis to mitigate any adverse 44 impact from dust emissions extending beyond the immediate pit area. 45 6. The applicant shall make improvements to CO RD 104 and CO RD 103, 46 which improvements shall be paid for by the applicant and shall be 47 to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners upon the 48 recommendation of the County Road Supervisor. The safety of 49 existing traffic and pedestrians, including school buses and 50 existing bus stops, will be addressed by the applicant to the 51 satisfaction of the County Road and Bridge Department. 52 Dave -discussed a letter from Mark Chain, Town of Carbondale Planner. 53 Mark's letter stated that the Town agreed that a concrete batch plant 54 operation is an accessory use of the existing gravel pit and is 55 preferable to the proliferation of industrial uses spread throughout 56 this end of the County. They stated that they agreed with the County 57 Planning Commission and Staff's recommendation that the special use 58 permit should be approved with conditions. They expressed their 59 concerns about the use of a separate access to Highway 82. 60 Shawn VonDette and Dick Casey appeared for Casey Concrete. Shawn 61 discussed his meeting with King and stated that the area in question is 62 an area that is going over an existing culvert in the road on CO RD 103 63 and that is mainly due to the ride quality of the road. It was agreed 64 upon that signs would be put up such as speed limits, Caution -trucks 65 turning and so forth on the 103 - 104 intersection. Shawn discussed 66 the safety aspect with reference to the school buses, it was resolved 67 that the safest route would be to leave it as is because there is a Page 10 1 direct 1' of sight from both directions, f the traffic warranters, 2 the road uld have to be improved at the nse of Casey Concrete. 3 Sean Mello, representing Western Slope Aggregates, stated that 4 Earthworks is not using the access road to haul gravel. There were 5 some improvements done to the access road about two months ago making 6 the grade about 4% and this is all on the Blue property. 7 Jean Blue, the owner of the gravel pit property, stated that the SUP B does not allow any trucks at any time going down over that hill out of 9 the pit. Commissioner Arbaney asked if an application had been made to 10 amend the Special Use Permit to change the access to highway 82. Dave 11 explained that they had not because prior to any amendment of the 12 Special Use Permit, there has to be approval by the State Department of 13 Transportation. Dave stated that the Special Use Permit for the Blue 14 property states that access is only via CO RD 104 and 103. Dave said 15 that he went through the old files when that was approved and there was 16 a lot of debate over the impact on Highway 82 and this was mainly 17 because the Ranch at Roaring Fork was opposite them. Dave stated that 18 in his opinion, in the terms of safety on that road, the Highway B2 19 access would be safer because of the additional residential units 20 approved in the areas served by CO RD 104 and 103. Scott Writer stated 21 that they had figured that there could by as many as 220 trips a day 22 for his subdivision. 23 Commissioner Smith asked King Lloyd about the original permit requiring 24 a 24' driving service on CO RD 104 and a chip and seal mat. He stated 25 that this has not been done. Dave explained to Commissioner Smith that 26 the truck count did not include any water trucks. Shawn VonDette 27 stated that they would provide copies of the water documentation 28 regarding the use of industrial water rights. 29 King was sworn in. He stated that he wanted to add to his site visit, 30 that his comments revolve around the fact that he was encouraging the 31 lessee of the gravel pit to obtain the Highway 82 access. King said 32 that if this access was not approved, there would need to be extensive 33 work done to CO RD 103, widening of the road, site distance would need 34 to be addressed and a substantially stronger pavement section 35 developed. Thera was discussion about the improvements to the roads 36 required in the original resolution approving the Special Use Permit 37 for the gravel pit. King stated that he thought some improvements had 38 been made to CO RD 103 by the pit operator. After discussion, King 39 stated that CO RD 104 was not widened to 24'. 40 Jean Blue stated that they widened out CO RD 104 to whatever they were 41 asked to by the Board of County Commissioners. IIe stated.,that they did 42 quite a bit of work on the lower end coming out onto the Highway. He 43 stated that Marty Zemlock did this work and he also chipped and sealed 44 CO RD 104. After discussion, it was determined that the pit had been 45 running since the Special Use Permit was issued and had never ceased 46 operations. 47 Mike Bell, Manager of Ranch at Roaring Fork, read communication to the 48 Garfield County Board of Commissioners from the residents of the Ranch 49 at Roaring Fork regarding the Casey Concrete Company request for a 50 Special Use Permit into the record, expressing their opposition to any 51 access directly onto Highway 82. 52 Betty Debeque from the Ranch at Roaring Fork stated that she resented 53 the proliferation of an industrial plant in an agricultui r1 and 54 residential area. 55 Jay Densmore discussed his concerns regarding any acceslthe 56 gravel pit directly onto Highway 82 across from the'RanCb .xt Roaring 57 Fork. I. 1 50 Collis Turner, the Ranch at Roaring Fork, requested that:'iie 59 Commissioners deny this Special Use Permit because of the ddnb ity of 60 the population, the increase of the traffic and the way it would 61 downgrade the facilities at the Ranch and the affect on the duality of 62 the life. Page 11 1 Ned Call his property is adjacent to Jelliplue above the gravel pit, 2 expresse is concerns regarding the naisellPm the trucks and stated 3 that the entrance directly to Highway 82 is not a good idea. 4 Audrey Van Raden, 14913 liwy 82, stated that she was concerned about a 5 special road coming down. Commissioner Smith informed her that there 6 would have to be an amendment to the Special Use Permit to use an 7 access directly onto Highway 82. 8 Roy Grice, lives directly across from where road is supposed to he 9 coming down, stated that the traffic starts very early in morning and 10 he has respiratory problems and requested the Commissioners to vote 11 against this permit. 12 Scott Writer, owns property on 104 and 103 Road, stated that it makes 13 more sense to have access directly onto highway 82 and the decision 14 should be left up to the Department of Transportation. He felt that 15 all decisions regarding any improvements and mitigations should be 16 finalized before a permit is issued. 17 Frank Hallowell, the Ranch at Roaring Fork, stated that CO RD 104 18 should be the access to the gravel pit as originally approved. He 19 discussed the truck traffic on Highway 82 stating that there is a RF`rA 20 bus stop at the Ranch and a lot of people coming and going from the 21 Ranch. The problems would be worse if the trucks from the pit entered 22 directly onto Highway 82. 23 Gerry Vanderbeek, the Ranch at Roaring Fork, stated that access from 24 the gravel pit directly onto Highway 82 would create economic and 25 quality of life problems for the residents of the Ranch at Roaring 26 Fork. 27 Dick Kime, the Ranch at Roaring Fork, discussed the heavy equipment 28 entering the highway and the problems with access directly onto Highway 29 82 30 John Buchanan, lives up 103 Road in Hawk Ridge, discussed the dangerous 31 intersection at 103 and 104 Road and stated that adding the existing 32 gravel trucks to the concrete and water trucks makes for constant 33 traffic. He felt that the road conditions need to be addressed. 34 Shelly Gross felt that the issue is really whether or not to allow this 35 use, not which road to use. He felt that the area should be maintained 36 as an agriculture and residential area. 37 Bob Schenck, 506 105 Road, stated that the Commissioners when the 38 original Special Use Permit for the gravel pit was issued stated that 39 when Highway 82 was four -laved, they would address maybe bringing the 40 road down from the Blue Pit if the Blues decided to put in an 41 application to access onto Highway 82. Bob stated that the 42 Commissioners assured them that there would no further industrial 43 expansion of the Blue Pit whatsoever. He said they were also told 44 there would be no tandem dumps going in there and they are going in 45 there all the time now. 46 Bobbie Tucker, part-time resident of the Ranch at Roaring Fork, 47 discussed the beginnings of pollution in the valley and whether or not 48 the batch plant needs to exist. 49 Dick McCrudden, the Ranch at Roaring Fork, expressed his concerns 50 regarding the number of trucks necessary for the batch plant and 51 whether the work previously required has been done on the roads. 52 Robert Krebill, Wright Water Engineers, expressed the'concerns about 53 the high PH in water. His concerns were Lite truck washing and the 54 increase in PH that could be caused by the water coming across through 55 the springs. He stated that they had a baseline on the water and they 56 are looking for precautions so that problems do not develop. 57 Milt Wright, the Ranch at Roaring Fork, discussed the original Special. 58 Use Permit and felt that if this was going to be approved and it needed 59 to be done right. Page 12 1 Don DeF discussed the language on No. 6 page 10 would be hard to 2 enforce needs to be addressed properlyWHe requested that if there 3 was a condition attached regarding the roads, it needs to be more 4 specific. 5 Chairman Mackley stated that there are several technical problems that 6 have surfaced from the conditions in the original resolution with 7 respect to the roads. 8 Shawn Vondette stated that they planned on using the water that is 9 adjudicated for industrial use to the point that it is available. If 10 more water is required, they would truck water in. There are two 11 sources of water located an the pit - Sunnyside Gravel Pit Pond and the 12 Sunnyside Industrial Well No. 1. Jean Blue stated that the well is for 13 3 acre feet of water and the industrial water out of the basin ditch is 14 1 cubic feet per second. Dee Blue said this is on file and it is 15 adjudicated water. Shawn stated that it is for industrial, mining, 16 dust suppressant and manufacturing with the right to use and reuse and 17 completely consume the same. The Basin Ditch runs from April through 18 sometimes to January. 19 Shawn discussed the truck trips and said that the worst case scenario 20 would be Dave's figures. Shawn said realistically the figures would he 21 13 trips with trucks loaded and 13 trips with trucks unloaded. 22 Clerk & Recorder Mildred Alsdorf stated that the following exhibits 23 needed to be entered into the record: Exhibit "R" - Petition from 24 residents at Ranch at Roaring Fork, Exhibit "S" - Petition from 25 residents at Ranch at Roaring Fork with 4 names on it and Exhibit "T" 26 District Court Water Division relative to the pond and ditch rights. 27 Chairman Mackley entered Exhibits "R", "5" and "T" into the record. 28 Commissioner Smith asked Jean Blue if Sunnyside Pond was lined and he 29 replied that it was not. 30 Chairman Mackley stated that if this SUP is approved, a road 31 improvements agreement on 103 and 104 and how Casey Concrete fits into 32 this and the original operator of the pit. Casey Concrete is wanting 33 to set up their batch plant in the pit and buy aggregate from the pit 34 and it is not an expansion of the pit itself. Chairman Mackley stated 35 that there were some technical things to get through before any 36 decision can be made. 37 Prank Hallowell asked if the applicant has addressed if there is a need 38 for this batch plant. He questioned the validity of expanding the 39 industrial use in an area that is surrounded by residential uses. 40 Chris Locher stated that he felt a majority of the taxes were paid by 41 residents between Glenwood Springs and the Eagle County line. He 42 questioned the reason for adding to the industrial activities. 43 Chairman Mackley said that every home that is sold has a cement 44 foundation that has to come from somewhere. There was audience 45 discussion that there is already ane this side of Aspen and one between 46 Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. Chris Locher stated emphatically that 47 he felt that the Board had already made their decision. He felt that 48 the discussion should be about whether or not the batch plant would he 49 allowed, not about where the roads will be. 50 Dee Blue stated that she has been hearing the word "incompatibility - 51 but no one has mentioned the fact that the landfill is there and it has 52 been there since 1978. 53 Shelly Gross stated that he felt that it is a question of whether the 54 concrete batch plant should be added and is this the best location? 55 Shawn stated that this is a portable batch plant and the permit goes 56 with the source and anytime it is moved, a relocation revision permit 57 has to be filed for APEN. He said that the permit stays with the 58 source and all that is required is a relocation notice as far as the 59 State is concerned. Page 13 1 Dick Ca said that the gravel pit is a ce of sand and gravel and 2 the mat 1 is going to leave that area Woad some day anyway, 3 whether it be in the form of sand, gravel or redi-mix concrete. Shawn 4 said regardless of where the batch plant is set up, the sand and gravel is going to be trucked the from pi t. The truck traffic is going to be 6 there through the projected life of the pit. 7 Commissioner Smith asked Mike Bell, Manager of the Ranch at the Roaring 8 Fork, if he had noticed a slow down of activity at the golf course 9 because of the construction on Highway 02. Mike said not this year 10 because the construction had not gotten that far. 11 King stated that the current lessee of the pit was not aware of any 12 maintenance agreement for CO RD 104. 'Phe County has been maintaining 13 the road. The two areas that King felt needed to be upgraded 14 immediately are on CO RD 103 down the road from the intersection with 15 CO RD 104 and at the intersection of CO RD 103 and 104. They need to 16 be brought back to.grade and have a paved surface put over them to 17 reinforce the structural integrity of the roadway and improve the 18 riding of it. The road is snowpacked so it is difficult to come up 19 with any projected costs. 20 Western Slope Aggregates owned by William Roberts is the lessee of the 21 pit from Dee and June Blue. 22 Chairman Mackley stated that they needed to have King put some figures 23 together and find out who is responsible for what .on the roads in order 24 . to get some sort of business plan together to determine if it is 25 financially feasible to put a batch plant in the pit. 26 Ray Grice stated that he did not know how the Board could not deny the 27 permit because of all the gray areas. 20 Chairman Mackley stated that Casey Concrete's application is clear cut; 29 the problem arises with the previous agreements. Jean Blue stated that 30 the road had been upgraded to specifications according to Leonard 31 Bowlby, the Road and Bridge Supervisor at that time. The Commissioners 32 . felt that they might need to talk with Larry Velasquez and Flaven 33 Cerise (County Commissioners at the time the gravel pit was approved), 34 Commissioner Smith requested that Scott Miller of the Colorado 35 Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division be present for the 36 continuation of this public hearing. 37 After discussion, Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Public 38 Hearing be continued until 3;00 P.M. on February 8, 1993. Commissioner 39 Arbaney seconded the motion; carried. This continuation is agreeable 40 with the applicant. I� 41 LETTER TO ASPEN GLEN 1t 1~ 42 After discussion, Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Chairman be 43 authorized to sign a letter to Larry Green, representing Aspen Glen, 44 with all conditions as set forth in the draft requesting notification 45 30 days prior to the submittal of a drainage plan and restating the 46 conditions regarding submittal of the preliminary plan. Commissioner 47 Arbaney seconded the motion; carried. 48 Commissioner Arbaney made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. 49 Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; carried. Parte 14 1 VETERANS FFAIRS REPORT --1 2 Commiss r Smith made a motion that the irman be authorized to 3 sign the onthly Veterans Affairs Report. mmissioner Mackley ' 4 seconded the motion; carried. 5 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROCESSING 6 MATERIAL HANDLING OF NATURAL RESOURCES AT THE BLUE PIT; LOCATED ON 7 NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 82 APPROXIMATELY TWO AND ONE-HALF MILES 0 EAST O1 CARBONDALE. APPLICANT: CASEY CONCRETE 9 Dave Michaelson requested that the following exhibits be entered into 10 the record: Exhibit "R" - Improvement Maintenance Agreement submitted 11 by the Applicant, Exhibit "S" - 01/29/93 Letter from Wright Water 12 Engineers regarding ground water protection, Exhibit "T" - Minutes from 13 June 19, 1983 regarding the 1981 road improvements with the initial 14 gravel pit, Exhibit "U" - Aerial photograph, Exhibit "V" - 02/04/92 15 Memo from King Lloyd and Exhibit "W" -- on the advice of the attorney is 16 a copy of the 1984 Garfield County Zoning Regulations as amended into 17 the record. Chairman Arbaney accepted Exhibits "R" through "W" into 18 the record. 19 Commissioner Mackley stated that for the record that he did have an 20 occasion to meet with Al Koeneke and Richard Hunt during the time since 21 the last hearing date regarding their main concern of the access road 22 going directly from the pit down to Highway 82. He stated that he also 23 had a conversation with Gilbert Lee of Con -Sy who had this very plant 24 on one of his projects near Paonia. The impacts of the plant as 25 Gilbert Lee saw them were discussed.. 26 Chairman Arbaney stated that for the record, he talked with Bill 27 Roberts briefly one afternoon and with John Tindall at another time on 28 this same subject. 29 Commissioner Mackley stated that he would like Dave to go through the 30 Exhibits and have it made clear for the record the difference between 31 the existing Special Use Permit that is in effect and this Special Use 32 Permit and how they relate together and also what is occurring with the 33 construction of Highway 02. 34 Dave stated that the existing gravel pit is operating under a Special 35 Use Permit and that permit was approved in 1981 and had conditions of 36 approval regarding that application. Dave stated that the first 37 condition regarded road improvements that were required at that time. 38 There are minutes that are part of Exhibit "T" which identify the point 39 at which the Road Supervisor at that time, Leonard Bowlby, approved 40 those road improvements. Dave said that although the current Staff may have concerns about how the improvements occurred on CO RD 104 and 103, 4. it is in the record that the Board of County Commissioners and the Road 43 Supervisor at that time approved that road work. Dave discussed haw 44 that permit relates to this request for a permit. Because what Dick 45 Casey is proposing is an expansion of use over and above what the 46 original permit was approved for, this is another Special Use Permit 47 and is independent of that initial hearing. Dave said that what needs 48 to be discussed at the Staff level is the compatibility issue. This is 49 an operating gravel pit that is going to be there for 20 years and this 50 is clearly an accessory use to that pit. Dave stated that another 51 issue is road impact. In terms of the access, the existing permit says 52 that anything that comes out of that pit has to come down CO RD 104 to 53 CO RD 103 to Highway 82 and out. There are two roads that are cut into 54 the hillside that are an State right-of-way that they cannot use to 55 bring material out of the pit right now. Dave discussed the Highway 82 56 widening stating that there is a pile of material that the State. 57 Highway Department of Transportation is using in conjunction with the 50 construction. They can go up there with trucks, take that material and 59 bring it back down to the Highway 82 construction site. That in no way 60 violates the conditions that are placed on the pit. Dave stated that 61 he went up to the pit several times from both the Highway 82 side down 62 at the entrance to the ranch and also up near the Wooden Deer 63 Subdivision to see if trucks were going into the•pit from Highway 82 64 and going out to Highway 82. Dave said that all:he saw was trucks 65 going up to the right-of-way and taking the material that was there. 66 Dave stated that this was not a violation of the permit. Dave said 67 that it is very clear in the Staff report that one of the conditions of Page 8 1 approval f r Casey Concrete's application i that they are consistent 2 with all conditions of approval that a n the pit now. What that 3 means as is written right now and if Cas Concrete does get 4 approval from the Board, they would also have to use CO RD 104 and 103 5 to bring the material out of the pit. 6 Dave stated that if the pit operators did get approval from the State 7 Department of Transportation to provide access to highway 82 from the 8 pit, that would not open that access up from Staff's perspective 9 because the Special Use Permit and the conditions are explicit in terms 10 of that. access. The Special Use Permit would have to be amended to 11 provide access straight down to Highway 82 and it would require another 12 Public hearing process and this would apply to Casey Concrete also. If 13 the original permit was amended, Casey Concrete could also bring that 14 material directly down to Highway 82. 15 At Commissioner Smith's request, Dave read A portion of June, 1983 16 minutes into the record. "To the Board's knowledge, all the conditions 17 of the resolution had been meant. County Road Supervisor, Leonard 18 Bowlby, confirmed that Marty Zemlock had complied with the conditions 19 of the resolution and did all of the work that was requested by the 20 County. In conclusion the Board agreed that this matter should be 21 checked into with the Planning Division to make sure that the Zemlock 22 Gravel Pit was not in violation. A letter will be prepared for Mr. 23 Schenck with the findings." Dave atated that Staff cannot go back and 24 piece together former Board's opinions on whether or not the conditions 25 were met. Dave said that King Lloyd, Road & Bridge Supervisor, is 26 prepared to talk about what CO RD 103 looks like now but that is 27 independent of the Board's prior approval of those improvements. 28 Commissioner Mackley stated that was what they were unclear about at 29 the last meeting, is how that all occurred, if it did occur and the 30 record states very clear in his mind that it did occur. He stated that 31 was why it had been important to continue the Nearing so that all this 32 information could be brought out and be brought into the Public Record 33 so that all interested parties are able to understand it. 34 King had been instructed by the Board to meet with the applicant 35 regarding road improvements and to possibly come up with some dollars 36 that might be involved in the upgrading of the road. King stated that 37 weather conditions had not been too conducive to fully examine the road 38 the way that it should be. It's pretty hard to come up with a dollar 39 figure that he felt comfortable with to upgrade the road to any sort of 40 a standard. King said that he and Dave met with the applicant and had 41 some discussion about alternatives of either engineering the road to 42 separate out the traffic that might be pre-existing on the road and the 43 traffic mainly due to his operation and maintenance agreements were 44 discussed. King said that the applicant on his own made the decision 45 that he would counter with a proposal to make certain improvements to 46 the road as discussed and to consider maintenance of CO RD 103. King 47 discussed the problems that he saw with the road as outlined in letter 48 of comment to the Planning Staff. There is a culvert that needs to be 49 replaced and some settlement on the roadway at the upper end of Co RD 50 103 just before its intersection with CO RD 104. King discussed his 51 concerns about the existing roadway itself being able to support 52 excessive axle loads. King said there was also discussion about Casey 53 Concrete doing continual maintenance of the road. Casey Concrete 54 submitted a letter to Planning and it is Exhibit "R". King read from 55 Exhibit "R" "Casey Concrete Company will agree to improve and maintain 56 CO RD 103 from highway 82 intersection to the 104 Road intersection 57 pending the approval of our Special Use Permit. The improvements will 58 consist of widening the paved driving surface to 24 feet, installing a 59 gravel shoulder as permits, replacing the failed irrigation culvert 60 approximately 100 feet South of 104 Road intersection, instals traffic 61 signs as needed per Garfield County Road and Bridge. Maintenance will 62 consist of pot hole filling as needed, leveling depressions, 63 maintenance of gravel shoulders. All work is to be approved by the 64 Garfield County Road Supervisor. Improvements and maintenance of CO RD 65 104 will be addressed by the current pit operator, Western Slope 66 Aggregates, due to the fact that they are responsible for this under 67 their existing Special Use Permit, Resolution No. 81-304. These 68 specific conditions of improvements and maintenance will be performed Page 9 1 for the eriod of time which Casey Concret perates out of the Blue 2 Pit bas n 103 Road being the primary ac s to the gravel pit 3 4 operatio This work will be performed igT�Lhe Spring of 1993 when 5 weather and ground conditions permit." King stated that he met with 6 the applicants in the Planning Office and looked over this agreement and got some feedback from the County Attorney's office about the 7 concerns about the details with reference to standards and a measure of 6 9 perfo rmance and exactly and specifically what maintenance should be. 10 King said that he drafted a letter to try to clarify and to go into more detail which is submitted as Exhibit "V". 11 Exhibit "V" is a letter from King to Planning dated February 4, 1993. 12 King read the letter: "Reference Casey Concrete Special Use Permit. 13 For the road to be evaluated as to its capabilities of supporting the 14 wheel loads of gravel and concrete trucks, the pavement thickness needs 15 to be sampled as well as the base and sub -base gravels. With this 16 analysis along with the projected equivalent single axle loads (esa.ls), 17 number of truck volumes, the remaining life of the existing road can be 18 projected. It would also be reasonable to project that after a period 19 of time, an overlay would be necessary and to what thickness it would 20 have to be to protect the existing roadway. It will not be feasible to 21 perform these tests until the frost is out of the ground. I feel that 22 at a minimum, County Road 103's width should be built to the County 23 Standard for which the driving surface is a minimum of 26 feet. The 24 road that exists now is 18 feet to 22 feet wide. This would require 25 shoulder graveling and widening of the roadbed in some areas. dust 26 South of the intersection with County Road 104, the roadway has settled 27 in two areas. These need to be re -graded and a new asphalt mat 20 installed. It should be noted on the attached County Road Standard 29 that base and sub -base steps are to be determined by soil analysis so I 30 am not making any recommendations for gravel depth at this time. There 31 are drainage improvements that are needed as well as possible culvert 32 replacement. An alternative to conducting the engineering may be to 33 require the applicant to maintain County Road 103 to a standard that is 34 specified by the Asphalt Institute for low volume roads. See attached 35 documents. (The attached documents is a copy of a bulletin that is 36 published by the Asphalt Institute that addresses specifically 37 evaluations of roads and sets up a scoring system that dictates whether 30 the road is to be maintained, overlayed or reconstructed. It is a 39 basis on which to grade a road and determine its functional 40 capabilities.) Should maintenance fail to meet the criteria specified, 41 the permit would be suspended by the Board of County Commissioners 42 until compliance was achieved. In reviewing the road as it exists 43 today, refer to Figure 2 of the Asphalt Institute documents. (That is 44 a scale that grades the road.) It was to found to be within a range of 45 68 to 70 which is starting to get into the category of needing an 46 overlay. This evaluation was somewhat hampered by weather conditions. 47 I think with the needed widening and leveling improvements on the upper 40 end, this will raise its rating. Should the rating fall below an 80, 49 that then would then require an overlay with the potential of some of 50 it needing to be rebuilt. As you may note in these documents, it 51 recommends that once the overlay range has reached that point, an 52 engineer should be consulted. This rating should be conducted 53 quarterly by a professional engineer with the applicant covering the 54 expense. This would be to evaluate areas that may have deteriorated 55 more than others and may need rebuilding. The main thing is that 56 maintenance not be interpreted to mean just crack sealing, seal coating 57 or pot hole patching. Additionally, there are truck turning signs 58 needed and center line striping." 59 Dick Casey stated that this was just received this morning and they 60 haven't had a chance to look up those specifications to know what is 61 involved. He stated that the 26 feet width over the 24 feet width 62 would not be a big problem. King stated that he had given Dick bad 63 information when he had told him 24 feet would be the required width. 64 Dick Casey stated that he was not familiar with the County Road 65 Standards. Shawn asked if the same guidelines would have to be 66 followed for the slope of the shoulders. King explained that the slope 67 of the shoulders would be the ideal situation for a road that was being 60 newly constructed and the lay of the land is not conducive to matching 69 those shoulders exactly. The critical thing would be the driving Page 10 1 surface 1 as much gravel shoulder as yo uld get. Chairman 2 Arbaney ed that a minimum of a two foot oulder would be 3 required. King stated that you would have to decide to widen to one 4 aide or the other. The road improvements would have to be matched to 5 what the terrain will allow. King said that he did not anticipate any 6 problems with fences. The direction that Gemlock received from the 7 Commissioners when he first initiated the Blue Pit was such that he did 8 go in and cut back some of the hillsides and King thought the fences 9 were far enough back. Where some problems lie is that there are same 10 pretty steep drainage areas that cause the road to be narrow and that 11 it would be necessary to pick the one drainage area which is usually to 12 the inside of the cutbank to where the road template might have to be 13 widened. The roadbed would have to be widened some now in order to get 14 the 26 feet width. Dick Casey asked if there was enough right-of-way 15 to allow that to happen. King stated that it looked like there was. 16 Commissioner Mackley asked Dick Casey if he would build the road to the 17 County specifications. Dick asked if they were talking about just 18 widening the road, not paving. King said the portion of the driving 19 surface that would need widening would have to be paved. Chairman 20 Arbaney stated that the portion that was added on would have to be 21 paved and sooner or later an overlay would have to be put on the road. 22 Dick said that this was just received this morning and they would have 23 to get some cost estimates. Dick asked if the road is at the point now 24 that it is going to have be overlayed? King said he would go into more 25 detail about that. King stated that he went out and as weather 26 conditions would allow, tried to evaluate the roadway using the Asphalt 27 Institute method. King said that with the improvements of widening the 28 driving surface, fixing the settled areas up above and graveling the 29 shoulders thereby improving the drainage, the rating would probably 30 come up to 80 or higher range which is back into a maintenance range. 31 But as time goes by, the road will show more rutting, more cracking, 32 the edges will start to ravel and it will depend on how well the 33 maintenance is kept up as to the length of time that the roadway will 34 stay in the maintenance range. If the road conditions drop below the 35 80 reading, that would mandate portions of the road needing overlaying 36 or reconstructed based upon the evaluation utilizing the Asphalt 37 Institute evaluation. 38 Commissioner Mackley asked what the road surface is now. King said 39 that there is over 1 inch of asphalt surface which could be 40 accumulative layers of chip and seal or blade mix. Chairman Arbaney 41 stated that it is probably an accumulation of chip and seal. Dick 42 Casey asked if an overlay is chip and seal or an asphalt mat. King 43 stated that he did not think a single coat of chip and seal would hold 44 up to truck traffic. There are some benefits in having the over 1 inch 45 thickness of asphalt there for structural strength. Chip and seal will 46 not give you structural strength to hold up to successive amounts of 47 truck traffic. King felt that the thickness of the roadway along with 48 an engineered design subgrade should be done. The County Standards 49 speak to an engineer evaluating the subgrade and making 50 recommendations. The specific recommendations need to be determined 51 site specific as to what type of base material should be applied to 52 match the traffic the road will be handling. King said that the 53 existing thickness of the asphalt should be matched and the gravels 54 should be specified to the appropriate conditions. 55 Dick Casey said they would need to have something specific so that they 56 would know how much it will cost. 57 King said that he is saying that the existing thickness of the pavement "58 should be matched, that chip and seal wouldn't be adequate. As to the 59 thickness of the gravels, King stated that a double layer of 3/4 inch 60 chips would match what is acceptable for County Road Standards. King 61 stated that his preference is asphalt. Shawn asked if the overlay is a 62 part of the improvement package or is that later down the road in 63 maintenance. King said that the overlay he talked about in his letter 64 would be if the rating system were to mandate that it be done. The 65 maintenance of the road is what will keep the road in a serviceable 66 condition. King stated that adequate maintenance will prolong the need 67 for an overlay. King said that there was no time schedule involved, 68 itCs merely evaluating the road on a regular interval and following the Page 11 1 guidelinglips they are stipulated. Shawnd if the initial 2 improvemaill. package would just consist of le is required to bring it 3 up to a rating of BO. Shawn inquired if the areas that King had 4 outlined is what is necessary to bring that road up to the rating. 5 King stated that it was a good chance that it would; it will definitely 6 help it from what it is now and it should get it up to the 80 rating or 7 higher. Commissioner Smith asked King if the asphalt mat is clone, will 9 there still need to be more work done in the future on 103 Rod, King 9 stated more than likely. Commissioner Smith stated that the County 10 needs to be straight up front on that. 11 Dick Casey stated that they need to know what this will cost before any 12 definite commitments can be made. He stated that they would need to 13 get an engineer to sort everything out. Shawn said that 24 feet 14 driving surface did not create a problem but the 26 feet could be a 15 problem. Dick said that the agreement that they thought they had is a 16 lot different than this one. King said it is only different in the 17 width of the road. Dick stated that the maintenance was different 18 also. King stated that all he had done in the maintenance was to make 19 a standard that something could be measured by. King stated that there 20 needs to be some guidelines by which maintenance can be judged. 21 Commissioner Smith stated that if Dick did not have those figures and 22 don't want to make a decision today, it will probably be necessary to 23 continue this until such time as we know. 24 Dick and Shawn explained that there is power at the site to run the 25 batch plant and they would only use generators in the event of a power 26 outage, Commissioner Mackley stated that the plant without the 27 generator creates minimal noise. Dick and Shawn stated that they were 2B agreeable to some form of berming or screening, 29 There was discussion about dust control. There is a system that 30 collects the dust and it is 99.6% efficient. If the Special Use Permit 31 is approved, they will submit a relocation plan for their APEN. 32 Shawn explained that when the trucks are emptied, you just discharge 33 the washout with water in a contained pond. Shawn said that they would 34 agree to line a pond for containment. After evaporation, there is a 35 small amount of residue left. The pit is fairly dry.. Dave explained 36 that the batch plant would use the existing adjudicated industrial 37 water that is on the site. The augmentation plan is addressed in a 38 letter from Wright Water Engineers which states that 2.368 acre feet 39 will be consumed annually for concrete operations. Dave stated that 40 the more important issue is if the applicant can deal with the 41 potential of ground water contamination based on what is coming off the 42 trucks. Wright Water Engineers recommended that an impervious liner be 43 used. Robert Krebill of Wright Water Engineers explained that the soil 44 is very permable and it is a short distance to reach the fisheries near 45 the Ranch at Roaring Fork. Shawn explained that they use 100 to 150 46 gallons of water to wash a truck or a total of 750 gallons per day. 47 Robert Krebill said they had a baseline of the PH level in the river. 49 Sill Roberts, owner of Western Slope Aggregates, is the pit operator. 49 He stated that he was obviously causing some impact on the roads also. 50 Bill said that it was hard to understand why Dick Casey, the applicant, 51 would be totally responsible for the road when there are other volumes 52 going out and using that road. Chairman Arbaney stated that he 53 understood that the initial upgrading was some collaboration between 54 Western Slope Aggregates and Casey Concrete. Chairman Axbaney stated 55 that at some point they were going to have to sort out how much traffic 56 Western Slope Aggregates and Casey Concrete generate as compared to the 57 upper end traffic so they do not have to pick up the bill for everybody 58 else. 59 King discussed the traffic counts that were done in the area. 60 01/26/93 - 72 hour count - between intersection of CO RD 112 & 103 61 This would not take into account any traffic coming out 62 on 104 Road. There were 1,458 axles counted which 63 averages out to 496 axles for a 24-hour period. 64 02/03/93 - 49 hour count -- betw4+0 CO RD 104 and Highway 82 for a 65 total of 1,4.92 axles itLich averages out to 730.77 axles 66 for 24 hours. Page 12 1 Week Count - 62 hour count - CO RD 3 between the intersection 2 of CO RD 104 and Highway 82 th no commercial traffic - 3 1,834 axles for a 24 hour av rage of 709.93 axles. 4 01/26/93 -- 72 hour count - 104 RD 940 axles for a 24 hour average 5 of 313.33 axles. 6 7 8 9 02/03/93 - 49 hour count - 104 RD - 342 axles for a 24 hour average of 167.51 axles. Weekend Count - 62 hour count - 104 RD - 116 axles for a 24 hour average of 44.9 axles. 10 Dave stated that the Institute of Transportation Engineers uses a 11 single family dwelling unit trip generation of 10.2 trips per day. 12 King stated that an 80,000 GVW truck is equivalent to 9,600 passenger 13 cars. This is the formula used to show the wear and tear caused by 14 trucks. Steve Zwick agreed with this figure. 15 King explained to Steve that the access roads to the pit in their 16 condition are inadequate, width wise, for serving the project. The 17 lower part of the road is in good shape but there is more deterioration 18 in the upper part. The length of the road that has problems is .7 mile 19 and the upper .3 to .2 mile of the roadway has settlement. The width 20 varies on the road. 21 Chairman Arbaney admitted Exhibit "X" - Road Counts into the record. 22 Alan Koeneke stated that he had a copy of the resolution when this was 23 originally passed. Commissioner Mackley stated that this was another 24 Special Use Permit application. Alan said that he would like to go 25 back into the history as he understands it. A different Board of 26 Commissioners granted a Special Use Permit in an area that was designed 27 for agriculture/residential, All of a sudden, there is a Special Use 28 Permit for industrial. The reason for this as told by one of the 29 Commissioners that granted this was that Mr. Zemlock needed gravel and 30 he was a good citizen. In July the Board turned down a Special Use 31 Permit request by Mid Valley Paving and the reasons haven't changed. 32 They are the same then and they are the same today. Commissioner 33 Mackley said that was an asphalt plant and the problems were with the 34 asphalt. Alan said that at the same meeting the authorization of 35 Subdivision Improvements agreed for the Hawk Ridge Subdivision which is 36 immediately above this plant. Since then, there have been millions of 37 dollars put in the Hawk Ridge Subdivision and now the Board is 38 considering going right back and granting the same thing that had been 39 turned down previously. Commissioner Mackley explained that this is 40 not the same thing. There are two different things, an asphalt plant 41 with a concrete batch plant that was turned down. The request today is 42 for a concrete batch plant. Chairman Arbaney explained that an asphalt 43 plant is very polluting unless it is powered by propane and a concrete 44 batch plan has very little pollution. The pollution factor is the 45 reason the asphalt plant was turned down. 46 Alan said he talked to the farmer Commissioners. He stated further 47 that citizens have to depend upon the Commissioners and if they make a 48 ruling and the citizens abide by it but they can't keep coming back in 49 ten years and going through this again. 50 51 Commissioner Mackley explained that the pit will be there until 2014 52 and the trucks will still be coming out whether they are dump trucks or 53 concrete trucks. Chairman Arbaney said that Casey Concrete could 54 probably find a location down on the valley floor to set this batch 55 plant up. He asked if they would have him transport the gravel down to a commercial zone such as Cattle Creek and then transport it back up. 56 57 Dave explained that the Special Use Permit for that pit was consistent 50 with zoning in the sense that the zoning required a Special Use Permit 59 as opposed to a use by right. It was not in violation of zoning. 60 zoning allowed it through that process. Dave explained to Alan Koeneke 61 that it is called a Special Use Permit and that there should be some 62 public input, public hearing and staff assessment of the impacts of that project. Page 13 1 Alan sta that at the Special Use Permitrings for the gravel pit, 2 people p sted vigorously and there were �es and conditions set for 3 the pit o eration. Alan said that when one Tloard of Commissioners set 4 something up, the people need to believe that the following Boards will 5 continue to keep the same agreements. Chairman Arbaney stated that the 6 Commissioners back in 1981 or 1905 cannot obligate the present. Board as 7 it sits today and he as aCommissioner cannot obligate a Commissioner 8 that is going to be here in 1996. Chairman Arbaney said that he cannot 9 see a change in character by adding a concrete batch plant in that 10 pit. It is normal to find a concrete plant in a gravel. pit. Chairman 11 Arbaney explained to Alan that you have to take heed to what the prior 12 Boards said but as time goes on, times change and you cannot obligate 13 the next Board. 14 There was discussion between Dave, Commissioner Smith and Shawn about 15 the improvement of technology for control of pollutants from a concrete 16 batch plant and the fact that the concrete batch is a minor pollution 17 source according to the State Department of Health. 18 Dick Casey stated that they could agree to bring the access road up to 19 County Standards but it would be necessary to get an estimate for the 20 cost of paving. Bill Roberts stated that it was basically an issue of 21 maintenance that needs to be clarified. If the road is widened and the 22 .improvements that Dick has outlined in his proposal to the Board bring 23 the road up to County Road standards and these standards are 24 maintained, perhaps a overlay won't be needed for 5 or 6 years. 25 Chairman Arbaney stated that is possible. Hill said that Dick is 26 saying that he would bring the road up to County Standards and watch 27 and abide by the Asphalt Standard down the road. 28 Richard Hunt stated that he felt the present Commissioners don't really 29 understand where the Community is coming from and how violated they 30 feel by what is going on here. He stated that the area was basically a 31 residential area when the Special Use Permit for the gravel pit was 32 granted in 1981. In 1983 when the Asphalt Plant was turned down,, it 33 was a residential area and the residents felt assured that the 1981 34 decision was being supported. He said that now this is still more of a 35 residential area and we are hearing that the road was approved in 1965 36 by the County Commissioners and the Road Engineer and he said that he 37 didn't know whether it really.was inspected and checked. Richard said 38 that from what he hears from King that it never was up to standards. 39 Commissioner Mackley said that it is matter of record in the minutes. 40 Richard said that he knew it was a matter of record, but he is saying 41 that it might not be a matter of fact. Richard stated that they did 42 not feel like they had been treated fairly. 43 Commissioner Mackley said that he was trying to understand why they 44 felt they were violated. He continued that there was a gravel pit that 45 is going to be there until 2014. Commissioner Mackley stated that he 46 talked to Larry Velasquez also and he stated that there were concerned 47 citizens but the major concern was the fact that the road was not going 48 to come down off the face of the pit directly onto Highway 82 and that 49 is the reason they were so explicit in saying that CO RD 103 and 104 50 would be used. Commissioner Mackley said that the only impact that the 51 residents of the Ranch at Roaring Fork would see from this batch plant 52 would be if the road came directly from the pit onto highway 82, the 53 pit is there, the trucks are going to be rolling whether this Special 54 Use Permit is approved or not. Richard Hunt stated that this was not 55 what he is talking about. He said said that there is no money in 56 escrow from Zemlock to take care of maintaining the roads. 57 Commissioner Mackley explained that the responsibility doesn't stay 56 with Zemlock, it stays with the pit operator. Commissioner Mackley 59 stated that it sounded like the pit operator was taking responsibility 60 now for the roads. There was considerable discussion'• between the 61 Commissioners and Richard Hunt regarding escrow for road improvements 62 and inspections of the road. 63 Commissioner Mackley explained that they were sticking with the promise 64 by the previous Commissioners to use CO RD 103 and 104 as the access 65 for the gravel pit,. It was'also explained that if the concrete batch 66 plant wanted to icease its size, they would have to come back before 67 the Board. The plicant would also be responsible for the additional Page 14 1 impactthe road. The applicant is expe to generate 2 approxi ly 54 truck trips a day, 27 go out loaded with 7 yards of 3 concrete and 27 coming back empty. Richard Hunt asked if this batch 4 plant was rated at 40 yards an hour and he was told that was the 5 maximum. He stated that this could mean 6 trucks an hour. Dave said 6 that he was assuming 50% activity levels. Richard said that he did not 7 feel that the Commissioners have this pinned down. Chairman Arbaney 8 explained that if a road inspection occurred and the users of the pit 9 do not make the road improvements required, their permit can be 10 suspended or revoked until the improvements are made. 11 Commissioner Mackley asked how often the Road Foreman in that district 12 would be on that road. There was discussion about what would occur if 13 the Road Foreman noted damage on that road. Steve Zwick explained that. 14 there was a variety of ways to maintain the enforcement of compliance. 15 The obvious one is that the permit could be suspended and/or revoked 16 upon evidence of non-compliance. After discussion, it was decided that 17 a separate written agreement should be used to spell out what the 18 initial obligations of the applicant would be and what recourse would 19 be available regarding the ongoing maintenance obligation. King stated 20 that there would be several avenues available. 21 Bill Roberts stated that in the last year of business, they sold 22 197,000 tons of gravel and this would create about 10,000 trips on Che 23 road. There were no accidents and they run under the weight law. The 24 road did real well except the intersection where they twist. Bill 25 stated that Dick Casey would not add any more impact than what they 26 have already. 27 Bob Schenck of 0506 CO RD 105, Carbondale, said he can understand 28 everything that has been said today, he sees everybody's side to the 29 story but he wanted to reiterate that they were promised in 1981 that 30 there would be no further industrial expansion. He stated that he felt 31 the decision has already been reached but at the last meeting he was 32 advised that these industrial sites pay so much in taxes. Bob said 33 that he looked up in the County records and found that $93.90 was paid 34 for this 20 acre site. He wanted to know how he could get his property 35 zoned industrial so that he would not have pay any more taxes. 36 Commissioner Mackley asked it he took into account the personal 37 property taxes. Bob stated that he was talking land tax right now. 38 Bob stated that he felt that they were promised something different 39 than what they are getting now. Bob stated that things have changed a 40 lot and he hates to see all the extra traffic on the school bus route. 41 Bob also discussed the fact that 105 Road is not plowed as often aa 104 .42 Road is but there are only 3 people on 105 Road. 43 Commissioner Smith discussed the minutes of ,lune, 1983 where it stated 44 that Bob Schenck was to be given the findings from the Planning 45 Division when they received information that the Zemlock Gravel Pit was 46 not in violation. Bob stated that all he remembered was that he and 47 Clifford Cerise met with Leonard Bowlby. The road was not widened to 48 24 feet. He said the road into the pit was widened to 24 feet but they 49 were supposed to do the same down from 104 RD to 103 RD, from 103 RD to 50 Highway 82 and that was not widened. He stated that the operators of 51 the pit did some work to the road where the dip was a few months. 52 Commissioner Mackley said they were trying to correct the problems now. 53 Al Koeneke said that the minutes of July 25, 1983 stated "Commissioner 54 Velasquez noted that at the time of the Zemlock Special Use Permit 55 approval, the Board of County Commissioners gave a moral commitment 56- that there would be no further expansion of industrial use within that 57 area." Commissioner Mackley asked what Al's conception of industrial 58 use is. Al stated that if they were going to put machinery, equipment 59 and additional trucks in there, you're violating that commitment. 60 Commissioner Mackley asked if he was talking about the extent of the 61 pit itself and Al said he was comparing apples to apples and the apples 62 today is expansion of the permit. That is why we're having a meeting. 63 Al said that if we weren't talking about an additional expansion of the 64 industrial use, we wouldn't be here today. Dick Casey stated that what 65 the statement in the minutes means to him is that they are not going to 66 expand outside that pit area. Dick said that they would be located 67 within the pit boundaries. Al said that the people in his area were Page 15 1 given a mnitment that this would be usedai a gravel pit period. Al 2 stated t putting a cement batch plant 1 -ya pit is an expansion. 3 Al said ttat is the only reason anyone is here today and if it weren't 4 for that,, they would go ahead and mine gravel and that is what 1 am 5 saying to you Arnold. 6 Commissioner Mackley stated that every batch plant you see is in a 7 gravel pit. Where else .are..you.{:going to put a batch plant. When we 8 start having public hearings and the concerns we hear about an 9 innocuous little batch plant that can be pulled behind a semi -tractor, 10 we have problems in this county. Commissioner Mackley stated that it 11 seems to be all right when all the development is in the West end of 12 the County, everybody is all for it and nobody worries about what is 13 going to occur in that end of the County. We get an already permitted 14 gravel pit and put a concrete batch plant in it and people say it's all 15 right in the West end of the County but not near my house, 16 Chris Locher said that for two hours the Board has tried to find out 17 how much the County or the taxpayer does or does not get out of this 18 deal. Chris said that he would like to hear from the Board why they 19 have to find out for two hours who pays for a road that is going to be 20 used for hauling concrete. Chairman Arbaney said that it was also 21 going to be used for hauling children, groceries, entertainment, etc. 22 He stated that it is used a lot more for other uses as compared to the 23 gravel pit. There was additional discussion about the number of cars 24 versus the number of trucks also. Chris said that the Hawk Ridge 25 Subdivision has paid close to $80,000.00 in taxes this year. Chris 26 said he felt they paid their fair share for the use of the road. 27 Chairman Arbaney etated that Western Slope Aggregates personal property 28 taxes amount to a lot more than $93.00. IIe also stated than just the 29 licensing of one 18 -wheeler is in the neighborhood of $1,800.00 and 30 practically all of that goes to Road and Bridge and the State Highway. 31 Al Koeneke stated that it was his understanding that we came to this 32 meeting in the form of a hearing. He stated that he has only given 33 facts that he had dug up. Al said that he did not come here to discuss 34 his political philosophy. He asked if the Commissioners would listen 35 and then make their decision, 36 Barbara Ransford, lives at the Ranch at Roaring Fork, and expressed her 37 concerns about the quality of the water. She also stated that she was 38 not satisfied with the explanation given by the Engineer. Barbara 39 wanted to know what assurances Dick Casey was going to give them that 40 the value of their property is not going to deteriorate in the next 10 .41 or 20 years. She said that she wanted some sort of a trust fund or 42 some kind of an escrow account that will guarantee that if Casey 43 Concrete walks away from this, that the pond or settlement tank is 44 going to be cleaned up. Shawn explained that the water in pond would 45 be recycled. Barbara asked Casey Concrete if they could guarantee that 46 nothing from the pond would filter into the water table and down into 47 the Ranch property. Chairman Arbaney explained that there would be a 48 monitoring of that water. Barbara said that once it happens, it does 49 not matter how much it has been monitored. Barbara stated that if 50 there were no guarantees, it should be denied. 51 Dave Powell, a property owner on 103 Road, stated that there is already 52 a concrete plant within 5 minutes of this location. There is another 53 concrete plant within 15 minutes of this location. He felt that the 54 market is already sufficiently served by the current concrete plants 55 and that having a third concrete plant in the area offers no benefit to 56 the taxpayer and local residents of that area„ Chairman Arbaney stated 57 that free enterprise should allow Casey Concrete to compete. Chairman 58 Arbaney also discussed the impacts on the Grand Avenue Bridge. Dave 59 Powell felt that the addition of Casey Concrete is a degradation to 60 their environment and there should be an increase in benefits to offset 61 the degradation. He stated that he did not see this happening. 62 John Buchanan asked what happened to the Master Plan? Why has the 63 Master Plan not been taken into account here? He stated that this 64 would adversely impact residential taxes. John stated that this end of 65 the County pays the taxes for the balance of the County. Ile stated 66 that the Board has already made their decision. Page 16 1 Bill Rob, Western Slope Aggregates, sta that they have to run 2 under st standards of the Federal Gove nt with reference to the 3 ponds and settlement. This is checked all e time. Barbara Ransford 4 stated that she understands this. There are strict regulations but 5 things slip through the cracks. Bill Roberts said that there are 20 6 many regulations and that the Ranch itself is in violation of the Clean 7 water Act. Barbara discussed her concerns about the impacts of this 0 concrete plant on the property at the Ranch at Roaring Fork and 9 expressed her desires for an escrow account or trust fund set up by 10 Casey Concrete to guarantee the clean up if something happens. Bill 11 said that the liner specified by the law will not allow anything to 12 seep onto the property at the Ranch at Roaring Fork. 13 Bob Schenck presented a copy of an article from the Valley Journal 14 regarding the things he discussed with Larry Velasquez. This will be 15 exhibit °Y". Chairman Arbaney admitted Exhibit "Y" into the record. 16 Commissioner Smith asked Dave Michaelson if the number of trucks that. 17 can go in and out of the pit is specified if this permit is approved. 18 Dave said that no limit is specified. Dave stated that this permit is 19 tied to this specific batch plant. Steve Zwick said that if this is 20 approved, it is for a specific application as it has been submitted. 21 Another Special Use Permit application would be necessary to add 22 another batch plant. 23 Scott Writer, owner of property on CO RD 103 and 104, stated that he 24 thought the Commissioners said this would not increase traffic, that 25 what difference does it make if the trucks take out gravel or 26 concrete. Scott asked if there was a batch plant in there, would there 27 be less gravel trips. Chairman Arbaney said this would be dictated by 28 the economy and the market. There may be a lot of gravel trips and 29 hardly any concrete and there may a lot of concrete and less gravel. 30 Commissioner Mackley stated that he was talking about the life of the 31 pit as to whether it came out in a gravel truck or a concrete truck. 32 Scott said that he personally does not have a big problem with the 33 batch plant in the pit. His biggest and only concern is the traffic. 34 Scott said that the Comprehensive Plan under Industrial Commercial 35 states that one of the objectives is to encourage commercial 36 development to locate in areas conducive to safe traffic flow which 37 minimizes vehicular movement. The policy for that is commerical 38 vehicular movement should be concentrated along major roadways. Scott 39 said that CO RD 103 and 104 are not major roadways. Scott said his 40 opinion is that this batch plant should be approved contingent upon 41 direct Highway 82 access. Scott stated that from a planning 42 perspective and his own self interest, it makes no sense to route that 43 traffic through agricultural areas, through residential areas which the 44 comprehensive plan states shouldn't be done when there is an 45 alternative. Scott stated that the Comprehensive Plan under 46 Transportation states that the goal is to ensure that the County 47 transportation system is safe and functional for all types of traffic 48 and is compatible with the contours of the land. The Plan further 49 states under Objective No. 2: Ensure that roads that are considered 50 inadequate to serve additional development, are upgraded as development 51 occurs. Policy 2b: A road which is already at or above its designed 52 capacity and due to terrain and geology of the area, cannot be further 53 improved to safely accomodate additional traffic volumes may be a basis 54 for denial of a developmental proposal. No. 8 under Objectives says 55 that street design and improvement that minimizes driving hazards, 56 congestion and inefficient linking with other roadways, should be 57 promoted. Policy 8a states proposed road design and improvement that 58 will endanger drivers, create congestion or provide inadequate ingress 59 or egress to existing road systems will be discouraged. Ob: The 60 County encourages alternate routes around existing traffic congestion 61 areas. No. 9 Objective: Direct potentiallly conflicting types of 62 traffic such as commercial and local commuter traffic to roadways 63 capable of handling both types of traffic. No. 9 Policy: Heavy 6i industrial, commercial and intensive recreational traffic should not be 65 directed to residential collector, local and farm -to -market rights of 66 way. Under Compatibility Traffic Potential Problems: Dangerous 67 truck routes and high speed traffic on roads which access residential 60 areas. Performance Standards No. 2: Trucks, high speed or heavy 69 traffic, should not be routed through local roads, residential areas or Page 17 1 towns. tt again expressed his concerns out the traffic, not 2 concerns th the batch plant. Scott said t the people at the Ranch 3 at Roarin Fork bought property on Highway and this is the major 4 transportation arterial for this valley. The valley is less than 50% 5 built out if you look at existing zoning, projections, etc. Scott 6 feels that Highway 02 is where we should be focusing all of our 7 intensive uses as it is already an intensive use and we should try to 0 keep all those uses in one place. Scott stated that he knows that 9 Highway 82 is not part of the application, but if you look at this 10 purely from a planning perspective and with the context of the 11 Comprehensive Plan and what works best for the overall good of 12 everybody, that what the Board should do today is grant permission for 13 the batch plant to go in conditioned upon approved Highway B2 access. 14 He said that the highway corridor itself acts as a noise buffer. Scott 15 explained that when the alternative is available to directly access 16 Highway 82, you should do it with the permission and acceptance by the 17 Highway Department. Scott stated that there are a lot of residents who 19 live on CO RD 103, CO R❑ 112 and up above, Cattle Creek Road, CO RD 105 19 and he felt that every one of the residents would say that they felt 20 the truck traffic should access directly onto Highway 82. 21 Barry Fields stated that he lives in Carbondale and was planning on 22 buying a piece of property from Scott Writer at Wooden Deer. He 23 wondered why the trucks were using the County Road rather than 24 accessing the Highway directly. Barry discussed his concerns about the 25 truck traffic on the road. The potential for additional trucks on the 26 County Road, has made it difficult for them to make a decision about 27 purchasing the property. 20 After discussion, Commissioner Mackley made a motion that the public 29 testimony portion of the Public Hearing be closed but the Public 30 Hearing be held open so that the applicant and the Staff can work 31 together to see if a logical agreement can be drawn up pertaining to 32 the applicant's agreement or obligation to do some improvements and 33 ongoing maintenance on CO RD 103 and 104. If that can be done, the 34 meeting will continue in order for the Board to make the decision as to 35 whether this Special Use Permit should be approved or denied based on 36 all the testimony that has been received. Commissioner Smith seconded 37 the motion; carried. 38 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Public Hearing be continued 39 to March 1, 1993 at 4;00 P.M. Commissioner Mackley seconded the 40 motion; carried.. 41 AGREEMENT WITH ANDY JULIUS 42 Don DeFord presented a draft agreement with Andy Julius regarding 43 County property on Mamm Creek. After discussion, Don stated that he 44 would make the directed changes and send a copy to Andy for his 45 approval. 46 EXECUTIVE SESSION -DISCUSS CO RD 162 -POTENTIAL LITIGATION 47 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Board go into Executive 49 Session to discuss County Road 162 and potential litigation. 49 Commissioner Mackley seconded the motion; carried. Commissioner Smith 50 made a motion that the Board come out of Executive Session and 51 reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Mackley 52 seconded the motion; carried. 53 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Board recess until tomorrow 54 at 1:00 P.M. Commissioner Mackley seconded the motion; carried. Path. 18 1 PUBLIC 1 RINGS FOR ABATEMENTS 2 Commies r Smith made a motion that thelowing abatements be set 3 for Publ c Hearing for March 8, 1993 at 10:45 A.M.: Bill Griffin, Max 4 D. and Willetta J. Stanton and Helen Kralich. Commissioner Mackley 5 seconded the motion; carried. 6 7 CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD QF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS 0 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Chairman be authorized to 9 sign the following contract for services between Garfield County and Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains for $2,000.00 annual 10 payment. Commissioner Mackley seconded the motion; carried. 11 FINAL PLAT - LOS ADOBES 12 13 Dave Michaelson explained that things were proceeding but Ron Liston 14 wanted to request an extension for one month in order to have more time 15 to finish the subdivision improvement agreement and have the line of 16 credit. After discussion, Commissioner Mackley made a motion that a 17 one month extension be granted for the Final Plat for Los Adobes. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; carried.. 18 VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 19 20 Commissioner Smith discussed a letter received from Frank Breslin for 21 Valley Resources Management requesting information about how the County 22 felt about the future of valley Resource Management. After discussion, 23 the Board directed that Mildred give this letter to Chuck for him to answer. 24 25 CANYON CREEK ESTATE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT 26 Don DeFord stated that the original of the Letter of Credit from Vail 27 National Hank has been received and is appropriate to secure the 28 improvements in the amount of $63,000.00. Commissioner Mackley made a 29 motion that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; 30 carried. 31 32 AGREEMENT WITH JULIUS FOR TERMINATION OF LEASE 33 After discussion with the Board, Don DeFord stated that he would mall the agreement for the termination of the lease to Andy Julius for the 34 appropriate signatures. 35 RIVERFRONT INFORMATION DISPLAY 36 37 The Board discussed the request from the City of Glenwood Springs that 38 the Riverfront Information Display be set in the Courthouse. The Board 39 felt that the Courthouse would be an appropriate location and suggested it be set up near the Clerk and Recorder's Office. 40 AMENDED PLAT -TELLER SPRINGS 41 No one appeared for this item on the agenda. 42 EXECUTIVE SESSION -LITIGATION CONCERNING THE ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND 43 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Board go into Executive 44 Session to discuss litigation concerning the Road and Bridge Fund. 45 Commissioner Mackley seconded the motion; carried. Commissioner Smith 46 made a motion that the Board come out of Executive Session and 47 reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Mackley 48 seconded the motion; carried. 49 EXECUTIVE SESSION -DISCUSS CURRENT LITIGATION INVOLVING BLM AND OTHER 50 PARTIES AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION THAT WOULD INVOLVE THE COUNTY 51 Representatives from the BLM were present for this Executive Session. 52 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Board go into Executive 53 Session to discuss current litigation involving ALM and other parties 54 and potential litigation that would involve the County. Commissioner 55 Mackley seconded the motion; carried. Commissioner Mackley made a 56 motion that the Board come out of Executive Session and reconvene as 57 the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Smith seconded the 58 motion; carried. 59 CONTINUED PUBLIC I[EARING FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROCESSING 60 MATERIAL HSANDLING OF NATURAL RESOURCES AT BLUE PIT; LOCATE ON NORTH 61 SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 82 APPROXIMATELY TWO AND ONE-HALF f 2-1/2) MLLES 62 EAST OF CARBONDALE. APPLICANT: CASEY CONCRETE 63 Dave Michaelson explained that at the end of the last hearing the Board Page 10 1 directed`aff to draft a Roadways Improve Agreement for CO RD 2 103. Da aid that has been done and the ave been two meetings 3 with Case Concrete and their representative Steve Zwick stated that 4 after the meetings with Casey Concrete and their representatives, they 5 have an agreement that Staff believes is appropriate as far as 6 improvements to CO RD 103. Steve summarized the agreement stating that 7 it is tied to the issuance of a Special Use Permit and would not go 8 into effect unless a Special Use Permit is granted to Casey Concrete 9 for the operation of a concrete batch plant at the Blue Pit. Steve 10 said that upon completion of these specified improvements to CO RD 103, 11 Casey Concrete would be responsible for maintaining that section of the 12 road on an on-going basis. Steve stated that John Mechling of 13 CTL -Thompson, the engineering firm retained by Casey Concrete, was here 14 today. CTT, -Thompson will be doing a base line evaluation. Steve said 15 that there would be semi-annual evaluations in the spring and the 16 autumn to check on the condition of the road. Steve stated that the 17 goal is to bring CO RD 103 up to a score of -80 according to the Asphalt 18 Institute Rating System for Low Volume roads. 19 Mark Bean stated that King had an opportunity to review the proposed 20 agreement. King felt that the 80 score from the Asphalt Institute 21 requirement is what the County should be striving for and a 75 - 77 22 could be equivalent to an 80. Mark stated that the agreement includes 23 provisions for repaving or resurfacing the road and part of this 24 25 agreement recognizes that this particular development is really only going to affect one lane directly. Steve stated that ongoing 26 preventive maintenance is for both lanes but the remedial work as far 27 as Casey Concrete is concerned is only for downhill. 20 Dick Casey stated that they were in agreement with the road agreement. 29 Steve and Dave stated that snow plowing is the responsibility of the 30 County. 31 There was discussion about dust that would be created by the concrete 32 batch plant which would be minimal. The batch plant operates at 99% 33 efficiency. Shawn stated that the washout pit will be elevated and 34 there will probably be 5 -- 6 trucks washed out each day. Dave stated 35 that if a larger or additional batch plant was required, they would 36 have to come back to the Board for approval. Dick Casey stated that he 37 was agreeable to some form of terming. Dave stated that the pit was 38 operating under a non -discharge permit and Wright Water Engineers does 39 have baseline data and they will be monitoring the water for another 40 client. Mark said that King did not discuss centerline striping. 41 Bob Schenck stated that he didn't have much objection to the batch 42 plant going in there but he still felt that the logic should play a 43 part in this and it would make sense to go directly to Highway 82. Bob 44 felt that turn from CO RD 103 to CO RD 104 should be widened on the 45 down side. 46 Dick Casey asked if the road agreement could be changed on page 1 to 47 allow Casey Concrete to put the batch plant in without putting it into 48 operation. 49 There was discussion about Resolution 81-384 on condition #7 and #8. 50 Commissioner Mackley agreed with Bob Schenck's concerns about the 51 intersection of CO RD 103 and CO RD 104. Bill Roberts stated that 52 there are boundary problems there. Hill said there are three major 53 problems with a waste ditch that is coming across, an irrigation ditch 54 that ties in real close to that and a fence line that comes into that 55 corner. Bill said it is easy to fix if they do what they could do with 56 the right-of-way. Bill stated that the word they have received from 57 John Powers via John Martin is that they would not all'Qw anything to be 58 done to that intersection. Bill said that Western Slope Aggregates has 59 been trying to fix that intersection for some time but they need some 60 help with it. Bill said it would be nice if there was some type of 61 bike path or walkway far the kids that live back there. There was 62 discussion about the extension of a pipe downhill to improve the 63 turning ability of the trucks. It was agreed that the County would 64 commit to work with the gravel pit on this. There was additional 65 discussion about entering highway 42 directly from the pit. Bill Page 11 1 Roberts ated that they have full State *oval to put that 2 interne n down there pending Garfield ty were so concerns about safety also. y regulations. There 4 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Public Hearing be closed. 5 Commissioner Mackley seconded the motion; carried. 5 Commissioner Mackley stressed that there are more and more people in 7 the valley and if this Special Use Permit for Casey Concrete is 8 approved, every one is going to have to be good neighbors and live with 9 one another. 10 Commissioner Mackley made a motion that approval of a Special Use 11 Permit for processing material handling of natural resources at the 12 Blue Pit located on the North side of Highway 82 a pprximatel 13 one-half (2-1/2) miles East of Carbondale for the applicant, Caseyo and 14 Concrete. Thio record as well as the findings of fact and the 15 recommendations of approval as prepared by the Staff with 16 recommendation of approval by the Town of Carbondale be made a part of 17 the approval process, including items 1 - 7 on the Staff handout with 18 Staff drafting an appropriate resolution. Commissioner Smith seconded 19 the motion; carried. 20 After discussion, Steve stated that the direction from the Hoard is 21 that prior to erection and operation, Casey Concrete has to get the 22 Special Use Permit and prior to the Special Use Permit under the 23 resolution, he has to make the road improvements; that erection and 24 operation of the Batch Plant does not include site preparation and it 25 will be negotiated with the Staff. 26 Mark stated that when the Special Use Permit is issued, Casey Concrete 27 can go into operation. There might be some delays for the road 28 improvements because of the weather. 29 After discussion, it was agreed that the Board would sign the Road 30 Improvements Agreement when the Resolution is signed. 31 Bill Roberts stated that they appreciated being able to work directly 32 with the Staff. 33 OLD TREASURER'S RECORDS 34 Commissioner Smith stated that she felt that the old Treasurer's 35 records should go to the Library in New Castle instead of the Frontier 36 Historical Society. 37 PAYABLE CLAIMS AND PAYROLL EXPENDITURES 38 39 After discussion, Commissioner Mackley made a motion that the Payable 40 Claims for the first run of February and the payroll for the month of February be approved. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; carried. 41 42 MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 27 AND FEBRUARY 8 AND 9, 1993 43 The following corrections were made on February 8, 1993 minutes: Page 44 1 line 55-57, CAP should be corrected to CAPP; Page 3 line 4, Iced Tea 45 should be corrected to read ISTEA; Page 5 line 16, Daily Visitors 46 should be corrected to read Family Visitors; Page 6 line 12, insert 47 acre between 138.02 and tract; and Page 10 line 49, delete the 2nd 48 then. The following corrections were made on February 9, 1993 49 minutes: Page 1 line 54-55, Caton should be corrected to Cayton and 50 also add the CO RD number where the bridge is located; Page 1 lines 51 56-57, correct the sentence; Page 2 lines 29-32, work on the sentence 52 to make it clear; and on Page 3 line 42, make it clear that it is the 53 Moose Lodge in Rifle. Commissioner Smith made a motion that the 54 minutes of January 26 and 27, 1993 be approved and the minutes of February 8 and 9, 1993 be approved as corrected. Commissioner Mackley 55 seconded the motion; carried. 56 57 APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER SMITH AS DIRECTOR FOR CLUB 20 58 Commissioner Mackley made a motion that the Commissioner Smith be the 59 representative on the Board for Club 20. Chairman Arbaney stepped down as Chairman and seconded the motion; carried. 60 Commissioner Smith made a motion that meeting be adjourned. 61 Commissioner Mackley seconded the motion; carried. Targe l2 • AGREEMENT FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD) 103 RECCROE0 ,--. `f . - 3' L'.3CK /�, '.. MAY 4 1993 REC Gsi1‘ ki,.:. ^7ILDREC wLSOORF, CQuNTY CLERK TF S f � AGREEMENT made and entered into thisday of 1993, by and between Casey Concrete Co., a Colorado Cmrporation, hereinafter referred to as "Casey", and the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "County", who contract and agree as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, Casey has made application to the County for a Zoning Special Use Permit for processing and handling of natural resources, specifically the operation of a concrete batch plant, to be located on a parcel of land in the unincorporated area of Garfield County known as the Blue Gravel Pit, legally described as being in portions of sections 25 and 26, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to use County Roads 103 and 104 for vehicular access to its concrete batch plant operations from State Highway 82. The proposed operations have been projected; to produce varying levels of heavy truck traffic depending upon the demand for concrete produced, with estimates ranging from four to five truck trips per day to approximately 54 total trips per day; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that given the current condition of C.R. 103, from S.H. 82 to the intersection with C.R. 104, that it is inadequate to provide safe vehicular access for Casey's proposed operation until and unless certain specified improvements are made to it and it is maintained to a specified level; and WHEREAS, Casey does hereby contract and agree to make certain specified improvements to C.R. 103 and to maintain the road to a certain specified standard in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES CONTRACT AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Prior to the County's issuance of a special use permit to Casey authorizing the erection and operation of a concrete batch plant upon the subject parcel in accordance with the terms and conditions of approval set forth in the County's resolution granting approval to the zoning application, Casey agrees that it will be responsible for constructing certain improvements to C.R. 103, from its intersection with S.H. 82 to the intersection with C.R. 104, in order for that section of C.R. 103 to be in substantial compliance with the Garfield County Road Specifications, adopted and enacted on April 24, 1978, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 1 • BOOR 85t1r.: r..; 4" 9 2. The parties recognize that the adopted county road standards were designed for the construction of new roads and that C.R. 103 is an existing road for which it is not reasonable to seek total compliance with the county road standards. 3. Casey shall be deemed to have achieved satisfactory compliance with the adopted county road standards, sufficient to obtain the issuance of a zoning special use permit for the proposed concrete batch plant operation upon completidn of the following improvements to C.R. 103, to the county's satisfaction: a. A minimum roadbed width of twentysix feet, with two foot gravel shoulders on each side of the traveled section, constructed in accordance with the adopted county road specifications, as amended herein. b. The driving surface of the roadbed, for that portion which is widened in order to achieve a twentysix foot width, shall consist of either two layers of .75 inch chips or a 1.5 inch asphalt mat, meeting applicable Colorado State Department of Transportation Current Specifications for material and construction methods, at Casey's option. The driving surface, together with any base or sub -base which may be required in order to achieve compliance with the adopted county road specifications, shall be constructed in accordance with a detailed road plan to be developed by Casey, subject to the County's review and approval. Casey may request that application of the specified asphalt mat be deferred to a specific date certain, after the County's issuance of the special use permit, due to inclement weather conditions or other good cause, as determined by the County. Casey's request to the County shall be in writing and shall specify the particular reasons for delaying the application of the specified asphalt mat. It shall be in the County's sole discretion as to whether or not good cause exists to grant Casey's request to defer installation of the specified asphalt That to a date certain. c. Solely for the purposes of this agreement the adopted County Road Specifications are amended by deletion of the following specified sections: 1. Right -of -Way, in its entirety; II. Road Construction, D; III. Utilities, in its entirety; IV. Roadway Design Criteria, A, C, D, E, F; V. Project Plans, B, C, D; VI. Drainage Structures, A, C. d. In lieu of the deleted provisions of the County Road Specifications, the following standards, in addition to those previously specified herein, shall apply to Casey's construction and maintenance of improvements to the specified section of C.R. 103: i. positive drainage shall be achieved; ii. areas where the road surface has settled are to be regraded to plan and specifications, with culverts to be 7 aux 86:11.:500 repaired or replaced as indicated on the plans; iii, shoulder drainage shall be improved by construction of bar ditches as required to achieve positive drainage; iv. in those sections of the road where the existing surface is to be widened the existing mat shall be neat lined where it abuts the new road surface; v. a soils engineering report from a qualified geotechnical firm shall be obtained evaluating the requirements for base and sub -base construction and materials for those sections of the road way which are to be widened in order to achieve the twenty-six foot wide roadbed, and Casey shall comply with the recommendations in such report regarding the construction and materials for the required base and sub- base. e. Casey shall install additional traffic control devices within the specified section of C.R. 103, specifically, truck traffic and truck turning warning signs. Signage shall be installed in conformity with the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 4. Upon completion of the improvements to C.R.• 103 specified herein Casey shall be responsible for maintaining that section of roadway on an ongoing basis. Such maintenance shall include regular and periodic crack sealing, pot hole patching, and seal coating of the roadway paved surface. These activities shall be performed in accordance with generally accepted industry standards. 5. A qualified independent professional geotechnical or civil engineering firm shall be retained by Casey, at its expense, and acceptable to the County. This engineering firm shall be responsible for conducting a baseline evaluation of that section of C.R. 103 which is the subject of this agreement, locating survey stations as appropriate, and conducting periodic evaluations of the status and condition of the roadway. Such evaluations shall occur twice per calender year from the County's issuance of the zoning special use permit to Casey. The first evaluation in each calender year shall be performed between March fifteen and April fifteenth, the second evaluation shall be performed between September fifteenth and October fifteenth. Both the baseline and periodic evaluations shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of The Asphalt Institute's "A Pavement Rating System for Low -Volume Asphalt Roads", Information Series No. 169 (15-169), November 1977, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Copies of the engineering firm's reports shall be furnished to the County upon receipt by Casey. 5. Should the independent engineering firm's periodic evaluations find and determine that the condition rating for any section of the subject roadway has a score of less than 80, subject to a margin of error of (+)(-) 5 points, for an acceptable score in the range from 75 to 85, Casey shall be responsible for 3 • • MX 861 (201 performing, or causing to be performed, such remedial actions, as recommended by the independent engineering firm, subject to the County's review and approval, in order for the subject section of roadway to achieve a condition rating of at least 80. Casey's obligation for performance of any remedial work shall be limited to the downhill lane of C.R. 103, from its intersection with C.R. 104 to its intersection with S.H. 82. 7. Should Casey suspend operations of -the concrete batch plant, located in the Blue Gravel Pit, for which it has received a zoning special use permit, for a period in excess of thirty days, it shall provide prompt written notice of such suspension of activities to the County. Should Casey resume permitted operations, following issuance of the notice of suspension, it shall forthwith provide written notice of such resumption to the County. During the period following the County's receipt of notice from Casey, until the resumption of operations, any of Casey's ongoing road maintenance obligations shall be deemed suspended. However, such suspension shall not apply to any required remedial work which resulted from road deterioration which occurred prior to the County's receipt of Casey's notice of suspension of its activities at the pit. 8. This agreement shall remain in full -force and effect for the term of the zoning special use permit for a concrete batch plant on the subject property. This agreement shall be binding upon the partys' heirs, successors, and assigns. Should Casey, its heirs, successors, or assigns, notify the County in writing that it has, or will by a specified date, cease to use C.R. 103 for vehicular access from S.H. 82 to concrete batch plant facilities on the subject property, this agreement shall ipe deemed to be terminated as to Casey's ongoing maintenance obligations, as specified herein. This agreement shall be deemed effective only if the County issues a Special Use Permit to Casey for the subject facility which authorizes and requires that access shall be off of C.R. 103. 9. For the purposes of this agreement the names and addresses of the parties are as specified hereinbelow: GARFIELD COUNTY: GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE SUPERVISOR P.Q. BOX 2254 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-2254 Telephone: 303-945-6111 Casey Concrete: RICHARD CASEY D/B/A CASEY CONCRETE, CO. P.O. BOX 1815 Rifle, CO 81650 Telephone: 303-625-3489 10. This agreement may only be signed and executed by the parties Done at Glenwood Springs, CO, abovewritten. ATTEST: ATTEST:. .. . 'A) erk to theBoard 3 41/ BOOX 861•5O2 amended by a written agreement hereto. on the day and year first CASEY CONCRETE, CO. c _ Richard N. Casey BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLO 0 " * Elmer "Bucke krbaney-'/,, Chairman 1 • • EXHIBIT Application filed in 1994-5 to Change Access Plant denied by Planning & Zoning (Application did not submit to BOCC) REQUEST: • • PC 218/95 PROJECT 1NF.RMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS An Amendment to Resolution No. 81-384, for a Special Use Permit to allow for the permanent access to Slate Highway 82 for the BlueGravel Pit APPLICANT: Western Slope Aggregates LOCATION: Located in portions of Section 25 and 26, T7S" R88W of the 6th P.M.: more practically described as a parcel north of State Highway 82, across for the Ranch at Roaring Fork (The 'Blue Gravel Pit). SITE DATA:. A parcel of approximately 110 acres WATER: Existing adjudicated water rights SEWER: Chemical Toilets / IS DS _EXISTING ZO NJNt Y: A/R/RD ArLICI7NT2sI-r: AIR/RD, Ranch at Roaring Fork PID, DIS r_ RPLATIQNs1IJP TO TI.InECIMPRB?II1?NsLvn PIAN The subject property is located in District A - Town of Carbondale Urban Area of Influence. IL DESCRIPTrON Of PRQPOSA)t� A. ,Site Description: The site, known as "The Blue Gravel Pit", has been operating under a S cial Use Permit (81-384) since 1981. A vicinity map is attached on Pad / 11. Requested Amendment: Resolution 81-384 (attached on pages .J_ + I included condition (#6), which restricted access to the pit via County Road 103 and 104. The applicants are requesting the addition of a permanent access directly to Slate Highway 82, in addition to the existing access onto County Roads 103 and 104, Access would be via two existing roadways, the upper access being on the flue property, and the lower route bein°§r• within S1 -I 82 ROW. The Stale has approved the access request (see page I •17A schematic showing the location of the access roads is attached on pale I)1 In 1993, by Resolution No. 93-051 the County approved the temporary use of this access by the applicant to fulfill a contract with the Department of • 0 Transportation. Access to the SU 82 site using the proposed route was from from June 1st, 1993 to November 1, 1993. In MA IOILISS.LIpS AND CUNCEI.NS. 1. IrnpalitSlatemenl.: Section 5.03.07 requires the submittaI of an impact statement for all industrial uses within the County that require a Conditional or Special Use Permit. Section 5.03.07 requires the following: 1. The impact statement muse show that -the use shall be designed and operated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the County, Stale and Federal governments, and will not have an adverse effect on: A.) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface runoff, stream flow or ground water; D.) Use of adjacent land through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; C.) Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions; 2. Truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses shall not create hazards or nuisances to areas elsewhere in the County; 3. Sufficient distancesshall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise he damaged by operations of the proposed uses; A cop of the impact study submitted with the application is attached on pages . Staff agrees with the applicant's assertion that the proposed amendment does not increase the truck noise impacts on the Ranch at Roaring Fork above the current levels created by the existing highway traffic Additionally, the proposed access will reduce the traffic impacts on County Road 103 and 104, by the reduction of the majority of the truck traffic onto those roads and the CR103d[-lighway 82 intersection. impacts on Adjacent l.ancl: Primary impacts to adjacent lands by the amendment to the haul route are two -fold: the impact of removing traffic from the current CR 103/104 route; and the impact associated with the new haul route. Staff suggested during previous hearings on this project, that the current route creates an incompatible traffic mix between industrial, residential and school bus traffic on these roads. Due to the miminirnal right-of-way width on the 103/104 route, the direct route proposed in the arnendment is preferable due to safety concerns, as well as energy conservation. Adjacent land uses from the proposed route, namely residents from the Ranch at Roaring Fork, could experience additional noise. The applicants have indicated their willingness to mitigate these impacts by widening and paving the road and revegetating the disturbed areas. Staff has suggested in the past that • the noise impacts associated with the alternative access would he.minimal due to the volume of traffic currently using SH 82. Additionally, the nonuse ofjal:e breaks corning into the Highway 82 access point and down the hill, except in an emergency, will reduce the amount of noise. The use of this access for a temporary access by the applicant provided an opportunity to assess the long- term impacts of this access alternative. There were no complaints received by the County as a result of this use, which was very heavy. Traf'fc Impact;;: The -primary issue for the access amendment are the impact on adjacent land uses (1(b) above) and the impact on truck and automobile traffic (##2 above). Note the amendment does not increase the level of activity in the pit itself, but only the haul route from the pit Conditions of the State permit include full acceleration/deceleration lanes for the upper access road. IV. .STIC;Ci,F STF D FINl7INGS That themeeting before the Plannning Commission wasextensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, mailers and issues weresubmitted and that all interested parties were heard at the meeting. 2. That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. For the above stated and other reasons, llie proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. nPCOMMPfyIiATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the amendment based on the following condition: That all verbal and written representations made by the applicants in the application and at the public hearing shall be considered conditions of approval unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Jake brakes will not be used, except in an emergency. All other conditions ofapproval contained in Resolution 81-384 must be complied with by the applicant. Violation of these conditions could result in revocation of theexisting SUP. robi/ c. /,f 1 i //4 rr+ . 4 ce »-i . ~ F , a / I £ 74(-6-1- 711. d.,L„ Lr /I J/ Aiit pec c-e_r ► n. fu- .o f! /a 9- i -d 4.44. 3 APPLICATION SPECIAL./CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Dula: December 15, 1994 Applicant. Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. Address of Applicant: Post Office Box 910, Carbondale, Colorado 61623 Special/Conditions' Use. Permanent. Highway 82 Access Legal Description: Parcel of land located in portions of Section 25 and 26,T7S, R88W of the 6th P.M. (See attached for legal description.) Practical Description (location with respect to highways, county roads, and residences): Parcel located just north of State Highway 112, across from the Ranch of Roaring Fork. (Blue Gravel Pit.) Requirements: 1. Plans and specifications for proposed use (hours of operation, number ofvehicleslday, locution and size of structures, etc.). 2.Existing orproposed met hod ofsewage, source ofdisposal and water. Road access and other information deemed necessary lo explain proposed use. 3. A vicinity map drawn to scale depicting the subject properly, location, and use of building and structures on adjacent lots. 4. An impact statement on the proposed use where required by Sections 5.03-5.03.12 of Zoning Regulations. 5. A copy of Assessor's map showing properly; and a listing of all adjoining properly owners amid property. G. A base fee of $ 525.00 shall be charged for each application and shall be submitted with the application, additional charges may be imposed if county review costs exceed the base fee. 7. Attach a copy of proof of ownership for your property (deed, title insurance). If public notice is required, notice provided by the Planning Department shall be sent out at least fifteen (15) days prior to hearing by return -receipt mail to all the above noted adjoining property owners. Mailing is the applicant's responsibility and proof of mailing must be presented at the hearing. Additionally, the same no tice shall hepublished one (1)dine inthe official County newspaper at least fifteen (15) days prior to such hearing date. Applicant shall bear the cost of publication and be responsible for presenting Ilia "Proof of Publication" at the hearing. The above information is correct to the best of my knowledge. WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATES; 111 Applicant 14111tam M. Roberts, President December 15, 1994 Dale Western Slope A C7(74-,9 te r Oece!Wcr 22, 1994.:: TO: Officials and Public of Garfield County • EROM: Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. RE:. Special Use Permit for Permanent Highway.82 Access' . • ' • . • ; ...t . .. -.. • The purpose of this application is to modify the access route to Western:. , . -‘ 'Slope Aggregates, also know as the Blue Pit. Currently:the 'access is: -"' from County. Roads 103 and 104. We would like ,to.'add..0ireCt access to .." ...- -, ..:.'',....:;. . . . .. . .., . . , . .. ',Highway 82 yia the existing ranch road. . -. . ,.......•:. ' - ,' : ; • ° . f.,' '-...-• •., .. , • • • ''. :17 . • . Western. -Slope- AggredaZes,-':In • •. W111 lam.1. Reberts - President 5. a" lier.r 910 . Cirbonthde, Calocirlo 81(,2.j (303) Y/L.1-9.424 - . • -= • • '..; • - : , • 7' ' ; • ' .'" .1 • Western Slope Aggregate SPFCTAT, UST, PI.RMIT FOR PF.RMANFyT' ACCESS - IMPACT REPORT This impact report is offered as a supplement to the previously submitted special use permit application. The report responds to the subject and issues identified in Section 5.03.07 - Impact Report and Section 5.03.08 - Industrial Performance Standards. I TRODUCT10 The site which is the subject of this report is presently occupied by a gravel mining and crashing operation which was permitted in 1981 (Garfield County Resolution No. 81-38-). This special use permit application requests a change in the access route to the minirng site. The operational plan has been brought up to date, but the remaining aspects of the proposed operation will remain consistent with the presently in force use permit. A more detailed explanation of the proposed revisions and additions is included in the text accompanying the permit application and will not be repeated here. This report intends to describe any possible impacts of the operation and, tivhere appropriate, to discuss mitigation measurers. CLQVE [VIN(-' LAWS AND REGUI ATI 7[ i .The operations at the site falls under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (NLRB) and the Colorado Department of Health. The existing IURB operations permit for the site has been transferred into the name of Western Slope Aggregates. The pit is presently in operation under the provisions of Permit NO. M-81- 207, Revision No. SO -02. The Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health has issued an Emission Permit for the site, Permit No 83GA233Ia.. T - There are no active natural streams heading on or running across the project area. The Basin Ditch and a feeder ditch cross the project and irrigates lands within the project boundary. 'Ihe mining and reclamation plans incorpor-at , °visions for maintaining uninterrupted flows in these ditches. The hydrologic characteristics of the reclaimed area following mining will be very similar to those existing today in that surface drainage is now and will remain tributary to the Roaring Fork River either by surface flow or entry into tkre water table. .ir'. .•t it . tiijlf jf',1Lr�ll Plant operational water will come from the landowners water rights in the Basin Ditch. Water rights for the pit operation provided for tiuougii District Court, Water ]Division No. 5, Case No. 87 -CW -364. Operational water requirements will be minimized by maximum recirculation of wash water. Any surface drainage potentially contaminated in the operation area will be collected, settled, and skimmed for floating contamination prior to its release from the project area. The topographic uha actor of the pile site directs ail surface drainage for potentially disturbed areas back into the pit. F.VRSSTf1NS The proposed operations are potential sources of dust, noise and vibration. The previously discussed Emission Permit requires certain procedures and equipment to restrict the release of fugitive dust or other air pollution from the mining operation. The most intense source of dust is from vehicular traffic at the pit site and on the existing access road. The frequent application of water will control dust at the pit site. The new access road would be asphalt paved. The pit site is surrounded by considerable acreage owned by the Applicant, except east of the site where the Carbondale Landfill was located. This provides a significant buffer area over which any arrant dust may dissipate. This butter is also significant in reducing any impacts that noise or vibration might have on adjacent properties. The apparent closest residents are located at the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The vibrations generated by the rock crusher or dozer activities are not detectable at the site boundaries. WILDLIFE The majority of the mine site has historically been in agricultural production. This proposal does not alter the area of disturbance created by the mining operation as defined by the existing special use permit. Reclamation of the site will result in slopes that will develop a climax vegemtion dominated by sage and will provide quality forage for deer. The small area at the bottom of the mine site is anticipated to be returned to agricultural uses. The proposed new access will not significantly disturb the slope facing the highway beyond the scar created by the existing ranch access road. All disturbed areas remaining after construction of the proposed access will be topsoiled and re -vegetated. The upper portion of the road is incorporated into the disturbed area generated by the highway construction. 1 On August 5, 1991, Mr. Rick Adams, ©dicer with the Division of Wildlife, was met at the site and provided with a description of the proposed modification of the special use permit. It is anticipated that itifr. Adams will address a letter to the county with his comments regarding the application. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Presently, access to the pit site for all traffic is provided via County Roads 103 and 104. The proposed access will remove almost all pit traffic from these county roads and provide a much more direct and safer route to Highway 82 for this project. Elapsed time for truck trips will be reduced by approximately ten minutes by the proposed road with reduction in fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. The long term detrimental impacts of the truck traffic on the structural and surface conditions of the county road will also be eliminated. The 103/104 Road access would be used for deliveries to destinations north of the pit_ This route would be used to keep the trucks from going down to Highway 82 from the pit then back up 103 Road past the pit.. The removal of almost all truck traffic from County Roads 103 and 104 will make these roads safer for the increasing residential, agricultural, and school bus traffic. DOMES'TIc WATER AINJD WASTEWATER The primary factor influencing water and wastewater services on the site are the cumber of employees located on site. The operators project a range of frve (5) to ten (10) employees to be located at the pit site. The existing well and bottled drinking water will provide domestic water while wastewater will he processed by a standard individual septic disposal system. Restrootn facilities will be located in the pit maintenance building, and chemical toilets will be used for pit operators and truck drivers. ester n Slope A gr`e.ate TO: Officials and Public of Garfield County FROM: Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. RE: Permanent Highway 82 Access Road This special use permit application represents a request for the addition of the permanent use of an existing ranch road to the existing permit issued in the name of Scan and Dee Blue and Zemlock and Sans, Inc. (Garfield County Resolution No 81-384). The general character and nature of the gravel mining operation shall remain the sante as in the existing permit. Present access to the permit is via County Road 103 and 104. The new access road would utilise the existing road from the gravel pit to Highway 82. Under the present permit work hours are 7:OOam through 5:00pm daily. Existing structures onsite presently include a scale house (200sf), maintenance shop (3600sf), and the crushing equipment. The existing methods of sewage disposal are portable chemical toilets for the gravel pit operation and truck drivers and a. leach field for shop personnel. Water for pit activities, including washing of material and equipment and dust suppression, is obtained from the Iandowners water rights in the Dasin Ditch in the summer. Water rights for the pit operation are provided liar through District Court, Water Division No. 5, Case No. 87 - CW -364. Water will be trucked in for winter use as needed. We currently hold an active State Highway Access Permit #393015 with the Colorado Department of Transportation to access Highway 82 from the proposed access road (see attached). The proposed permanent permit provisions offer the following benefits to the county, general public, and rile applicant: P.4( ii+?\ '� (7.,L.1.)e I , Almost all truck traffic will be removed from County Roads 1113 and 104. This will remove the conflicts of truck traffic with the growing residential traffic on County Road 103, increasinu. public safety. Conflict between school bus traffic and the existing bus stop at the 103/104 intersection would also Sc removed. Maintenance requirements on 10.3 Roads will also be reduced. The 103/104 Road access would still be used for delivers north of the pit. This route would be used to keep trucks. from going down to Highway 82 froth -the; pit then back up 103 Road past the pit. 2. The new route will reduce the trip time by ten minutes over the present access. This will save ill& and improve truck efficiency. This is of course beneficial to the applicant, but. it is, in the long run, also beneficial to the public. 3. Acceleration/deceleration lane conflicts on Highway 82 at 103 Road will be eliminated. Currently the west bound accei lane is Roaring Fork Redi-Mix's decei lane.. 4. The access road is currently in place. It was constructed within the Highway 82 Four Lane Project. The existing road would be widened, paved, and disturbed areas re -vegetated. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED REVISIONS Truck traffic will be accelerating and decelerating in the vicinity of the Ranch at Rowing Fork, introducing some additional noise in the area. The impact of this noise is minimal when considered in context with the existing noise levels o.f IIighway 82 traffic: volumes. MINING OPERATIONAL CRITERIA 1. All mining operations will bc contained within the boundaries of the site as dcfined by the "Pyleets and 13ounds" description attached with this application. 2. The hours of extractive operations shall be Limited to 7:OOam through 5:OOpm daily. 3. Dust conditions on the permanent access drive will be minimal due to the fact that the road way will be asphalt paved. 4: Water shall be used as a dust suppressant in the pit area and applied in a frequency and tnazuter sufficient to mitigate: any adverse impact from dust. • • LEGAL n ESCRIPTION The following described lands in Section 25 and 36T7S, R88W of the 6th RM. Those portions allots 8,9,10, l 5, and 16 Section 25 lying in the S 1/2 of S1/2 of Section. 25 and lots 2 and 3 in Section 3i`+ excepting any part of the above named lots in Section 25 and 36 lying southerly of the not therly ROW of State Highway 82 and excepting any part of the above named lots in Section 25 lying within the parcel of land described in the Quit Claim Deed document number 288920, book 516, page 393. Also excepting the portion of lot 16 in Section 25 lying southerly of the centerline of the Basin Ditch. SI f 133 0 0 n. IJ a 1' (i) 0 •Oq q C1q F 11111 COL ,'RADO DEPARTMEI. _ OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHIOY ACCESS PERMIT • _acslJurisdiciion; Gartlald County Dist/Section/Petrol: 3216 DOT Permit No.; 393015 Permit Fee; $300.00 Dale of transmittal; 2- le -91 ViE PERMITTEE; jean N. Blue and Dee Blue 0406 County Road 102 Carbondale, CO 81623 Is hereby granted permission to construct and use an access lo the slate highway al the location noted below. The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with Ole terms and conditions oI this permit. including the State I-IIghway,Access Code and listed attachments. This permit may be revoked by the issuing authority if al any lime luta permitted access and its use violate any of the terms and conditions of this permit. The use 01 advance warning and construction signs, Hashers, barricades and Naggers are required at all times during access construction within Slate right-of-way in conformance with the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, Part VI. The issuing authority. the Department and (heir duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any actloil for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise al the permit. °CATION: On the north side of State Highway 82, a distance of 3696 feet east from !tile Post 14; 0466 County Road 104, Carbondale. CCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO; Western Slope Aggregates, Inc. (110 acres) and 35 acres agricultural. tTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS: See Attached Sleets (2). MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. By (X) Not Required Dale Title Upon the signing el tills permit the nominee agrees 10 the Ierrns and conditions and referenced entachtnnatls contained herein. Ail construction shall be completed in an expeditious and sate manner and shall be finished within 45 days from Initiation. The permitted access shall be completed In accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to being used. The permtltae shall notify Don Obert with the Colorado Department of Transportation In al 9671-.93/11 al laud 48 hours prior to commencing construction within the Slate Highway right-of-way. The person signing as the permittee must be the owner or legal representative of the properly served by the permitted access and have h l authority to accept the permit and all it's farms and conditions. Permittee (X) I� f This perinit is not valid unlit signed by a dui authorized representative at the Department. DEPARTMENT OF THA fj1,5PORTA JION, STATE OF COLORADO ' d-v-� Dale _kf/aa Ry (X) Date (!]ale of Issue) Til Adiniulst.rator, Access Coznrni tt:ee .roisr rslau tion: nuyrrHa:a, I.f �,ku Cul+las ua. CUss+[r I nlalrast Ino mll I ur.:d Aullrrnu 1' IiW Pravitrus 5& tuor. aro GUaulalu unJ will urd lw uaud cn0r F1m NIDI 1101 • PERMIT NO. 193015 Local ordinance requires•a construction permit from Garfield ;County. 1 Driveway shall be constructed 30 feet wide with 50 foot: radii. Surfacing for driveway approach is required as follows: 12" of class 1 gravel in 2, 6" lifts; 6" of class 6 gravel in 1, 6" lifts. 2 Also 4" of 1tBP in 2, 2" lifts of grade E, EX, or equivalent. The asphalt cement in the HBP shall be AC 10. 3 Fill/cut slops shall be at a 6:1 slope on the roadway and at 6:1 on the access approach. 4 It is the resporlsibility of the property owner to prevent all livestock from entering the State Highway right-of-way. Any livestock that does enter the Highway right-of-way is the responsibility cf the property owner. 5 A new 18" CMP culvert• shall be used. All culverts (side drains) installed in open ditches shall have flared end sections.. 6 Highway widening for the right tura deceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 485 feet:,long, including a 270 foot taper. 7 highway widening for the rig& turn acceleration lane shall be 12 feet wide and 960 feet 1d6g, including a 270 foot taper. 8 Lanes shall be constructed as per Colorado Department of Transportation specifications, with the following material placed for final grade: 12" ABC, Class 1; 6" ABC, Class 6; and 4" of HBP, Grading E or EX place in the following lifts: 2 6" lifts class 1; 1 6" lift class 6; 2 2" lifts HBP. Shoulders along the speed change lanes shall be 4 feet wide and paved. The new pavement shall slope on the same plane as the present pavement surface. The entire roadway shall be overlaid with 1.5" of 1IBP. A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER must provide construction, striping and signing plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for approval 45 days prior to construction. Design plans must included but not limited to, layout of speed change lanes, utility locations, drainage present and proposed, right of way lines, traffic control devices, cross sections on 50 foot intervals and clear zone analysis. The placement of striping on the new pavement must be verified and accepted by the Colorado Department of Transportation 24 hours prior to actual striping. A traffic control plan must be prepared by an American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) certified individual or Professional Traffic Engineer, consistent with the M.U.T.C.D. and approved by the Department and local issuing authority 7 days prior to any construction within the right of way. A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER must provide certification that all work was done meeting specifications. CERTIFICATION will be sent to the Coloradq Department of Transportation. NOTE': Pavement design for construction may be modified upon submission of an approved design by a professional engineer. Such design shall have n Structural Number no less than 3.36. Written approval of the modified design is required before construction. 9 No drainage from this site shall enter onto the surface of the highway. All existing drainage structures shall be extended to accommodate all new construction and safety standards. 10 Contractor shall follow the applicable construction specifications set for by the Department of Transportation in the latest manual Standard S>ecjfications for Road and Bridge Construction. The property owner is responsible for any utilities disrupted by the construction of this driveway and all expenses incurred for repair.' Any damage to any existing highway facilities shall be repaired prior to continuing other work. Compaction of sub -grade, embankments and backfill shall comply with Section 203 of the Department of 'Transportation Standard Specifications. The tttst 20 Leet beyond the closest highway lane, including speed change lanes, shall slope downa d away from the !highway at: a 2% r jl' " • GARl'II°1.D COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT John Foulkrotl Jim Snyder Carl Schiesser Pat Fitzgerald Dick Stephenson Ilerbert Nelson Mark Bean, Director Dave Michaelson, Planner Don DeFord, County Attorney Meeting called to order. Roll call taken will) Calvin Lee and Philip Vaughan absent. On the minutes of August 10, 1994, bottom of page 2, 201 centerline upslope and 10' downslope needs to be corrected to read 20' centerline downslope and page 3 Nation Forest needs to be corrected to read National Forest. Herb Nelson ))loved to approve the August 10, 1994 and September 14, 1994 minutes. Dick Steplensou seconded. Motion passed by voice vote. Public 1 -Tearing for a Preliminary Plan for Deer Crest Orchard, located in the Silt Mesa area, northwest of the Town of Silt. Applicants: James R. & Diane Barry. Don DeFord questioned the applicants regarding nailing, posting and publication- Mr, DeFord determiner) that )nailing, posting :incl publication was sufficient and the hearing could proceed. Pat Fitzgerald swore in all persons wishing to speak at this public hearing. Dave Michaelson entered the following exhibits into the record; a. Proof of Publication b. Return Receipts c. Staff Report d. Letter front Shawn & Barbara McElroy Mr. DeFord told the Commission that the record should show that both associate members are voting members. Mr. Michaelson summarized the proposal. The property was originally platted as a portion of Tract 44, Antler's Orchard Plat IJI, recorded in 1909. Access to the site is via a private easement from CR 233, platted and recorded as a part of the Antler's Orchard Subdivision. The applicants are proposing to split the 10 acre parcel into two parcels. Review agencies that have commented on the proposal include Division of Water Resources, and Bookclilf Soil Conservation District. In louse domestic water will be provided by individual well. Two well applications are pending with the Colorado Division of Water Resources. The applicants will enter into a contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District ;ts part of ars augmentation plan. The Soil District expressed concerns regarding revegetation, animal control, irrigation ditch maintenance, drainage, soil disturbances of steep slopes and water quality. Major issues and concerns included soils/topography, fire protection, zoning, and driinage/irtigatiorr ditches. Staff recommended approval with 9 conditions. t rresliuns and comments linins ilrc Planning Ctyrttmission included the ariLur;,i-lnrtcr's Orchard • • Subdivision, veil maintenance, dog limits, drainage, water, approval of an augmentation plan, ditch ttlaintettauce and kennels. Debbie Drlley, Sclunerrser Gordon Iv1eyer, addressed the issues of utilities, dog control, and the applicants leave no objections 0) the conditions of approval. Ms, l]ulcy also tis ti sed the percolation tests, and GPIbI's for the wells Shawn McElroy, Abel IAtiicez and Rick 13ertnlini addressed the Commission and voiced their objections regarding the splitting ofihe property. Mr. McElroy told the e:omtitissiou when he bought his property it was represented as a 10 acre. parcel. Mr. 13ertoliui also had concerns about the water, individual septie systems, dry wells and the roads. James Barry addressed the concerns regarding alae contribution to utilities arid road maintenance. Dick Stephenson moved to approve the Deer Crest Orchard Preliminary Plan with conditions #9 changed to read with kennels and 112 to read with other associations. Motion died tura lack of'a second. John Foulkrod moved to deny tite proposal for the Deer Crest Orchard Preliminary Plan. Calf seconded. Motions passed 5-2. Public Meeting for a Zone District Change from A/R/RD to RIG/UD, located between the old and new State Highway 82 alignment, at the Eagle/Gartield County line. Applicants: Bob Arnold and Ed Podolak. Dave Michaelson entered the following exhibits into the record: a. Stair Report b. Letter born Jeni Zamora C. Letter from S. Harris d. Letter fi'oin Cindy !Horst e. Letter from Mrs. Blanch f Letter from Kristen Lester g. Letter from 13ernita Hammond Mr. Michaelson summarized the proposal. The current alignment of S1 -I 82 has created two geographically separate parcels, an 1 1.791 acre parcel on the south side of the new four lane and a 28.31 parcel to the north of the new four lane. The north parcel was approved for 48 multi -family and 16 single flintily homes in 1994. "Tate southern parcel (this request) is located between the old and new S1-1 82, and includes numerous outbuildings and three mobile Imotnes. Representations by the applicant indicate that the two acre parcel occupied by the old homestead will remain under A/R/RD. The applicants have requested a zone district amendment for the eastern ncost nine acres from A/R/RD to It/GIUD. The lt/GIUD zone district has a 7,500 square foot minimum lot size, which represents the densest residential zone district allowed in the County, independent of the PUD process. Maor issues and concerns included applicable state regulations, change for the public good, change of circumstance, compliance with adjacent lard uses, public Health, safety rind welfare, and court precedence. Staff has recommended approval of the proposed zone district amendment. Stale statute does not allow conditions of approval to be placed on zone district amendments, and staff recommended that the proposed PUD address the issues of open space provisions within the PUD be used to buffer the proposed units from the lower density uses south of old S11 82; that the applicant pursue u community outreach approach prior to sinal design to address issues raised by ;adjacent residents; that the applicant consider lemming and landscaping the frontage with old 52, and drat the fall) application include a landscaping plan to assist the County and adjacent ballet owners in reviewing tate • • PIA) and that the proposed access plan is designed to be compatible with existing driveways and accessways to residential uses south ()Utile proposed PUD. Questions and comments lion] the Planning Commission included density, tratfic impacts, and the PUD process, Ed Podolak addressed the Commission and discussed the issues of road cuts, town home site engineering, allnrdable housing, sewer, access, water, open space, neighborhood meetings, density, and affordable housing. Members of the audience addressed the Commission and included Jeri Zamora, Eloise Elgen, Kim Johnson, Shep i-Ianis, Michael Horst, Jeannie Ranclrard, Cindy Horst, Lori Wells, Bruce Baldridge, Kristen Lester, Benita Hammond, and Fred Gannett, attorney for the homeowners, among others, commented on the issues of density, character of neighborhood, access, meeting with adjacent property owners, utilities, traffic signal, consistency with adjacent area, additional tragic impacts, and change in circumstance. John Foulkrod moved to continue the meeting until March 8, 1995. Herb Nelson seconded. Motion failed 2-4. Dick Stephenson moved to approve the zone district change from A/R/RD to R/G/UD with conditions 1-4 as recommended by staff. Carl Schiesser seconded. Discussion was held regarding zoning to RIG/SD instead and the applicant agreed. Motion passed 7-0, Dick Stephenson stepped down for this meeting, Public Meeting for an amendment to Resolution No. 81-384, for a Special Use Permit to allow for the permanent access to State Highway 82 for the Blue Gravel Pit. Applicant: Western Slope Aggregates. Jim Snyder addressed the commission and noted for the record that he does lease some property from the Blue's in the Rifle area, Mr. Snyder has leased the ranch for 15 years. Mr. Snyder commented that if anyone thought that he would benefit fiom this ineeting, he would step down. Don DeFord, Comity Attorney told the commission that Mr. Snyder had spoken to hint before the meeting, and his opinion is that din some way Mr. Snyder would benefit financially roma this meeting, there will be a conflict of interest. Pat Fitzgerald asked the Commission or members oldie audience if they had any problems with Mr. Snyder sitting in on the meeting. There were no comments from either the Planning Commission or the audience. Mark Bean stunnarized the proposal The Blue Gravel Pit has been operating under a Special Use Permit since 1981. Resolution No. 81-384 included condition #ti which restricted access to the pit via CR 103 and 104. The applicant has requested the addition ofa permanent access directly to State Highway 82, in addition to the existing access onto CRs 103 and 104. Access would be via two existing roadways, the upper access being on the Blue property, and the lower route being within SH 82 ROW. The State has approved the access request. In 1993, by Resolution No. 93-051, the County approved the temporary use of this access by the applicant to fulfill a contract with the Department of Transportation. Access to the SH 82 site using the proposed route was from June 1, 1994 to November 1, 1994. This access is also used by the I3Iues for their ranch. Major issues and couce is included impact statement, impacts on adjacent lands, and traffic impacts. Staff recommended approval with 4 conditions. Shawn Mellow, employee of Bill Roberts, owner of Western Slope Aggregates, addressed the commission and commented that the road has been used for two separate projects. Discussion included the traffic impacts, State highway access approval, noise studies, and traffic increases on CR 103. Mr. Mellow gave Mr. Bean a tetter from Wooden Deer residents approving of the proposal. Audience members commented on the issues and included Fred Hollowell, John French, Al Barry, Jim Jenkins, Glen Harris, David Powell, Lori Fields, Jay Densmore, Shawn Vondette and Martha Densmore. Discussion was held on the issues of hours of track hauling, access, excel and (keel lanes, nSe of jaI.e brakes, a petition was given to Mark Beal) limn the Ranch at Roar nu Fork property ousters opposing the proposal, Casey Concrete using the access also, noise, pollution Frain trucks, heavy track traffic on CR 103 .and 101, safety, maintenance and improvements to CR 103 and 104. Mr. Mellow said that there are employees, rands use, and people just looking [hat use the access now. Mr. Mellow stated that Casey Concrete is attached to Ilteir Special I.Jse Permit and would follow the access that Western Slope Aggregates would take. Mr. Bean commented that there is not to be any use of the road for any reason and also that the Commission had the option of setting conditions that would preclude Casey Concrete froth using the access. Cart Schiesser moved to deny the proposal. John Foulkrod seconded. Motion passed 3-2. Mark Bean noted for the record that there are two alternatives the applicant can take: either go to the Board of County Commissioners to consider the recommendation of' denial or resubmit the application, Mark Bean told tate Commission that the Open Space/Trails Committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, Pebruaty 15, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stella Archuleta SAlsa • • EXHIBIT Preliminary Plan Approval Hawkridge Subdvision kr:cord: d of L M. L (Lila. Reception No. 333' Mi1DRED A .5DO F RECORDER STATE COLORADO ) ss, County of Garfield At a ravrler meeting of the Board of County Commissioner, for Garfield County, Colorado, held at the Commissioners' Annex in Glenwood Springs, Coloraoo on Monday _, the 4th day of October , A.D. 19 82 there were present. Flnvem Cerise , Commissioner Chairman Lnr,7 VAlnelnee , Commissioner .lire .frinkhrnra,, Commissioner Earl Rhoden , County Attorney County Manager Mildred Aledorf , Clerk of the Board when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to wit; RESOLUTION NO. 82- 259 A. RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN OF THE HAWK RIDGE SUBDIVISION. StAn Arnrrne WHEREAS, A.W. ano Carolyn Ackerman have filed an application with the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield. County, Colorado for approval of a Preliminary Plan for the Hawk Ridge Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, based on the material submitted by the applicant and the comments of the Garfield County Planning Department, this Board finds as follows; 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the nearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That 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. 3. That. the Garfield County Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan with conditions. 4. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the county. 5. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State of Colorado and Garfield County have been submitted, reviewed and found to meet all sound planning and engineering requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. 6. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 7. That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County Colorado that the Preliminary Plan of the Hawk Ridge Subdivision on the following described unincorporated area of Garfield County be approved with the following conditions: 1. That as a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall agree in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement to perform work on County Road 102 as follows: a. County Road 102 shall be chip and sealed to County standards from the end of the present chip and seal to the most Northerly access to the subject property, which work shall be performed to the satisfaction of the County Road Supervisor. b. The applicant shall bear the cost of the above improvements, but if the Cedar Ridge Farm :subdivision is also final platted, then the above improvements snail be shared with the applicants for the Cedar Ridge Farm Subdivision on a cost per lot basis. 2. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall develop a plan to remove the line of site problems on County Road 103, which plan shall be approved tk the County Load Sh.pervisor. •- +fijii� L7i iJ i-GE'i5 J 3. That as a condition ot final plat approval, the applicant shall agree in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement to perform the necessary work on County Road 103, which work is described in condition number 2.above. Said work shall be pertormed to the satistaction ot the County Road Supervisor. The applicant shall bear the cost of the above work, but it the final plat for the Cedar Farm Subdivision is approved, said cost may be shared on a cost per lot basis. 4. That the final plat shall contain a notation that because of potentially low percolation rates in the soils, engineered septic systems may be requirea. S. That prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall reach agreement with the eEel School District for the payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication which payment shall be the equivalent of the value of .34 acres of the subject property. fi. That prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall work with the ditch companies who own ditches across the subject property so that said ditches are protected during construction and occupancy of the subject subdivision. 7. That the final plat shall contain a plat notation that any structures proposed for slopes exceeding 20% shall have an on-site evaluation for sites specific slope stability and rock fall/creep hazards. 8. That prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall demonstrate the physical, legal availability of an adequate water supply for the subject subdivision, which water supply shall be approved by the Water Court and by the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources. 9. That as a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall agree in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement to construct a suitable bus stop for school children on County Road 103 adjacent to the subject subdivision.. ATTEST: aeaAlyCle k to the Board BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: , Aye , Aye Aye Commissioners STATE OF COLORADO } County of Garfield } ss. i, County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing order is trulky copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and aftthe seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of 19 , A.D. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Boaro of County Commjssioners. • LEGAL DESCRIPTION t•' :n 7, II , ana t n: 11, „ L • "'L r I 't ('4t • Ida rd. !..'cd ;IL ; - 1.r.- .114 ion 1 r he sa 1.1 13 'Cs" 31.1.7.2 %. " C. . . •• •=1, 1ht %AV i 114 A r: .1dOf ';) iL , the Lh :I hear.; •Os" 41." 45" E. if11..01:;: fee:: e 11" 3S 3/1" ; t hence along t a ..tve t" 575."'r fi;;; , t1 -hor.1 of ar, 1... o:"• 26' 20" 1 f r; .!.1. 35' 3;1" ',I. fer; ., f curs:, : r ieht h:vin.: 7i15,..ir. eot L.; .1.; 1,1.' .17" : ..-' i1e•ii. r: ; tne oft' IL i:. of .4 1 ine /..) ; 1 •.f [he r...co:4:i n of t:,r11 ; i.41.1 sant. h and east r 1 1,i Will:, 1.01 . ;Li" 1, fe ;.; f r, f' rai! ilia of '1:18.0 •I.: h .11' I 41 1-t..._!1: C.i,11-14" !')-...1q C . hav :t rad tf. fceL, • . •11' 1 ; then:L t .ti •. P•. the right r.id ni •• 1t•earn 55' 15" r. 106.1:0 f„c; X. MI' 25' ; ° '1'.-P 204 .'4Q feet a 1 4.1.e Ci .orve : thL: in a rad iui; • ;:nord of 1 1. . X. ?II. 4-6 l• . ; 77°' 47' NI" I:. F.8.011 feet; L'IL•rh•-..7.: "11.e.;; 1 eei along t411, ...re of :he ri;;,hr in..; a r.;1ji t.f 1 1, CL of „a lzh bnars :to" E, feet; the;:ze .i' 30' no" f. 172.01) f:et: thence 143.2'; f,er alonv the at.c of a eorve. co the !eft haviag A idd!nn f rhe Of 1." h. Lor . 7 ,,r; ; ; a :•• -int- i" L... (*.t. • I ; of ::411 i; • 1...r 1,5' ;19" :44.Li Lot : • f r : o .411,113!. ; • I( c "1' irn in • .•;1.:i. • • LEAVENWORTHI, PATRICK b LOCHHEAD, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH M. EVEN L. PAT RICM JAMES 5 LOCHHEAD BRUCE D. RAY Mr. Davis Farrar j Garfield County Planning Department NIAY1 11982 2014 Blake Avenue i', May 10, 1982 1011 GRANO AVENUE R O.DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE. (3031 945-2261 TT Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Lt414: n-LIJ t.J. ruthall Re: Hawkridge Development Preliminary Plan Dear Davis: I am writing this letter to supplement my two other earlier letters dated February 8 and March 24 concerning the legal water supply for the proposed Hawkridge Development. By letter dated March 30, 1982, the Colorado Division of Water Resources indicated a need for winter augmentation. The result of this concern of the Assistant State Engineer, we filed on behalf of the applicant an Application in Water Court for Approval of a Plan for Augmentation that is designed to augment winter diversions through the Hawkridge and Keller Wells. A copy of the Application in Case No, 82CW96 is enclosed as well as a copy of the engineering report upon which the Application is based. As with my March 24 letter and to expedite the review of this matter, I am sending a copy of this letter and enclosures directly to Keith Kepler at the Division of Water Resources. If I can provide any additional information or if you wish to discuss this matter, feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH, PATR CK & LOCHHEQip /P.C. LEL:jas Encs. cc: H. P. Hansen Richard L. Kinshella T. Peter Craven, Esq. R. Scott Fifer Leavenworth Keith Kepler, Div. of Water Resources (w/encs.) 1110 PROJECT INFORMATION AND/VENTS PROJECT NAME: REQUEST: OWNER: PLANNER/ENGINEER: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: PROPOSED ROADS: EXISTIIIG ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: Hawk Ridge Subdivision Priliminary Plat Approval A.W. and Carolyn Ackerman 930 Monarch Bay South Laguna, CA 92677 U.P. Hanson 278 Garfield Carbondale, CO 81623 Richard Kinshella--Ponderosa Engineering 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 220 Glenwood Springs, CO 81-601 945-6596 Located approximately 4 miles north of Highway 82 an County Road 103 (Crystal Springs Road) The proposal lies on a site with a raised hill in the central portion with gentle slopes falling away from the high point. The central part of the property is pinyon and juniper tree cover with some pasture land surrounding. Water is to come from a central well and pumped to a 30,000 gal elevated storage tank. The well has been pump tested for 24 hours at 20 gpm constant flow with 3 feet of draw down. Individual systems on each lot. All lots are aver 2 acres and the average size is 6.1 acres. Proposed roads are to be constructed to county standards and dedicated to the county. A/R/RD Same, no change North: South: East West: A/R/RD A/R/RD AIR/RD A/R/RD RELATI0iSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This proposal lies within district C on the comprehensive plan areas with minor environmental constraints to development. The minimum recommended lot size is 5 acres. The lot size of this proposal varies from close to 12 acres to appoximately 4 acres. The project will impact County Road 103 but the applicant has proposed to minimize this impact by improving portions of 103 Road to the property: This project fits the provisions of the comp. plan by providing lot sizes which are compatible with the area and densities which are appropriate with the rural area. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The request is for 17 single family lots on 103.7 acres. The lots will be accessed primarily by internal streets; however, one lot will access County Road 103. Lots will be served by central water and individual septic systems. The internal street system has been redesigned since sketch plan to reduce the number of lots directly accessing 103 Road. This design change has resulted in the addition of one lot increasing the humber from 16 at sketch plan to 17 at preliminary plat. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES: A) Comprehensive Plan: The major concern is the impact of this praj 103. The applicant at sketch plan has agreed to chip and seal County existing pavement up to the most northerly access point on the proper 8) Zoning: No major concerns. This project maintains the existing the area. The area has larger lot sizes and this proprusal is culrsis sizes. ect on County Road Road 103 from the ty. open character of tent with those lot REVIEWING ^ENCY SUMMARY: Basalt Wa o C nservancy District: no4111 problems with the project as it does not impact the district. Colorado Department of Health: Developer should follow their own engineer's sug- gestions as to individual septic and the developer's plan and specs. for the proposed water supply must be submitted to the Department of Health prior to construc- tion. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District: See letter RE -1 School District: Requests .34 acres cash in lieu value, advises developer that bus service extension is not palnned at this time; requests developer provide a suitable bus stop. County Sanitarian: Indicates no apparent problems with the proposal on County Road 103. Planning Commission: (See previous minutes and commissioners resolution) Mountain Bell: Will provide telephone service. Holy Cross: Has capability of providing electric service. Colorado Geological Survey: no objections if the following are followed: 1. Developer follow all the recommendations proposed by their own engineering geological report. 2. Evapotranspiration systems or a central sanitary system be employed. 3. Slopes over 20% be evaluated on a site specific basis. 4. Site specific soils and foundation investigations be constructed for the proposed storage tank and home construction sites. Division of Water Resources: No objections to the proposal based on the supplemental information received from the applicant. FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has followed all of the required procedures to date. 2. The proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposal is in keeping with the A/R/RD zone district. 4. This proposal was heard by the Planning Commission on May 5, 1982 and was recommended for approval with the following eight conditions: 1. That County Rad 102 be chipped and sealed up to the most northerly access on the property and the line of sight problems on 103 Road be resolved with the ROad and Bridge Supervisor to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. The costs of this road improvement shall be shared with the Cedar Ridge Farm project on a cost per lot basis. 2. That notation be made on the final plat that because of potentially low percolation rates in the soils some type of engineered septic system may be required. 3. That fee in lieu of a land dedication be given to the RE -1 school district for the school impact which is the equivalent value of .34 acres. 4. That the ditch companies or persons who's ditches cross the property be notified of Chis development and some agreement be reached regarding protection of bhe ditches. 5. Any structures proposed for slopes exceeding 20% should have on-site evaluation for site specific slope stability and rock fail/creep hazards. 6. That prior to final plat approval, there be an approved pain for augmentation which has been amended to take into account evapotranspiration septic systems instead of standard septic/leach field systems. 7. That the developer pay a fee in the amount of $200.00 per lot into a fund to be established to the Carbondale Rural Fire District to mitigate fire dangers in that neighborhood. 8. That the iuiuimum lot size be 5 ogres ur as close to that possible. STAFF •HMENDAT ION: APPROVAL with the Following conditions: 1. That County Road 102 be chipped and sealed up to the most northerly access on the property and the line of sight problems on 103 Road be resolved with the Road and Bridge Supervisor to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. The costs of this road improvement shall be shared with the Cedar Ridge Farm project on a cost per lot basis. 1 2. That notation be made on the final plat that because of potentially low perculation rates in the soils same type of engineered septic system may be required. 3. That fee in lieu of a land dedication be given to the RC -1 school district for the school impact which is the equivalent value of .34 acres. 4. That the ditch companies or persons who's ditches cross the property be notified of this development and some agreement be reached regarding protection of the ditches prior to final plat. 5. Any structures proposed for slopes exceeding 204 should have on-site evaluation for site specific slope stability and rock fall/creep hazards. 6. That prior to final plat approval, there be plan far water augmentation approved by the Division of Water Resources. 7. That the developer pay a fee in the amount of $200.00 per lot into a fund to be established to the Carbondale Rural Fire District to mitigate fire dangers in that neighborhood. 8. Developer provide a suitable bus stop for school children on County Road 103. NOTE: A letter from Ronald Wilson was sent to Mr. Arnold Mackley, chairman of the Garfield County Planning Commission indicating that a statement of opposition concerning water rights has been filed in the district water court. See letter attached. • • EXHIBIT Preliminary Plan Approval Pinyon Peak Subdivision ..:.Cordal � SiCeptioii 1114.-r4a. CO TI ER GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO,} STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield At a re of Commissioners for Garfield meating of the Board of County Glenwood Springs rn County, Colorado, held at the Courthouse in GI n p g Monn,av the_ 14th day of August , there were present: A.D. Marian I. Smith Arnold L. Mack ley )ss • ECK O, Elmer {Burke } Arbane ' Don AeFord ' Mildred Alsdorr Chuck Deschenes when the following proceedings, among RESOLUTION NO. Commissioner Chairman Commissioner (absent) Commissioner County Attorney Clerk of the Board County Administrator others were had and done, to -wit: 89-130 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE PINYON PEAKS SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS application approval of WHEREAS Comments of follows: Carbondale Land Development Corporation has filed an with the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County for a Preliminary Plan for the Pinyon Peaks Subdivision. , based on the material submitted by the applicant and the the Garfield County Planning Department, this Board finds as 1. That proper publication, public notice and posting was provided as required by law for the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete,. that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That the Garfield County Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan. 4. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the county. 5. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State of Colorado and Garfield County have been submitted, reviewed, and found to meet all sound planning and engineering requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. 6. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, 7. That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Preliminary Plan of the Pinyon Peaks Subdivision for the following described unincorporated area of Garfield County be approved with the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless stated otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. T t the app.uved water augmentat' pia'. be turned over to the owner's association at such tin hat 10 lots are owned by ties other than the applicant. 3. The Final Plat should include a plat note that states: a Engineered foundations and individual sewage disposal systems may be required for residential construction. b. It is recommended that all residential construction be built in accordance with State Forest Service Wildfire Guidelines. LEGAL DESCRIPTION; See attached Exhibit A. DATED this/day of August 19 89 ATTEST: erk of the Board GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: Marian I. Smith Arnold L_ Mackley (Absent) Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield } )ss Aye pix Aye If , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of A. D. 19 Board of County Commissioners. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the 130.31 76.. r 6,30 LEGAL DIL'TICN A parcel of land located in Sections 11 and 14, 'ibwnship 7, Range OR W of the 6th Principal Meridian, being more particularly described as follows; Beginning at the NW corner of said Section 14, also being the SW corner of said Section 11, the TRUE MINI' OE BEGINNING; thence N 89'56'03" E along the boundary of a parcel of land described in Book 532, Page 661 of the Garfield County records, 550.00 feet; thence N 45°06'59" W along said boundary 622.60 feet; thence N 00'10'01" W along said boundary 845.24 feet to a ,point on the north line of Lot 7, said Section 11, also being the north line of the S 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 11; thence leaving said boundary, N 89'46'54" E along said north line of the S 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 11 1743.86 feet to the corner of a parcel of land described in Bonk 608 at Page 496 of the Garfield County records; thence S 00'11'20" W along the west line of said parcel described in said Book 608 at Page 496, 1289.92 feet to a point on the south line of said Section 11, also being the north line of said Section 14; thence N 89°56'03" E along said north line Section 14 1155.01 feet to the N 1/4 corner of said Section 14; thence S 89°29'30" E along said north line said Section 14 and along the south line of the Upper Cattle Creek Subdivision as recorded in the Garfield County records, 1323.33 feet to the 1`Td corner of the E 1/2 NE 1/4, said Section 14; thence S 00'26'52" W along the west line of said E 1/2 NE 1/4, 2137.68 feet to a point on the north boundary of a parcel of land described in Book 403 at Page 567 of the Garfield County records; thence along said boundary described in said Book 403 at Page 567, the following ten (10) courses and distances: 1) N 40'00'00" W 55.10 feet; thence 2) 93,52 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 428.66 feet, a central angle of 12'29'58", and subtending a chord bearing N 33'45'00" W 93.33 feet; thence 3) 71.24 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 148.45 feet, a central angle of 27'29'45", and subtending a chord bearing N 41°14'52" W 70.56 feet; thence 4) N 54'59'44" W 96.34 feet; thence 5) 88.41 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 197.49 feet, a central angle of 25'38'58", and subtending a chord bearing N 42'10'13" W 87.67 feet; thence 6) N 29'20'44" W 182.90 feet; thence 7) 75.20 Eeet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 234.24 feet, a central angle of 18'23'41", and subtending a chord bearing N 20°08'55" W 74.88 feet; thence 8) N 79°21'00" W 498.05 feet; thence 9) 5 10'50'30" W 732.29 feet; thence 10) S 61'09'42" E 1143.55 feet to a point on the west line of the E 1/2 SE 1/4 of said Section 14; thence leaving said boundary said parcel described in said Book 403 at Page 567 of the Garfield County records 5 01°05'04" E along said west line of the E 1/2 SE 1/4 of said Section 14, 496.23 feet to a joint on the north right-of-way line of a county road; thence along said north right-of-way the following fifteen (15) courses and distances: 1) N 37'56'37" W 149.48 feet; thence 2) 209.34 feet along the arc of a curve to the left 730.00 feet, a central angle of 16'25'50", and bearing N 51'49'47" W 208.62 feet; thence 3) N 60'02'42" W 278.61 feet; thence 4) 204.64 feet along the arc of a curve to the left 1260.00 feet, a central angle of 09°10'19,', and bearing N 64'41'52" W 204.41 feet; thence 5) N 69°21'02" W 232.34 feet; thence 6) 228.71 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 720.00 feet, a central angle of 18`12'00", and subtending a chord bearing N 60°15'02" W 227.75 feet; thence 7) N 51'09'02" W 234.61 feet; thence 8) 154.20 feet along the arc of a curve to the lett having a radius. of 1065.00 feet, a central angle of 08'17'45", and subtending a chord bearing N 55'17'54" W 154.07 feet; thence 9) Pt 59'26'46" W 77.41 feet; thence 10) 142.67 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 670.110 1'Q.t_t:, a central angle of 12°12'02.", and 1subtenaling a chord bearing N 53°211'46" W 142,40 feet; thence 11) 11 17.14'45" 4 154.85 feet; thence having a radius of subtending a chord having a radius of subtending a chord 1 ND ,! J PiGt J G1 i2)9.96 feet along the arc of a curve to left having a radius of 9030.00 feet, a central angle of 02'32'16", and subtending a chord beariicj N 4)3°30'53" W 399.93 feet; thence 13) N 49417'01" W 231.99 feet; thence 14) 242.53 feet along the arc of a oirve to the right having a radius of 1270.00 feet, a central angle of 10°56'30", and subtending a chord bearing N 44'18'45" W 242.16 feet; thence 15) N 38'50'30" W 394.36 feet to a point on the west line of a parcel decribed in Book 422 at Page 130 of the Garfield County records; thence leaving said north right-of-way of a county road and following the boundary of said parcel of land recorded in said Book 422 at Page 130, the following three (3) courses: 1) N 00'03'30" W 475.53 feet; thence 2) N 63°39'04" W 956.36 feet; thence 3) S 00'03'30" E 504.05 feet to a point on said north right-of-way of a county road; thence leaving said boundary of said parcel recorded in said Book 422 at Page 130, and following said north right-of-way the following six (6) courses: 1) N 56'30`55" W 57.05 feet; thence 2) 129.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 470.00 feet, a central angle of 15'43'32", and subtending a chord bearing N 48°39'09" W 128.59 feet; thence 3) N 40°47'23" W 136.20 feet; thence 4) 163.25 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 272.00 feet, a central angle of 34'23'20", and subtending a chord bearing N 57°59'03" W 160.81 feet; thence 5) N 75'10'43" W 181.17 feet; thence 6) 219.90 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 470.00 feet, a central angle of 26`48'28°, and subtending a chord bearing N 61°46'29" W 217.90 feet to a point on the west line of said Section 14; thence leaving said north right-of-way of county road N 00°03'30" W along said west line of said Section 14, 308.56 feet to said N4 corner Section 14, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 197.41 acres more or less. SOCC 7/10/89 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Pinyon Peaks Subdivision Preliminary Plan OWNER: Carbondale Land Development Corporation LOCATION: A tract of land situated in Sections 11 & 14, T7S, R88W; approximately 5 miles northeast of Carbondale, off County Rd. 112. SITE DATA: The site consists of 197 acres. WATER: Two individual wells and one central well for 17 lots. SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems ACCESS: Existing and proposed private access easements off County Rd. 112. EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in Districts D and F, Rural Areas with Moderate to Severe Environmental Constraints, as designated in the Comprehensive Plant Management Districts Map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is located in a rural portion of the County, with uses in the vicinity being mainly single family residential, ranching and open space. Steeper slopes are formed along the northern portion of the development and along County Rd. 112. Vegetation consists mainly of sagebrush, pinyon, juniper and meadow grasses. No improvements are identified on the site with the exception of access roads. B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 197 acres into 19 single family residential lots, ranging from 4.2 acres to 16.6 acres in size with a gross density of approximately 10.4 acres. The Sketch Plan proposed 18 lots, but after further review, the applicant is requesting approval of 19 lots. Two lots (#1 and #17) will have individual wells and driveways coming directly off of County Road 112. The remaining 17 lots will be served by a central water distribution system with a 30,000 gallon water storage tank and 10,000 gallon cistern. The 10,000 gallon cistern is intended to provide water for fire p otection purposes. Access to all of these lots will be om the subdivision's internal road system. All lots ff11 have individual sewage disposal systems. 4 History: In 1979, the site was proposea for subdiiiision into approximately 39 lots as "'rhe Compound" subdivision. This proposal was disapproved by the Board of County Commi 4aoners at Sketch Plan. 411 411 [II.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Agency Comments 1. Roaring Fork School District RE -1 has no concerns regarding the proposed subdivision. They have requested :200 per dwelling in lieu of any land dedication. (See enclosed mage 10 ) 2. Colorado Department of Health has noted that the central water system will be subject to design approval prior to construction and that the high irun concentration could cause staining of plumbing fixtures and laundry. (gee letter, page // 3. Colorado Geological Survey has stated that the subdivision is entirely feasible, provided certain precautions are taken to avoid steep slopes; have individual soils and foundation studies done for each lot; proper drainage; and forewarn lot purchasers that engineered septic systems may be necessary. (See pages .,, 13 ) 4 Colorado Division of Water Resources had expressed concerns about the fact that their comments from the Sketch Plan had not been addressed. Specifically, they were concerned that the Park Ditch water may not be available for augmentation and that the location of the main well is not within 200 ft. of the proposed location in the augmentation plan which will require a change in the augmentation plan. There is no well location within 200 ft. of Lot 1, which will have an individual well on it also. That the water augmentation plan should be turned over to the Homeowner's Association for management of, and ownership of, the water rights. All of these comments resulted in a response to the Division from the applicant's attorney. (See pages These letters resulted in a recommendation of approval from the Division, provided the conditions noted in Mr. Leavenworth's May 10, 1989 letter. (See Pages/5--,?Z ) 5. Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District noted that their concerns regarding the water system and waste disposal had been adequately met. The urged that the developer follow all of the engineering guidelines identified in the study. (See page „q3 ) Staff Comments 1. The applicant's engineer has noted that the iron content of the water is higher than the recommended level of 0.3 mg/1. Both the applicant's engineer and the State Health Department engineer note that the high iron content will stain plumbing fixtures. The State Health Department notes that high iron content may stain laundry too. The iron may also present a slight detectable .taste to persons not accustomed to higher than normal iron content in the water. While this does not present a health threat to anyone drinking or using the water, it is something potential purchasers should be made aware of at the time of purchase. A plat note should be placed on the Final Plat noting that "without individual treatment in-house, the higher than recommended level of iron in the water may cause staining of plumbing fixture and laundry, as well as having detectable taste." 3 Other Sketch Plan comments have been addressed in the following manner: a Legality of access from the adjoining property has been researched to show that the Carbondale Land Development Corporation has maintained title to a 60 ft. wide easement used by adjoining property owners. A proposed greet of easement to adjoining property owners is included, which excludes Carbondale Land Development from any obligations for maintenance, snow removal and other issue. If this easement is in effect, any lot in the Pinyon Peaks Subdivision using this easement for access should bear their proportionate responsibility for maintenance, snow removal and other obligations. It has been verbally represented that an agreement has been reached to improve the road with each lot paying their proportionate share. b. It is proposed to have all roads built to a 26 ft. wide driving surface that includes two 11 ft. driving lanes with two (2) ft. shoulders. The right-of-way will be 60 ft. wide. The Subdivision Regulations require a 28 ft. wide driving surface which is to include at least two (2) Et. shoulders. The driving surface can be expanded by increasing the driving lanes or the shoulder by one (1) ft. on each side. c. Topographic information was submitted that met the Preliminary Plan requirements. d Soils/Geology studies were submitted that met the request of the Sketch Plan comments. e There is no proposed phasing of the project. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication, public notice and posting was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That 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. 3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County. 4. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State of Colorado and Garfield County have been submitted, reviewed, and found to meet all sound planning and engineering requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. 5. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 6 That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision 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 14, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended approval, subject to the following conditions being met: 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall he considered conditions of approval, unless stated otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. • 2. That the approved water auymentat homeowner's association at such parties other than the applicant. on plan be turned over to the time that 10 lots are owned by 3. The Final Plat should include a plat note that states: a. In-house treatment of water is recommended due to than recommended levels of iron, which may result unusual taste and staining of plumbing fixtures properly treated. b. Engineered foundations and systems may be required for r d4/1 re4-1 4 Final plat road profiles shall surface that meets County Road sta and Bridge Department. higher in and if not individual sewage disposal siden ial conptry tion.e41-1,1 a airhs-rfde-ri .6-1 { / include a 28 ft. wide driving ndards as approved by the Road 4L),/017 Fare • EXHIBIT Preliminary Plan Approval Wooden Deer Subdivision REC DRut:D �: a# CLOCK P.M. MAY 1 ? 1992 FEC Ar }„jim)Ju MItDRED A1.DORF, COUNTY CicRK. STATE O1 COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Springs on Monday , the Arnold r,. Macklev Elmer Mickey) Arbaney Marian t. Smith tit1OK 831 PILE 3133 of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood l l t h o f May A.D. 19,A2_, there were present; nun rlpFnr 1 Mildred Alsdorf Chuck Deschenes , Commissioner Chairman Cornn}issioner Commissioner , County Attorney Clerk of the Board , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 92-043 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH TIM APPROVAL OFA PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR WOODEN DEER SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, Carbondale Land Development Corporali,on has filed an application with the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County for approval ofa Preliminary Plan for Wooden Deer Subdivision; WHEREAS, the Garfield County Planning Commission reviewed the Wooden Deer application and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners; WHEREAS, based on the material submitted by the applicant, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the comments of the Garfield County Planning Department, this Board finds as follows; 1, That proper publication, public notice and posting was provided as required bylaw for the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearings. 3. That the Garfield County Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan. That the proposed subdivision of land is in cornpiiance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan dor the unincorporated area of the County. • Win 831 p:t;l:364 S. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as required by tine Stale of Colorado and Gar held County have been submitted, reviewed, and found to meet all sound planning and engineering requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Reg(' l.t tiro :is. That the Board approved a Variance to road grade SI;Lndards as authorized in Section 9:37. 7. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 8. That for the above -stated and other reasons, the proposed subdivision is in the best interest of the Health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citi2ens of Garfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, I31 IT RESOLVED that the Preliminary Plan of Wooden Deer Subdivision for the following described unincorporated areaofGartield County beapproved with the following conditions: That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless stated otherwise by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, 2. The Homeowner's Association shall be incorporated in accordance with Colorado Revised Statute requirements. 3. The applicant shall prepare and submit ai Subdivision Improvements Agreement addressing all on-site improvements, prior to the submittal of a Final Plat. 4. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all roads, bridges, utilities, fire protection, improvements signage and drainage structures prior to the submittal dale Final Plat. 5. Thal all proposed utilities shall be placed underground. 6. That all cul slopes created during constriction shall be revegetaled with native grasses and shrubs with adequate weed control. All revegetation shall be in accordance with theapplicant's revegetation plan. Revegetation and landscaping shall be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. In addition, adequate security shall remain in place for a period of two (2) years to guarantee the survival of all plantings. 7. That the applicant shall demonstrate that procedures are established for the maintenance of all roadways and bridges, including snow removal, through the Homeowner's Association. That the applicant shall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 9. That the following plat notes shall he included on the Final Plat: • • Do( 831- ? Gl;3G5 a. The recommendations of the Colorado State Forester wildfire prevention guidelines, specified by the. pamphlet "Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface" prepared by the Colorado Slate Forest Service (C.S.F.S. #143-691) shall be followed in the construction of all structures. The Architectural Committee will consider tlx: guidelines in the most cin-re.nt wildfire publication by the Colorado Stale Forest Se.rvice when reviewing proposal structures. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare and subtnit a soils and foundation report, an I.S.D.", . design, and a grading and drainage plan prepared and certified by a professional engineer. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such treasures which shall be. a condition of the building permit. c. Certain lots may require pumps to increase residential water pressure. 10. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit an approved augmentation plan providing fora legal watersupply for the Wooden Deer Subdivision development. Said augmentation plan, together with the Basalt Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract and the water rights associated with the wells, together with well permits, shall be transferred by the developer to a Homeowner's Association which shall have the power and the duty to enforce compliance by lot owners with the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan. Appropriate Protective Covenants shall further require compliance with the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan. 11. That the applicants shall prepare and submit prolective covenants, articles of incorporation and other Homeowner's Association documents including by-laws will be submitted for review by the County Attorney prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 12 That the plat and covenants will provide that there will be no re -subdivision of the lots. 13. That all roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards in effect at the time of submittal of the Final Plat with the approved variances. 14. That adequate easements for wells, waterlines and other attendant facilities shall be provided on the Final Plat. 15. Easements for utility purposes, acceptable to l-Ioly Cross and sufficient to supply each lot within the subdivision with services, will be supplied by the applicant. 16. The applicant shall provide road signage in accordance with the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control. These should be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. 17. The applicant shall provide copies of quit claim deeds from adjacent land owners. 18. The applicant shall provide an access easement from John Powers to the Homeowner's Association authorizing public access to the subdivision prior to the submittal of the Final Plat. Provisions for usage and maintenance of this easement should be addressed in the covenants. 19. The applicant shall provide a non -access easement on those lots abutting C.R. 104 for the purpose of restricting all but emergency access onto C.R. 104. • torn 831 nc€ 338 20. The appiicanl shall provide an access easement from C.R. 103 to the subdivision boundary from 1Iie N[arlin's for emergency ingress/egress. "1'1iis easement should be grttnled to the 1 lomeowner's Association. Provisions for usage and inaintenance of this easement should be addressed in the prolective covenants. 21, Prior to the approval oldie Final Plat, the: applicant shall submit approved plans (by Colorado Department of l lealtli) for the proposed community water system. All requirements of the Road and Bridge Department contained in their memo shall be considered conditions of approval, The following items shall be incorporated into the prolective covenants: A. The Wooden Deer Architectural Committee shall follow the recommendations of the Colorado State Forester wildfire prevention guidelines, specified by the pamphlet "Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban interface" prepared by the Colorado Slate Forest Service (C.S.F.S. #142-691) attached hereto as Exhibit 13, wherever practical, in granting approvals for construction of residences and other structures submitted to it forapprovai. The Architectural Committee shall incorporate the guidelines set forth in that pamphlet into the plans approved for lots in the subdivision to protect the subdivision, and all of the buildings constructed therein, from the danger of wildfire. The Architectural Committee will consider the guidelines in the most current wildfire publication by the Colorado State Forest Service. No shake or "treated" shake roofs will be allowed in the subdivision. Non - reflective metal roofs or other fire resistent roofs will be required. Siding of all structures shall be either, 1) constructed of lire retardant materials, or materials "treated" to be fire retardant, or 2) have an internal sprinkler system for tire protection. B. No structures or improvements, other than fences, shall be constructed within those shaded areas which contain 40 percent or greater slopes shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, which areas shall remain as open space. Pre -approved points for building sites for the primary dwelling structures for each lot are identified on the Final Plat and moiiumented on the property. Site review by the Architectural Committee for the primary dwelling structure is not necessary so long as the structure, excluding open porches, decks, carports, and garages, is over the identified point at some location, subject to County setback requirements. Site locations for the primary dwelling structures which are not over the pre -approved point must be reviewed by the Architectural Committee. Site loca lions aresubject to the recommendations cited in the letter ofJim Soule, State Geologist's Olftce of March 4, 1992. 1) Fireplaces: No more thanone(1) open woodburrling fireplace and no more than one (1) Colorado Certified woodburning device may be allowed per lot. Fireplace uses may not be transferred from one lot to the next. Gas -burning fireplaces shall be encouraged and allowed within the subdivision. 2) attrnestiStAnirtials: Except asexpressly limited herein, domestic animals shall be permitted subject to any rifles and regulations which may be • • BOON 83i Ft<GE2Ci7 promulgated by the Board or Directors. No farm animals shall he permitted to be boarded within the subdivision. A lot owner shall be entitled to keep a maximum of one (1) mature dog on his property. A mature dog shall be considered to be any dog older than ic)u (4) months old. All mature dogs shall be neutered. Dogs shall be he under the control of the owner at all times and shall not be permitted to run free or to cause a nuisance in the subdivision. No dogs shall be allowed beyond) the boundaries attic lot owned by the persons where the dog is housed unless accompanied by a person in full control of such dog. Dogs shall be leashed, chained, fenced, ",electric fenced", kenneled, or housed at all times. Metal fencing will be allowed for the purposes of kenneling dogs. Location of kennels shall be subject to review of the Architectural Committee. The Homeowner's Association shall have the right to assess and enforce penalties against owners violating these restrictions applying to dogs as follows: One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for the first violation committed by an owner's dog and One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) plus an additional Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for each subsequent violation such that the fine increase in Fifty Dollar ($50.00) increments for each succeeding violation. Should any dog be caught chasing or molesting deer, elk, poultry, or any domestic animals, the Homeowner's Association shall be authorized to prohibit the property owner from continuing to maintain the offending animal on his property and may dispose of that animal, if necessary, to prosect wildlife or other owners' domestic animals. Areas where an owner keeps any animals shall be kept reasonably clean and free of refuse,. insects, and waste at all limes. No commercial animal breeding activities ofany kind shall be permitted within the subdivision. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no animal(s) may be kept within a lot or the residences which, in the good -faith judgement of the Board of Directors, result(s) in any annoyance or are obnoxious to residents in the vicinity or to lot owners within the subdivision. Accessory Uses. An attached accessory use shall be permitted to be constructed along with each single-family residence subject to Garfield County Regulations and Architectural Control Committee review. In the event such a use is approved, the accessory use shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square feet in size, exclusive of open porches, decks, carports, and garages. The square footage of the unit shall not be included in the minimum or maximum amounts of square footage for residences as provided in Paragraph ltl (1), above. If approved,. accessory uses shall be used only in association with the principal residential use of each lot and may under no circumstances be rented either short or long term. Dated this 111-11 day of May , A.D. l9 92 _ A`I'1'f ST. Clet, oldie Board Vote: Bnox sat fut 36s GARFI LD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COU N`1 Y, COLORADO Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following Arnold L. Mackl ey Elmer (Bitckey) Arhanev Marian I. Smith STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) , Aye , Aye , Aye 1, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. [N WITNESS WHEREOF, [ have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal ofsaid County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 19 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners • • HOCC 4/13/92 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQIJEST. Preliminary Plan review of the Wooden Deer Subdivision APPLICANT: Carbondale Land Development. Corporation ENCLIEEFRS: Schmtreser Gordon Meyer, Inc. Resource Engineering, Inc, CTL/Thompson, Inc. LOCATION: A parcel of land located in the SW' of Section 24 and Lot 3 and the NW' NW'/4 Section 25, T7S, R88W; more practically described as a parcel located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of Carbondale off of C.R. 103 and 104. SITE DATA• A 98,1 acre parcel to be split into 22 single family lois WATER: Central water system SEWER• • Individual Sewage Disposal Systems A_Cf SS: C.R. 103 ZZ ZING: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO TI IE COMPREHENSIVE EJ.AN The parcel of land is located in the following Comprehensive Plan Management Districts: District A - Carbondale Urban Area of Influence; District C - Rural Areas/Minor Environmental Constraints; District E - Rural Areas/Severe - Moderate Environmental Constraints; and District F_ Rural Areas/Severe Environmental Constraints_ IL appears that a majority of the property in located in Management District F. Dq • 11. LESC'i31PTIf)N OF THE PROELISAL A. Site_Descriplion: The subject property is located at northeast corner of the intersection of C.R. 103 (Crystal Springs) and 104 (Blue Road). The property is essentially a northlsoutli trending rectangle running parallel to C.R. 103. 'I'Itere is approximately 300 fret of relief over the length of the properly. The properly is divided into two (2) basic topographic areas. The southern one- third of the property consists of moderately sloping (5 to 20%) hillsides. One minor intermittent drainage traverse this portion of the property and is tributary to Crystal Springs Creek. Soils in this area vary in depth from six (6) to eighteen (18) feet and consist of clay mixed with sands and gravel. This portion is vegetated primarily with grasses and sage. The northern two-thirds oldie property consist of moderate to severely sloped (25 to 40%) hillsides. This portion of the subject property is heavily wooded with pinon/juniper vegetation, typical of a southern exposure. Soils in this portion of the proposed subdivision areshallow and laden with basaltic cobbles and boulders. The majority of this portion of the property slopes steeply to the south from the high point of the property. The very northern portion of the property slopes downward to the north, in the opposite direction as the remainder of the parcel. There are no perennial streams on the property, and only one intermittent drainage on the southern half of the property. Groundwater is located at considerable depth on [his properly. There are no improvements on the subject property. The property has historically been used for castle grazing. 13. nevelom lJ xnposa[: Theapplicant is proposing a twenty-two lot subdivision of the 98 acre parcel. The gross lot density will be one (1) per 4.46 acres. Lots range in size from 9.1 to 2.00 acres in size. C. ,Background- A sketch plan application was submitted to staff in December 1971 and reviewed by the Planning Commission at the January 1992 meeting. The current plan is largely identical to the sketch plan III, REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Colorado Geologijtl Sltrvey. Unable to visit the site due to the snow cover. Garfield County Road and Bridge- Concerned abut erosion, snow build-up, limitations on access onto C.R. 104(') and that design work be done to illustrate driveway grade. C. Division of WildlifeProperty is critical deer habitat. Accepts applicant's wildlife protection measures. Concerned about the limitations of deer and elk harvesting. D. ilasalt Water Conservancy Disldta: A wafer allotment contract to apply to beneficial use .22 cubic feet of direct flow righ is and 4.2 acre feet of storage water for augmentation of proposed wells. • • E. C r Malt psitn: Providing additional percolation test results for northern portion of property. GarIi 1dQ-ttnty_I;elauh ift slab: R eview leper to the applicant critiquing the application liar conformance with applicable regulations. G. Colorario Land lievelortment Corporation Calap1icani). Comments concerning proposed conditions of approval. f -l. Garfield Co+tnlyPlanning ommission: ivlinules frorn March 11,1992meeting. ]bfonnl so. C. r `■ erosion, revegetation and animal control. Expressed concerns about drainage, J. Holy Cross Electric AsSagialion. Describes required easement. iv ��asas v�7 IV. M6JOR ISSi1ES AND CONCERNS. r,, cj Roads: The proposed subdivision will be served by a single roadway, terminating in a cul-de-sac, roughly one (1) mile in length. The newly constructed roadway begins at an intersection with C.R. 103 and traverses the site partially following the existing road alignment to the high point of the property. An emergency egress extending from the roadway to C.R. 103 through a neighboring parcel is proposed. On Monday, April 6, 1992, the Board approved amendments to the design standards of the Subdivision Regulations. Enclosed is a draft copy of the proposed regulations. According to the new standards, the grades of the proposed roadway will require the Board to grant a variance. The maximum allowable grade is 10% unless the applicant can adequately demonstrate compliance with six (6) mandatory criteria as well as three (3) additional criteria if a wildfire hazard is determined to exist. The typical section of the majority of the roadway still appears deficient from the new standards. The applicant is proposing a 24 foot section with 10 foot travel lanes and 2 foot shoulders. Minimum standards for the "secondary access classification require 11 foot travel lanes and 4 foot shoulders. A chip and seal surface has been proposed for all roadways. Deficiencies also exist with curve radii which are Tess than (50' vs. 80') the allowable minimums, The cul-de-sac exceeds the allowable maximum of600 feet. The fire department has consented to the excessive length as a component of fire protection plan. The interior roadway crosses a small portion of land not included in the subdivision as it extends from C.R. 103 into the subdivision. The applicant has not obtained an easement to cross this land to date. Under the current road plan, there is no legal access to the subdivision. Wate>up,piy.: The applicants are proposing a central water supply system. The water source is an existing well capable of producing fifty (50) gallons per minute_ To provide adequate storage, a 50,000 gallon storage lank is proposed • • to be located at the high point of the subject property. The distribution system will consist of 3" PVC 'mins extending 10 each individual lot. Some of the tipper lots will require booster pumps to provide adequate pressure. The applicants have prepared and filed applications for water rights for six (6) individual wells and an augmentation plan with District Water Court- The applicant will augment the wells with the. Basalt Water Conservancy District water. An approved augmentation plan would be a prerequisite to filing a Final Plat. The proposed system does not meet the requirement of Section 9:53. This requires a minimum of four (4) inch wafer distribution mains. 3. Water Disposal. The applicants engineer has indicated that soils and topographic conditions will allow the use of conventional septic lank/leach field system. Percolation tests conducted on a cross section of the property indicate adequate percolation rates. The applicants have indicated that site specific engineering and soils investigations should be conducted for each residence. 4. Lot Designifevelopinenl• No building envelopes have been identified on the preliminary plan. The applicant is proposing to identify the building locations as a portion of the Protective Covenants. This issue is relevant to the recommendations of the geotechnical report. This report recommends not locating building envelopes on the slopes greater than 2.5/1 (>40%) restricting excavations to less than six (6) feet into hillsides. A significant percentage of the lotsconlain thesecondilions. Building envelopes, with adequate documentation of compliance with these requirements, should be identified. Because of the steep side slopes in the middle of the subdivision, driveway cuts will require considerable excavation. Each cut in excess of six (6) feet, should be reviewed for stability. The Road and Bridge Department has recommended "that lots with steep cross slopes should require a detailed cross section in the vicinity of the access for the lot to illustrate the grade of the driveway." 5. Fire Protection: The Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District has approved a fire protection plan based on discussion with County staff and the applicant. Included in the plan are two (2) turnarounds adequate for fire truck maneuvering two (2) 10,000 gallon cisterns along the roadway and a hydrant to provide access to water stored in the 50,000 gallon domestic water storage system. All storage facilities will be fitted with hydrants adequate for connection to the District's equipment. Also included is an ingress/egress easement for fire protection purposes extending northward through the Marlin's property into C.R. 103. This proposal appears to meet the requirements of Section 9:70 Fire Protection, assuming the applicant can obtain an adequate secondary access easement through the Marlin's property. 6. Boundary Issues: The current legal description and survey for the subject property is based on an uncontested section corner. The County Attorney has indicated that this method of description is satisfactory. The applicant is proposing to quit claim all that properly that was included in the original description to the adjacent land owners. The submission of these quit claim deeds should serve as atleg iiale verification of1lie iinconiesied boundaries of the • • subject property. 7. Zoning: A immber or references have been made in the application to "caretaker's residences." AIRIR 1) zoning does nol provide for the establishment of"caretak'er's residences." The regulations do provide for the residential use for domestic employees and their familiesemployed on the property as an accessary • use. Additionally, a guest house is permitted as a special use, permitted by the BOCC. This issue needs to be clarified. If guest houses/domestic employee residences are to be allowed, their impact on' traffic generation should be considered. Section 5.04.O1 - 3 or the Zoning Resolution requires the identification of areas of the subdivision over 40%. Those portions of the lot in excess of 40% do not count towards the minimum lot size. The applicant has submitted a modified preliminary plan identifying those areas in excess of 40%, The plan shows gross acreage as well as net acreage with slopes less than 40%. With these modifications, all lots appear to meet the requirements of this section. S. Comprehensive Plan: (see map) Section 4:33 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that the Board review an application based on compatibility with various issues including the Comprehensive Plan, The following comments will address the project's compatibility and non -compatibility with these applicable portions of the plan: Agriculture: (Policies: all) The subdivision may have impact on adjacent agricultural uses by its incompatibili ty. Impacts from agricultural uses; noise, odor etc. will be experienced in the subdivision. Conversely, the subdivision utilizes non-productive, non- agricultural land. Those lots adjacent to the subdivision are the largest, increasing the buffering effect to some degree. I-Iousing: (Policies: 2a, 3, 4b, 5 & 6) Existing platted subdivision lots do exist in small numbers in the Carbondale/Missouri Heights area. Conventional zoning, not PUD, is being employed. Low and moderate income housing is not being proposed. Limited physical separation exists between thesubdivision, ranch usesand a gravel quarry east of the development. The majority oflats will have positive solar orientation. Recreational/Open Space: (Policies: 2) While the subdivision will not create dedicated open space, it is not located within an intercommunily corridor. Transportation: (Policies: 2, 3, 4, 5b, 6, 7, 8 & 9) County regulations do not have any provision for off-site improvements to County roads. The applicant is limiting traffic to one intersection, although an existing intersection could provide access. The proposal does not discourage automobile use. The road design will require substantial cut and fills, The proposed design does not meet current standards. The road plan separates subdivision traffic from truck traffic leaving the Blue pit. Water and Sewer Service: (Policies: 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6) The proposal will provide • • adequate water and sewer services. The development could not feasibly connect to any existing water/sewer systems. Soil types and lot sizes accommodate 1SDS. This low density development cannot reasonably connect to an existing system. linvtronmenl: (Policies: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9) A significant portion or the subdivision is located in areas of severe environmental constraints. Development is discouraged in these areas (over 25%). The development should have little inspection water quality. No revegetalion or slope protection has been proposed. Development on lesser slopes should be mitigated. Development on sleeper slopes will result in loss of vegetation cover and visible cut slopes. The development should be compatible with the wildlife habitat with the properly. Community Service: (Policies: 1, 2 & 3) The development has reasonable accessibility to services. Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and suggested modifications. TV,suacaunaohumuiSc 1. That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required by taw for the hearing before the Planning. Commission. That the hearing before the Phinn/^ • that all pei parties we 3. That the recommer area of thl 1 That the p Resolution. s extensive and complete, 'ed and that all interested ..J compliance with the in for the unincorporated Garfield County Zoning 4. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State of Colorado and Garfield County have been submitted and, in addition, have been found to meet al! requirements of the. Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. V. RFCOMMENDAT[DN At their meeting on March 11, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of4-2 subject to the following conditions. Dissenters cited concerns about the water system, the lire protection plan, non-compliance of road design and air quality issues. 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the public hearings before lhePlanningCommission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless stated otherwise by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The homeowner's Association shall be incorporated in accordance with • Colorado Revised Statute: requirements. 3. The applicant shall prepare and submit aSubdivision Improvements Agreement addressing all on-site improvements, prior to the submittal of a final plat. 4. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all roads, bridges, utilities, fire protection, improvements signage and drainage structures prior to the submittal of the final plat. 5. That alt proposed utilities shall he placed underground. 6. That all cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native grasses and shrubs with adequate weed control. All revegetation shall be in accordance with the applicant's revegelation plan. Revegetation and landscaping shall be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. In addition, adequate security shall remain in place fora period of two (2) years to guarantee the survival of all plantings. 7. That the applicant shall demonstrate that procedures are established for the maintenance of all roadways and bridges, including snow removal, through the Homeowner's Association. 8. That the applicant shall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 9. That the following plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat: a. The recommendations of the Colorado Stale Forester and U.S.F.S. wildfire prevention guidelines shall be followed in the construction of all structures. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare and submit a soils and foundation report, an I.S.D.S. design, and a grading and drainage plan prepared and certified by a professional engineer. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such measures which shall be a condition of the building permit. c. Certain lots may require pumps to increase residential water pressure. 10. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit an approved augmentation plan providing for a legal water supply for the Wooden Deer Subdivision development. Said augmentation plan„ together with the Basalt Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract and the water rights associated with the wells, together with well permits, shall be transferred by the developer to a homeowner's association which shall have the power and the duty to enforce compliance by lot owners with the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan. Appropriate Protective Covenants shall 'further require compliance with the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan. 11. That the applicants shall prepare and submit prolective covenants, articles of incorporation and other Homeowner's Association documents including by-laws will be submitted for review by the County Attorney prior to the approval of the Final Plat. • 12. That the plat and covenants will provide that there will be no resubdivision of the lots. 13. That all roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards in effect at the lime of submittal of the Final Plat. 14. "1'he Final Plat shall identify building envelopes that are in contbrmaitce with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. 15. That a plat note requiring slaking and certification by a R.L.S. verifying building location within approved envelope.This requirement shall be incorporated into the restrictive covenants. 16. That adequate easements forwells, waterlines and other attendant Facilities shall provide on the Final Plat. 17. That ten (10) foot perimeter easements on each lot should be provided for utility purposes, 18. The applicant shall provide road signage in accordance with the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control. These should be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. 19. The applicant shall provide copies of quit. claim deeds From adjacent land owners. 20. The applicant shall provide an access easement from John Powers to the Homeowner's Association authorizing public access to the subdivision prior to the submittal of the Final Plat. Provisions for usage and maintenance of this easement should be addressed in the covenants. 21. The applicant shall provide a non -access easement an those lots abutting C.R. 104 for the purpose of restricting all but emergency access onto C.R. 104. 22. The applicant shall provide an access easement from C.R. 103 to the subdivision boundary from the Martins for emergency ingress/egress. This easement should be granted to the Homeowner's Association. Provisions for usage and maintenance of this easement should be addressed in the protective covenants, 23. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit approved plans (by Colorado Department of Health) for the proposed community water system. 24, All requirements of the Road and Bridge Department contained in their memo shall be considered conditions of approval. 25. The applicant should consider woodstove restrictions, further limitations on dogs and guest house restrictions as a component of the restrictive covenants. P. F 3: ET L.. t C CD LJ 14 Y"f' R.,D Ni c) is R.. 1: E) G IE INTI—DFFIca NUENID DATE: February 14. FO: Mark Bean. Pla.nning 1)epartme11t FROM: King RE: Wooden Deer Subdivision After reviewing the preliminaly plans for the above mentioned subdivision 1 have listed Lha followin,:i points for discussion. 1.) Through the section of road labeled curve 02 thru CZ the potential e)izists, because or the road being in a draw, for it to drift: shut durind a snow storm. You midhr. consider an easement for snow fel)ce consLruction „itrid maira.ananc. 2_) The lots that have steep cross slopes should require a detailed cross section in the vicinity of the 3CCI for the lot: Lo illustrate the orade of the drivE,way. Z.) No individual lot access will be allowed off the County Road 100 for the lots bordering it. 4.) Details should be pcovided as to soil stabilization through mechanical means and reseedirwl in disturbed areas, or where runoff waters will be concentrated, Lo prevent aroion. - 1 L":011 • • Board of Counmty Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse 109 - 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners: Dee and Jean M. Blue 0404 road 104 Carbondale, Co. 81623 April 15, 1996 Re: Special Use Permit Amend Reso. No. 81-384 Please consider approving the amendment for the above resolution as there are a few safety reasons concerning Road 104 and Road 103. 1. The bus stop at the intersection of Road 104 and Road 103, in the up -hill lane, presents the possiblity of an accident, especially in the spring and fall when the youngsters walk to and from the bus stop. More so, if their dog follows them. 2. The traffic on Road 103 has incresed each year. It is down hill to Road 104, and continues down hill to the intersection of Highwy 82. Unfortunately, more cars are exceeding the speed limit. 3. The Road 104 intersection is not wide enough for large trucks to enter Road 103 without using both lanes. 4. With the increase in traffic on Road 103, the road is deteriorating. It appears to be getting more narrow, maybe because of the increase in the speed of the cars? By changing the entrance of the large trucks and other vehicle traffic generated by the Blue Pit, Road 103 can then sustain the current traffic and a few more years of growth. Sincerely, Jean M. M. Blue and D lue AL, ° 0 s • '© w `a a a,� a o ' !iip rp W 0 n o.. m o o- m a, g o -rte R .. O T T W day P r.y X 4 O C•o ap �. C) m ,fly co h m w ro an - a m 4 v h *. Q , ' Cr-, `�0 00 • b , C. AT= S m rt, w m 4r..; XD e ro C fit • ,T. +', �p m �°. lis ,D 4 • ,a 6 m W : S ro •M to 4) c 0. b� .� Q 0 ' ... m m z ,S,y gam, Baa s ° o A' c1. 1- �ty1 O rr. M m 0 W r* a 0 0- 4 -.°am fi g m V P e ro , " 6' `°+, T tr mg m pg k. -..'':6a' 0-0 .g `°may �' 5` �A ,'' A m 5L 3g. O.0 �n rc 0. .7 mom` a• O q 01?: a o Z O fl a r7 c'z- o m 4 0o It gn da •'ti .s. g 1`" ,n ma�.1fsk k4 m c o , Q. • f • m °4 - fi0 o'4�� • a m -- K$ tr `'ro am p4 m /r T `4 0 T a: w o arj a4mtair cr wo oro n o a w a a n'0 m a• w m .. • $or n 7 m ts'' 1y.. a h-, �, w ,1 M 3 q c •rx• Tn�, 'ya ,a' 'ti' rb �` n - 0. g c ' 0 ems- On C Z. own a c 0- ,,''°,'�' o a* o m w ,a m 4 Q. 0 cd r m .., y. '- m S' a ,0 ssRb G 2. o,, ,a o ,03 a M b ` *fit. [ YY W ",, g m o ca . 1 e a rn fr o m 0 a 4,7 W O 0 @ 0,,,Q °4C t 1.2 mn' + 0 s...,,,, owmfl Y4R ntr� r� sz - z. 6 y A' oy mo'fv o s Ca .0m re 0 a° o `wbsaFn p m (Ai : yD �te0cv c ' c 0 o n o y 0 C,sz0rt, n El *pQO'g.-W6,�•• ersi;JL 0 G- r' w np o tiwq..o-'ona2 a. a ` p . - fl. 4m R ", fiRcC. 40 - $ 0 D o .5. b, o ir§A'0 m 0 n. ti Gar°" °sg�rnVwo,A' i W'OoCAo;...t,ta .Y "hn • m �',•a5'o-vb0m m T •s -. ti 0 a 0�"w mo a 0 OD 0^ tef Nfr SP Q. o•w &' o A 0 0 •0 R O T'C• ry rb 6. H C V 4.'a" v' ..1.fp O m CE4'44',0et Ill..' 4,t • m ` ''fir. li Pi T 2, .�Jfl .; a`' o p „ "b p4 y a- R ro rib o °, flr' n„ y, o y n 3 ^7 a i, a e . -.' ?' 4 < o. rc a m c 1 i s 0 ,. o ca a w o R ,� ,4,a rt.0 Cr-..") 4 „ ia' rl fl fic3.4 'tr. X. or / 0 o '.'' ^„' is r`j , "t E m o m fa` a �*' 00. cL R. , °' w ' 0 ,4' . 0- '� ate.. AS 0 n 0 0 nh M y' tr 0 roa • A, c p0 t9 017 0 c te0. y y '*. 0 o`er • '. w y a. n ` °O s m "•a T. 04 "aT �. n. ,c w• • m 0 0 ,a p y + ti- M "V r`i 't Co 0 a' R ns JqA T' 0 T' n nom.- $T fi C d °. �pa� 'ti P. Et A", mC m °' rn g- o " £'' s-3 0 qo o ^, .V g i rn S S' Ar Ori M m to x� s+.0- G G a.0?: �' o r¢ m >@a O. m 0 E P, ° Po� Z's, S otV 8 0 4R 0 0. 0 to w 0 P a •� 0 0 ,0 AA 'xi 0 0 0 as a o c"Q a" O G w. g, A' N d to a. 0 aC T, a o n 0" o a w 0 OVERT WILSON & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW 210 TENTH STREET GLENWO00 SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE (970) 928-9665 FACSIMILE (970) 928-9680 April 19, 1996 Sherry Caloia, Esq. Caloia, Houpt & Light. P.C. 1204 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 GERALD 0. HARTERT RONALD M. WILSON THOMAS J. HARTERT .giy.,a%? APR 2 0 19% Caloia Houpt & Light, P.C. SENT VIA DIRECT MAIL TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE AND BY FACSIMILE TO [970)-945-6292 RE: Right of Way Request - Crustal Springs Road Dear Sherry: This letter is delivered in response to your letter received by fax this morning. We represent John Powers, the owner of certain real property adjacent to County Road 103 and County Road 104. Upon discussion of your request with our client, I have been authorized to inform you that Mr. Powers is amenable to the concept of granting a right of way upon his property suitable to permit safer and easier physical access from County Road 103 to County Road 104. Obviously, the specific details of the contemplated conveyance will need to be decided; however, Mr. Powers has expressed a desire to accommodate this situation as soon and as simply as possible. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Thomas J artert TJH/pc xc: John Powers E MAP T 21- 2393-26 ±2393-26 26-- s 7. 1 203 3 267 cm�fi aL- MAP 6 8 4 13 I - 36— r 93-35 A F(7///// SHARP/ TRACT —1 2 13 WC_.„.____ w. . 14 NO 2393-36 2463-011-00-016 (8-88) No, TlrS ------- 2 4 24 1 23� I7 ti P r- 0 0 o.0 , F. rn C. to • v, c. m r Ci+ _r MAY -31--996 11:l01 May 31■ 1996 Mr. Sean Mello Western Slope Aggregate P.O. Sox 910 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 RE= TRUCK NO/SE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT, ACCESS CHANGE TO STATE HIGHWAY 82 Dear Mr. Mello; �ngineenng dynamics FAX PAGE 1 OF 6 1-970-963-2412 Voices 1-970-963-2296 Engineering Dynamics' has completed a Noise Impact Assessment of the proposed Change in access to State Highway (SM) 82 from the Western Slope Aggregate (W5A) Pit located across SE 82 from the Ranch at Roaring Fork (RRF) subdivision. 1.0 Background The existing Pit access, for Haul Trucks, is West of the main RRF subdivision entrance. trucks travel North out of the quarry then point. The proposed Haul Route change will 5H82, at a distance of about 200', to a new directly across from the RRF main entrance. 1.1 Proposed Truck Traffic located approximately 1 mile With the existing Haul Road around a hill to the access faring the trucks East along SH82 access point at CR100, WSA'e State of Colorado permit for truck traffic into and out of the pit is 80 single unit or tandem trucks and 40 multi -unit or end dump trucks per day, for a total number of truck trips per day of 120. The pits hours of operation are from 7am to Spm, which yields an average of 12 truck trips per hour. Truck traffic out of the WSA pit splits about evenly, with 50% of the trucks heading West towards Aspen and 50% heading East towards Glenwood Springs. Conversations with WSA personnel indicate that on the average 2 to 3 days per month, the total daily truck traffic can increase up to 240 truck trips per day. 1.2 Reference Noise Levels Table 1 lista A -weighted noise levels of some typical events and in typical pieces. Table 1: A -weighted Sound Pressure Levels of Events and Activities Activity dB(A1 Threshold of Hearing Inside a Recording Studio Quiet Rural Night Soft Whisper @ 6' Rustle of Leaves at night Quiet Urban Daytime Normal Conversation @ 3' and Typical Vacuum Cleaner @ 10 Crowded Restaurant and Noisy Urban Daytime Nightclub 0 15 30 35 40 50 Restaurant 60 70 80 100 3925 south kalamoth street englewood, colcradc 80110 (303) 761-4367 • fax (303) 761-4379 Some MA'" -31--:9 , 11:02 P.02 `�1Cgtnco ng dynamics Mr. Mello May 31, 1996 Page 2 2.0 Noige Measurements On Tuesday May 28, 1996 EDS personnel performed noise levels meas of truck noise with typical haul trucks traveling up and down the haul route and of the existing traffic noise along SE82. measurements were performed at two locations on the RRF property; Location 1 - on the driveway of 0146 Surrey Street. Measurer this location will show level of audibility reside:cee along SH82. uremente prono s ed These Location 2 - ants at at RRF at the main entrance to the RRF 150' from the centerline of SHS2. Measurements at this location will show effect of haul truck acceleration and deceleration on the RRY pro -shop, and ether areas near the intersection. 2.1 Haul Route Truck Noise To determine the noise impact of haul trucks on the P.R7, noise from to and unloaded haul trucks ascending and descending the proposed haul r were measured at Location 1 and noise from haul tracks accelerating decelerating on SH52 were measured at Location 2. The trucks used du these measurements were two tandems (GSA trucks 21 and 22) and two dump units (WSA trucks 20 and 55). A11 truck speeds were maintained at mph or Less during ascent and descent of the proposed haul router maintain this speed the trucks stayed in low gear and did not use J brakes. During deceleration measurements at the Proposed Haul Route/ S intersections Jake Brakes were not used. All trucks were equipped wi stock exhaust systems. aded outs end ring end 10 to aka 82 th Noise measurement reselte at Location 1 are listed ,in Table 2 an measurement results at Location 2 are listed in Table 3. Table 2: Truck Tyee/Na. Nene 22 21 22 55 21 2C Haul Truck Noise on proposed Saul Route at Location 1 Ascending/ Load Descending Condition Measurement. Result Background traffic noise levels during the truck runs ranged from 58 to 63 dB(A) d Descending loaded not audible, traffic noise 62 dB(A) 55 Descending loaded slightly aueible, traffic noise 58 dB(A) Descendag loaded not audible, traffic Noise 62 d8(A) 20 Descendeng loaded slightly audible, traffic noise 60 dB(A) Ascending Ascending Aucendeng Ascending unloaded unloaded unloaded unloaded not audible, traffic noise 61 del(A) audible, traffic noise 63 d8(A) net audible, traffic noise 62 dB(A) audible, traffic noise 61 dB(A) MAY -31-1996 11.02 P.03 eNnginee II dynamics Mr. Hello May 31, 1996 Page 3 Table 3: Haul Truck Nairne at 5H82 Intersection at Location 2 Truck Accel/ TreJNo_ Deaccel 22 Accel 55 Accel 21 Accel 20 Accel Lead Condition Measurement Direction Remelt 22 Deaccel 55 Deaccel 21. Deaccel 20 Deaccel loaded loaded loaded loaded loaded loaded loaded loaded Towards Aspen Towards Aspen Towards Glenwood Towards Glenwood From Aspen From. Aspen From Glenwood From Glenwood 64 dB(A) 63 dB(A) 65 d.B A) 61 dBfA) t60 d8(A) <61 dB(A) <60 d8 (A) <62 dB(A) 2.2 Existing Traffic Noise To determine the existing background traffic noise levels at RRF residences along 5882, one 24-hour A -weighted statistical noise survey was performed at 0146 Surrey street. For this measurement the Logging Sound Level meter was set up 3' towards SH82 from the front yard fence. Results of these measurement° are shown in Table 4. The 24-hour time period was initiated after all haul truck noise measurements were concluded, so that noise from these events would not effect the data. Table 4: Hourly A -weighted Statistical Noise Level Data, at 0146 Surrey Street Local Hour LEa 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 61.0 61.7 62.5 60.3 61.3 60.5 58.5 78.0 57.6 56.6 54.4 52.2 47.8 47.1 48.9 48.0 51.7 59.3 64.1 64.8 64.1 62.9 62.7 62_4 Lay s 69 d$(A) Exceedance Percentiles Lia rd5c1s0 69 69 70 69 69 67 66 79 67 65 64 63 60 59 62 61 64 69 71 73 74 71 70 71 64 65 64 63 65 64 52 66 61 61 59 57 50 48 46 46 54 63 67 68 66 66 64 65 59 60 59 57 60 60 56 60 54 52 49 44 41 41 41 41 43 51 63 63 60 59 58 59 51 53 52 48 53 53 47 49 45 44 43 41 40 40 40 40 40 44 54 53 51 50 52 53 MG` -31-:99E 11:03 Mr. Mello May 31, 1996 Page 4 P.04 0 --engineering dynamics The neige levele associated with the exceedassce percentiles ie Table 4 are the levels that are exceeded X percent of the tans. For example the L, is the maximum noise level sampled during the measurement period, the L50 is the noise level that is exceeded SC percent of the time (similar to the class average), and the L90 is the ecise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time. Curing a sample period the noise level fluctuates up and down, if we were to perform an energy average of the fluctuating levels' throughout the sample period (i.e.; find the area under the curve), the Leg is simply equal to the constant noise level, over the same time period, that would have the sate area under the curve. The Tee is the logarithmic average of the daytime (lam to lOpm) and the nighttime (l0prn to lam) eel's, with a ten dB(A) penalty added to the nigntteme Leg. 3.0 Traffic Noise and Volumes Traffic vols.me data for SH82 at the 12RF' subdivision entrance was obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation. This data showed an Annual Average eai.fy Traffic (AADT) count along SH82 at Road 100 of 12648 vehicles, with vehicle splits of Hedeem :ruck (eengle axil) and Heavy Truck (2 axil and trailer) percentages of 2 and 5, respectively. The Peak Hour traffic volumes (rush hour) are le % of the total. Due to the relocation of the haul route entrance onto SH82 w5A truck traffic oast the RRF on 5E82 will not increase. currently, 1/2 the trucks travel pase the entire length of the RRF development. With the proposed haul route, that is near the center of the RRF development, 1/2 of the trucks will travel East and 1/2 will travel West. Therefore, the proposed haul route will not increase the total truck traffic on SH82 in the vicin:.ty of the RRF. 4.0 Analysis of Results *'xumeration and comparison of the data in Tables 2, 3 and 4 show the following; 1. Data in Table 4 shown that the traffic noise environment at the res'edencee on Surrey Street has an Lai, of 69 dB(A) . Thio id, level is 4 d8(A) higher than t,".e U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments Normally Acceptable limit of 65 ds' (A) , and 2 de(e) higher than the State/Federal Highway Department Regulations, CDOT and FHWA Acceptable noise levels outside occupied buildings are specified in 23 CFR 772 Sec. 772.5(G) "Procedure for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise". 2 The hourly Lel data in Table 4 shows that during normal WSA pit operating hours, lam to 3pres, that the average noise level at the residences along Surrey Street, and therefore for residences and the oro -shop West of cu OC, are in the range of 60 to 6.5 dB(A). The u_ data in Table 3 shows that 10 % of the time noise levels along Surrey Street are greater than the rang of 63 to 68 d8(A). 3. Dataln Table 2 shows that noire from individual haul trucks ascending and descending the proposed haul route, is either inaudible or less than the existing traff;.c related noise along SH82 noise environment. While some individual truck events will be audible, there avdinility well not be a dominant noise with respect to the existing background noise levels. MAY -31-1996 11:04 Mr. Hello Kay 31, 1996 Page 5 F.05 --O.—engineering dynamics NOT..: The noise Levels data presented in Tables 1 and 2 was taken between 9:30an and 11:0Oam on a typical week day, when traffic volumes are not at peak levels. Data in Table 3 shows that noise from trucks accelerating and decelerating from the proposed haul route access on 5E82 will be at or below existing traffic noise levels at all locations on the RRF development. Again, while some indivedua1 truck event's will be audehle, there audibility will not be a dominant noise with respect to the existing background noise levels. 5. Section 3.0 illustrates that the proposed haul route access will net increase the total or WSn truck traffic on SHS2 in the vicinity ofthe RRF development. 6. As stated in Section 1.1, there will be days when the total truck traffic into and out of the WSA pit may be twice the permitted volumes. The volume of trucks under these conditions is at most 24 trucks per hour; at this rate each truck will Estill be an individual event. Items 3 and 4 above show that these events will still be inaudible and/or below the existing traffic noise levels. 7. Depending on the time of year and the weather conditions be dans when there will be no ~ruck traffic into er out when truck volumes are lees than specified in Section 1 5.0 Conclnuions The data in Sections 2.0 and 3.0, and the results presented in show that there iii no noise impact from relocation of the Haul on SM82 on the RRF subdivision. 6.0 Stipulations there will of pit, or .1. Section 4.0 goad access The haul trucks noise levels reported in Section 2.1 of this report, can be repeated only with specific truck operational requirement°, that are outlined below. If these requirements are adhered to and required am an Official company Policy of Western Slope Aggregate, then the conclusions of Section 6.0 above will hold. 1. All trucks operating in or cut of the wSA pit shall have and maintain stock muffler systems, that axe performing to original manufacturers specifications. This can be determined and verified by a simple visual and auditory inspection of the truck. 2. All trucks ascending or deacer.dirig the haul route shall e t exceed speeds of 10 mph. 3. All trucks descending the haul routs or approaching the haul route access on sH82 shall not use engine Jake Srakee to decelerate. 4. All truck drivers, independent or employed by WSA shall be briefed as to stipulations 1 through 3 above and shall agree to operate within the requirements of these seipulatices. 5. WSA shall set up a series of progressive consequences for drivers that fail to comply with stipulations 1 through 4. s1H -.31-1996 11:04 Mr. Hello may 31, 1996 Page 6 f-engine�l� dynamics rf you have any queatIons, please contact me at our Englewood office. sincerely, ENGINEERING DYNAMICS, :NC. Stuart D. McGregor Vice President TCPLP.0t6 ENGINEERING DYNAMICS STUDY OF TRUCK NOISE USING PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD Points of Measurement: Time 7 a.m. 8 a.m. 9 a.m. 10 a.m. 11 a.m Ambient Noise Level (db) 64.8 64.1 62.9 db's at 0146 Surrey Street 1 Tuck* 63** 63** 63 2 Trucks 66 66 66 3 Trucks 67 Truck* db's Main Entrance, Ranch at Roaring Fork 2 Trucks 65 68 3 Trucks 70 67 67 65 65 12 p.m. 1 p.m. 2 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. Average of Total 62.7 62.4 61.0 61.7 62.5 60,3 63 63 66 67 66 67 68 68 70 70 65 65 63 66 67 65 68 68 68 63 63 63 66 67 66 67 66 61.3 60.8 62.2 63 63 63 66 67 67 66 67 66 67 65 65 65 68 68 68 70 70 70 70 70 70 65 65 65 68 68 68 70 70 70 *highest noise level as measured by Applicant. **Only fact.sinration when compliance is arguable, however these are the hours w roadway. Notes: en there will be the maximum number of trucks on the Current traffic as much as 240 trucks per 10 -hour day, equal24 trucks per hour or one every 2.5 minutes, on average (however, this may be low for certain hours). 1 minute 50 seconds required to traverse the new road at 10 m.p.h. at 1,600 feet (if 2,000 feet, 2 min 15 sec.) Thus, at 24 trucks per hour travelling at 10 m.p.h. on the 1,600 foot roadway, there will be trucks on the proposed access way for almost 48 minutes every hour, at 2,000 -foot roadway, there will be a truck on the proposed access every minute of every hour Prepared for: Ranh at Roaring Fork by: Sherry A. Caloia 1: 1.140511 DQC S1 RANCH [. I TH • unc J. 1996 9 5 - C11. 0 fD'9 0 a. m g DO CD Da ra. 'o g. 0 0 M '* 0 o w h Da 2, 'L861 `0E s[nf 'OEZIVD98 '°NQ 1-3 o» 5 a to „ a E°: gt41. a A „,et to • p o q 6: 0 b A m 7�� � A 7�� G� b�C a 0. p LTJ oa» m b Avo . O a. 4. 0 `l co V+ O 0 0 eD '„•y, ..:n O wg• 7 °ti 12'ga ".r2 0 e� • C ". eD DDa "d 0. O r E. p, A o °� o ai P 0 A a„° a�4 ' i Pg P4 y c'13 "ff `` u aN iaLS pu b,54 ti' 5'='o 5. W '+ p P2 N � _ Q N o9 m •, ry N `� c co.G `� • Q fe,�` o �' o m p °' " m w• ° 'moi o o m O 0 0 co ° w a. o m O 3 •0 5. ,.., N a o• n' S g N �* o ,D ° 5: 0 p P 0 w E #J C7 w. M a, g, g oov co o' g a m 5' �. . "' 7 ° �, w b 7 '0° `c 7 a ?d 5: a 5 0 oov 0 aL w a °i o n w o' v' o 5' 7 ov m `c an d p. o^ 5_., o p' S n 7 y< 5 5 ov m o n o n. f° E 'n-' m w M eD n O m 0' o9 N a' 0 G a0 ' 7„O W P� e a pOi ao-' ° ov 0 o9 7 w' w 'd o ti er '°•a aL N 0 o 0 5 w g c n w.• -•m 2 7 P''a•oLg.;.g 0 g w 7 a A w c o`� o m �'�•�o '' o S ,q occ b m w Fr �' m 5' ° w< 2 a. . a: m,'< a coo m g 0.Pi e. fD o• 0 G o' w G m, a `� 0 ca o° o'> c e�T. p7� 0 to d o 'ti a o b d '� o D 'ti w 8 `° �. `e ar w a syr o c "�l < o �. co O 0 0 ,0.' G C `C p C' �? p W y'. J n n; fA' (�D, (OD et, {D p, • b �°-h w = P� r,� co W r' .°.a y �xM'7 N�- ,y $ No o m O n 7 ° N O O n c` O 'J m 2. ., P v 0 o '° m `r 0 ss.G' ° `° 5 °0 a 5 00 o w 0 5" o oG `� g D0 ,e' 5 8 0 7 m E "� o -- ' w o ww 'd w �, .°„ pM, '° ur,' m x `e < gyp* m .0 rj, " 9 m ; : C 7: £..5 'moo m w �. o �b it a a o o< 4 c` 5 5 m op aL oo o 0. o w m m 0 O g g 5 F' a: m °' r' m e to 0 g eD w 0• a `nD tin o a• X' m 0 O r5. o r 0 co w • a a c n .10°00 b ° fit* a o m A ov a4. H b ti, A c ti, e w w' a 0° �• 7 `° 5 DD 0 7 '* m 5 a c o v ". S. o 0. m cr w' a ov a D °' o. 5.09 n c 0 5' °�*' 1 co w m 5 w 5 0 5 �O c 0 0,D ° w o w a 0 `° ?* n ° n w 5 5' w o o n �* 0 5 5 a H a o '" m' `°^ �r n `� o a' m m w 0 7 o m° x °q mei° e� o o' o az. Abba ob„,1 °w " �' Ci, " a4 7 m w a p 0 '°+. a' $ 0 ry ti w b* 60' 0 aL `' w m tr b so*fix E•0 0 0 0 5 $ P-0' a3 w T CO •-Fp "C�� o 5- a; Ca Sa x M" �5. a n N O40 w "� w .0 v <? r 0 C] 0 w 0 o � 0 M lit 5. eq W� 0• fD 5 oA m „ fo 95 o w ry aL o 8- n m 7 741 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES 55' 5.4 e .g c c w w M a+ Fe 4 c oD g �' S a, b> M a e cr ?' n a+ >• 5.'d C 'd G `r w v' CD a+ ,O, N W m O f� 0 .• w ° o 2 aL aL 0° `� a �' c ,�, w o o '° ^� ° N w g. o w N o° co. 5' co. M ��', i° o w 3 b n p ti w M. R S `w° o w w o o + o O y ° 0 0 c' fr o A ca', o w w 5' 'o D o o as 5 e o a� n o o o' w w o • 0'3 b' $ fD A '°" `° c 5' °a w c g g 'e S 5. 0. 'g A A w w w 5' 04 m° 0 m c ° °' w ti E w • 7 `D n 5 g0 CP oo fo m 0 a a+ S o m B. " o w d o 0 a a O waso- 0 O a. "g o 7 0.aq `� ° d m a CD o 0 0 o y g 5 'ti 5 g Mto 2 E m m m. N w• ' M b 0.4 0 a k w ,' 5 pWp RI `J M. C. `J 00 yy '°f �y 0 p7 J! nM� 'M 4' 5'ri; 'g' .G ;.. 7' w r� O J a9 7 A o W aL o9 N w G• .7j a• m O• aw-' 'cf 5 O' w O• '••'' O° 7 J n 0 p• '0000 °p' 0 •°+.m 7 w'� 7A. g '°,ryAy�, ...• �'°son C M °"y C 8 Da w• 0~0` �pU aq (D cryo pj f6 co w wp P..O"+. a70 M ,gC w Q• n W C 49• D; m' 8 w 9 �• a. w w 0 ca V' O 7 b' d U NV g. 0 w. w O 7. O° c 9 17 0.OJ. �'' O cD w, o' cD y' OBD .d `J 5• .i' a4 Q. a. w _ A.a W L� W y$ m `0`• ,b E o g ry� o• m o c °° 8 `? w o w g S. `,a. " .d m C o.4 ... �„� 1°' !D cd. w a. n: 5' w N phi Co O '~°o C g 0 0 �• 0 o'aa w 5 5 ° 5 w °c �.b w m A o Ca.o a. a.. 5' k er !is,. pg. E aL `f O M 9. �' aL 0. 7' �' '°+. a7', a0-' ?. 0" ro o O Q °p 5 ' m 5m°nx° $ m 'e :. ga. Ca ' g w 0 0 Emsb', w w 5 . a. 5 g" E. C mm" R. : 'w o a� b 2 ' w sto m 0 N�Nor5' wS.hS. o S o cr 0‘. m O • 2 n t. O ; o E or 5' o n .i, a. o° vwg G @m -aO `ob m ww w Ww G� 'b C o 50 x 5 w Wg b g (Dowg c m �' ,w,,M5 a ao.o '0 o c ?ww'�oqXMo5MM o 0 oa hl w m p 5, A a Oag N;w n, n ti a. 3 -- , o c o' C o RaMo. OwA? ao m PP pLO' an N °M w,...AJ.4 .5w' O R. : '''w w w o.4` . o ar "w a r c t= rn 0 c m nnm A F' . <0° ` Rw$cw°C 0 aCD ow`g Cr. .g g 5 5' c o °' g C'4 m w CDm 0°0,W .•ow or m . 'i � • 7 5�• d9 0 '" *m0.0ww7pm Wbw�ovow08 m boo.a40• o5.?.o°.°p.0ci. 0 m• w o 78 o•o.0 Fp" 7m ,Ow w. ?o '0�0 WGwm.+.°Ow (1C��' �o Z�b o' 1 "4-. " � §L:° a K5ad p 0w w o a o3o. b b g<mgO° `io m a• p g0w g. 0 o 5o 5mmogv•p f1)• ;,o• s 78. bm O c w o ; C•s n 5 0 x gm 5 w ti0 $ (7 'a,5'nLc 72 D a wa �wJ O . D 2 0 0.. S. a-o50`D.°as m. 5o a- D V' ' S..-• M Cc �' sIOW A' m = p.A D '� O , ea. . oW a.p '2 F, NO O xo,,aF,R,w P m Ian2,ry �. q T p d OO 0 SmA D �* C A m 0 My? ' 5m n 'q mm ?� d caDo N99t1-.‘ g. 9 C7 m1 5`a. g rr • ro w'- '4' g m DI a "= y n n ❑ O ro ro m cb w o C ^J m ro 0 ..; ��' :' m m C-' n E. 6- W ,til f�,�.. g': . m i4 ro [q g '. Cl cG iE w 0 0 a R" 0 n ^[ m m + ro a e w sp R m pr y a o n' °L. ro 0 "` 7 c p51 o ro - 5 a 8' x :0 0' ,, M # .0.. T rh P :3 0 11 m W ZZ,.. 'C Ca N O ." cA i P 4 C o psi p• ro m~ f7 v ay ❑ g 2. Af CL ❑ 7 ill 0 5 m ro o. cy a m n y `" m p° '26 �. l a.,€1. .� cs a w' g a ,i° ro a r 0. ,aclam., m5.m a. 'a,gA.9N -gP5,c�EL m oaL,8,mmmi ,g wmo• ? m='4_4"iQ It . ❑ ❑ f* w ww o_ M❑ crat ro ... w a. n a er sa �' a Ew m a C aR n b R es :44: ro a5ez`° m m o ro m roro �' roaO A ^� m g. • m 2 ear T a' o ",5 N cp 1:4':' C [Y 4 o m❑ 0 n pro 'C m i'M o 7 'J n°'tG.'�¢flwc0w .„.n C m w ; .n o m^e : e• v x mR� g.-; w g U3roG a, a 'c7co a'w_rCr't0.•,,y 0o°_°ncp n rcroy{ .n ❑ Fi ro if l �x ��j • , , ea ,fl gm i1 L' C a. ry. m a' m 'fin P H !L ry a. 0 Pi e* m , `3 S'o C7. • R" o i❑y ❑ ro ••., CD" W '0' Ci w ❑ '� m 0 at o o m o 5 CD ,..., m 0CO ° m o a' $' m❑ s�• a S ° cm o n u a o w ro �^ o 40 o • tLe " n n 1ti CD w o. �� x. cra. , r "' a n w. '* `} n' o 5 bo ru '2' • px n ° a° .y C. Oct w w " a; a, a. 5 0 E. 0 m, 3.ro s4 E,YT ,n R�r, o• ya n C' s�D,_, u�' `•? q, o m a. '°c' ~= °". M 5'' P a ®� ❑ �r 'a ro a€ 5 E; ro ro w, R g es sc s m ❑ as en s o c a° o ro 5" 5 er a' o pq ry o x ❑ o ro o w o -� 'v . o "* m E o ^' y ❑% ', w• = rr n p x `E AR ti 5• o m q�� w = ss, E ��'' n o 0. '� g gym.. Hwy 's o C_ " m n _�; w C 4a m 1g' n m as w -s m c° fD c° t`7 m '�+ ro mS ro ,7" 'c� C G fl Lie' R. C o. [y, m .� `3 0 Ca ro ro m ro eu w '' d m m R �* is 5• m w rob w �« " �+' ro P C. C' F° m " w 0r '' o CD n. 5' o n s � y E.: � ro n ❑ a a� a UI!! . d e5. !S Rp..'k ,vi o C c/ e• 0 6' m N. P lha '+ q . `C w ID a h m '7 a. m G, w `ze •oma$ lam. A, ' n,° 1 R,st4 0 W l 5, m °0 tr C i m `� c rr a Y d c �: n¢ 0 5 t. w a... x C r d x m ....,s-• oq a °' m Eng o rbp g• L o r Q' 4 '❑v m' ow , a emx a rn ro ay r+ 6-a' p o ,(7:1 h� I. w p, , ;lc G N N who iy tlDo . [y . 0" CD M ❑ . n �' '` m e+ CD N P� "at O rr W rt .� CD -"1 tL w �. .:p `•r.... aq p. W • o p- a.. ca m rn m w ro❑ V ra a b l o m + '`,' P., y "ip ra gtr °F00 @ Q �.. ' C '•f °^ R. EP m ,-y �y r*e �. C n (7 o CD s' n n z�j �+ o w rna c�1 _ o rom m o m 7`� €�` ry gb_ g▪ °-•,� o a' o 04 �° w e o0_ p„. 00 m ro 5 S . ro '-n +-.. m r R3 d m n C' � ❑ m ",• ro en a, g' ro roan m ° ro y o g o x °"1,6 • ❑ a, .tet w w 0- rt . • D 0 un ,•", m p a. m C = cmn S. *°' m w 5 5 ro m �* €n7. �+ m �' ❑ ❑ ao o f m o m m rn ro, cp m ?. n 1g C 1 w C S m it 5 m' 5: ro 4 ro ] CL rn n -� n 5 ° ❑ ro❑ Fa m m Z. n IN ❑ a m x twa o [r ' u a O ° ❑ � 0 5` x l "•* a. C m. ® �' .... pp aq 5 „� m ? w m e•' . e 7 E- .v �, ro+ x ua ; l wRHEtIti N m m •P -r, w e•i,.• 7 ro• 5. '�i� ?t, Ps O fes* Apr. ❑ o E= ro w w° �0 ez ro " s cn 5 a g' n a a �q a m �▪ y{ x rho o° n o m 5 °` "• 1 n� �q g' N C C• `C r❑y,. CS v i s i+ .y r, C O C cv t➢ Q. ro P a� ` To -m m w n a w M `� ° r w F °� • 5' a s a 5. .'a ' °, 5. C7 m a.a,''P,yw °s u❑ `w'4 w a m arc F• g m �] w vQ "'' `. ro m a ro ro m ry 5. 4- o r 18' ❑ m a 0 c°'n ❑ m g °� © .`-3 aa' el w p 8" x',' 'g C v • o Da Go _g m m g• m m .8 0' r,. 0. e'1 a zx. m D:, • 5 y �' q 0 r0n 5 a 0 o a' 0 E F' w H 'mac '3w .air :.gym c �"' 0- 0 A f[' m o m F. a': 5- m' P° Erin 5'n t 5 w e ro ro a a' w m c m$ 5-a•w 4 s- a.o0- Eif ❑ n C • �. 0 .C3 o cp 'CI 'c a❑ 'a ❑ c cox s a A E. '"' Os ay O. Ye 5 o0 rs 6- o '- 0 , .", ro .i - �• " m C : cq 10 0 Sl, m 0 m 0- re O per' ro rylq A> ro R. N 'c7 5' .' , w O • i'q 2 &'' m ',❑s K • P is am' o a z n n �. o gym• y o ,-,' c' � 4.• a 00 ca `� `� m N no a W y . la. W o. fA - ❑ t0U 0. re w' S• b n [i R Cr 'ti w '4 m a w o w' �° s K C ' o. g w' xis b cnv a o v 5 0 'o 5' H o• a. -, n .,, 5 ro ro w co w m` ^ s. m ❑ ❑ r.`"a o w ro W S�9 C C c® .4- m C CD 0 n ry co cr FP w o a, w' i3 •m • h L N • oar ▪ 00 a to 0. w 4 � m m M c"'cD -,-, 5 , O w 'v a' P: m 5. W u ro b 0 K ''' w Cr 0i. '� n n C 0 n n o 0 g ro o e V r; ;,,.< m ro m '� -r c r. 5 0 ,- a 0 't7 e 0 r' m Cr . ro Q0 n W D w N `C u�*`"0CD ro cno Eco. --• a. • -' m '< m ti c- N f0 A' S' ro 0 S's a ca. 78 ' ; m .q A S n W p 4, a ro ar m o 0 "-,. , fi U1 C m 'r., m a, 0 9 g".550 i-' " 5 �" ti a" �. m m ]I C y w ,y ❑ 0- C, n. RC G ew7r E '" y '-'• ° b b qq 0 w L•' 'm W .0 5' A. 0 p r+ c. 5 Erna' %' = 0. 0 mt. o am' . n r`� n w❑ .... m crow 5 �J l d• cr $ K o a �+ • P_ o "t 2 `t' tO 0 o m (Co m `w''' X C ro t Rm'' A. G 0 C O 5- P n a' 0. sl. m DV _. a' p t/i 5 h fry TO 1, 'O � ri mm aCD 5'mC= wow `e ca�ca 4 o ' wa o �,5 o D'5' .o r• pN,.-'r yDon o"C 4 -• mo' o ( m pn,} a.Q p 4. w0lmC 0JxG P mYroC ' oh 0 , r",a k wo.wpn,- . -''''-r4 x m 0 a,, .�n oown Na C., 0> 'Q ao 9�' o u5•P ;C C "vrl gwa 5 CD '0 � + C'7 0'"' 0r.,, , 5 a C L td00 5• m Et. aeo05-0m 0w c P. 050c' a=.' = SwF = ��+ ', M 0. gc.o Cr "is, '0 m CO 5''° ;,; gyp r ro w❑ G, ra o RI p _a' O w m'�" N n 9.,, rp 0 m� ^lr a'• `poi 0 E m y +� ... a' n CD N CI' 0 val 0 ie w'! a. ss m r. o ❑so i : b u w m ro❑ l o o n d `° rp 5' 'i% m ro . ® 4 em•' c'' `c- a SA N *' gas P P 7 g' m '1 g w o - a. m - `r a "mY . ro ro El 0 PaX O 0.1 • -fl'i 0' n. P o P rnto 4 g b1 i „0- • E - 2 ' - enc FT �0 0 w m a 'o d w 0 d 0 a• © c 0 8 6.5 o c�