HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 10.22.2008Exhibits for SUP Kuersten Property
Planning Commission
October 22, 2008
Exhibit Let
(A to Z)
A
Mail Receipts
B
Proof of Publication
C
Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended
D
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000
E
Application
F
Staff Memorandum
G
Memo dated September 19, 2008 from Jake Mall, Garfield County R & B
H
Letter dated October 9, 2008 from, Burning Mountain Fire Protection District
I
Letter dated October 15, 2008 from Davis Farrer, Town of New Castle Planner
J
Letter dated October 8, 2008 from Mark Kadnuck, CDPHE WQCD
K
Letter dated September 24, 2008 from Alan Club, CDOT
L
Email dated October 10, 2008 from Steve Anthony, Vegetation Manager
M
Memo dated September 23, 2008 from John Niewoehner, Planning Engineer
N
0
Email dated October 13, 2008 from Ron Liston (w/attachment
X.-�& out- Ir� Ge
t Gonaltat
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
TYPE OF REVIEW
APPLICANT
LOCATION
SITE INFORMATION
EXISTING ZONING
PC 10/22/08
KE
Special Use Permit for "Extraction, Storage
and Material Handling of Natural Resources"
for pit run and gravel extraction in the
A/R/RD zone district.
Robert and Kathleen Kuersten (owners)
Mark Gould (operator) represented by Ron
Liston, Land Design Partnership
East '/z of the SE '/ Section 32, Township 5
South, Ranch 90 West of the 6th P.M. and
generally described as adjacent to the Town of
New Castle on the north side of' CR 240
(Bruce Road)
22.455 -acre property with 7.1 acre area of
disturbance for SUP activity.
Agriculture / Residential / Rural Density
(A/R/RD)
L REQUEST
The Applicant requests approval of a Special Use Permit for "Extraction, Storage, and Material
Handling of Natural Resources" for extraction of pit run and gravel on a property located
immediately east of the Town of New Castle on the north side of Bruce Road. On September 8,
2008, the Board of County Commissioners referred the request to the Planning Commission for a
recommendation.
II. GENERAL LOCATION / SITE DESCRIPTION
The primary reason given by the applicant for the proposed extraction operation is to remove an
isolated ridge of gravel and overburden left by previous mining activity in the vicinity. The goal of
the activity is to reclaim the property to a condition conducive for real estate development of the
property in the future. It is anticipated that any `future development' of the property would annexed
to the Town for the provision of services.
III. ZONING & ADJACENT USES
The property is located within the A/R/RD zone district which contemplates Extraction, and
Material Handling of Natural Resources as a Special Use requiring approval by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 2
IV. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property is adjacent to the Town of
New Castle on the northern and western
boundaries. Lakota Canyon Ranch to the
north is zoned Mixed Use and
Residential Single Family, Medium.
Shibui West condominiums are located to
the northwest and zoned Single/Multi-
Family PUD. To the southwest is the
Burning Mountain PUD, a commercial
development which includes a bowling
alley and supermarket, zoned as
Commercial Retail.
The Kuersten property, as shown on the
map to the left sits just north and west of
irrigated agricultural property within the
A/R/RD zone district.
The project generally proposes to extract natural resources (gravel and soil) from the property for a
period of one year. The plan identifies a 7.1- acre area which encompasses the limits of disturbance
where mining is planned to occur. The anticipated amount of material on-site is 137,810 cubic yards,
of which 132,213 cubic yards will be exported from the site. No processing is planned to occur on
the site.
Proposed Site Plan
2
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 3
The operational description of the project identifies heavy equipment that will be utilized for this
activity includes an excavator, dozer, loader, grader, skid -steer grader and a water truck. Material
will be hauled from the site by 20 end dump and tandem dump trucks. Both the trucks and the
equipment will be stored on-site in the evenings and on the weekends for the duration of the project.
The submittal information states that noise from the operation has been reviewed and mitigated by
keeping the heavy equipment at distances of 400 to 900 feet from the northern property line. The
provision of an "on-site haul road" will ensure both safety and noise mitigation due to the one way
road that will minimize the use of back-up alarms and trucks backing out of the site onto the County
Road. The trucks will pull into the site at the eastern end of the project and traverse the site to the
west to load and exit the site to CR 240.
Proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. No extraction
activities are planned to occur on the weekend, however equipment maintenance is requested to
occur on Saturdays.
The application states that no utilities are required to complete this operation. Fuel for the trucks and
heavy equipment will be stored on-site and the application contains information relative to protective
measures for spill containment.
Dust mitigation will occur through watering of the site. This is planned to occur by pumping water
from the Colorado River into water trucks at the New Castle public boat ramp located on the south
side of the river from the project site. Total anticipated water necessary for dust suppression is
22,000 gallons per day and the applicant has applied for a short-term contract with the Colorado
River Water Conservation District.
Proposed sanitation consists of two porta-potties on the site within the staging and parking area.
The application states that significant impact to the County Road is not anticipated as trucks entering
the site will be empty. The loaded trucks exit the western portion of the site which is immediately
adjacent to roads within the Town of New Castle which allows access to Highway 6 and Interstate
70, however no haul route or end location has been identified in the application. The applicant has
stated that no processing will occur on-site, staff is assuming that the material will be taken to an off-
site, existing facility for processing or simply used as fill at other locations.
Currently the site consists of unvegetated steep gravel slopes which will be replaced with a generally
flat fully vegetated field. Reclamation/revegetation of the site will utilize the on-site stored topsoil to
be applied to a depth of at least six (6) inches on all disturbed areas. Hydro -seeding will then occur
with completion of revegetation planned for late next year.
V. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS
In addition to the Special Use Permit requirement for land use activity in the County, the following
State and local authorities will have permits required for the proposed activity:
3
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 4
1. State of Colorado, Department of Reclamation and Mine Safety (DRMS). This department
reviews mining plans and reclamation of site as well being the entity responsible for bonding
to ensure completion of reclamation. This particular project is required to obtain a
"Construction Material Limited Impact (110) Permit";
2. State of Colorado WQCD — Watershed Permit;
3. State of Colorado AQCD — Fugitive Dust Permit;
4. Town of New Castle Watershed Permit - Required due to potential impact to the Town's
water supply;
5. Colorado Department of Transportation — Traffic Assessment that results in a greater than
20% increase at the intersection with a State Highway will require submittal of a State
Highway Access Permit.
VI. AUTHORITY & APPLICABILITY
Pursuant to Section 9.03.04 of the Zoning Resolution, an application for a Special Use Permit shall
be approved or denied by the Board of County Commissioners after holding a public hearing thereon
in conformance with all provisions of the Zoning Resolution. The Board may, at its discretion, refer
the Application to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
VII. REFERRAL AGENCIES
Comments have been received from the following agencies and are integrated throughout this
memorandum as applicable.
1. Town of New Castle: Exhibit I
2. RE -2 School District: No comment received
3. Colorado Department of Transportation: Exhibit K
4. Division of Reclamation and Mine Safety: No comment received
5. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment: Exhibit J
6. Burning Mountain Fire Protection District: Exhibit 14
7. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No comment received
8. Garfield County Vegetation Management: Exhibit L
9. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: Exhibit G
10. Garfield County Planning Engineer: Exhibit M
VIII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
TOWN OF NEW CASTLE
The proposed extraction activity is located within the 3 -Mile Area Plan of the Town New Castle.
The 1997 Community Plan Report for Future Land Use and Growth in the Surrounding 3 -Mile Area,
as updated, identifies this parcel as being in an area projected for mixed use, which would be
consistent with the uses adjacent to the western portion of the property.
4
Kuersten Properly SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 5
A 3 -Mile Area Plan
First, to produce a Plan for future land use and development in the area extending three miles out
from the present Town Boundary of 1996: the " Three Mile Area Plan". The basicpurposes of such
a plan are to provide direction. priority and conditions for fame annexations of areas to the Town.
for extensions of TOwn streets. utilities and services and to provide direction to the county and
other govermuental agencies with jurisdiction in the unincorporated planning area on land use
administrations. The Colorado Revised Statutes authorize a "municipality" to develop land use and
street plans within a three mile area of its boundaries under CRS 31-23-212.
3 -Mile Area Plan,
Town of New
Castle, Garfield
County,
Colorado
Epw
TYPE
p M.WL.TJPA. pncL .:£
C] aa EAV of ..+nw r
C..STE* uwtO."r Pet
tEp,rorm MED ew,r RES
pc POP-AErwiu:ocuw.
-NOUS
C PIPED ESE
MONTY WAE
®o 'mAS...MIPE5
=OPEN YA^_F PLRfl PES
® N*IE VA AREA
-..- %MS 4Pan fr dfl
Oaolt.X
yg
ma., mews
towys• En wtl.�aw'�
....P.n+« PAN4{nt
Mixed Uses Development: limited to sites of 2 acres or more size;
Uses: any uses that are specifically planned to compatibly fit on a site and in
the area;
Purpose: to provide for and encourage a compatible mix of appropriate uses
in a comprehensively planned and designed development, to include overall
design of sites, buildings, signs; lighting, landscaping, access, parking,
utilities, recreation, open spaces, and all associated facilities.
The 3 -Mile Plan identifies and analyzes annexation areas which may occur over time. The Kuersten
Property is a logical extension of the Town boundaries. As stated in the application, the current
5
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 6
request for Special Use for Extraction, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resource is
preparatory to development of this property.
Even though there may be an abundance of vacant and undeveloped property
within the Town, the Town may determine that it is prudent and beneficial to annex
additional pmperty when such annexations would, among others:
a. allow the Town to more certainly and electively manage land uses and
services in the Plan Area;
b. allow Tow» utility nervicoc to operate more efficiently;
c. allow Town streets to be extended and utilized more efficiently;
d. attain for the Town and citizens a beneficial source of local employment and
revenues;
e. nrotect and preserve water resources;
f. protect and allow appropriate development of natural resources such as
mineral and gravel deposits;
g. protect and preserve other valuable natural resources, including soils,
waterways, wildlife habitat, open space and vistas.
GARFIELD COUNTY
The Comprehensive Plan is to be used in analysis of projects proposed within unincorporated
Garfield County. The project site is located in Study Area 2 and the Plan identifies future land use as
"Privately owned lands with site specific limitations to be evaluated at plan review."
To this end, virtually any land use, so long as it was consistent with the uses in the A/R/RD zone
(underlying zoning) district would be considered "compatible" in this location so long as the
environmental (geologic / hydrologic / slope) challenges were appropriately mitigated through plan
review.
Chapter 11, Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, Policies regarding Gravel Extraction
Operations was adopted by the Garfield County Planning Commission on August 13, 2008, a
document which is to be used in this review regarding extraction operations. Analysis of the project
based upon this document follows.
GOALS
Garfield County recognizes that under Colorado law, the surface and mineral interests have
certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to extract and develop these interests.
Furthermore, private property owners also have certain legal rights and privileges, including
the right to have the mineral estate developed in a reasonable manner and to have adverse
land use impacts mitigated during extraction as well as requiring responsible reclamation of
land after extraction processes are completed.
11.4 Garfield County will encourage the development of a diversified industrial base for the
County which recognizes the human resources, natural resources and physical location -to -
market capabilities of the community, and which further recognizes and addresses the social
6
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 7
and environmental impacts of industrial uses.
11.5 Garfield County will encourage development and overall land use policies in the County that
will affect a municipality to be compatible with future land use objectives of the appropriate
municipality.
OBJECTIVES
11.0 To ensure that industrial development is compatible with adjacent land uses and mitigate
impacts identified during the plan review process.
11.5 Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches and
ensure that active agricultural uses and existing residential uses are buffered from higher -
intensity adjacent uses.
11.8 The County will require adequate mitigation to address impacts of mineral extraction on
private property owners, without undue burden on the legal rights of mineral owners or
lessees.
11.10 Garfield County will encourage mineral extraction activities to adequately mitigate adverse
affects on the natural environment, including air quality, water quality, wildlife habitiat or
important visual resources.
POLICIES
11.0 The project review process will include the identification and mitigation of transportation
impacts related to industrial development.
11.4 Garfield County, to the extent legally possible, will require adequate mitigation to address
the impacts of mineral extraction on adjacent land owners. These measures include
I. Landscaping and screening;
II. Modification of phasing or area to be mined;
III. Roadway improvements and signage;
IV. Safe and efficient access routes;
V. Drainage improvements to protect surface and groundwater.
11.5 Garfield County will require adequate mitigation for dust, odors and fumes generated by
gravel extraction activities.
STAFF FINDINGS
Staff finds that the use, operation, and reclamation of this proposal are not compatible with
the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The lack of applications for necessary
local and state permits, insufficient submittal information to identify the impacts associated
7
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 8
with the project (particularly traffic impacts and end -location of material including the
potential for processing) does not allow for identification/mitigation of environmental
protection or to find that the project is minimizing impacts associated with the industrial use.
At the end of the extraction activity the reclamation plan is to develop the property, and
minimal revegetation is planned. No development plans have been provided so we are
unaware of what that development may entail, when it will occur, or under whose
jurisdiction it may occur. The Town of New Castle has had several discussions regarding
future development of this property, but no request for annexation has been submitted. There
is no guarantee that development occur post -mining on this parcel or, if so, when that
development would commence. Given the timeframe for development review of projects no
building will occur there for a significant period of time. The premise that this project is to
prepare for development has not been proven, therefore adequate reclamation needs to be
completed - as if this were a `gravel pit'.
IX. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS (SECTION 5:03)
Pursuant to Section 5.03, as listed under the Zone District Regulations, special uses shall conform to
all requirements listed thereunder and elsewhere in the Zoning Resolution, as well as the following
standards:
1. Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering
standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be
constructed in conjunction with the proposed use.
Response
The proposal plans to provide dust suppression for the activity by utilizing the New Castle boat ramp
on the south side of the Colorado River to pump water to trucks which will then deliver water to the
north side of the river at the site location. Several issues arise from this proposal:
1. The increase in traffic impacts to the Town associated with numerous trips per day to deliver
the necessary 22,000 gallons per day necessary for mitigation of dust.
2. The industrial use of the public boat ramp to fill the water trucks may adversely impact
recreational users. The Town of New Castle attorney, David McConaughy, has provided a
letter that the use of the ramp to fill the truck is not considered a "commercial use" and
therefore open to public use. In discussion with Davis Farrer, Town Planner, the Town
Council may reconsider the utilization of the boat ramp for uses other than recreational.
Potable water for on-site workers is not discussed in the application materials, however staff assumes
that bottled water will be provided.
The Town of New Castle requires a Watershed Permit for this use. Application for such permit has
not occurred and should be required prior to approval of a Special Use Permit.
8
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 9
2. Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed
use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be
constructed in conjunction with the proposed use.
Response
No street improvements, other than two driveways accessing the county road, are proposed since the
use is temporary in nature. However for the duration of one year, the proposal will result in 621 trips
per day (page 2, Sopris Engineering letter dated August 14, 2008) associated with employees arriving
at the site, water truck trips, and transportation of the material from the site.
The application states that a Traffic Control Plan will be submitted for review prior to construction.
Garfield County Road and Bridge has responded with the following comments:
1. A video of Cr. 240 will be taken by the applicant and submitted to Garfield County Road
& Bridge Department on a DVD format for reference of damage that may occur to the
road from this project prior to the starting of the project. The applicant shall be
responsible for the repair of any damage caused by this application. The type of repair
shall be determined by Garfield County Road and Bridge Department personnel.
2. The driveway access permit/s will issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department
after reviewing the certified traffic control plan and an onsite meeting to view the
driveway access entrance/s.
3. A stop sign will be required at the entrance/s to Cr. 240. The sign/s and installation shall
be as required by the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices).
4. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department reserves the right to close the project down
due to inclement weather or if the road becomes unsafe for travel as a result of this
application.
5. The applicant shall contact RE -2 school district to find out times for school bus traffic
and work with the school district as not to cause delays to the school bus time schedule
or interfere with school bus loading times or locations.
6. It is recommended that truck traffic be spaced out so as not to create a traffic problem
for other users of Cr. 240 and any traffic stops be limited to not more than 5 minutes.
The Colorado Department of Transportation has responded that "In order to evaluate the impact of
this temporary (one year) project on the intersections of County Road 240 @ State HWY 6 and
Castle Valley Blvd @ State HWY 6 CDOT will require a Level 3 Traffic Assessment."
Staff has found significant deficiency in the application related to traffic impacts and mitigation
measures. If the Level 3 Traffic Assessment identifies a 20% increase in traffic associated with this
use, a State Highway Access Permit will be required. As well, the use of the intersections within the
Town have not been analyzed or mitigated by the applicant. This information is critical due to the
significant volume of the truck traffic and therefore should be submitted and reviewed prior to
approval of the County Special Use Permit.
9
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 10
Staff has identified lacking information regarding the end location of the material exported from the
site. Garfield County has in the past required the provision of a "Haul Route" so as to minimize
impact related to the delivery of the material. According to the Garfield County Traffic Counts —
2002, CR 240 (east of the intersection of Highway 6) had an average vehicle count of 175 vehicles
per day. The±600 trips associated with this project is a significant increase. Were a 'Haul Road'
provided, it could prohibit trucks from exiting the property and traveling east on CR 240.
Related to the insufficient information regarding delivery location, it is unknown whether further
processing of the material is planned to occur. The extracted material may need to be further
processed prior to use, and if - or where - that processing may occur is unknown. Potential occurs
for the material to be taken to an existing pit for crushing/screening/processing.
3. Design of the proposed use k organized to minimize impact on adjacent uses of land
through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by
location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to
protect established neighborhood character.
Response
The site is highly visible, sitting in a `bowl' immediately east of the Town of New Castle I-70 Exit,
therefore landscaping or fencing of the site would do little to screen the activity. The applicant has
attempted to organize the use to minimize impact on the adjacent properties to the north by
restricting the limits of disturbance and mine area to the southern portion of the property. No
lighting or signs (other than safety-related signs) are proposed for the site.
The site is subject to an irrigation easement and the applicant has provided information regarding the
protective measures taken to assure continuous operation of the system, including piping sections of
that ditch. An "Irrigation Easement Relocation Agreement" states that
B. The Kuersten property may me developed for commercial purposes or be mined for
substantial gravel deposits, either of which activities may be obstructed or interfered with by
the current location of the lateral ditch and pipelines serving Senor, et.al.
The agreement further outlines the conditions of the relocation of the irrigation ditch.
Section 5.03.07 ]Industrial Operations]
Pursuant to Section 5.03.07 of the Zoning Resolution, a permit for Industrial Operations requires the
submittal of an impact statement on the proposed use describing its location, scope, design and
construction schedule, including an explanation of its operational characteristics. The impact
statement is required to address the following:
1.(A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, streamflow
or ground water.
10
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 11
Response
Application for a Water Supply Contract has been made requesting allowance to pump 22,000
gallons per day from the Colorado River. The applicant proposes to use the New Castle public boat
ramp to access the river, pumping the water into a truck(s) for delivery to the project site.
Demonstration of the legal and physical water was discussed in a letter from Beattie, Chadwick &
Houpt, LLP in which they state:
The Applicant bas determined that it will need 22,000' gallons of water pet day for dust.
suppression and related constriction ractivities on The subject site, bog imiiigin Augttsf:of 200g
and extending for eppr°oxiniately niaemontbs therealter„ Water in such quantitaes is available bjt
short teen contract f t m the Colorado RiverWater Coniservation District (``EavetDistrlct":.). The
Applicant has Made application to die River t tisttiet "fat it total of 18.2 acre feet; to, be released
from Welford Mountain lteservdti and/Or lRuedi Reservoir and•'delivered into the Colorado River
at points upstream of Glenwood. Springs: A copy of the appiientioq for Water serVice.ernitract ig
enclosed. It is anticipated that the water service contract will he issued ptiorxq Aiigdst lst,.21)08.
The Applicant will pick op die released water iii ttubks that will pump the water:directiy
from the Colorado River at tire- publjo.boat rathp in New Castle. Applicant. has receive()
confirmation from: the Town ofNew-Castle that it may use the boatrarnp fur this parpose.The,
tracks will deliver and apply the water to the project site.
The executed Water Supply Contract has not been submitted.
In addition, the Town of New Castle requires a Watershed Permit in order to determine potential
injury and possible mitigation to the Town's water supply. The applicant has not yet applied for
the permit. Application and issuance of this permit should occur prior to approval of a Count y
Special Use Permit.
1.(B) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or
vibration, or other emanations.
Response
The proposed use will generate dust, smoke, noise, and odors from use of heavy machinery
extracting the resource from the Kuersten property and from the exportation of the material.
Dust Control
As the Commission is aware, dust generation remains a significant issue with extraction and
processing activities where they are required to constantly remain below 20% opacity at all times as
required by CDPHE. Because of the location immediately adjacent to residences, the town
commercial center, and I-70, unmitigated or ineffectively mitigated dust control could cause a
serious threat to public safety for those in that area. The application agrees that the operation will
generate dust and smoke but will comply with the state statutes and obtain the necessary air quality
permits required by CDPHE for activities occurring on the site.
The application does not include a Fugitive Dust Control Plan other than stating that dust
suppression will occur by applying 22,000 gallons of water per day to the disturbed area of 7.1 acres.
11
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 12
Due to the potential for safety hazard, the Special Use Permit should not be approved until a
Fugitive Dust Control Plan is submitted and reviewed for sufficiency.
The application does provide a blank application to the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment for an Air Pollution Control Division for a Construction Permit Application. As stated
earlier, the application is blank so staff is assuming that the applicant will apply at some later date.
Noise Generation
The operation will generate noise on the property emanating from the heavy equipment that will be
utilized to extract and load the material, as well as the trucks which will transport the material. The
County's Land Use Code requires that the volume of sound generated comply with the standards in
the Colorado Revised Statutes".
State statute provide "Sound levels ofnoise radiating from a property line at a distance of 25 feet or
more there from in excess of the dB(A) established for the following time periods and zones shall
constitute (prema facia) evidence that such noise is a public nuisance." The table below shows the
zones and dB(A) acceptable for each zone and particular time.
Zone
7amto7pm
7pmto7am
Residential
55 dB(A)
50 dB(A)
Commercial
60 dB(A)
55 dB(A)
Light Industrial
65 dB(A)
70 dB(A)
Industrial
80 dB(A)
75 dB(A)
The BOCC has generally interpreted the noise statute to be measured with the dB(A) of the receiver
properties since they are the most affected by the noise. Therefore, as measured 25 feet from the
property line, the acceptable limit dB(A) would be 55 dB(A) during the day and 50 dB(A) during the
night.
Table 2
Construction Equipment Noise Source Inventory
Manufacturer
Description
dB(A)-100 ft
BOCategory
Distance dB(A)
Di75 dance
Distance
Dozer
Caterpillar
D7
76
64
115
Excavator
Engine End
Caterpillar
345
75
56
100
Excavator
Arm End
Caterpillar
345
72
40
70
Water Truck
Misc.
4000 gal.
64
---
--
Loader
Caterpillar
IT28
76 -
64
115
Dump Truck
Misc.
14 Wheel
66
--
--
Grader
Misc.
Misc.
---
--
--
Skid,Steer
Loader
Misc.
Misc.
--
--
--
Back -Up
Alarm
Brigade
BBS -92
65
--
32
Back -Up
Alarm
Brigade
BBS -107
79
90,
160
12
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 13
Engineering Dynamics Incorporated prepared a sound evaluation, however it appears that the criteria
utilized for adjacent properties were the industrial noise standards of 80 dB(A) and 75 dB(A). The
following chart was provided in the sound study, however staff is unable to make a determination
that noise levels will remain below those stipulated for adjacent residential properties.
Table 2
Construction Equipment Noise Source Inventory
Category
Manufacturer
Description
dB(A)-100 ft
80 dB(A)
Distance
75 dB(A)
Distance
Dozer
Caterpillar
07
76
64
115
Excavator
Engine End
Caterpillar
345
75.
56
•
100
Excavator
Arm End
Caterpillar
345
72
40
70
Water Truck
Misc.
4000 gal.
64
--
---
Loader
Caterpillar
1128
76
64
115
Dump Truck
Misc.
14 Wheel
66
--
—
Grader
Misc.
Misc.
—
--
--
Skid-Steer
Loader
Misc.
Misc.
--
—
_
Back -Up
Alarm
Brigade
BBS -92
65
--
32
Back -Up
Alarm
Brigade
BBS -107
79
90,
160
The dozer, excavator and loade will be fitted with the Brigade BBS -107 back-up alarm. The water truck
and smaller vehicles such as graders and bobcats will be fitted with the Brigade BBS -92 back-up alarm,
which is quieter than the BBS -107 by 14 dB(A) or more than half as loud. Haul trucks will enter the site
from the eastern side from CR240 and proceed westerly into the site where they will be loaded. Once
loaded, the trucks will continue in the westerly direction and exit onto CR240. During these loading
operations the haul trucks will be moving forward and their back-up beepers will not be turned on. This
means that only the white noise backup alarms will be in operation at the project site.
Staff finds demonstration of compliance with the noise levels required by Stated Statute for adjacent
residential properties has not been met.
Hours of Operation
The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. with no activities
to occur on the weekend except for a request to allow for equipment maintenance on Saturdays.
Staff has identified two issues associated with the requested hours of operation:
1. No lighting is proposed for the site and given seasonal fluctuation in daylight hours it would
be prudent, for safety consideration, to consider limitations based on season. Conversely the
applicant could state daylight hours not to exceed 6 p.m.
2. The second issue is regarding the request for Saturday maintenance. Hours for that use have
not been provided and noise issues on weekends when adjacent owners are typically at home
have been a significant issue in the past.
13
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 14
Lighting
No lighting is proposed for the site.
1. (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.
Response
The applicant has not provided information regarding wildlife or vegetation on the site.
Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Manager has provided comment:
1. Provide a noxious weed inventory and map for the site.
2. The applicant shall develop a weed management plan that addresses all county listed noxious
weeds found on the site. Russian knapweed and scotch thistle are located on the site.
3. Immediate treatment of all listed noxious weeds, prior to construction activities. Provide
record of treatment to Vegetation Management.
Vegetation Management also makes the following recommendations:
• The County will be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of Reclamation,
Mining and Safety, The County inspector will have the opportunity to demonstrate that any item
of the permit has not been complied with and that bond should not be released. This includes
weed management and reclamation.
• Any straw bales used in erosion control or as check dams shall be certified as weed -free.
• The applicant shall provide a plant materials list of the seed mix with each species listed. In
Section 4 it is stated that, "Arkansas Valley Seed's Multi -color High Altitude mix or an equivalent
mix" will be used This is too general; we would request that a list of the species be provided.
1.D) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses and
their impacts to areas in the County.
Response
Sopris Engineering has provided an Engineering Report which included analysis of traffic generated
by the site, however no discussion of impacts has occurred. The applicant has stated that the use is
temporary, therefore that is in fact the mitigation. In addition the applicant has stated that a Traffic
Control Plan will be submitted prior to construction, that document may include on-site mitigation
measures for trucks entering the site.
CDOT requires a Level 3 Traffic Assessment to determine impacts to the state highway system, and
Road and Bridge will video the roadway for comparison with post -construction conditions.
Identification of comprehensive impacts associated with the proposal have not been submitted, nor
have mitigation measure been proposed. Issues such as truck trips avoiding rush hour traffic and
14
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 15
school bus traffic, staggering the egress of trucks from the site has not been identified or discussed
in the application.
1.(E) That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might
otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s).
Response
The applicant has provided a buffer area at the northern end of the property where no activity will
occur. This was provided to mitigate potential impacts to Lakota Canyon Ranch properties which
are immediately adjacent. However it is unclear whether that distance is sufficient to mitigate noise
issues.
The agricultural properties to the south and east of the site are somewhat buffered topographically
and by distance, but the application does not specifically address this issue.
1.(F) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for the
standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution.
The adequacy of mitigation measures is in doubt given that many of the required State and local
permits have not been issued (in fact the applicant has not applied for any of the necessary permits).
Even with the submittal of adequate mitigation measures, staff has found that no matter how well-
meaning the plans may be, that in reality they sometimes fall short in particular situations. The
County therefore requires the following:
Enforcement Options:
a) The County commits to notifying the Operator of any compliance concern and allows
an inspection with site personnel and the designated County inspector prior to
contacting any agency.
b) The County can request a site inspection with one day's notice to the Operator. Full
access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown.
The County cannot request a large number of inspections that would interfere with
normal operation without cause.
c) A full list of all permits will be provided to the County. Any person at any time can
call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if they believe a condition
of that agencies permit is being violated.
- CDPHE Air Quality Control 303-692-3150
- CDPHE Water Quality Control 303-692-3500
15
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 16
- Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567
- CDOT Grand Junction office 970-248-7000
- Town of New Castle 970-984-2311
Agencies will issue violations with fines depending upon the gravity ofthe violation
and the past history.
d) The County will be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of
Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The County inspector will have the opportunity to
demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied with and that bond
should not be released.
e) The County will have the opportunity to evaluate the performance of the Operator
with regard to the County bond and withhold portions of the bond if it is demonstrated
to the Operator that certain conditions of the permit have not been met. The Operator
acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to
revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued violations of the permit occur over a
period of time.
Considering the above, staff finds that the application materials/plans/permits insufficient to mitigate
the following impacts and issues:
• Fugitive Dust Plan for determination of particulate generation and the Construction
Permit Application have not been provided;
• A Construction Stormwater Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (see Exhibit from Mark Kadnuck, CDPHE) has not been submitted;
• Town of New Castle Watershed Permit has not been submitted;
• The Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan has not been submitted related
to the on-site fuel storage;
• Colorado State Highway Access Permit may be required upon submission and review of
a Level 3 Traffic Assessment which has not been completed;
• Demonstration has not been provided that the standards in the noise statutes, as
commonly measured by the BOCC, can be met during operation of the proposed use.
(2) Special Use Permits may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate
mitigation for the following:
(A) A plan for site rehabilitation must be approved by the County Commissioners
before a permit for conditional or special use will be issued;
Response
The applicant has provided a site plan for reclamation which minimal as the project is a preparatory
to future development. However, once the applicant submits for a Construction Material Limited
Impact (110) Operation then the reclamation will be under the purview of the State agency so the
16
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 17
submitted plan for reclamation may change due to State requirements. In the past, bonding has not
been required through the County when the State requires the bonding and reclamation as a part of
the 110 permit. However, it remains uncertain than any post -development will occur - and may not
occur — therefore a full reclamation plan should be submitted for the site.
(B) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or conditional
use is issued, if required The Applicant shall furnish evidence of a bank commitment of credit,
bond, certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the County Commissioners in the
amount calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation
plan in workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications and construction schedule
established or approved by the County Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds or check shall
be payable to and held by the County Commissioners;
Response
The applicant has not yet submitted for the State Mining Permit (110) as required. In the past, the
County has required operators submit reclamation plans for review and, upon approval, requires re-
submittal to the state to ensure consistency with the site reclamation.
As you are aware, the DRMS (via state statute) has attempted to preempt local regulations
specifically regarding reclamation and security for reclamation. (See CRS 34-32.5-109(3) below).
"No governmental office of the state, other than the [Mined Land Reclamation Board], nor any
political subdivision of the state shall have the authority to issue a reclamation permit pursuant to
this article, to require reclamation standards different than those established by this article, or to
require any performance or financial warranty of any kind for mining operations. The operator
shall be responsible for assuring that the mining operation and the postmining land use comply with
city, town, county, or city and county land use regulations and any master plan for extraction
adopted pursuant to section 34-1-304 unless a prior declaration of intent to change or waive the
prohibition is obtained by the Applicant from the affected political subdivisions. Any mining
operator subject to this article shall also be subject to zoning and land use authority and regulation
by political subdivisions as provided by law."
This statute basically says the County has no authority to require any different reclamation standards
than the DRMS or to require any additional reclamation security. Staff suggests not requiring
additional security be submitted to the County and instead rely on the DRMS bond calculation and
management to ensure reclamation. Please note however, Staff suggests requiring the Applicant to
submit the proposed reclamation plan in this Special Use Permit application to DRMS so that 1) it
will be the only reclamation plan used by both DRMS and the County to ensure reclamation has
occurred to the County's specifications and 2) a new bond calculation shall occur and be submitted
and held by DRMS to secure that proper reclamation can occur.
The Town of New Castle is concerned with both the extent of the reclamation and the provision of
security to assure completion of reclamation due to the potential for the site to remain undeveloped
17
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 18
for period of time that is unknown. Annexation has not been requested, nor have any discussions
occurred recently regarding development of the site, making the Town's concem entirely conceivable
— that the site remains graded and reseeded in preparation for development that may or may not
occur.
Section 5.03.08 [Industrial Performance Standards]
Pursuant to section 5.03.08 of the Zoning Resolution, all Industrial Operations in the County shall
comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise
pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard.
Operations shall be conducted 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 in
which such uses are located, in accord with the following standards set below.
As required by any extraction operation, all of the following Industrial Performance Standards shall
be considered conditions of approval for any Special Use Permit.
(1) Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado
Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made.
Demonstration of compliance with State Statutes has not been met based upon requirement of
measurement of noise levels 25' from the property line in compliance with the residential
standards.
(2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently
and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any
boundary line of the property on which the use is located.
(3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be operated so as to comply
with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards.
A Fugitive Dust Plan has not been submitted, and State permits have not been submitted to
assure compliance with Air Quality standards.
(4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does
not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of
adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases,
aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which
may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exemptedfrom this
provision.
(5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas:
(A) Storage of flammable or explosive solids or gases shall be in accordance with
accepted standards and laws and shall comply with the national, state and local fire codes
and written recommendations / comments from the appropriate local protection district
regarding compliance with the appropriate codes;
18
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 19
The applicant provides a Vehicle Staging/Storage area where fuel will stored for use in the
excavation equipment. A plan for spill prevention and protection should be provided and, as
recommended by the Burning Mountain Fire District (Exhibit H), "Contractors shall comply
with IFC 2003, Chapter 14, Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition" and fire
extinguishers should be provided within 30' of the fueling area.
(B) At the discretion of the County Commissioners, all outdoor storage facilities may
be required to be enclosed by fence, landscaping or wall adequate to conceal such facilities
from adjacent property;
Excavation equipment and trucks (water truck, end dump and tandem dump) will be stored in
the southwest corner of the site. No screening is proposed.
(C) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner
that they may be transferred off theproperty by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes
or forces;
(D) Storage of Heavy Equipment will only be allowed subject to (A) and (C) above and
the following standards:
1. The minimum lot size is five (5) acres and is not a platted subdivision.
2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. from any
existing residential dwelling.
3. All equipment storage will be enclosed in an area with screening at least
eight (8) feet in height and obscured from view at the same elevation or
lower. Screening may include berming, landscaping, sight obscuring
fencing or a combination of any of these methods.
4. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that
will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be
conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6
p.m., Mon. -Fri.
5. Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property
and may not be conducted on any public right-of-way.
The application states that this is a temporary use proposed to be completed a year of
issuance of the permit.
(E) Any storage area for uses not associated with natural resources, shall not exceed
ten (10) acres in size.
(F) Any lighting of storage area shall be pointed downward and inward to the property
center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property.
(6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install
safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency
before operation of the facilities may begin. All percolation tests or ground water resource
19
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 20
tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers must be met before operation of the
facilities may begin.
A Town of New Castle Watershed Permit is required, however the applicant has not yet
submitted such request. The issuance of that permit may in fact substantially change the project
as currently submitted and therefore should be required prior to approval of a County Special Use
Permit.
Section 9.03.05 /Periodic Review of SUP]
Pursuant to section 9.03.05 of the Zoning Resolution:
Any Special Use Permits may be made subject to a periodic review not less than every six (6)
months if required by the County Commissioners. The purpose of such review shall be to
determine compliance or noncompliance with any performance requirements associated with the
granting of the Special Use Permit. The County Commissioners shall indicate that such a review
is required and shall establish the time periods at the time of issuance of a Special Use Permit.
Such review shall be conducted in such manner and by such persons as the County
Commissioners deem appropriate to make the review effective and meaningful. Upon the
completion of each review, the Commissioners may determine that the permit operations are in
compliance and continue the permit, or determine the operations are not in compliance and either
suspend the permit or require the permittee to bring the operation into compliance by a certain
specified date. Such periodic review shall be limited to those performance requirements and
conditions imposed at the time of the original issuance of the Special Use Permit.
Response
The project is proposed to occur for a period of one year, therefore the requirement for annual
reviews is not applicable. Staff recommends applying a condition of approval that the SUP for
extraction activities expire one year from the date of issuance of the Special Use permit.
X. STAFF DISCUSSION
A. The Town of New Castle has commented on this application and identified areas of concerns
that should be addressed.
a. Limit hours of operation to daylight, prohibiting hours after sunset. Specify hours for
Saturday equipment maintenance.
b. Clarification of on-site parking, limiting it to no more than the 20 end dump and
tandem dump trucks.
c. Limit the length of the permit with a specific expiration date.
d. The lack of on-site water limits irrigation for revegetation and limits water available
for dust control during operation, after hours and on weekends.
e. Dust mitigation will require continuous water application during operations.
Disturbed areas must be kept water during wind events on the weekend and after
20
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 22
Special Use review involves the coordination of permits and review by Local, State and
Federal agencies that have authority over certain activities, with the County granting land use
approval. The County review process functions to determine the appropriateness of the use
at the particular location and to ensure a comprehensive review of all aspects of the proposal
including operational, potential impacts and proposed mitigation. This process of
coordinating the information regarding permit(s) status may unearth conflicting information
and conflicting recommendations from the myriad permitting and review agencies. One of
Staff's responsibilities is to review, identify and question the information submitted by the
Applicant so that the decision -makers, as well as the general public, are thoroughly aware of
the details, impacts and mitigation of the proposed land use. The lack of submittal of these
required permits concerns staff as they in fact may identify additional issues/impacts or
mitigation measures that substantially change the plan being reviewed.
C. The lack of information regarding the end -location of the material. Without this information
there is no way in which to determine the adequacy of the road system. As well, the Town of
New Castle and CDOT review of the traffic assessment and the ability to mitigate the traffic
issue is critical due to the volume of truck traffic associated with this use.
Staff is also concerned that existing facilities in the County will be utilized for processing of
the material from the Kuersten property. This may increase traffic surrounding existing
permitted facilities in and around the Town of Silt, the City of Rifle and existing gravel pits.
Staff is unaware if any of the gravel operations between Silt and Rifle have permit approvals
that allow for importation of material for processing.
If the material will not be processed, there still is concern related to traffic impacts to
jurisdictions along Highway 6, which could find these ±600 trips per day on their Main
Street(s) with no associated mitigation.
D. Impacts to the Town of New Castle have been discussed throughout this report due to the
proximity of the Town boundaries to this proposal. A four-page comment memo from the
Town Planner (Exhibit I) details those concerns.
E. One issue identified through the review and referral process is the implementation and
compliance of local, state and federal permits and plans related to the land use approved by
the County. Past experiences at currently permitted or completed gravel pits has shown that
assuring compliance with the plan and permit standards may be lacking. This occurs not out
of ignorance or apathy regarding compliance issues, nor intent on the part of the Applicant,
however there are few tools available by which the County can impel compliance with State
and Federal plans or permits.
F. There is no guarantee that the site will be developed. Given that the goal of the proposal is to
prepare the site for future development it would appear that development plans should be
submitted — first, to assure development of the parcel and second, to determine the degree of
22
Kuersten Property SUP
PC —10/22/08
Page 23
reclamation that should be required. A more fully detailed reclamation plan should be
required due to the visibility of the site, the impact to the adjacent property owners and the
lack of `future development plans'.
XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - DENIAL
Based on the aforementioned, Staff recommends feels that this application is premature — meaning
that necessary permits from State and Local agencies required for this use have not been submitted
nor has the applicant applied for such permits. The necessary components to make positive findings
are missing from the application. In particular:
1. Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 11 consistency has not been met;
2. Traffic Impacts have not been identified nor mitigated;
3. Compliance with State Statute regarding noise levels has not been demonstrated;
4. No development plan has been submitted which results in a deficient reclamation plan.
XII. PROPOSED FINDINGS
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided, as required, for the hearing
before the Planning Commission;
2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was NOT extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were NOT submitted and that all interested
parties were heard at that hearing;
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit is NOT
in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the citizens of Garfield County;
4. That the application is NOT in conformance with the 1978 Garfield County Zoning
Resolution, as amended and the application is NOT in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended.
23
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: September 19, 2008
Comments Due: October 10, 2008
Name of application: SUP 5308-Kuersten Parcel
Sent to:
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staffs contact: Kathy Eastley
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objections to
this application with the following comments.
A video of Cr. 240 will be taken by the applicant and submitted to Garfield County Road
& Bridge Department on a DVD format for reference of damage that may occur to the
road from this project prior to the starting of the project.
The applicant shall be responsible for the repair of any damage caused by this
application. The type of repair shall be determined by Garfield County Road and Bridge
Department personnel.
The driveway access permitls will issued by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department
after reviewing the certified traffic control plan and an onsite meeting to view the
driveway access entrance/s.
A stop sign will be required at the entrance/s to Cr. 240. The sign/s and installation shall
be as required by the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices).
Garfield County Road & Bridge Department reserves the right to close the project down
due to inclement weather or if the road becomes unsafe for travel as a result of this
application.
The applicant shall contact RE -2 school district to find out times for school bus traffic
and work with the school district as not to cause delays to the school bus time schedule or
interfere with school bus loading times or locations.
It is recommended that truck traffic be spaced out so as not to create a traffic problem for
other users of Cr. 240 and any traffic stops be limited to not more than 5 minuets.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept
By: Jake B. Mall Date September 30, 2008
Revised 3/30/00
Burning Mountains Fire Protection Dis
burningrnntsfpd a,m
EXHIBIT
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Planning
Reference: Kuersten Parcel
October 9, 2008
Kathy:
I have reviewed the referral request, Gould Construction/ Kuersten Parcel, and the following is
my comments.
1. Contractors shall comply with IFC 2003 chapter 14 " Fire Safety During Construction
And Demolition" all pertinent sections.
2. Contractor shall supply a minimum of a 120 BC type fire extinguisher, with a maximum
travel distance of 30' from fueling area to extinguisher.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Orrin D. Moon, Asst. Fire Marshal
BOARD OF DIRECTORS,:
President, Bob Thrower Treasurer, John W. Gredig
Vice President, Karen Maddalone-Cochran Director, Mary L. Haggart
Fire Chief, Brit C. McLin
Station #1
Administration
PO Box 2
611 Main Street
Silt, CO 81652
(970) 876-5738
Fax (970)876-2774
Station #2
731 West Main
New Castle, CO
81647
(970) 984-3412
Station #3
5255 CR 335
New Castle, CO
81647
(970) 984-3323
tl
PLANNING STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: KATHY EASTLEY
FROM: DAVIS FARRAR - WESTERN SLOPE CONSULTING LLC
SUBJECT:INITIAL LIST OF STAFF IDENTIFIED CONCERNS ON KUERSTEN SPECIAL
USE PERMIT
DATE: 10/15/2008
CC: ANDY BARTON, TIM CAIN, DAVID SMITH, JEFF SIMONSON
The Town of New Castle appreciates referral of this special use permit application for review
and comment. Additionally, it was valuable to meet with you Last week to discuss the proposed
application and share thoughts about project issues and mitigation. This initial response is from
the town planning staff. This application will be presented to the New Castle Town Council at
their regular meeting on October 21, 2008. We recognize that the County Planning Commission
will be considering this application that same evening. The Town believes that the best approach
is to offer staff comments for the County Planning Commission meeting and then present the
application to the New Castle Planning Commission when we have the benefit of both county
staff and town staff input. It is anticipated that the comments from the County Planning
Commission will be forwarded to the New Castle Planning Commission for their review at their
meeting in November.
New Castle has had several conversations with Mr. Gould about future development on the
site. This property is immediately adjacent to the New Castle municipal boundary and should be
subject to annexation in conjunction with any future development proposal. The Town is
interested in continuing discussions with the property owner and Mr. Gould about pursuing
annexation. We strongly recommend that, at the appropriate time, an annexation application be
submitted to New Castle in conjunction with a land -use development proposal.
Mark Gould will be meeting with a group of New Castle residents on the evening of October
15, 2008 to review and discuss the proposed extraction operation. I am sure that valuable
information will be obtained at that meeting. Again, we appreciate the important working
relationship between the Town and County to ensure that all project related issues are adequately
addressed to the benefit of county residents.
The following is an initial list of concerns about the proposed resource extraction/soil
exportation proposed by Mark Gould in the special use permit application submitted on behalf of
Robert and Kathleen Kuersten (sellers) on property immediately east of the New Castle municipal
boundary. This bullet list was reviewed at a County/Town staff meeting on Friday, October 10,
2008.
> Application discrepancies - Vehicle Trips 600, 621. Cubic yards of excavated material
application - 130,000, County referral form - 225,000 yd.3, 210,000 yd.'
Page - 1 of 4
> Hours of operation - Application states 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM with no work on Saturdays
or Sundays. Work is to be completed during daylight hours. Hours need to be adjusted for
seasonal changes in day length. 6:00 PM during the winter is after sunset. No hours are
specified on Saturdays for equipment maintenance.
> Clarification on the vehicles parked on-site overnight - Clarify that there are no more
than 20 vehicles inclusive of both end dump trucks and tandem dump trucks.
> Length of permit - A specific expiration date of the permit should be specified and not
"approx. 12 months".
> Lack of on-site water supply - Requires continuous water hauling, limits water available
for revegetation (Hydro -seeding utilizing ambient precipitation has not worked in New
Castle and most likely will not work with the poor quality sandy/gravelly soils), limits water
available for continuous dust control during operations, after hours and on weekends.
> Dust mitigation - Continuous water application is necessary during operations. Disturbed
areas must be watered for dust control during wind events on weekends and after work
hours. Operations during windy periods should cease. A wind speed should be specified
above which operations will cease.
> Irrigation ditch protection - Jerry Senor has a buried irrigation pipe through the property
that must be protected to avoid interruption of irrigation water for the tree farm south of the
site. Mr. Senor should sign off on a plan for protecting, relocating or otherwise altering
existing irrigation flows.
> Quality of topsoil for revegetation - Both the quantity and quality of topsoil suitable for
revegetation of the site should be independently verified to ensure that a minimum of 6
inches of quality topsoil capable of supporting vegetation regrowth is available.
> Maintaining natural slope contours - The north end of the property near existing Lakota
Canyon PUD residential units should be contoured to provide a natural looking appearance
emulating the natural contours of the property.
> Defined length of time during which excavation will occur on the north end of the site
near existing Lakota lots - The timeframe for this work should be detailed.
> Decibel levels at property line - The sound study prepared by EDI, Inc. specifies, "Noise
limits are as defined for "industrial zone"." These levels are identified as 80 dB(A), during
7:00 AM to next 7:00 PM and 75 dB(A), during 7:00 PM to next seven clock a.m. This area
is not industrial in use or character. It is residential and maximum decibel levels should not
exceed 55 dB(A) between the hours of 7:00 AM to next 7:00 PM or50 dB(A) between the
hours of 7:00 AM to next 7:00 PM. A map showing the location of the noise monitor at Site
1 and Site 2 should be included in the application materials. Sound levels 25 feet beyond the
property line would be close to or at the exterior footprint of existing adjacent residential
units.
2
➢ Buffering adjacent residential units - A buffer should be retained at the north boundary of
the site to separate the existing Lakota residential units from the maximum northerly extent
of excavation/disturbance. Additionally, a fence buffer should be installed at the northerly
property line to provide adequate safety separation from the excavation operations and the
residential yards adjoining the site.
➢ Topsoil storage pile - A maximum storage time should be specified, so the pile does not
remain beyond a period of 12 to 15 months. The topsoil pile should be stabilized with
vegetation to prevent weed infestation, fugitive dust and unsightly appearance.
➢ Watershed permit - The Town of New Castle requires a watershed permit from the
applicants. An application for a watershed permit was received by the Town on October 10,
2008. The staff is in the process of reviewing this application. An approved watershed
permit should be a condition of approval and should be obtained prior to a final decision by
the Board of County Commissioners.
➢ Storm water management notes - There is a reference in note 6 about inspection of the
storm water management system every 14 days. It should be specified that these inspections
shall be performed by a properly trained and qualified individual.
➢ Road impacts - Average daily traffic from the site is in excess of 600 vehicle trips most of
which will be heavily loaded trucks that will cause serious impacts to the existing roadways
and likely will result in road damage. The applicant should post a letter of credit or
acceptable collateral to ensure proper repair or replacement of damaged road sections.
➢ CDOT input - CDOT has offered input on the vehicle trips per day and noted, "This project
would easily trigger the 20% change in use that would require a state highway access
permit." CDOT has required that a Level 3 Traffic Assessment be completed as part of this
application. New Castle will be very interested in reviewing the Level 3 Traffic Assessment
Report.
➢ Haul route map - The applicant should identify their haul routes to and from the site.
Truck traffic should not be permitted on New Castle Main Street.
➢ Peak hour traffic impacts - Truck trips to/from the site should not be permitted during
peak traffic hours at the 170 interchange in New Castle. The intersection is presently heavily
loaded during those hours and the additional truck traffic would adversely affect traffic flow.
Consideration should be given to requiring a traffic impact analysis on those intersections
resulting from site trip generation.
➢ Xcel power poles - New Castle regulations require burial of above ground power in
association with new development. The applicant should bury the above ground power
instead of leaving the power poles on earthen pedestals.
➢ Backup beepers - All equipment should be equipped with acceptable white -sound backup
waming devices.
3
> Future development plans - New Castle is aware that the applicant desires to complete this
excavation to prepare the site for future development. It would be valuable to know and
understand what the applicant proposes for developing the site in the future. This
information would help both the Town and the County understand and respond to fitting the
development to the site and its natural/altered contours.
> Length of time between completion of site excavation and new development - New
Castle is concerned about the length of time that may pass between completion of the
excavation project and initiation of new development. The site is located near the primary
entrance to New Castle and should not remain as an eyesore for any length of time. Site
revegetation and landscaping/trees to buffer the adjacent residential structures should be
completed within 30 days of site excavation adjacent to the slots.
> Verification of weight limits - All loaded trucks leaving the site should be weighed to
ensure compliance with all roadway load limits. Records of weights should be available to
New Castle, CDOT in Garfield County upon request.
➢ Site drainage study - Is the drainage analysis based upon a 25 or 100 -year storm?
4
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Mark Kadnuck [MAKADNUC@cdphe.state.co.us]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 12:09 PM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Subject: SUP5308 Kuerston Parcel
This project will need a construction stormwater permit from WQCD. No other comments.
Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E.
CDPHE-WQCD
222 S. 6th Street, Rm 232
Grand Junction, CO 81501
ph: 970-248-7144
fax: 970-248-7198
email: mark.kadnuck@state.co.us
10/10/2008
g
4
EXHIBIT
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Clubb, Merle [MerleAlan.Clubb@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:11 AM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Cc: Roussin, Daniel; Babler, Alisa
Subject: Special Use Permit - Resource Extraction File No. SUP5308
Attachments: Levels of Traffic Evaluation 051129.pdf
Kathy,
CDOT has reviewed the Special Use Permit - Resource Extraction File No. SUP5308. In order to evaluate the
impact of this temporary (one year) project on the intersections of County Road 240 @ State HWY 6 and Castle
Valley Blvd @ State HWY 6 CDOT will require a Level 3 Traffic Assessment(see attached). It would appear that
this project would easily trigger the 20% change in use that would require a state highway access permit.
If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Alan Clubb
CDOT Region 3 - Traffic and Safety
222 South 6th St., Room 100
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Ph # 970-683-6283
CeII # 970-210-8545
Fax # 970-683-6290
Alan.Clubb@dot.state.co.us
9/24/2008
CDOT R3 Traffic Section 11/29/05
Levels of Traffic Assessments for CDOT R3 Access Permits
Section 2.3(5) of The State Highway Access Code (SHAC) specifies the thresholds and general requirements of a
traffic impact study (TIS). A TIS is required when the proposed land use will generate a Design Hour Volume
(DHV) of 100 vehicles or more, or when considered necessary or desirable by CDOT. However, the SHAC
provides little detail about traffic assessment requirements for projects generating less than 100 vehicles per hour.
This document describes the three levels of traffic assessments required for access permitting in CDOT Region 3.
The permit applicant should contact CDOT R3 access permitting (970-248-7230) to determine the appropriate
level of traffic evaluation and the specific requirements for each individual application.
Level One — Trip Generation Assessment
The purpose of a Level One Assessment is to document the project trip generation and to confirm that auxiliary
turn lanes are not required at the proposed access point.
A Level One Assessment is required for all projects that generate less than ten trips in the peak hour. A single
family home usually generates one trip in the peak hour so a project with nine or fewer homes would fit in this
category. It is unlikely that any commercial or industrial development would fit in this category.
The Level One Assessment shall include the following:
• Description of project size and location
• Trip Generation Calculations per the Institute of Transportation Enaineers Trip Generation document
(latest version)
• A Professional Engineer's seal on the calculation is preferred, but not required.
Level Two — Auxiliary Turn Lane Assessment
The purpose of a Level Two Assessment is to document the project trip generation and to determine auxiliary turn
lane requirements at the proposed access points. The results of this assessment may reveal that no turn lanes are
needed. The assessment may also reveal that a Traffic Impact Study is necessary (see Level Three), as
determined by CDOT. It is strongly recommended that all assumptions be confirmed with the CDOT traffic
engineer prior to completing the assessment.
A Level Two Assessment shall be required for all projects that generate between 10 and 99 trips in the peak hour.
It shall include the following:
• Description of project size and location, include site & location maps
• Trip Generation Calculations per the ITE Trip Generation document (latest version)
• Diagram or table showing existing driveways and side roads within 1000 feet from the access
• A detailed statement of directional distribution assumptions for project traffic, include all correspondence;
phone, emails etc., with local authorities concerning directional distribution.
• A detailed statement of the 20 year background traffic growth calculation (source of existing data, growth
rate, factors, etc)
• Diagram or table showing am & pm peak -hour traffic volumes for:
Short Term Traffic — existing, site generated, & total
Long Term Traffic (20 Year) — background, site generated, & total
• Recommendations for auxiliary turn lanes per the SHAG
• Entering sight distance at proposed access, include relevant photos
• A Professional Engineer's seal and signature is required
Level Three — Traffic Impact Study
The purpose of a TIS is to understand the full traffic impact of the proposed development, and to identify traffic
mitigation measures. A TIS is required when the proposed land use will generate a DHV of 100 vehicles or more,
or when considered necessary or desirable by CDOT. Section 2.3(5) of the SHAG specifies the thresholds and
general requirements of a TIS. A Professional Engineer's seal is required. It is strongly recommended that all
assumptions be confirmed with the CDOT traffic engineer prior to completing the study.
MEMORANDUM
To: Kathy Eastley
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Kuersten Parcel SUP
Date: October 10, 2008
Noxious weeds
Mapping and inventory:
Staff requests that the applicant provide a noxious weed inventory and map with their application. Once
the inventory is provided the applicant shall develop a weed management plan that addresses all county
listed noxious weeds found on site. Russian knapweed and scotch thistle are located on site.
Management:
The weed management plan should provide for immediate treatment of all listed noxious weeds found in
the area. We request that the applicant implement a fall treatment program prior to the start of
construction activities and provide application records to this department that indicate that the work was
done.
Reclamation
Staff recommends the following:
• The County will be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of Reclamation,
Mining and Safety. The County inspector will have the opportunity to demonstrate that any item
of the permit has not been complied with and that bond should not be released. This includes
weed management and reclamation.
• Any straw bales used in erosion control or as check dams shall be certified as weed -free.
• The applicant shall provide a plant materials list of the seed mix with each species listed. In
Section 4 it is stated that, "Arkansas Valley Seed's Multi -color High Altitude mix or an equivalent
mix" will be used. This is too general; we would request that a list of the species be provided.
Kathy A. Eastley
From: John Niewoehner
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:38 AM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Subject: Kuersten SUP - Resource Extraction - Eng Comments
Kathy - -
Here are the concerns that were outlined on my July 18th memo. When you get a chance, let's talk about the
noise assessment study
1. State Stormwater Management Plan — We should get (i) a copy of their plan and (ii) a letter from the
State that approves their plan.
2. DRMS: Previously they submitted a blank application. I think we were looking for something more
than this.
3. Driveway Access permit: They will need this from County Roads and Bridges
4. Reclamation Security: Do we get a reclamation financial security or is this something that is part of
a State DRMS permit?
5. Noise Assessment — They demonstrated that the noise limits will not be exceeded for an industrial
zone (80 B day time and 75 dB nighttime). Shouldn't the noise assessment be for a residential
nhborhood (55dB and 50dB)?
John
10/9/2008
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Ron Liston [ron@Ianddesignpartnership.com]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 2:49 PM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Cc: mark@gouldconstruction.com; John Pattillo; ynichol@sopriseng.com
Subject: Kuersten
Attachments: Comp Plan Conformity.doc
EXHIBIT
IN'
Kathy: Attached is my response to the newly adopted Comp Plan Goals, Objective and
Policies since it appears that our revised submission may have been filed a few days after the
P&Z's adoption of the these Gravel Extraction provisions.
When your Staff Report is complete, can you please e-mail it to Yancy Nichol and Mark Gould
(addresses below) as will as myself.
mark@gouldconstruction.com
ynichol@sopriseng.com
Thanks - Ron
Ron Liston
Land Design Partnership
970-945-2246 office
970-379-7638 cell
10/14/2008
Kuersten Special Use Permit
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan
11.00 Gravel Extraction
Goals
11.1 The primary reason for the proposed extraction operation is to remove an
isolated ridge of gravel and overburden left by previous mining activity.
The goal of the activity is to reclaim the property to a condition conducive
for real estate development of the property in the future. The ridge of
gravel was left with exposed slopes too steep to be revegetated on both
the County Road side and on the internal property side which is viewed by
the residential neighbors to the north and west of the property. The
subject property is adjacent to the Town of New Castle and appropriate for
future development but the unsightly gravel ridge compromises the
desirability and functionality of the site for any type of beneficial
development. Fortunately, the ridge is largely comprised of clean pit run
gravels which make it easier to find off property disposal sites for the
excavated material.
11.2 The extraction process is short term with all site activities completed within
twelve months of initiation of excavation to completion of topsoil
application and revegetation seeding. Being a very temporary use, the
activity does not impact long term land use patterns.
11.3 There are no river -fronts or riparian areas on or near the property and a
watershed permit application has been submitted to the Town of New
Castle.
11.4 The extraction activity is very short term and the Special Use Permit
application identifies numerous actions that will be implemented to protect
the environment during and after completion of the excavation operation.
The site will be fully reclaimed and revegetated with appropriate
sedimentation controls, leaving the site as a vegetated field until such time
as the property might be developed.
11.5 As noted above, the goal of the extraction operation is to reclaim an
unsightly and unusable site to a condition that is conducive for
development at some future time. Given the properties proximity to the
Town of New Castle it is logical to assume that the property may
eventually be annexed to the Town of New Castle with any future
development occurring under the Town's jurisdiction.
Objectives
11.1 Numerous mitigation measures are identified in this special use permit
application.
11.2 Although these issue of potential impact are addressed in the SUP
application, the very short term period of operation helps lessen the
magnitude of the operations impact on the adjacent land uses.
11.3 The long term object of this extraction operation is to prepare the site for a
permanent use. Determination of the long term use of the site would be
the subject to future use reviews under the authority of the Town of New
Castle or Garfield County.
11.4 NA
11.5 NA
11.6 Any agricultural activities are located across the county road from the site
and the activities associated with the extraction operation will not
negatively impact these operations. The flow of an irrigation ditch across
the property will be maintained with portions of the ditch being replaced
by pipe. Residential properties located north and northwest of the site are
elevated about 70 or more feet above and at the closest, 900 feet away
from the area of the extraction operation. The short term period of the
excavation and hauling operation assures there will be no extended
impacts on the surrounding uses.
11.7 The SUP application contains detailed information on how the operation
protects the physical environment and reclaims disturbed lands.
11.8 The site was extensively disturbed by previous mining operation with no
apparent effort to reclaim the site. The activity will not alter special
natural or cultural resources and the ridge of unvegetated gravel ridge
offers no significant wildlife habitat.
11.9 The operation creates no long term impacts on the surrounding
neighbors. Short term impacts could include visibility of the extraction
operation, increased traffic on the adjacent road and the potential to hear
the heavy equipment used in the excavation operation although the level
of this noise will be within the limits of State guidelines as described by
the noise report included with the SUP application.
11.10 NA
11.11 The SUP application addresses all potential impacts including dust
control, noise, sedimentation, stormwater discharge, and traffic. The area
of disturbance will be full reclaimed to achieve a grassed field which will
be a visual enhancement over the unvegetated gravel banks. The gravel
ridge offers very little wildlife habitat.
Policies
11.1 The SUP application addresses traffic and transportation issues.
11.2 The site is not impacted by severe environmental constraints.
11.3 The natural drainage patterns of the site will not be altered and the
unvegetated steep gravel slopes will be replaced with a generally flat fully
vegetated field.
11.4 The excavation operation will not impact any critical wildlife habitat.
11.5 All elements of the section are addressed by the SUIP application.
11.6 The sup application provides specific actions to control dust. Minimal
odors and fumes may be generated by the limited amount of equipment
that will operate at the site.
Garfield County Planning Commission
Garfield County Plaza Building
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO
October 18, 2008
Subject: Kuersten Property application for Special Use Permit — Extraction of 137,810 cubic
yards of pit run and overburden in order to allow for unknown future development of the parcel.
Garfield County Planning Commission
My name is Charles R. Reed and I am a property owner at 383 Faas Ranch Road, New Castle,
CO 81647, Lakota Canyon Ranch Development Lot 30. I can not attend the planning meeting on
October 22nd which will discuss the application for a special use permit for the Robert and
Kathleen Kuersten property at County road 240 in New Castle. My property is adjacent to the
proposed extraction location on the North boundry of this property.
I would like to encourage the planning department to decline from approving this request until
the developer discloses the intentions for future development. I have many concerns about giving
such a special use permit without knowing the future development plans. I have obtained a copy
of the SUP dated April 2008 from the planning commission and in that document there a various
statements that I disagree with. I have spoken to Mark Gould of Gould Construction and in my
opinion he is attempting to side step the concerns of the property owners and the Town of New
Castle. Some of my concerns are as follows:
1. Primary concern is decreased property values on Faas Ranch Road due to extended
construction, which may take many years of development time.
2. Not disclosing the future development plans for the property that is zoned Agricultural,
Residential, Rural Density (ARRD). No discussions with the Town of New Castle or
the impacts on the Town infrastructure.
3. Very little description of the work of sculpting the hill sides adjacent to my property on
the North side of the excavation.
4. No allowance for a buffer zone between the North side residences.
5. No allowance for the replacement of trees and shrubs being removed and no
landscaping (trees / shrubs) along the perimeter boundaries especially the North side
boundary. No irrigation is planned or storm water management planning.
6. There is a planned 600+ truck trip per day to remove the earth, this is a residential area
with family and children going about their daily lives and the noise levels of 20-40
pieces of heavy equipment operating week days and maintenance vehicles operating on
the weekends. This is not conducive to a residential atmosphere.
7. Dust mitigation and noise levels are not adequately addressed in this proposal for a
residential area.
8. The length of time to perform this excavation is open ended and time limits should be
no more that 6 months to completion.
9. 600+ heavy equipment trips per day on the roads of Garfield County and the Town of
New Castle are not acceptable in an already overburdened road system.
10. The main hillside of soil along county road 240 acts as a noise buffer from the railroad
tracks and I70 highway. Removal of this will affect our daily lives with increased
traffic noise.
11. The utility poles should not be left on a pedestal of earth as a future eyesore.
12. Future development of this land will ultimately affect the Town of New Castle thru
annexation, water and sewer system burden. My discussions with the Town planning
department indicate that the developer has not discussed his future plans with the
Town.
There are many more concerns and again I would urge the county planning commission to
decline this request at this time until more discussion and planning between the county , property
owners and the Town of New Castle has taken place.
Regards,
Charles R Reed / Cannella A Reed
Reed Family Trust
383 Faas Ranch Road
New Castle, Co 81647
Lakota Canyon Ranch Lot #30
970-984-3248 hm/office
714-345-1330 cell
crreed@sopris.net