Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 12.05.11Board of County Commissioners — Public Hearing Exhibits Crystal Ranch Corp. Major Impact Review December 5, 2011 . Zitr � A`. E*h'bit � . A Mail receipts and proof of posting B Proof of publication C Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 E Application Material F Staff Report G Staff Presentation H Referral - Town of Parachute, dated August 22, 2011 1 Referral— Town of Carbondale, dated September 12, 2011 J Referral — County Road and Bridge, dated September 12, 2011 K Referral— Engineer (Mountain Cross), dated September 13, 2011 L Referral — County Road and Bridge, dated September 14, 2011 M Referral - Colorado Department of Transportation, dated September 14, 2011 N Referral — County Road and Bridge, dated September 16, 2011 0 Referral — Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, dated September 19, 2011 P Resolution 2011-44, MIPA 6545 Cerise Mine Q Resolution 1980-58, SUP Power's Pit R Referral — Town of Carbondale, dated September 21, 2011 S Gary and Catherine Marshall, dated September 22, 2011 T Revised Application Material U Land Studio, Inc. letter to the BOCC, dated November 21, 2011 V Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District, dated November 28, 2011 W Draft Resolution 2011-xx, Approving the MIR for Powers Pit Concrete Batch Plant X Referral - Colorado Department of Transportation, dated November 29, 2011 Board of County Com Decemb M I PA -6919 a EXHIBIT PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT (OWNER) Major Impact Review — Land Use Change Permit for a Substantial Change to a previously approved SUP for Gravel Pit and Batch Plant Operations Powers Crystal Ranch Corp. c/o Art Daily, Holland and Hart, LLP PLANNER/CONSULTANT Douglas Pratte, The Land Studio, Inc. LOCATION Northwest corner of Highway 82 and CR 103, Parcel # 239323400131 PHYSICAL ADDRESS 13112 Highway 82 ACRES 414.8 Acres ZONING Rural COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Rural Employment Center (PC Resolution 2011-04) Approval with Conditions STAFF RECOMMENDATION I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL In 1980, John G. Powers was issued a Special Use Permit for "extraction of natural resources and the processing of natural resources by the establishment of a gravel washing plant and a concrete batch plant" as memorialized in Resolution 1980- 58. The existing aggregate mining/extraction activity will continue on this site, along with the existing gravel washing/processing and the concrete batch plant operation until April 18, 2013, following which date only the concrete batch plant is planning to continue operation. The applicant is requesting a substantial change to the previously approved SUP, in Figure 1: Vicinity Map 11Page Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M I PA -6919 that after April 18, 2013, the mined material for the batch plant will need to be trucked in from off-site due to the closure and reclamation of the on-site extraction operations. The applicant states that this xJ Per CR 103 f l Existing Powers Pit Concrete Batch Revised Powers Pit Proposed Access •("St;• `fir vim' Concrete Batch Plant Initially Proposed Access • MY • Figure 2: Vicinity crap showing the approved Cerise Mine and proposed accesses material will be trucked in from the recently approved Cerise Mine (Resolution 2011-44), also on CR 103. The concrete batch plant will continue operations on approximately 5.771 acres (leased by LaFarge) of the overall acreage. 1 LaZr Bureau of Land Munagemunl Rural Reselensal Uses Rural Rasidenseu-- sr. Ag. Uses Carbondale :a. Rural Resideneali 1 Ag. Uses J AO fiaaw+rat .j Ranch al n r`° +aksehaueuer. Pal re R�r9. .awes roMM�I Figure 3: Adjacent Land Uses The subject parcel is located at the southwest corner of CR 103 and SH 82 and comprises 414.8 acres. However, only 68 acres of this property has been used for the extraction and batch plant operations and is currently under lease by Larfarge. Some reclamation is currently being performed on the site, while most of the reclamation will be performed prior to April of 2013, and the remaining reclamation (batch plant site) is scheduled to be performed when the batch plant lease term expires in 2028. Adjacent uses include residential, agricultural and aggregate extraction uses. Rural zoning, public lands (BIM) and Residential -Low exist adjacent or proximate to the site. Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M I PA -6919 11. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Referral comments were received and contained the general information as relevant to this application as follows: Town of Parachute, dated August 22, 2011 (Exhibit H) — states that Parachute has no objection to this request. Town of Carbondale, dated September 12, 2011 (Exhibit I) —letter does not provide any direct comments in regards to this proposal. Garfield County Road and Bridge, email dated September 12, 2011 (Exhibit J) - expresses several concerns with the proposed access including limited sight distance and inadequate staking distance. They are also concerned with safety impeding traffic) and noise. Figure 4: Internal concrete batch plant operations Garfield County Designated Engineer (Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc), dated September 13, 2011 (Exhibit K) — summarizes several issues with the increase of traffic on SH 82 and the need for improvements to be completed. It also includes the need for clarification of the submitted noise study and proper permitting for CDPHE, CDOT and the County. Garfield County Road and Bridge, email dated September 14, 2011 (Exhibit L) —states that the applicant will also need a county driveway access permit to be submitted and approved pending adequate design of the proposed access along CR 103. Colorado Department of Transportation, email dated September 14, 2011 (Exhibit M) — states the project will need to have an access permit for CR 103 onto SH 82 and includes several design issues including lack of sufficient right-of-way to accommodate additional lanes, removal of the proposed emergency access location, siting of the intersection of CR 103 and new private driveway, and consideration of a future traffic signal at CR 103 and SH 82. Garfield County Road and Bridge, email dated September 16, 2011 (Exhibit N) — states the applicant is attempting to work with road and bridge in a timely fashion but county staff cannot currently accommodate a meeting until mid-October. 3l, Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 MIPA-6919 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, email dated September 19, 2011 (Exhibit 0) — letter does not provide any direct comments in regards to this proposal. Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District, letter dated November 28, 2011 (Exhibit V) — Letter supports the design of a "boulevard" entry/exit along CR 103 to provide adequate emergency access. Additional referral comment requests were sent to the following agencies, of which no response has been received: Garfield County Environmental Health RE -1 School District CO Water Resources/Engineer's office CO Mined Land Reclamation Board CO Department of Public Health CO Division of Wildlife Bureau of Land Management US Forest Service III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. SECTION 4-502.D LAND SUITABLITY ANALYSIS. The Land Suitability Analysis shall include the following information, unless specifically waived by the Di rector. 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. Staff Comment: There is currently no public access through this site. Private access is currently located through an emergency access (ranch) and private driveway along SH 82, however both of these will be replaced by a new access point along CR 103, per this application. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. Staff Comment: Existing access to the site is located at approximately 700 feet north of the intersection of SH 82 and CR 103. The second existing access is approximately 1200 feet north along SH 82 from this intersection. The applicant originally proposed the second access (also served as Ranch access) to be retained as an emergency access to serve the subject property, however, in a November 2, 2011 Meeting CDOT indicated the use of this access location would not be permitted. The applicant has since modified their proposal to accommodate CDOT's concerns and have revised their concept plans to provide for a "boulevard" entry/exit that will sufficiently handle emergency access. This "boulevard" entry/exit will be constructed at a new driveway opening along CR 103 (revised location from PC review), as conceptually approved by County Road and Bridge, and will be located approximately 400 feet from the intersection of SH 82. Wage Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M I PA -6919 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Staff comment: There exists a 16 foot wide telephone easement on the property. In addition CR 103 crosses the southwest portion of the property. In the subsequent revisions to the plan after PC review, the applicant has included in their letter dated, November 21, 2011 that will deed the Right —of -way 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted both the current conditions as well as the proposed conditions after reclamation, as approved in their site reclamation plan. The site currently has significant man-made topographic features including 10 foot berm along SH 82 and steeps side grades on the south, east and north that range from 60 to 100 feet. 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. Staff Comment: No significant natural features currently exist. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Comment: the submitted drainage plan addresses the control of surface drainage on the site to contain the run-off insuring no negative impact to surrounding vegetation. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply pursuant to Section 7-104 or 7-105 as applicable (Resolution 2010-29). Staff Comment: Historically, much of Power's Ranch was flood irrigated using water rights in the Kelly Ditch and Kelly Wastewater Ditch, which was diverted from Crystal Spring. Water has also been provided to the gravel pit from water diverted from the Roaring Fork River through the Kelso ditch to James Reservoir for industrial and irrigation uses. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Comment: The full extent of the site is outside of the 100 -year floodplain. 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Comment: Subsurface soil conditions generally consist of 0-9 feet of fill (aggregate base course, asphalt pavement, gravel or crusher fines) underlain by clean to slightly silty gravel with cobbles and boulders. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Comment: No geological or geotechnical conditions were identified which would preclude the planned development of this site. Collapse -prone soils outside of the pit area and potential for sinkhole formation related to Eagle Valley Evaporite are the primary geologic concerns. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. Staff Comment: The continuation of the existing concrete batch plant operation will impose no new impacts on wildlife. There are no wetlands on the site. Enhancement to on-site vegetation to enhance the flora (landscaping) of the site are addressed in the reclamation plan. 5 I P a g e Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 MIPA-6919 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, paleontological and historic resource areas. Staff Comment: No protected or registered archaeological, cultural, paleontological or historic resource areas will be disturbed to continue the concrete batch plant operations. B. SECTION 4-502.E IMPACT ANALYSIS The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis. 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Comment: the applicant provided an address list for property owners within 200 feet of the parcel for public notice. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use a of adjacent property and neighboring properties within a 1500 foot radius. Staff Comment: The site is located in an area of agriculture, gravel extraction, rural residential and public lands (BLM) uses. 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comment: The site is mostly denude of vegetation due to the long term extraction and processing that has taken place on the site. The site also has significant topographic features that will be recontoured with the completion of site reclamation. This will result in a large berm along SH 82. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: The applicant includes that there is not any soils issue on this site due to the use currently existing on the site and that soils have proven to be generally favorable to the existing and proposed continued use. 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: No geological or geotechnical conditions were identified which would preclude the planned development of this site. Collapse -prone soils outside of the pit area and potential for sinkhole formation related to Eagle Valley Evaporite are the primary geologic concerns. Wage Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 MIPA-6919 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. Staff Comment: Historically, much of the Powers Ranch was flood irrigated using water in the Kelly Ditch and the Kelly Wastewater Ditch, which water rights divert from Crystal Spring. Water has also been provided to the gravel pit from water diverted from the Roaring Fork River through the Kelso Ditch to James Reservoir for industrial and irrigation uses. This water is pumped below highway 82 for these industrial and irrigation uses. The historically irrigated lands have now largely been mined and are ready for revegetation. The Kelso Ditch is also decreed to provide supplemental irrigation to the same gravel pit acreage that was historically irrigated under the Kelly Ditch. The Roaring Fork Sand and Gravel pit has been operating since the mid -1960's. The primary industrial water supply has been from Jaynes Reservoir that is providing water from the Kelso and Martin Ditches. These industrial uses from the Reservoir and ditches were confirmed and augmented pursuant to the decree entered on February 6, 1995 in Case No. 92CW304. That decree also confirmed that these rights could be used for irrigation uses upon the Powers Ranch. James Reservoir has a surface area of 1.38 acres and a capacity of 8.28 acre-feet. It is located in the southwest corner of Lot 11, Section 26, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 6th P.M. The Martin and Kelso Ditches are decreed for 3 cfs for industrial and irrigation uses. Water will continue to be provided for the continuation of the concrete batch plant operations and irrigation for reclamation per the above-described physical and legal water supplies. 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents,. and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. Staff Comment: The nearest floodplain to the Power's Pit is the Roaring Fork River floodplain which lies approximately 1/4 mile to the south. Proposed uses of the site do not include waste disposal. v `h *Or L•18.6Y.CfA N Of CLOSED • a 'fd'o \ hAL -.1100 o T, 1"ice` 4 Figure 5; Revised Landscape Plan 1.1101.03,13 POW CI ID CO. MMY V/CR 1O M — cacrp N4 7IPage Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M1PA-6919 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. Staff Comment: The applicant states there will be no impacts on wildlife or alteration of existing native vegetation or other disruptions due to the existing nature of the project use. The applicant will implement their proposed landscaping plan. b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. Staff Comment: The concrete batch plant has been the long-term use of the property and there are no significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources affected by this operation. c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat, (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Staff Comment: Five DOW mapped habitat areas existing on the concrete batch plant site including black bear, mountain lion, elk overall range and bald eagle winter range and mule deer summer and critical winter range. Because the batch plant is devoid of native vegetation or potential habitat it is presumed that no impacts on wildlife will occur with this continuation of use. It is likely, however, that since this is critical winter range for mule deer this species may use this area once reclamation and revegetation has occurred on this site. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. Staff Comment: Through testing conducted in April 2011, the applicant found radiation on-site to be within a normal range for this area. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. Staff Comment: Lafarge,West, Inc has prepared a spill prevention, control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan last amended in March 2011, on behalf of the applicant. 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(J). Staff Comment: The traffic impact from the "Lafarge West Cerise Site" project was originally evaluated by Eugene G. Coppola in a report dated August 4, 2010 and is 8lPage Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M I PA -6919 included as an exhibit to the project submittal. At the PC hearing, an error in the traffic report was discovered and the applicant was conditioned to provide a revised and accurate traffic report as part of the recommendation for approval. The applicant has since revised the traffic report and it has been included in the revised submittal material. Based upon the original report, CDOT, County Road and Bridge and the designated County Engineer had submitted comments in regards to the adequacy and need for traffic improvements. Based upon the finding in the revised report, the Applicant met with Representatives of CDOT and the County to discuss solutions to the design issues that were highlighted in each agency's (including Mountain Cross Engineering) comments. Though an engineering design has not yet been created, the revised conceptual design for the traffic -related issues has been conceptually approved by both CDOT and County Road and Bridge. CDOT will require an access permit for the revision to this project's traffic flow. Presently, this permit has not been submitted to CDOT and it will be the responsibility of the applicant to pursue this permit. County Road and Bridge will also require a driveway permit and an agreement for improvements to be made to CR 103. The County will not issue a Land Use Change Permit until these permits have been obtained from both CDOT and County Road and Bridge and any/all conditions of these permits will be conditions of approval. i Figure 6: Revised Private and Emergency Access 9IPage Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M I PA -6919 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comment: The current operation meets the standards for air, glare, radiation and fumes which may substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which may constitute a public nuisance or hazard. The lessee of the property (Lafarge) currently has a SPCC, Stormwater management plan, Wastewater Discharge permit, Construction permit (air quality) and noise analysis that limit and prevent nuisance impacts on the neighboring properties. Lafarge has been operating this concrete batch plant and extraction operation for more than 10 years without a record of violation. 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212. Staff Comment: The applicant has submitted an adequate reclamation plan for the existing gravel extraction operations and is the same plan that has been approved by the state for the reclamation of the entire site. C. SECTION 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS SECTION 7-101 COMPLIANCE WITH ZONE DISTRICT USE RESTRICTIONS Staff Comment: The application seeking a Land Use Change permit through a Major Impact Review is in accordance with the Rural Zone district and use regulations of the adopted ULUR 2008, as amended. SECTION 7-102 COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IGAs Staff Comment: Concurrently with this application, the applicant requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment to add a Rural Employment Center to the Future Land Use Map on this property. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved per PC Resolution 2011-04, which makes this MIR application compliant with the Comprehensive Nan 2030, as amended; specifically those areas discussing, future land use designations, industrial uses, mineral extraction and economic diversity. The County currently has an IGA with the Town of Carbondale that includes this site. The IGA requires sending the application for referral comments. Carbondale has provided comments that are included in this report. Figure 7: Rural Zoning Designation 10 1 Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M I PA -6919 SECTION 7-103 COMPATIBILITY Staff Comment: The existing uses on the site include resource extraction operations, aggregate washing, aggregate sales, aggregate shipping and a concrete batch plant. The current lease for the aggregate extraction will expire in 2013 while the lease for the concrete I batch plant will extend until 2028. Surrounding land use on the Crystal Ranch Corp. property is agricultural with a scattering of rural residential uses. SECTION 7-104 SUFFICIENT LEGAL AND 100 - PHYSICAL SOURCE OF WATER Staff Comments: As noted in Section 4- 502.E.6, the operation has an agricultural and industrial water use decrees that have been confirmed and augmented from the James Reservoir and the Kelly, Kelso and Martin ditches. Water will be continued to be provided for the concrete batch plant operations and irrigation for reclamation per the described physical and legal water supplies. Figure 8: Rural Employment Center designation at this location per Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended SECTION 7-105 ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY Staff Comments: The batch plant operation does not currently have a potable water system and does not plan on installing a system as part of their continued operation. SECTION 7-106 ADEQUATE WATER DISTRIBUTION AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS Staff Comments: The batch plan operation does not currently have a central water distribution or wastewater system and will not plan on installing either of these systems as part of their continued operation. SECTION 7-107 ADEQUATE PUBLIC UTILTIIES Staff Comments: The batch plant will continue its current size and scale of operation and therefore will not require any new or additional public utilities for this project. SECTION 7-108 ACCESS AND ROADWAYS Staff Comments: As noted in comments from the County's designated engineer, Chris Hale, County Road and Bridge and CDOT, this project will impact both CR 103 and SH 82 and will require proper permitting and adequate improvements. Permitting, an agreement and security for necessary improvements, and signage should be required as any consideration for approval of this project. See comments in Section 9 for additional discussion on access. 11Pa ge Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M I PA -6919 SECTION 7-109 NO SIGNIFICANT RISK FROM NATURAL HAZARDS Staff Comments: No geological or geotechnical conditions were identified that would preclude the continued operation of the batch plant on this site or future development of this site. D. SECTION 7-200 GENERAL REOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS SECTION 7-201 PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS Staff Comments: No agricultural lands will be disturbed by the continuation of the existing batch plant. SECTION 7-202 PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS Staff Comments: The wildlife use patterns associated with this project have long been in place at this site. The major change in use at this site is that the extraction of sand and gravel aggregates will cease while the concrete batch plant operations will continue until the year 2028 on a 5.8 acre portion of the site. This reduced activity will benefit wildlife as well as the commitment to revegetate the 60+ acres of the site that have been disturbed by the sand and gravel extraction operations. The revegetation plan included in this application identifies a number of plant species including native and pasture grass mixtures that will create habitat for elk and deer on south facing slopes. SECTION 7-203 PROTETION OF WETLANDS AND WATERBODIES Staff Comments: There are no wetlands or waterbodies that will be disturbed by the activities associated with this project. SECTION 7-204 PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY FROM POLLUTANTS Staff Comments: A stormwater management plan was previously prepared for this site to protect water quality from pollutants. Additionally, Lafarge has a water recycling facility on-site to prevent any process water to intermingle with run-off and stormwater. SECTION 7-205 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION Staff Comments: Erosion and sedimentation will be adequately managed per the applicant's submitted erosion and sedimentation plan. SECTION 7-206 DRAINAGE Staff Comments: Drainage will be adequately managed per the applicant's submitted drainage plan and engineering report. SECTION 7-207 STORMWATE RUN-OFF Staff Comments: Stormwater Run-off will be adequately managed per the applicant's submitted stormwater management plan and engineering report. 12 1Page Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 MIPA-6919 SECTION 7-208 AIR QUALITY Staff Comments: The lessee, Lafarge, currently meets the standards for air quality as verified in their Construction permit as issued by the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division. SECTION 7-209 AREAS SUBJECT TO WILDFIRE HAZARDS Staff Comments: Wildfire hazard at the existing batch plant site is negligible as no existing vegetation exists on the impacted area 68+/- acres of this site. SECTION 7-210 AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS AND GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS Staff Comments: No geological or geotechnical conditions were identified on this site which would preclude the continued use of this site. SECTION 7-211 AREAS WITH ARCHEOLOGICAL, PALEONOTLOGICAL OR HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE Staff Comments: No protected or registered areas with archeological, paleontological or historical importance will be disturbed by the continued use of this site. SECTION 7-212 RECLAMATION Staff Comments: Reclamation and landscaping will be adequately implemented. The applicant has a current reclamation plan filed with the state in which the state will oversee, as required, the reclamation of the site. E. SECTION 7-300 SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION 7-301 COMPATIBLE DESIGN Staff Comments: The existing concrete batch plant site has been organized to maximize the existing setbacks from SH 82 and CR 103 with berming and landscape buffering. The operations of activities on the site shall continue to be managed to avoid nuisances to adjacent uses relating to hours of operations, parking, service delivery, and location of service areas and docks. SECTION 7-302 BUILDING DESIGN Staff Comments: No new buildings are being proposed. SECTION 7-303 DESIGNAND SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT Staff Comments: No new buildings or structures are being proposed. SECTION 7-304 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS Staff Comments: No new parking areas are being proposed. 13 Page Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 MIPA-6919 SECTION 7-305 LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING STANDARDS Staff Comments: Landscaping will be adequately implemented per the applicant's revised landscaping and reclamation plan. However, the applicant is proposing planting 1 to 1 %2 inch caliper Narrowleaf Cottonwood trees. Section 7-305.A.7.a. requires that deciduous trees shall be a minimum of 2 inch caliper. Any new exterior lighting (none currently proposed) shall be designed in compliance with the requirements of Section 7-305(B), Lighting Standards. SECTION 7-306 SNOW STORAGE STANDARDS Staff Comments: A designated area, sufficient to store snow from the entire parking area for the batch plant has been provided on-site. Required off-street parking and loading areas will not be used for snow storage. Snow stored in open areas will not be located in a manner that restricts access or circulation, or obstructs the view of motorists. The traveled area of public roadways will not be used for snow storage. Adequate drainage has been provided for the snow storage area to accommodate snowmelt and to ensure it does not drain onto adjacent property. SECTION 7-307 ROADWAY STANDARDS Staff Comments: The revised project road system provides adequate and efficient circulation within the development and provides reasonable access to the public highway. Any consideration of approval of this project should condition approval upon designing, signing and permitting necessary road improvements per CDOT and County regulations. SECTION 7-308 TRAIL AND WALKWAY STANDARDS Staff Comments: No new sidewalks or paths are being proposed. SECTION7-309 UTILITY STANDARDS Staff Comments: No new utilities are being proposed. F. SECTION 7-810 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO INDUSTRIAL USE 1. Enclosed Building. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. Staff Comments: The batch plant operations are proposed to continue in their existing location on the floor of the gravel quarry. Natural topography, existing hillsides as well as existing and proposed berms are intended to obscure the continued operation of the plant. 2. Loading and Unloading. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way. Staff Comments: All loading and unloading of vehicles will be conducted on private property. 3. Outdoor Storage Facilities. All outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property. 14 1 P a g e Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M I PA -6919 Staff Comments: All outside storage will continue to be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a site -obscuring fence to obstruct the storage area from view by adjacent properties. 4. Industrial Wastes. Ali industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. Staff Comments: The batch plant operations will not produce industrial waste. All fuel or oil that is used will continue be covered under the spill plans as submitted. 5. Sound. The volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Staff Comments: Lafarge will continue to comply with all noise statutes. Noise associated with the operations of a batch plant is referenced in the Analysis of Noise from Proposed Cerise Gravel Mine prepared by Hankard Environmental, Inc. as submitted. The proposed project will continue to operate primarily during the 'daytime', as defined by CRS §25-12-103 (7:00 am to 7:00 pm) while administrative and maintenance activities are allowed from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm, which are considered acoustically insignificant. To note, the Cerise Mine has different operating times which can be found in Resolution 2011-44, Condition 14. The existing berm to the north of the batch plant will be retained to reduce sound levels in that direction. In addition, a new berm is proposed along Highway 82 to mitigate sound that may travel to the southern edge of the site. 6. Ground Vibration. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property. Staff Comments: There will be no to imperceptible levels of vibration from the batch plant operation. There will be no screening or crushing of material on site and all loading is done on paved areas to reduce the already minimal vibration. 7. Interference, Nuisance or Hazard. 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 signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. Staff Comments: Lafarge currently meets the standards for air, glare, radiation or fumes which may substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. F. SECTION 7-814 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MINING AND EXTRACTION USE 1. Roads a. Impact Mitigation. The mining operator or owner shall bear the proportionate cost of all road and bridge improvements, repairs, and maintenance necessitated by the proposed mining operation. Staff Comments: Lafarge has existing roadway maintenance agreements with the County and State to maintain haul routes, however CR 103 is not a designated haul route. An agreement for improvements will be required to address commitments by the 15 1 P a g e Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 MIPA-6919 Applicant related to the dedication of right-of-way, installation and maintenance of the new access and any improvements deemed necessary to CR 103 and SH 82. b. Vehicle Weight. The weight of trucks shall not exceed federal, state or local government imposed road or bridge weight capacity on approved haulage routes, as those routes are established by the procedures in the Garfield County Overweight Vehicle Regulations. Staff Comments: Lafarge will continue to weigh all trucks leaving the site to ensure that they meet vehicle weight guidelines. c. Seasonal Traffic Limitation. As a condition of approval, the County may impose limits on the number of trucks that may access the mine to avoid damage to roads caused by heavy vehicle use, weather conditions or water saturation. Staff Comments: Lafarge weighs all trucks leaving the site to ensure that they meet vehicle weight guidelines. No traffic limitations have been proposed. 2. Routing. Designation of construction and haul routes for a specific mining operation application shall comply with the following standards: a. Avoidance of developed areas. Truck haulage and traffic routes shall be designed to the maximum extent feasible to avoid residential areas, commercial areas, environmentally and visually sensitive areas, schools and other civic buildings, municipalities and already congested locations. Alternative routes shall be identified. Staff Comments: The current and proposed truck routes from the site are designed to avoid residential areas and heavily populated or sensitive areas. b. Timing of hauling. Timing of truck traffic may be controlled to prevent congestion or noise impacts or safety risks. Staff Comments: The proposed Project will continue to operate primarily during the 'daytime', as defined by CRS §25-12-103 (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) while administrative and maintenance activities will continue to be allowed from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Lafarge understands that there might be limitations on haul times related to this schedule if deemed necessary by the County, however, no limitation is currently being proposed. c. Load Control. Applicant shall prevent loss of loads and fugitive dust emissions during transit, and shall be responsible to ensure that haul routes are maintained in accordance with dust -suppressant methods required by applicable state or federal agency. Staff Comments: Lafarge should continue to ensure that loads coming onto the site are covered or otherwise maintained to control dust and prevent loss. Once mining is complete all loads will leave the site in enclosed ready mix drums. 3. Wildlife. Mining operations shall mitigate any impacts not located in wildlife habitat areas as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Staff Comments: Wildlife use patterns associated with the batch plant have long been in place at this site. The major change in use at this site is that the extraction of sand and gravel aggregates 161 Page Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M I PA -6919 will cease while the concrete batch plant operations will continue until the year 2028 on a 5.8 acre portion of the site. This reduced activity will benefit wildlife as well as the commitment to revegetate the over 60 acres of the site that have been disturbed by the sand and gravel extraction operations. The revegetation plan included in this application identifies a number of plant species including native and pasture grass mixtures that will create habitat for elk and deer on south facing slopes. 4. Emergency Preparedness. The site operator shall prepare an emergency preparedness plan and have it on site and provided to the appropriate emergency providers for the site. Staff Comments: Lafarge has a full emergency plan for this site including emergency equipment maps, emergency phone numbers and evacuation plans, of which the applicant can make available, if necessary. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION In a 6-0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this Major Impact Review with three modifications (condition 5.d, 5.q, and omission of 5.o) to the recommended conditions as prepared in the Planning Commission's staff report. Since that time, staff has continued to work with the applicant to refine the conditions based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, additional work by the applicant, CDOT and County Road and Bridge in regards to traffic impacts and road improvements, and has made several grammatical corrections. Staff has not included the Planning Commission's original recommendations for approval in this staff report, but has included the conditions that reflect their approval recommendation and those conditions that have been updated due to the applicant addressing a number of the conditions. V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS At the time of the production of this staff report, staff recommends the following findings and conditions: 1. That the proper public notice was provided as required for the hearings before the Board of County Commissioners; and 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at those meetings; and 3. That the application, if all conditions are met, can be in conformance with the applicable sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 4. That 1 /2 inch caliper Narrowleaf Cottonwood trees are an appropriate deviation to Section 7- 305.A.7.a. of the ULUR of 2008. 17IPage Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 MIPA-6919 5. The proposed use is the best interest of the health, safety, maIs, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County so long as the following conditions are met: a. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners; b. That the operation of the facility be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility; c. All new lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property; d. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the applicant shall resolve with County Road and Bridge and CDOT outstanding issues with road improvements and access which include but are not limited to: i. Appropriate Signage. The applicant shall work with County Road and Bridge to determine the appropriate type and placement of signage including but not limited to stop signs, truck warning signs and speed signs. ii. Relocation of Private Driveway. The Applicant shall work with County Road and Bridge to determine the appropriate location for the proposed private driveway access taking into account stacking distance and site distance. The applicant will provide a copy of an approved Driveway Access Permit to the Planning Department. iii. CR 103 and SH 82 improvements. The Applicant shall work with CDOT and County Road and Bridge to determine the necessity of any additional road improvements, including but not limited to turn lanes, deceleration/acceleration lanes, and drainage improvements. A copy of an approved CDOT access permit shall be provided to the Planning Department. iv. Improvements Agreement. The Applicant shall design, engineer, construct and provide adequate financial security for any work to be completed on CR 103, in a form as required by the County and pursuant to the Garfield County Road and Right-of-way Regulations. e. The applicant shall deed to the County all portions of CR 103 that fall upon or cross the Crystal Ranch Corp. property. 18IPage Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M I PA -6919 f. All vehicles using County Road 103 to access the Crystal Ranch Corp Concrete Batch Plant shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall be obtained from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. g. All trucks using the site access and/or CR 103 shall not use engine Jake Brakes to decelerate. h. The concrete batch plant shall be allowed to operate Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. while on-site administrative and/or maintenance activities may operate Monday through Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. There shall be no operations on Sunday except in the case of an emergency or for standard maintenance purposes. i. All noise generated from the operation shall not exceed the maximum permissible limits set forth in C.R.S. § 25-12-103. j. The property owner and operator acknowledge that Garfield County has the following performance standards, and failure to comply with such standards could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit: 1. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping; ii. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way; iii. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; iv. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property; and v. Every use shall be operated so that it does not emit, heat, glare, radiation, dust, 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 signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. k. The applicant shall implement the revised landscaping plan in areas outside of those directly impacted by the continued operation of the concrete batch plant by April 30, 2013. The full extent of the landscaping plan shall be implemented upon the termination of the batch plant lease in 2028. 191 Page Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2011 M1PA-6919 I. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit an Emergency Preparedness Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department. (c/ J rAt w '(° '�" ' . Grave+#or is-conerete-batc-h-plani-shall-be-havfedfrom-C-eris ne-exeept-for limited-quantities-ofspeciattyproducts-not-avaliable -at this-Joe-ation-which-may be _braughtJn from othersourees. Contrary to any provision in the County's Unified Land Use Resolution in effect at the time of the request, the Director of Building and Planning or the Board of County Commissioners may consider any change to this condition of approval as either a "non -substantial change" or a "substantial change" depending upon the evidence of any changes to off-site impacts of the approved Land Use Change Permit, and the requested change will be reviewed accordingly. n. All conditions of approval will remain in full force as required in Resolution 1980-58 John G. Powers SUP) in addition to the conditions herein. IIV. RECOMMENDED MOTION I move to approve a Land Use Change Permit through the Major Impact Review for the Substantial Modification to SUP per Resolution 1980-58, as requested by Crystal Ranch Corp with the findings and conditions, as recommended in this staff report. 201Page From: Robert Knight To: Tamra Alien Subject: MIPA - 6919 Date: Monday, August 22, 2011 7:27:21 AM Attachments: Robert J Kniaht.vcf Tamra Parachute has no objection for the Carbondale Project Robert D. Knight Town Of Parachute Town Administrator (970) 285-7630Work robertkCparachutecolorado.com b e EXHIBIT September 12, 2011 Garfield County Planning Commission Garfi108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Crystal Ranch Dear Commissioners: TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 EXHIBIT Town Planning Staff's main concern is the precedent that could be set by establishing this area as a Rural Employment Center. The Rural Employment Center could potentially create a node which could be expanded toward the east, effectively creating an area similar to Cattle Creek. The existence of a gravel pit and batch plant should not establish an industrial area. Generally, after the material has been extracted out of a gravel pit, the area is reclaimed. Currently, there are a number of gravel pits in Garfield County. Establishing this area as a Rural Employment Center could create future expectations that a gravel pit establishes an industrial area and the potential for expansion of that use. Thank you for the opportunity to submit the comments. Janet Buck Town Planner Phone: (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 EXHIBIT Tamra Allen From: Michael Prehm Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 6:11 AM To: Tamra Allen Cc: Betsy Suerth Subject: Crystal Ranch Corp. Tamra, The County Road & Bridge Department has several concerns with the proposed access as presented by the applicant. Site distance at proposed access: Southbound from access point to State Highway 82 is under the required 250 feet. Stacking distance: Proposed left hand and right hand lanes onto State Highway 82 are inadequate considering average length of trucks that will use the facility. In addition, the proposed left hand turn lane on County Road 103 into site would congest the area even further. Northbound traffic from proposed access point ( i.e. "internal traffic") will impede local traffic as it will be slow moving turning onto the roadway, ascending the roadway and turning off the roadway. Finally, the County would encourage self-imposed restrictions on engine breaks. Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman / Glenwood District Office (970) 945-1223 Fax. (970) 945-1318 Cell (970) 618-7109 mprehm at Barfield-county.com 1 SCP 1 5 2011 September 13, 2011 Ms. Tamra Allen Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNT ENGINE CIVIL ANI) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN RE: Major Impact Review & Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Crystal Ranch Corporation: MIPA 6919 & CPAA 6920 Dear Tamra: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Major Impact Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment application of Crystal Ranch Corporation. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following questions, concerns, or comments: 1. The proposed application will increase the traffic on CR -103. The pavement cross-section should be evaluated and/or the pavement design verified as acceptable with the anticipated traffic trips and loads. 2. The application relies on improvements to be completed by others at the intersection of Highway 82 and CR -103. These improvements would need to be constructed either by others or by the Applicant for the Major Impact Review portion of this project and would need to be properly permitted by both the county and CDOT. 3. The application states that the existing access onto Highway 82 will be discontinued except for emergency vehicle access. The Applicant should determine the timeframe for this conversion. The Applicant should verify if coordination or permitting with CDOT will be required. 4. The included noise study was for an adjacent property and was not applicable to the subject property, The Applicant should clarify the applicability. 5. Since the future land uses to be constructed are unknown at this time, the water analysis shows that there is a reasonable, Iegal water supply based on assumed uses. The physical and legal supply will need to be verified in future applications based on actual uses. 6. It appears that the Applicant proposes to serve the site with OWT systems. Any system designed for over 2,000 gpd will need permits from CDPHE. Also future construction may require different sewer connections. The wastewater treatment system will need to be verified in future applications. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, MountaiCross Engine : rin Inc. Chris Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com Tamra Allen From: Michael Prehm Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:13 AM To: Tamra Allen Cc: Betsy Suerth; Deb Fiscus Subject: Crystal Ranch Corp. Tamra, EXHIBIT In addition to the comments already submitted by the Road & Bridge Department. I would like to add that a county driveway access permit be submitted and approved, pending adequate design of the proposed access along County Road 103. Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman / Glenwood District Office (970) 945-1223 Fax. (970) 945-1318 Cell (970) 618-7109 mprehmagarfield-county.com 1 Tamra Allen EXHIBIT � M From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM To: Tamra Allen Cc: Fred Jarman; Babler, Alisa; Yeates, Sean; Sarchet, Richard; Necessary, Bart; Wagner, Roland; Woodmansee, Tim Subject: Crystal Ranch Corp - SUP for batch plant and Rural Employment Center Attachments: Crystal Springs Road Exhibit.pdf; Proposed New Access on CR 103.pdf Tamra — Thank you for the opportunity to review the Crystal Ranch Corp - SUP for batch plant and Rural Employment Center. This project doesn't have direct access to SH 82. However, the project will impact the traffic of Spring Creek Road (GCR 103) and this project will need to have an access permit for GCR 103. At this time, CDOT hasn't received access application for this project. CDOT has only done a preliminary review of the study and we will a final review once the access application is received. Conceptually, there needs to be additional right acquired at the intersection of CR 103. The right of way needs to be fixed. Please see sketch. The study does mention that there may need to be additional lanes on CR 103 which may require more ROW at the highway. This will need to be explored. It is my understanding that Powers property is proposing an access on CR 103. CDOT support that idea. The project proposes an emergency access on the SH 82 at the current gravel pit access. The Access Code doesn't allow for emergency access for this type of roadway. The access should be closed based upon the Access Code. This issue will need to be explored with the property owner. I would suggest the property owner get with CDOT this issue. The location of the access on to CR 103 isn't ideal (see attachment). I would suggest to relocate the access farther on away from the SH 82 intersection because in the future the County or CDOT may want to straighten out the CR 103 intersection on SH 82 and the propose location of the new access appears to be in the influence of the SH 82 intersection especially when a signal is placed at this location. Further thought will be needed to decide the exact location of the access on CR. The traffic studies also talk about the possibility of signalization of the intersection. Conceptually, the idea does meet the minimum standards of the Access Code. However, the study doesn't detail the when signal is warranted. I agree with the traffic study about it will likely be in the future years. This will be dependent on the land -use and growth of the CR 103. However, Garfield County will need to start planning for the cost and the implementation of the signal. If you have any questions about my comments, please let me know. thanks Dan Roussin Colorado Department of Transportation Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6290 Fax 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ '\ s * �� \ \ a \1 ((.. \ \ \ \ \ / / / / \ \ \ 411_1.. r \ or o 7 1 4 \ \ X.o�=� \ \ \ Ct ti\96 e w�to 1 a� II- CY 0 TZ 2 a N 1 / / / / / / / / / / d Ln0 j 61.x. ion nm I nwa, mers,e mm10/+vuwe ma "(WM 4. 1.331191.1111 tJNV17RSNA7 7IAI.1 '371 IIIJSSNIONN SAGiOS'' NVId ONIOVEIO,101:11N001N311IO3S V NOISON3 14311.11.11i111.11-10 13.0.1.12115 1...AaM.1%11.mtl 109,311 O1701O1O3 'kV103 crerldo 1N3WON3WV Mind MOO INYld H01V9 3J. 3NO011d SH3MOd Tamra Allen From: Betsy Suerth Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 3:16 PM To: Tamra Allen Cc: Michael Prehm Subject: Crystal Ranch EXHIBIT Tamra: Doug Pratt called me on Wednesday morning to try to set up a time in the next week to meet about the potential County road access and improvements to mitigate impacts from the subject development. Mike Prehm and I will be glad to meet with them in mid-October, but because Mike is on a two week vacation and I have a short vacation following his, we cannot accommodate Doug until then. Doug asked that I let you know that as the applicant representative, he is attempting to work with us in a timely fashion. Betsy Suerth Public Works Director Garfield County 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone 970-625-5921 Fax 970-625-5939 Mobile 970-987-3178 1 Tamra Allen From: David Johnson [djohnson@rfta.com] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 1:15 PM To: Tamra Allen Cc: Dan Blankenship; Todd Horsley; Walter Mathews; Angela Kincade; Mike Hermes; Kent Blackmer; John Hocker; Jason White; Kenny Osier Subject: Crystal Ranch Corporation Concrete Batch Plant - Referral Crystal Ranch Corporation Concrete Batch Plant Garfield County Major Impact Review and 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment August 10, 2011 Update Summary of Application John G. Powers was issued a special use permit for "extraction of natural resources and the processing of natural resources by the establishment of a gravel washing plant and a concrete batch plant." (Resolution 80-58) ltL mew CIIVI ..4. &A.. industrial and business park uses. along 1-70 and SH82.") Powers PA C000rete hatch Plant Cornpfehansiva Plan Amendment 34 ikn KAM i.,k..p.nt Cere tube 4•sr>" The present aggregate mining/extraction activity will continue on this site, along with the existing gravel washing processing and the concrete batch plant operation, until April 28, 2012, following which date only the batch plant operation will continue. After that date, the mined material for the batch plant will need to be trucked in from off-site, triggering the submittal of Major Impact review. The applicant has also indicated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment will be requested concurrent with the MIR to change the property designation from residential to Rural Employment Center. (Rural Employment Centers are defined in the Comp' Plan as "Geographically consolidated areas -= -" where there is a concentration of light This includes uses such as construction yards, equipment repair, and storage areas often found In Section 7, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the following narrative and site plan were submitted: • "The Colorado Department of Transportation, the Roaring Fork Transit Authority, and the Roaring Fork School District have all expressed interest in a potential Roaring Fork Valley location for bus maintenance and service on the transit corridor. This change in need could be accommodated with a Rural Employment Center designation at this location as a benefit to the public who are being served by these education and transportation entities." • "In general there is a scarcity of Rural Employment Center sites within Study Area I of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and the Highway 82 transit corridor has no future land use designation to accommodate transit related and light industrial uses. This site would be an excellent location for these types of uses." RFTA Comments In 2013, RFTA will implement VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Boarding areas will be concentrated at nine major locations along the SH82 corridor from Glenwood Springs to Aspen to maintain transit travel times that are competitive with the automobile. RFTA will add 18 vehicles to its fleet to support BRT. RFTA is assisting in a feasibility study of local transit systems in Carbondale and in the Basalt/El Jebel area to provide local mobility within those towns and to "feed" passengers into RFTA's regional routes. Local governments, including RFTA, may have an interest in increasing storage and maintenance capacity, or in establishing additional maintenance facilities in the future. RFTA appreciates any efforts that may assist in the process. Interest is predicated on a number of factors, including but not limited to, projected increases in transit vehicles, the future site's geographic location, size, land cost, 'deadhead" mileage, and feasibility in relation to other sites. RFTA owns storage and maintenance facilities in Glenwood Springs and in Aspen. According to conceptual plans, RFTA has the ability to expand storage in Aspen by about 10%, and by significantly more in Glenwood Springs . Regarding the proposed park-and-ride and stops, RFTA's main regional route from Glenwood Springs to Aspen serves 57 boarding locations along the SH82 corridor from Glenwood Springs to Aspen, with a travel time of approximately 100 minutes. Additional boarding locations, such as those as illustrated in the site plan, will increase the already onerous travel lime for passengers and will increase RFTA's operating cost. The addition of stops is also an issue outside of urban growth boundaries, as most comprehensive plans indicate an interest in concentrating growth and services within existing municipalities. David Johnson, AICP Director of Planning Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 1340 Main Street Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970.384.4979 office 970.384.4870 fax 970.376.4492 mobile djohnson@rfta.com The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. 1111 fi igliiI'i NANICI#WI if 1IN4 11111 Redeptian#: $66658 08!1612011 09:35:18 Ail Jean Alberiao 1 of 28 Rao Fea:$0,02 Doo Fee:0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY Co STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) EXHIBIT At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room; Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Tuesday, the 5th day of July, A.D. 2011, there were present: John Martin , Commissioner Chairman Mike Samson , Commissioner Tom Jankovskv Commissioner Andrew Gorgey , County Attorney Carey Gagnon , Assistant County Attorney Jean Alberico ; Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners Ed Green (absent) , County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 44 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT, MPA 6545, FOR EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES (SAND & GRAVEL) KNOWN AS ME "CERISE MINE" PARCEL NO. 2393-253-04-158 Recitals A. The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, received an application from Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP (the "Applicant') for a Land Use Change Permit for Extraction of Natural Resources (Sand and Gravel) as shown in the Mining, Reclamation, and Landscape Plans, attached as Exhibit A. B. The 65.48 acre site, depicted and described in Exhibits A, page 1 of 13, and B respectively, is located at the northeast comer of State Highway 82 and Crystal Spring Creek Road (County Road 103) and is approximately two (2) miles northeast of Carbondale, Colorado in Section 25, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th PM, Garfield County and within property owned by Clifford Cerise Ranch Company, LLLP. C. The 65.48 acre site is described in the application documents and located within the parcel described in the attached Exhibit C and incorporated by this reference. Page 1of10 1111MEARIZIWIME111011 tifiliark till t1on*: aosesa BBJ1 f2011 0$;86 18 Rl Jean Rlbarion 2 of 2B Roe Feer@,@@ Dao Fese@.00 GIiRWIELD COUNTY CO • D. The subject property is located within the Rural zone district and a Land Use Change Permit for Extraction of Natural Resources requires approval through a Major Impact Review Process conducted by Garfield County. • E. The Board of County Commissioners is authorized to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Land Use Change Permit for. `Extraction of Natural Resources" pursuant to Sections 1-301 •and 4-106 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. F, The Garfield County Planning Commission opened a public hearing on April 13, 2011. upon the question of whether the Land Use Change Permit application for Extraction of Natural Resources should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, during which hearing the public and ink persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the application. . G. The Garfield County Planning Commission closed the public hearing on April 13, 2011 and forwarded a recommendation of approval with conditions to the Board of County. Commissioners. FL On May 31, 2011 a site visit was conducted to review the proposed mining operation. This public .meeting was attended by Garfield County Staff, Board of County Commissioners, and members of the public. • L The Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the June I3, 2011 upon the question of whether the Land tise Change Permit application for Extraction of Natural Resources should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the Dpportu niiy to express their opinions regarding the application. • - • • L The Board of County Commissioners continued the public hearing on June 13, 2011 to 'July 5, 2011 to allow County Staff to research five (5) topics including: 1) Noise Staindards; 2) Air Quality Standards; 3) Cumulative Impact Requirements; 4) Blue Pit Conditions of Approval; and 5) the number of existing permanent and temporary asphah batch plants in Garfield County. K. On July 5, 201.1, the 'Board of County Commissioners opened the continued public hearing to hear the requested infomnation from Garfield County Staff and determine whether the Extraction of Natural Resources Application should be approved; approved with conditions, or denied at which hearing the public and ink persons were 'given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Application; L. The Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on July 5, 2011 to make a final decision. Page 2 of 10 SIU��>'If+�l�+I�'IIi IVrh��l IWia1"IUir iI Recept:an#: 806698 96af 20 Rea1 gFAe:� 09 Dae Fea:L 90 GARFIELD OOUNTY 00 M. The Board of County Commissioners on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determinations .of fact: 1. That the . proper public notice was provided as .required for the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 2. Thatthe.hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of.County Commissioners were extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at those meetings. . 3. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, • prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application, if all conditions are met, can be in conformance with the applicable Sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 5. • The 3:1 slopes are an appropriate deviation as per Section 7440 (H)(1)(bX3) of the • Unified Land -Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 6. The modification of Dryland- Vegetation. standards. are an appropriate deviation as 'per - Section7-840.(H)(2)(bX1)(a) of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 200S,•as amended, and that the modifications Mend with the surrounding area and provide for future re -use of the site. RESOLUITON NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners, 2. That the operation of the facility be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation ofthis type of facility. 3. Site operations shall not emit heat, glare, radiation, dust or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. 4. All equipment and structures associated with this permit shall be painted with non -reflective paint in neutral colors to reduce glare andmit gate any visual impacts. Page 3 of IO gm li��+'iVL V �3i�a I��'IdI ILIf111�1 fi�1�1IN 11111 eope�pptlanit: aI885a 08116170x1 09:85:i8 AM dean Alberioo 4 of 2B Roo Fo4:$6.00 Doo Fee:0.09 CANFIELD COUNTY CO 5. All lighting associated with the property shell be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. 6. The Applicant shall install all signage as specified in Gene Coppola's. Traffic Study including. 1.) stop sign (R1-1) placed on the access road approach to Cownty Road 103; and 2) two track warning signs (W8-6) on the County Road 103 approach to the site access road. The Applicant shall also install_ 10 mile per hour speed limit signs on the access road and the haul roads within the site. 7. All vehicles using County Road 103 to access the Cerise Mine shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system: All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits Mall be obtained from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. 8. Prior to the issuance of Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall obtain a Driveway Access Permit from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. A Copy of this permit shall be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department. 9. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall conduct a geotechnical investigation of County Road I03 and based on this analysis, provide a pavement section design to the Garfield County Planning Department for review. The portion of County Road 103 that is to be analyzed mime/tees 200 feet north of the Cerise Mine's access road to State Highway 82 and this portion of road shall be 'reconstructed to the • proposed engineered design. . • 10. Prior to the issuance' .of li Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the County pursuant to the Garfield .County Road and Right -of -Way Use . Regulations regarding the improvement of County Road 103. . 11. Prior to The issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall obtain the appropriate State Highway.Access Permit from Colorado Department of Transportation. • All conditions of the access permit shall be conditions of this permit. 12. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide Garfield County Planning Department with an APEN Permit from Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for the entire mining site. 13. The reclamation plan of the site shall include using hydro -seeding with hydro -mulching and tackifier for all slopes greater than 5:1 as required by Section 7-840 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 14. The gravel pit shall be allowed to operate Monday through Saturday from 7:00 am. to 8:00 p.m. with crushing, digging and heavy hauling only occurring between 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm. Monday through Friday; heavy hauling from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday; and • Page 4of10 Cidillitifiligh II If Reeeption#: 886858 08/18/2011 05:86:18 A11 Jean Alberiob B of 28 Rao Feo:S0.00 Doo Fee:®.00 GARFIELD COUNTY•CO crushing and digging from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm. on Saturday. There shall be no operations on Sunday except in the case of an emergency or Tor standard maintenance pu 1poses. 15. All noise generated from the operation shall not exceed the maximum permissible limits set forth in C.R.S. § 25-12-103, except that noise shall not exceed 80 dB(A) during construction. The adjacent land uses for purposes of determining the maximum permissible noise levels that may radiate from the site depicted in Exhibit A, page 1 of 13, are measured 25 feet from the site boundary. The adjacent land uses to the subject site are: residential to the north; . industrial to the east and west; and, light industrial to the south as shown in Exhibit D. 16. The Applicant shall implement the following noise mitigation standards: A. The two berms shown on the "Mining Sheets" must be constructed early in the project. The northern ' berm must be approximately 50 feet tall and the western berm is approximately 17 feet tall; B. While constructing these berms, earth moving equipment such . as scrappers cannot operate for more than 15 minutes 1'1 any one hour while within approximately 100 feet of the permit boundary; C. Place a silencer on the dust collector blower that is situated on top of the concrete batch plant (or build a sound absorbing barrier around it); D. Equip the electrical generators (gen-sets) with commercial grade silencers or better (4 least 20 dB(A) of insertion loss); • E. Use -white nolle back up alarms on all Lafarge mobile equipment. Backing up by . contractor vehicles not outfitted with these alarms should be minimized; F. Conduct all constriction activities during the daytime (7:00 am to 5:00 pm); and, G. Conduct all noise -producing activities associated with operations during the daytime (7:00 am to 5:00 pm). 17. Garfield County can request. a site inspection with 24 *hour's notice to the • operator or - property owner. Full access to any' part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. 18. A full list of all other permits shall be provided to Garfield County within 24 hours of its request. Any person at any time can call the following agencies directly and request an inspection if he or she believes a condition of dial agency's permit is being violated. A. Colorado Depattment of Public Health- Air Quality Control 303-692-3150 Page 5of10 Mill rilalifilaIWVACI t i�il IW�N�h��WF ( ti 111. Reeeptionll.• 88865$ 091 6 2011 09:96:18 pM J. , Aiberiao B of 29 Rao FaE:x0.09 goo Fae:0.00 GWtFIELD cOUMY co B. Colorado Department of Public Health - Water QualityControl 303-692-3500 C. US Army Corps of Engineers 970-243-1199 • • D. Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 303-866-3567. • E. Colorado Depar intent of Transportation, Grand dunotion office 970-248-7000 19. The property owner and operator acknowledge that Garfield' County has the following performance standards, and failure to comply with such standards could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit: . A. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping; B. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on.a public right-of-way; C. .All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; D. Every use shall .be operated so that the ground vibration .inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the ProPertY; and.. E. Every use shall be operated so that it does not emit, heat, glen, radiation, dust, 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 signal and reflective painting of storage .tanks, or'other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. 20. The .Garfield County Planning Deparintent shall be invited to any bond release inspection of the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The Cot my will have the opportunity to- demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied with and that bond should not be released. - 21. The reclamation bond that shall be held by the State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety shall be for the reclamation plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners. No Land Use Change Permit shall be issued until proof of the bond is in place. 22. Prior to fhe issuance of a Land Use Change Penult, the Applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the irrigation . system to the Garfield • County Planning Department for review. .Page 6 of 10 1111 11% IS I%INIIIreifAlit IIk+? 1141111 14 II IA ZilepI!116/20111 09:86:18 AR J n AIbori 7 of 28 Rea F®0,88 Dab Fm a:$ae:8.80 GARFIELD COUNTY CO • The . State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety financial . security bond shall be • updated to reflect this cost•and a copy of the revised bond submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department. 23. All of the conditions of the Garfield County permit and the State Division of Reclamation, Miming and Safety are binding. The State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety can withhold the reclamation bond if the final reclamation is not executed according to the plans. 24. The Applicant shall . be required to submit .a report annually of the gravel operation for Garfield -County- Planning, Staff review; until such time as the release of .the reclamation bond, Upon review of any deficiencies pursuant to conditions of appravel or other local, state, or federal permits, Staff may forward the report to the Board of County Commissioners for full review of the Major Impact Review Permit.. This report shall include GPS measurements shown on a map showing the current . disturbance, what areas have been backfilled, where topsoil stockpiles are located, all site structures, what areas have been seeded, mulched and what is planned for the ensuing 12 months. This map shall be overlain on the approved site, plan which includes the approved phasing area. locations, and mine pemit boundary. Copies of annual reports required by and submitted to other agencies will be -attached to the annual report submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department. 25. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the applicable 404 permit to the Garfield County Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. 26. The Applicant shall meet all applicable Colorado Department of Public Health regulations for a non -transient, non -community water system when the number of individuals using the potable water well is more than 24. 27. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall submit copies of all equipment relocation notices to the Garfield County Planning Department. 28. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicantshall provide the Garfield County Planning Department a will serve letter from Qwest. 29. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit an Emergency Preparedness Plan shall be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department for review. 30. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit; the Applicant shall submit to the Garfield Planning Department a final Stornwater Management Plan. 31. Prior to the issuance of a .Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall drill the two permanent permitted wells (Permit Numbers 74795-F and 74796-F) and provide the results demonstrating quantity and quality of both wells to tate Garfield Comity Planning Department for their review. ' Page 7of1O VIIII ICY i �l�kl ll�4� +�1�1��4�11101141.1411I1I R.ception0: 806698 08118/2011 :35:18 AN Joan A1barioe B of 28 Roo FM: $0.00 1700 Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 32. After drilling the permanent water wells. as described in Condition 31, the water system design for the office/scale house shall be evaluated and any modifications to the .proposed • design shall be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department for review. This task. . ,shall occur prior to the•issuance ofLand•Use Change Permit. . 33. Prior to the iasuance of a Land Use Change Permit; the Applicant shall have the two wells installed as Monitoring Hole Notice 40396 (TW -1 and TW 2) permitted as monitoring wells, and provide Garfield County Planning Department with the new permits. 34. The Applicant shall contact Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, when development of the • Cerise Tulin impacts Crystal Spring Creek. • 35. The site shall have wildlife proof dumpsters: 36. The Applicant shall implement the following Best Management Practices to ensure air • quality impacts are minimized,. A.. Exposed areas will be vegetated or stabilized to limit wind erosion; B. Frequent watering by water trucks of gravel as it is removed and transported; C. Use of a conveyor system rather than trucks to transport the material on-site; D. Install, operate, and maintain water spray bars within the conveyor system and all • crushing and screening equipment; E. Limit drop •heights of gravel for conveyor loading, transfer poiitts, screening, and crushing; F. Limit on-site vehicle speeds to 10 mph; G. Treat frequently travelled on-site roadways with stabilizers or•suppressants and watering to minimize re -entrainment of dust from road surfaces, and.pave the entrance road to the• weigh station; H. Minimize dust from loaded haul trucks by covering and/or watering material as necessary; and, I. Construction of berms and/or mine walls to serve as wind breaks. 37. All trucks -operating in the gravel mining operation (including third -party trucks not operated by the .property owner or operator, shall'be subject to the following: Page 8 of'l0 IN 14111111111211/21011115#1. moi l't 1I 111 t t1enlf! 808868 @1311 /2011 09;35:8 A11 Joan A36srioo 8 of 28 Rao Fser5 .00 Dao Fse:0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY Co A. All trucks shall have and maintain stock muffler systems that are performing to original manufacturer's specifications. This can be detem3ined and verified by simple visual and auditory inspection 'of the truck; B. All trucks ascending or descending the haul route shall not exceed speeds of 10 mph; C. All trucks descending the access road on-site and County Road 103 approaching State Highway 82 shall not use engine Jake Brakes to decelerate; D. All truck drivers, independent or employed by the Applicant shall be briefed on the conditions above'and shall agree to operate withinthe requirements of these stipulations; • E. The Applicant shall set up a. series of progressive conseglienoes for drivers that fail to comply with the above conditions; after three violations any trucker shell be prohibited from entering the pit for a time period of not Less than one year. 38. The mining of the Cerise Mine shall not start until the Powers Pit has been closed. 39. An asphalt batch plant shall not be allowed within the property unless approved by Garfield County pursuant to an application for "substantial modification" of the Land Use Change Permit asthat process is defined by the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, or pursuant to a separate application for a Land Use Change Permit. . Dated this 13 qday of ATTEST: • A.D.20 iI . GARFIELD. COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY • COMMISSIONERS, ARFIE i CO , COLORADO k of the Board of County Co :`'• awn Upon motion duly made and seconded the faby the following vote; COMMISSIONER CHAIR JOHN F. MARTIN COMMISSIONER MIKE SAMSON COMMISSIONER TOM JANKOVSKY , Aye , Aye , Aye Page 9 ofl0 • 118 fildifhirMillisPIK lilVWNCri1@f inl 11111 Reception#: 848858 • 95!16f2811 98:85:18 AP! Joan Albert i0 of 28 Roo Fee:$0,00 Doo Foe:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ..)ss . 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 Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of Comity Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my bland and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this • day of , A.D. 20 . County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners Page 10 of 1 D to Kirkwall'1l�'�I�4"'�MI Ili9rCIP1K'IMIIII 11111 . VI4e 11 ani#' 5 8111 !2011 b Fool 1B A4 Jean aeo.aoae AlOori 11 of 29 Rev Fwr80.0® .Joan Faar®.0C 6ARFI6LD COUNTY CO ms • i , • i 1110011,1010011111.1 Pi K • w • N 1 i 11 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 16yM7601 ly . l VAPIN MIXIVMUMNI I !1r II III • . Reooeeppt*c 09/16/2911 C2:86;15 AM Joon Rlberloo_ 12 of 29 Rea Fee: _00 Dao Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO leOPMEIIIIM4111111 mWo��m�11a+"r'wzmrilnNtIl°4erawsMa tir" ligmu I'M! r Y 1 • ra • i a• 374 ay 7E7Y7■IA1 INKOPIZhON • ymiumm r..4.0 tap emisiOniimg=nlikmdifterriligiule— lemy.s 111111 Reccptionfl: MOM 68/15/2011 09:8518 AR Jean Albano • iS of 2S Rao Fee:SO.00 000 Fea:0.06 GARFIELD COUNTY CO -1f 0 !,..ne • • • k • — . ' • • . • • ' • • •••-.•- . • I 0.< . r • • <; • •••., • ;7:: •—• -1 le • • •.• ,.• ... • • momeer: a - • 1; • . •.• . ; wramea WM . . , _ _,;_.______, . -......9WW.M • . .. . . - . . . • . - ill 11 • • Mr4 On NNW= .rn• OTETNATICH .r.mketilailito =Was; • =WV 1.161INWEAMArgi• ........ I!I!Ifillihr iSIMPAN6israivaifmit rot RemeeppLien#• 6 091O658 an 6co 1°�.. A 14 /017/1211. o1f /2011 28 Reo aS81 1Daa FeAe1002 GARFIELD COUNTY CO • •i MIMIL colezioe orttrtia PLASE1 Irma r 114 xr w • • leAyneeulaia n _ reseprn •pealr•twrma. 111111 iNY�ri�.ii fJ��RAKIMI irkiN CIRKIN��I 11111 Ree tiesln#: 8U6G56 08f1672011 69:85:1�gg Pl J Riberioa 15 ar 26 Rea Fee:E0.80 Dec Fs O.88 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO AIRF eWM R TT 01190/911111- • ®OMPQf • ilil MAW 9y 1l•• STEIRAVECH. 1 ig '/10.1011 116 �. V TUNECI GCONNSOXIlfL7k f S' AF6 -11 MP 1 m Ell -SIN AM MN rrM t ININGSEO.9CE4 — emig— (OHIiBL$NINN. ime ms- iimiiiii MN ' IATECH 1' t46�INC�'S .SAL TOM IKE • ■=u relaleerelash•earedmerWrpewaORflrameweu Y r w• ' re rF togiefrimixiFia:ivisnuolow.iimoyogie- N z 8 M � am $$ is a md it? -nriMae 111*.no. wt.GWMFPA •saamxjaNOZL Nngienai-ing•RiritAIMEIrReilla lineaVielesi 4a2OLVAIR. r r. F i irearnmeMi. ,.... ..11PHI,Pl. tee. 1 1 4,_•I .. I I immom R cmfr PEANTIOMMID =Winn gliwknote V? 1. r �� i� 7 r� 61) VNk r1.)0r)v,�'r3�r1�1 al WI 111.011 LaCORII NNE LANDSCAPE PLAN. NM MI Mil MNIMMINININM ---- - wrrr • x gel Rrn ip 4N $gip 40. ■1If IlntmrnlmatittI4c, M m4nin+rrel41I itl Reoaptiera . 806559 • 0B1161�g11 09:86119 RM Jean A16erI. o Z4 of 29 Ree 4 .60 Van Faa�0.00 6RRFIELD wore co Exhibit B Legal Description of Subject Site THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 25 AND THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF 'OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,' GARFIELD.000NTY, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULRLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BASIS OF BEARLNQrS: SO4°09'58"W, ALONG A LINE BETWEEN THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26 AND THE WITNESS CORNER FOR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25 AS SHOWN ON THE ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY PREPARED BY D II SURVEYS, INC. OF GRAND JUNCTION,COLORADO, JOB No. 1194-10-01, DATED MAY 2010. COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE 504°09'58"W, ALONG SAID BASIS OF BEARING LINE, A DISTANCE OF 343.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF. BEGINNING; THENCE S7896'474, A DISTANCE OF 386.66 FEET; THENCE S63°10'094, A DISTANCE OF 149.12 FEET; THENCE N89°05'3114% A DISTANCE OF 95.62 FEET; THENCE N57° 10'32"W, A DISTANCE OF 306.27 FEET; THENCE N448°43'19"W, A DISTANCE OF 79.01 FEET; THENCE S46°4815"W, A DISTANCE OF 251.17 FEET; THENCE S48%3'19" E,'A DISTANCE OF 273.34 FEET; THENCE S16°20'52"W, A DISTANCE OF 17.06 FEET; • THENCE S42°43154"W, A DISTANCE OF 78.77 FEET; THENCE S81°23'S0"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.14 FEET; THENCE N89°01'124, A DISTANCE OF 71.27 FEET; THENCE S 89°42' 11 "W, A DISTANCE OF 56.56 FEET; THENCE S35°42'10"W, A DISTANCE OF 51.95 FEET; Page l of3 ■IIIMf irIMMIALIA :N C YRIME i A lli m...tlen#: ass 251OFf28 Rs Fee:$0.0® Cc: Fefab C.@O�Gf FIELD COUNTY CO THENCE S34°40'21 "W, A DISTANCE OF 66.58 FEET; THENCE S33°46'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 29.27 FEET; THENCE S12°52'50"W, A DISTANCE OF 23.42 FEET; THENCE S14°30'48"W, A DISTANCE OF 49.93 FEET; THENCE S11°11'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 34.80 FEET; THENCE S11 °26'51 "W, A DISTANCE OF 14.45 FEET; THENCE S16°4914"W, A DISTANCE OF 53.94 FEET; THENCE S20°04'38"W, A DISTANCE OF 42.81 "FEET; THENCE S3298'15"W, A DISTANCE OF 17.46 FEET; THENCE 540°23'33"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.04 FEET; THENCE S48°43'46"W, A DISTANCE OF 49.00 FEET; THENCE S55°36'21 "W, A DISTANCE OF 38.82 FEET; THENCE S66°32'54"W, ADISTANCE OF 56.96 FEET; THENCES67°14'40"W, A DISTANCE OF 43.60 FEET; THENCE S54°25'07"W, A DISTANCE OF 79.11 FEET; THENCE S49°23'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 25.08 FEET; THENCE S26°35'50"W, A DISTANCE OF 199.91 FEET; THENCE 529°07'31"W, A DISTANCE OF 150.07 FEET; THENCE S25°34'23"W, A DISTANCE OF 40.88 FEET; THENCE S68°3245"E, A DISTANCE OF 196.06 FEET; THENCE S69°22136"E, A DISTANCE OF 117.78 FEET; THENCE S82°52'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 13.86 FEET; THENCE N79°23'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 19.36 FEET; Page 2 of3 11111 411SitilletIik 1Ll lr�(I�' MI Bill tion,#• 696$58 9911512011 @8:85:19 AM Jean Albarioo $8 of 29 Ree Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:9.00 GARFIEID COUNTY CO THENCE N76°2410"E, A DISTANCE 01755.66 FEET; THENCE N73°05.42"E, A DISTANCE OF 52.41 FEET; . THENCE N633°54'55'T, A DISTANCE OF 29.65 FEET; THENCE N47°36'11 "E, A DISTANCE OF 46.23 FEET; THENCE N35@43'31 "E, A DISTANCEOF 74.82 FEET; THENCE N36°5T54"E, A DISTANCE OF 45.73 FEET; THENCE NSO°27'40"E, A DISTANCE OF 128.18 FEET; THENCE S14°20'39"W, A DISTANCE OF 353.33 FEET; THENCE S76°26'09%, A DISTANCE OF 155.94 FEET; THENCE N8O°0555'B, A DISTANCE OF 112.20 FEET; THENCE S77°49'41' E, A DISTANCE OF 687.90 FEET; THENCE S80°31'31 "E, A DISTANCE OF 682.89 FEET; THENCE N09°52'08"E, A DISTANCE OF 9.94 FEET; . THENCE S80°30'49"E, A DISTANCE OF 8.52 FEET; THENCE NOO°07`26"E, A DISTANCE OF 1900.021 ET; THENCE 574°14'09"W, A.DISTANCE OF 529.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 2,852,372 SQUARE FEET, OR 65.48 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PREPARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF LAFARGE WEST, INC. TIMOTHY W. KURTZ *Pagel of3 VIIIin, C UM hi' ]INLAIrii mfi uiiir Raeept.on#• 806658 OV16l2011 09:35:18 RN Joan Alberico 27 of 28 Rao Fee:80.00 Doo F:ee:f. 0 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit C Legal Description for Subject Parcel - 97.81 AC THAT PORTION OF LOT 13 LYING NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88WEST, 6THP.M LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND CLAIMED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF COLORADO BY.RULE AND ORDER RECORDED AUGUST 5, 199.3 IN BOOK 871 AT PAGE 404 AS RECEPTION NO. 450847. • LOTS 4 AND 12 IN SECTION 25, TOWNSIIIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST, 61T.' P.M TOGETHER WITH ALL THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY LYING SOUTH OF A UNE SITUATED IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN DEEDS AND AGREEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 27, 1992 IN BOOK 840 AT PAGE 330 AS RECEPTION NO. 438400. LESS AND EXCEPT ALL THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY LYING NORTH OF A LINE SITUATED IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUlli, RANGE 88 WEST AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN DEEDS AND AGREEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 27. 1992 IN BOOK 840 AT PAGE 330 AS RECEPTION NO, 438400. LESS AND EXCEPT ANY PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH UES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR COUNTY ROAD 104. LESS AND EXCEPT •THAT PORTION OF LAND CLAIMED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF COLORADO BY RULE AND ORDER RECORDED AUGUST 5, 1993 IN BOOK 871 AT PAGE 404 .AS RECEPTION NO. 450847. LOTS 7, 8, 9 AND 10 IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST, 6'H P.M. LESS AND EXCEPT A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO DAVID 5. JAMES BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 5, 1907 RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 37532 IN BOOK 79 AT PAGE 95 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS. LESS AND EXCEPT A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO ANTHONY PINGS BY DEED DATED FEBRUARY 3, 1917 RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 57960 IN BOOK 100 AT PAGE 608 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS. LESS AND EXCEPT A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE BAILEY FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY, L.L.L.P. BY DEED DATED JULY 29, 1997 RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1997 AS RECEPTION NO. 511996. LESS AND EXCEPT A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF COLORADO BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 1974 IN BOOK 455 AT PAGE 451 AS RECEPTION NO. 261734. LESS AND EXCEPT THE TRACTS OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF COLORADO, RECORDED JUNE 14,1973 IN BOOK 446 AT PAGE 8 AS RECEPTIONNO. 258755. LESS AND EXCEPT ANY. PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH LIES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR COUNTY ROAD 103. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND CLAMED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF COLORADO BY RULE AND ORDER RECORDED AUGUST 5, 1993 IN 1300K 871 AT PAGE 404 AS RECEPTION NO. 450847. Page I of 1 1111 POKIMPIIVINt.I+N4Chini''1' NI= 11I!1 R tion#: 806658 2B)10/2211 29:35:18 AM of 2B Rea Fee:$0,00 DJean o Fee:0.0B�(,'FlRFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OFCOLORADO Cooney of Garfieid EXHIBIT re alar Ata......_..».._r......_.»...........,...,.»....»... _.-g of the Board of County Cammiswnes fere �zSfu•3 County, Colorado, �Ootart r�oi�se in Glenwood spriru� o;�� ._.-._Mon az_.,.......___-•--•----..__.__, _ ..chard C,. Jo11ey .. comm;sswner FlavenJ. Cerise ., • - • ,- Commissioner ..ArthurA Aba1anal2, Jr.,, coutttyatsaraa __Norley _5prick,Page,._P?ePutY_; Clerk a eLisnw whets the following proceedirep, among others were bad and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 80-58 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH J.'tit'J APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION BY JOHN G. POWERS. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners o£ Garfield County has received an application from Flash Concrete, Inc., as agent for John G. Powers, for a special use permit for the extraction of natural resources and the processingof natural resources by the establishment of a gravel washing plant and a concrete batch plant as principal use of a lot on the following described tract of land:' That part of Lot 12 in the SW --3/4 of Section 26, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying northerly of Colorado State Highway $2; and WHEREAS, pursuant to required public notice, the Board conducted a public hearing on the lith day of March, 1980, upon the question of whether the above described special use permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested agencies and 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 determina- tions of fact: 1. The proposed use is compatible with the use 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 wi1.1 be injurious to the established neighborhood or zone -district. in which the special use is proposed to he located. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that a special use permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above des- cribed tract of land for the extraction of natural resources and the processing,of;natural resources by the establishment of a gravel washing plant and a concrete batch plant as a principal use of lot, upon the following specific conditions: 1. That the use of the tract of land comply with all present and future regulations of Garfield Countyrelating to the location and use of land for the extraction of natural resources and the. processing of natural resources by the establishment of a gravel washing plant and a concrete batch plant in the zone district in which the property is now or may later be located, specifically including, but not limited to applicable height limitations. 2. The special use permit herein authorized shall extend only to that part'of Lot 12, in the SW1/4. of Section 26, Township 7.South, Range 88 West of the. 6th Principal Meridian, lying northerly of Colorado State High way 82 and easterly.of the east line of Lot 13 in said sec- . tion and a northward extension thereof into the aforementioned Lot 12. 3.. That no water affected or used -by the.extractive or processing operations on the subject property will be per- mitted by the owners or operators to flow :frown -the subject property in a conditioi!' affected by .such operation. ATTEST: SOIRD.OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS . GARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO: airman dulYnadeAnd seconded C.� e Resolution was adopted by the following cot_: • Rlav-'377 cerise • AnRic STATE OF CGLORADO County of Gard . downy Clerk and ex-offselo Clerk of the Board of County Come -Wieners • Sa wad for the County and Mine afoseend do Irceoy oencdfy Par ra= abnrssvi an.i iuxegniny urate is .ruby oapin.r itore we Records of sheProceedmiis of the Board of County Commissioners for acid Garfield C ucty, wow inlay offs . }al. WITNESS WHEREOF, f nave hereunto set myy bead and *affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood swims, co®ty Clerk and ecoMelo Clerk of the Board of County Cas dS, Tamra Allen Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 (970) 963-2733 September 21, 2011 Re: Crystal Ranch Corporation — Major Impact Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Tamra: EXHIBIT Thank you for referring the Crystal Ranch Corporation application for a Major Impact Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review and comment. The application is to continue the existing batch plant operations and transport gravel for the batch plant from a new gravel pit. The application also requests an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include a Rural Employment Center at this site. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its August 25, 2011 meeting. The Planning Commission's main concern was the precedent that could be set by establishing this area as a Rural Employment Center. The Rural Employment Center could potentially create a node which could be expanded toward the east, effectively creating an area similar to Cattle Creek. The Planning Commission feels that a gravel pit and batch plant should not establish an industrial area. Generally, after the material has been extracted out of a gravel pit, the area is reclaimed. Currently, there are a number of gravel pits in Garfield County. Establishing this area as a Rural Employment Center could create expectations that an existing gravel pit establishes an industrial area. When the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan was developed, the citizens of Carbondale and Town Staff were involved with the process. This planning document was intended to guide growth and development in the rural areas around Carbondale. This designation was not contemplated during the recently completed Comprehensive Plan update. The Planning Commission is opposed to an amendment which allows a piecemeal change in a use without broader consideration of the scope of impact on the surrounding area. Thank you for allowing the Town the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Janet Buck Town Planner • MARSHALL September 22, 2011 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 108 8`h' Street, Suite 401 Garfield County Administration Building Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT SEP 2 7 2P» RE: Land Use Change Permit Request at Northwest Corner of Highway 82 and CR 103 Planning and Zoning Commission: As owners and residents of property located at 12748 Highway 82, Carbondale, CO, we respectfully request, and strongly encourage, you to deny the request from The Crystal Ranch Corp for the proposed amendment regarding the land use change permit due to the potential of damage to the environment of this area of Garfield County. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ajC Marsha Catherine L. Marshall 12748 Highway 82, Carbondale, CO 81623 USA phone number 970-963-3878 1 fax number 970-963-9055 cTurnKev Consulting, LLC 2478 Patterson Road, Grand Junction, CO 8 970-985-4001 MEMORANDUM TO: Douglas Pratt (The Land Studio), and To Whom It May Concern FROM: Skip Hudson, PE DATE: October 25, 2011 RE: Powers Site Batch Plant - SH -82 & CR -103 Updated Traffic Impact Assessment on Adjacent Roads EXHIBIT 1. Introduction In 2010, Lafarge West Inc. proposed a land development project on the northeast corner of SH -82 & CR -103 in Garfield County, called the Cerise Site. There were three activities proposed to occur on the Cerise site, including material mining, material processing, and a concrete batch plant. This proposal would have required the relocation of the existing batch plant that is currently located on the Powers site, which is on the west side of CR -103. The traffic impacts and mitigation measures for this proposal were evaluated in the Traffic Impact Study called" LaFarge West Cerise Site" by Eugene G. Coppola, PE, PTOE (dated 8.4.10). The Coppola study evaluated the peak production scenario for the Cerise Site. The following sketch shows that all the Cerise traffic would have traveled between SH -82 and the Cerise site access (east side of CR -103). CERISE MINE CONCEPT PLAN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO } Cerise Site Access PER MR BOUNDARY Superior Project Leadership — Concept to Community Page 1 of 9 LaFarge and Crystal Ranch Corp (Powers Site) have entered into a lease agreement to allow the existing concrete batch plant to remain on Crystal Ranch property through the year 2028. Therefore, the Cerise site would not need to include the batch plant, which leads to the following traffic conclusions: • The Project traffic identified in the Coppola Study would now travel along CR -103 to either the Powers Site or the Cerise Site. • A portion of the Cerise Project traffic that was considered internal trips to the Cerise Site and was not identified in the Coppola Study. This traffic will now travel back and forth on CR -103 between the Cerise Site and the Powers Site. • The total amount of traffic at the intersection of CR -103 & Cerise Access would be reduced from the amount shown in the Coppola study by a net amount of 132 trips per. day. Therefore, the Coppola recommendations for this intersection would not change • The amount of Project traffic traveling through the intersection of SH -82 & CR -103 would not change from the values shown in the Coppola Study. The Coppola Study accurately portrays total future traffic and is valid for use in CDOT access permitting for the CR -103 connection to SH -82. The following sketch shows the current site access proposals for both projects. Cerise Mine & Powers Site CONCEPT PLAN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO lzl Proposed Powers Site Access Proposed Cerise Site Access Superior Project Leadership — Concept to Community Page 2 of 9 2. Intersections on CR -103 that were Addressed by Coppola Study There are three intersections on CR -103 that should be addressed as part of the updated concept for the Powers Batch Plant & Cerise projects. The Coppola Study evaluated two of them, and that evaluation is still valid. Intersection of SH -82 & CR -103 The Coppola study evaluated this intersection in the year 2027 condition and came to the following conclusions: • "Current operating conditions are acceptable in the area of the Cerise site access. • Cerise will generate 88 morning highway peak hour trips, 63 afternoon highway peak hour trips, and 770 trips per day at full site utilization. This traffic represents peak day. peak season activity with the Cerise site operatingat or near capacity. These trips can be easily managed. • On an average annual day, an estimated 45 morning peak hour trips, 30 afternoon peak hour trips, and 400 daily trips are expected. • All warranted auxiliary lanes currently exist at the SH -82 & CR -103 intersection. The lanes to the east of CR -103, however, are substandard based on current Access Code criteria. These lanes should be improved to meet current design standards. The lanes west of CR -103 are acceptable in their current form. (See Coppola Study for more details) • Turning radii at the SH -82 & CR -103 should have radii capable of serving a WB -67 design vehicle. • With the indicated improvements, acceptable operating levels of service will be achieved and maintained through the long-term for all traffic movements at this intersection. • Lafarge's Cerise site will not adversely impact this intersection. This is verified by the finding that the identified roadway geometry will facilitate safe and efficient operating conditions for the foreseeable future." None of these recommendations would change concerning the current proposal for the existing Batch Plant to remain on the Powers Site. Therefore, there are not any additional recommendations at this intersection. Intersection of CR -103 & Cerise Site Access The Coppola study evaluated this intersection in the year 2027 condition and came to the following conclusions: • "No auxiliary lanes will be warranted at the CR -103 intersection with the Cerise Access. • Turning radii at the CR -103 & Cerise access intersections should have radii capable of serving a WB -67 design vehicle. • Truck warning signs should be installed on the CR -103 approaches to the site access with a stop sign installed on the access approach to CR -103. • Lafarge's Cerise site access will not adversely impact the area street system. This is verified by the finding that the identified roadway geometry will facilitate safe and efficient operating conditions for the foreseeable future." Superior Project Leadership — Concept to Community Page 3 of 9 As previously stated, the total amount of traffic at the intersection of CR -103 & Cerise Access would be reduced from the amount shown in the Coppola study by a net amount of 132 daily trips (see table in Section 3). This is the net result of the following changes: • 150 Tess concrete truck trips • 6 less special aggregate import truck trips • 30 less employee trips • 6 less miscellaneous trips • 60 more aggregate truck trips (going to Powers Site) None of the Coppola recommendations would change concerning the current proposal for the existing Batch Plant to remain on the Powers Site. There are not any additional recommendations at this intersection. 3. Intersection of CR -103 & Powers Site Access This section addresses the change in travel patterns on CR -103 that would occur by keeping the Batch Plant on the Powers Site and not relocating it to the Cerise site. Powers Batch Plant Trip Generation Page 11 of the Coppola Study provided Cerise Pit trip generation estimates, which are supported by a letter from LaFarge (located in the Cerise report appendix). The following table shows how Coppola's daily trip generation estimate would be split between the Powers Site and the Cerise Site. This information was provided by LaFarge, who will operate the facilities an both sites. Table 1— Summary of Daily Number of Vehicles & Trips for Both Sites Trip Type Number of Vehicles per Day Daily Tri 3 Estimates (one-way) Total From Coppola Study Split now assigned to Cerise Site Split now assigned to Powers Site Aggregate & Asphalt Trucks 250 500 500 0 Concrete Trucks 75 150 0 150 _ Special Aggregate Import Trucks* 5 10 4 6 Employees 45 90 60 30 Miscellaneous 10 20 14 6 Aggregate Import — Cerise to Powers** 30 n/a 60 60 _ Total 415 770 638 252 *These trips would be for the import of special one-time project -specific aggregate for specialty construction materials **The aggregate transfer (import) from Cense to Powers is Project traffic that was considered internal trips to the Cerise Site (on-site trips that did not travel on public roads). As such, this traffic was not identified in the Coppola Study. This is the traffic that would travel on CR -103, back and forth between the Cerise Site and the Powers Site. Superior ffroject Leadership — Concept to Community Page 4 of 9 LaFarge estimates that there would be 60 truck trips per day (one-way) carrying raw material between the two sites. This would equate to 30 truck trips per day (round-trip) on CR -103 between the Powers Site and Cerise Site. The Cerise pit is authorized for 12 hours of truck hauling per workday (7am-7pm), according to the County conditions of approval. Assuming a uniform distribution of trips throughout the day, this would equate to the following peak -hour trips for the Powers Site. Table 2 — Summary of Peak Hour Trips for Powers Site Trip Type Peak Hour Trip Estimates (one-way) AM Period (vph) PM Period (vph) In Out In Out Aggregate & Asphalt Trucks 0 0 0 0 Concrete Trucks 7 7 7 7 Special Aggregate Import Trucks 1 1 1 1 Employees 15 0 0 15 Miscellaneous 1 1 1 1 Aggregate Import — Cerise to Powers 3 3 3 3 Total 27 12 12 27 Total Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes at intersection Total traffic is the sum Project traffic from Table 2 and future background traffic traveling on CR -103. Project traffic movement volumes were developed by assigning specific traffic movements to the north and south of the Powers Site Access as follows • To/from north on CR -103 = aggregate traffic traveling between the Powers Site and the Cerise Site. • To/from south on CR -103 = all other traffic Table 3— Summary of Peak Hour Turns at Powers Pit Access — AM Period Trip Type Peak Hour Turning Volumes (vph) NB Left Turn EB Right Turn EB Left Turn SB Right Turn Aggregate & Asphalt Trucks 0 0 0 0 Concrete Trucks 7 7 0 0 Special Aggregate Import Trucks 1 1 0 0 Employees 15 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 1 1 0 0 Aggregate Import — Cerise to Powers 0 0 3 3 Total 24 9 3 3 Superior Project Leadership -- Concept to Community Page 5 of 9 Table 4 — Summary of Peak Hour Turns at Powers Pit Access — PM Period Trip Type Peak Hour Turning Volumes (vph) NB Left Turn EB Right Turn EB Left Turn SB Right Turn Aggregate & Asphalt Trucks 0 0 0 0 Concrete Trucks 7 7 0 0 Special Aggregate Import Trucks 1 1 0 0 Employees 0 15 0 0 Miscellaneous 1 1 0 0 Aggregate Import — Cerise to Powers 0 0 3 3 Total 9 24 3 3 ._. The calculation for northbound and southbound background traffic on CR -103 at the Powers Site access would start with the "total traffic" for year 2028 as shown in the Coppola Study, which was the sum of the future background traffic growth and the Cerise Project traffic. Since some of the Cerise traffic would now be turning at the Powers Site access, it was necessary to make the following adjustments on northbound and southbound traffic volumes to account for traffic flow in and out of the Powers Site Access. • Northbound thru volume in AM = 61 vph = 85 — 24 • Northbound thru volume in PM = 96 vph = 105 — 9 • Southbound thru volume in AM = 117 vph = 120 — 3 • Southbound thru volume in PM = 82 vph = 85 — 3 The following table shows total peak -hour turning movements at the intersection of CR -103 & Powers Site Access for the AM and PM peak hour periods. Table 5 — Summary of Total 2028 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes at Powers Pit Access Period Traffic Source Northbound on CR -103 Eastbound from Powers Access Southbound on CR -103 Left Thru Left Right Thru Right AM Background 61 117 Project (Powers) 24 3 9 3 Total 24 61 3 9 117 3 PM Background 96 85 Project (Powers) 9 3 24 3 Total 9 96 3 24 85 3 Evaluation of Need for Exclusive Turn Lanes at Intersection The traffic volumes shown in Table 5 were used to evaluate the need for exclusive turn lanes on CR -103 at the Powers site access point. Since Garfield County does not have specific criteria, the turn lane warrants were based on CDOT Access Code criteria for an R -B roadway at 25 mph. Superior Project Leadership — Concept to Community Page 6 of 9 Table 6 — Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation at Powers Pit Access Auxiliary Lane Total 2028 Volumes (vph) Turn Lane Warrants (CDOT) Lane Warranted? Lane Waivable ? SB Right Turn Deceleration Lane (inbound) 3 (AM & PM) More than 25 No _ n/a EB -SB Right Turn Acceleration Lane (outbound) 24 (pm) More than 50 vph,if speed is 45 mph or greater No n/a NB Left Turn Deceleration Lane (inbound) 24 (am) More than 10 vph Yes No — See note below EB -NB Left Turn Acceleration Lane (outbound) 3 (AM & PM) Generally not required if speed is less than 45 mph No n/a Note: CDOT has criteria that would allow waiver of a lane that meets the warrant volumes. This is done in recognition that turn lane considerations should include the turning volume (warrants) and the amount of through traffic that would conflict with the turning volume (waivers). State Highway Access Code Section 3.5 says that the left turn deceleration lane can be waived if the opposing volume is less that 100 vph. In this case, the opposing volume (southbound throughs) would be 117 vph. In summary, this means that the northbound left turn lane was warranted and should not be waived. The lane would need to be constructed as part of the Powers Site Access improvements. Intersection Operational Analysis The traffic analysis was conducted using the methodologies outlined in the Transportation Research Board's, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition. McTrans' HCS+ computer software model was used to determine traffic operations for the unsignalized intersections. The results of the intersection operational analyses were used to assess the Level of Service (LOS) experienced by the drivers. The LOS describes the quality of traffic operating conditions, ranging from A to F, and is measured as the duration of delay a driver experiences at a given intersection. LOS A represents the most desirable conditions with free-flow movement of traffic and minimal delay to motorists. LOS F generally indicates severely congested conditions with excessive delays to motorists. Intermediate grades of B, C, D, and E reflect incremental increases in congestion. The following table shows the intersection operations results for the year 2028 AM and PM scenarios, including the proposed geometry lane modifications in order to meet the turn lane warrant criteria. Intersection operations are acceptable Superior Project Leadership — Concept to Community Page 7 of 9 Table 7 -- Summary of Traffic Operations at Powers Pit Access — Year 2028 Minor Movement or Approach Traffic Control Lane Geometry AM PM LOS Ave. Delay LOS Ave. Delay (sec) Eastbound STOP 1 left/right lane B 11 sec A 10 sec Northbound 1 left turn lane & 1 thru lane A 8 sec A 8 sec Southbound 1 thru/right lane A n/a A n/a Recommended Lane Geometry on CR -103 CR -103 would need to be widened to the west (towards Powers Site) to construct the northbound left turn lane. CR -103 should be 3 -lanes wide between SH -82 & the Powers Site Access, with a total width of 40 -ft. This would accommodate two 12 -ft wide through lanes and one 16 -ft wide left turn lane. Based on the Powers Site Access design by Sopris Engineering, there would be 225 -ft between the edge of pavement on SH -82 and the centerline of Powers Site Access. The center lane should be striped to accommodate southbound left turns onto SH -82 (70 -ft of storage) and northbound left turns onto Powers Site Access (50 -ft of storage). There should be a 50 -ft taper between the two left turn pockets. This layout would allow 5 -ft between the SH -82 edge of travel lane and the stop bar for southbound traffic. It would also allow a 50 -ft turning radius for vehicles turning left into the Powers site access. North of the Powers Site Access, the southbound through lane would need a 240 -ft redirect taper to match existing southbound lane alignment. Actual existing pavement width may vary but the taper ratio should be 15:1. Summary of Results and Recommendations The improvements at the intersection of CR -103 & Cerise Site Access would be the responsibility of another party and are not included in this summary. The following improvements are recommended at the intersection of CR -103 & Powers Site Access: • Construct a northbound left -turn deceleration lane. • Turning radii should be capable of serving a WB -67 design vehicle. • Truck warning signs should be installed on the CR -103 approaches to the site access with a stop sign installed on the access approach to CR -103. Superior Project Leadership — Concept to Community Page 8 of 9 The following improvements are recommended at the intersection of CR -103 & SH -82: • Construct a southbound left -turn deceleration lane on CR -103. • Two existing auxiliary lanes on SH -82, to the east of CR -103, should be lengthened to meet current CDOT design standards: o Westbound right turn deceleration lane — extend by 600 -ft (1,100 req'd, 500 existing) o Southbound -to -eastbound left turn acceleration lane — extend by 1,180 -ft (1,680 req'd, 500 existing) • Turning radii should be capable of serving a WB -67 design vehicle. This will require some median improvements. Given these improvements, the Powers Batch Plant will not have major negative impacts on transportation services or facilities. Superior Project Leadership — Concept to Community Page 9 of 9 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection CR -103 & Powers Site ccees Analyst Hudson -Turnkey Agency/Co. Consulting Jurisdiction Garfield County Date Performed 10/7/2011 Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Time Period AM - Total Traffic Project Description Powers Batch Plant East/West Street: Powers Site Access North/South Street: CR -103 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 elide Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound _ Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 - 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 24 61 117 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) 26 66 0 0 127 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 75 -- — 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 3 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 3 0 9 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles ' 75 0 75 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 3 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration L LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service . pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound _ Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 26 12 (m) (veh/h) 1107 A 695 + lc 0.02 0.02 ! 5% queue length 0.07 0.05 ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.3 10.3 LOS A B . pproach Delay (sfveh) -- -- 10.3 pproach LOS -- -- B Copyright @ 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved NCS+TM Version 5.8 file://C:1Documents and Settings\Skip\Local Settings\Templu2k236.tmp Generated: 10/7/2011 3:37 PM 10/7/2011 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection CR -103 & Powers Site Access Analyst udsan Agency/Co. Turnkey Consulting Jurisdiction Garfield County Date Performed 10-7-11 Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Time Period PM - Total Traffic Project Description Powers Batch Plant East/West Street: Powers Site Access North/South Street: CR -103 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T_ R L T R olume (veh/h) 9 96 85 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h} 9 104 0 0 92 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 75 -- -- _ 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/1_2) 3 24 _ Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (vehlh) 3 0 26 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 75 0 75 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 3 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR _ Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound ' Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 9 29 C (m) (veh/h) 1144 765 lc 0.01 0.04 z 5% queue length 0.02 0.12 ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.2 9.9 LOS A A • pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.9 . pproach LOS -- -- A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 file://C:1Documents and Settings\Skip\Local Settings\Temp\u2k23E.tmp Generated: 10/7/2011 3:39 PM 10/7/2011 ,r., _ - _. -- / `-~.`may- S - _ — _- - • 11,...7//,'""/":".,�X �\� \\`\ti�\�` t1 / /// • = �. • `� .._ \ \ \ . :_'\ ;$•, 1. 23. .J.r "--......,:> ;4i,/ / ' --11,,:::""'"./ •• r 1/til— \\�,\ \ ,` I / � _ / __ --_'� —a '• -- -- -�`-r i /;•.: .:..:. \_ !, a ,/ . \ _ --:,..<',:-... .�:,,r,.:,; r r./;—;"--;-",.-=.'-'1, � �� '',.:_v_- •-:.: , .� '.,-.-;?.// / .. �,,/., .. :: •r _ is 11 S f I jI 'll ff • Rr 1• •'' r lX f f1- f f !il I I. �I 1 _i'i I• f _il ifff f I Il iff rl I, ILr `r/ r !°T J ! r % ! //rll I/I; ! :Ifl 1 If f 1 ':'I i rt a l ) %j ` ' ' i//� - `\\�`\\ - ��`_,--_//,-y /./ 1t 1 I f�:./, ' r- - - �_ - _ _ - �` .\\ `\ ` 4 ` :\ \\\ .�\ ' , , ; �� -_ - iY� ��, / __ _ // ' ��r - .-\ ;\tea,\ \� \\\ �\�� -\ ` }} _jl /�/. II �rri J _ ltd-� _ - - \: \ �\��,,\�. \t 1+ ,1 1 _ i �'` i I -i I!� %;;:---./i- - - _= -_ — - •~I, 1 �:�, �. `��\,\�` _\ \'-11;i\`'5 '?i1' r .i9 / I r nhr.,',.__. - �_. -. .. \ \ t ` 1 i \'\ti / Vii•/, IIIl lffl ill 11i;l, r�/ C, - �,_... 1 \�,.� ; A tt ,. I` t it, \ //3' /i / I l.nr •' l c. , tt t} \ \\��T•'`'`.)' _ Ij �,i i f t \ _-.:4;',..T:1';'...";4'.. /' Z. LI lllr • ! 1 J/ I' 'I '-1 -./i if fl 1 Ellr,' i \ l'J! /. / J / f! Ir f Ir•it rilfl [ i. \ \ rI//,!/ /�%f 1 f/ r rJ7! rf �` `` /�..,7"..,Z,'/ /' �/ zz11f •, Ifllfrll 11 i I i1,' - �; % 1' iri/'.r%' 1 '1 __///i�/% /% % / f! 1 f l I,y r;l' 1.I A '/!IJ' .Illi,'�.-<:-'?//:/,-.: r1r'I1 ,rf ur \ 1 J l //�%i� �r 1/ / /�/ / / /,‘„ /I ' /'' / 11 `I / I `f l J i/I/ •'I Il /Il r /I �• /I !Ji /, 11'/� // /-- .'rrMAIE =MICR OF / I 7..., fifI t i ', 1 , ! /l/;;'�/ /�/ , ,i / /Y% CERRE ACCESS /i,/ J /� I l 1.1 1 , _ ,I r4: \ / /Jr/ / / /�� / /%///�'? / ,1,•7 F ` / ], /, I r // 1/, � //,,�.//f / ! /: f I , -� P y PROPOSED ROAM 4 \ % •',/ 9! / . '' ;;////'', '% / rSl/1 •-• / m / r/ J/ /f % // / ,�:, S OPRIS ENGINEERING. LLC. Icrvm CONSUL'F1oNTS 502 MAIN STREET CAREONDALE, C001023 (970(704-0311 FAX (970)-704-0313 1 111 ' / / " ! IY'; lI ., /2. '/ 1 . ,Jl: f rr ;r s 117 i ! !;3t ' g I. r�lll1 !/14rr i' rr .\ I ,( ,1 /� r lrl//Jrr I° II.. - f 11 f:p 5 1 f i-- �. !I fI �. f l 1 /� ?i •. ! h! - 1 /1 it it ll -Es..----, / f!, f 1' / ,f r t t ,tee ! Il;I II ` B f r! "! PROPOSED REMISED LEASE \\ . _ /. / 1 } / .,! J//r�' %/ / •% '�%,l/i%'.' / /1Y�y i� !�' �l // //l /'7//r% //f//v�� / i 1 , f I -r (l / i// , I 1 - " / / IIf If II I}nf, I `,.•\ \� �� /..... / �// 47 t / / �• fly' '(ik i •\ r /i-. •1 ''�'`j / ! _..,,,,-.7,-.\'',... rr, . \ ,� ` �6''!'' / / • • I/ef;1Al /, l \\ rl� F%IB11Nfi ACCESS TO BE CLOSED - ' l VI 1 ;� \` �•� / i „,// .a � 3'� ; ` , _ ^ ` =� ` \ ' ' "� i/fes/ y_j j 1 �l' rf / f/ ✓/f,f ---„0.,,,,,,r4./ �/f% ,,i,,;';',.. !� J v--- Irl IT r !i'' SITE CONDITIONS ; , � sz � • /r AMR RECLAMATION GRAPHIC SCALE q !iejLontimil POWERS PIT CONCRETE BATCH PLANT COMP PLAN AMENDMENT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO COUNTY ROAD 103 ACCESS AND SITE PLAN ti , \\\,\� f .• �•/i j ,-; , I ��4,y$01 // I -. . . 1 loch !0O Il \ \ - �� = ,f •..r" i OiC .I ' - ' TUMOUR). Op15fRVc}ION EA9f]IEH7 _ _ , ice a'a �I ' � l ' v�- ti - o�y„ \ C'7 ' \ , _------._----"„.7........0.1:00/ f i ey PR ac= POMEI'S PIT/CR 103 AOCEss t_ ..-„,..-.000"_., _ LTi W- \1. „�•///�% �r 1, SUBJECT 70 COUNTY APPROVALS - ___ ' 82/CIT PM IAMPROIfllIXTS AREHWY ��' f�- CONCEPTUAL ��_` __ a :-r.� =-yea''^_ _ _ =�=- - -y — FAQ I OEE W OSl1101 S111 DI 6-ORNE 3-0M6.O W O SHEEP CI 11 EXISTING ACCESS TO BE CLOSED i REVEGETATION SEED MIX: 011 Seed Variety Crested Wheatgrass (Agropyron crisiatum) Pubescent Wheatgrass 'Luna' (Agropyron trichophorum 'Luna') Beardless Bluebunch Whealgrass (Agropyron inerme) Slender Wheatgrass (Agropyron lrachycaulum) Indian piccgrass'Nespar' (Oryzopsis hymenoides'Nespar') Smooth Brome'Mancharr (Bromus inermis'Mancher') Mln. Brome (Bromus marginatus) Big Bluegrass 'Sherman' (Poa ample 'Sherman') Giber Milkvetch (Astragalus titer) Lbs Pis/Acres 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Wildflowers Blue Flax (Linum Lewisii) Rocky M!n. Penstemon (Penstemon slrictus) Yarrow (Architlea millefolium) Mountain Lupine (Lupinus alpestris) 1.0 5 .5 5 # Lbs. Pure Live Seed Total 32.5 Seed mix will be modified to accommodate restoration to arable condition of property lying below 6220 contour. UPDATED RECLAMATION PLAN- PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: The proposed plant species and their locations on this plan are appropriate for their ecological zone, as depicted in the "ecological site analysis" diagram. This landscape plan is based on the "Exhibit 8 reclamation plan" dated 2/5/88. adjustments have been made to the proposed plant species and quantities based on the exclusion of the proposed lake and associated grading modifications. The total quantity of plant material shown in this plan is equal to the total quantity in "exhibit b reclamation plan", for price purposes only. for aesthetically and ecologically successful re -vegetation of the d#sturbed area, we suggest substantially increasing the plant quantities and installing irrigation for the entire re -vegetated area. All other previously approved notes regarding topsoil and irrigation requirements apply. GENERAL NOTES: 1) Existing contours per May, 2007 aerial mapping, field work to verify top of bank, toe of slope and pit floor topography performed March, 2009. NOTES: 1) All disturbed areas must be covered with a minimum of 6" of salvage subsoil overburden material. Upon completion of the overburden placement, a minimum of 6" of topsoil must be placed over all exposed overburden. 2) The existing Holy Cross power fine will be restored to approximately the original position along the Westerly edge of the pit floor. 3) The detention pond size will be a minimum of 10,000 CY according to the needs of Lafarge's mining operations with a maximum size of 75,000 CY and a maximum depth of 20 feet with side slopes no greater than 3 to 1. 4) A swale/berm combination is to be installed along the Northern edge of the lease area in order to redirect any runoff from the Northern ranch area away from the reclaimed pit walls and into the existing irrigation ditch Northwest of the lease area. The Swale shall be a minimum size per the A -A section. If a berm is placed it shall be a minimum of 4' in height with a 3 to 1 side slope. 5) The existing lift pump will be re-established in the new detention pond to pump excess waters over the pit wall onto the adjoining ranch property. 6) Lessee has tertian Flexibility in the design and implementation of the final contours of the pit floor, so long as the slope has a maximum 3% grade and a minimum 1% grade and provided that Sopris Engineering signs off on the final slope plan. 7) Lafarge is responsible for a drip irrigation system to water the trees and shrubs to be installed per the landscaping plan. Lafarge may add, at their discretion, additional irrigation systems to aid the native seed areas. 8) Lafarge is responsible for verifying that the 4" and 10" waterline along the easterly edge of the pit floor is in working condition and accessible for connection to an irrigation system. 9) Lafarge is responsible for operation and maintenance of the irrigation system for the two year warrantee period. PLANTS PINON PINE Pinus edulus QUANTITY SIZE 40 !W NARROWLEAF op lungust fol aCOTTONWOOD 51 drROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER Juniperus scopulorum 181 00Qp MOUNTAIN BIG SAGE V L) Artemisia tridentate SERVICEBERRY o Arnelanchier alnifolia A GAMBLE OAK Quercus gambeii REVEGETATION SEED MIX 136 233 561 6' height 1"-1 1/2" caliper 5 gallon 1 gallon 1 gallon tublings 7.5 Acres See Revegetation Seed Mix this page. PROPOSE PROPOSED P01AE SUBJECT TO COl HWY 82/CR 103 1141 ARE CONCEPTUAL See Sopris Engineering Reclamation Plans for all proposed landscape outside of these hatched areas. 50 0 25 50 GRAPHIC SCALE 100 200 1 IN FEET 1 1 inch = 50 ft. Crystal Ranch Corp Concrete Batch Plant LS1 - Highway 82 / CR 103 Landscape Plan Submitted November 21, 2011 to Garfield County L.18 LINE TABLE G 5 LINE BEARING LENGTH <2 L2 N59°40'57'14 39.77' L11 NO3°00'05'14 59.00' C6 L12 S52'08'30'W 202,63' 0 POINT OF BEGINNING, LEASE DESCRIPTION L13 N37°51'30'14 27,58' v L14 S71°42'03'14 327.32' L15 N72°29'S0'W 174.75' EXISTING BUILDING L16 N33°22'17'' 112.74' L17 N13°31'11'E 327.51' r• L18 S76°28'49'E 486.61' REVISED LEASE PREMISES DESCRIPTION 5.771 ACRES +/- 1 ,� 1 SCALE: 1'=100' "...J. <�� REVISED LEASED PREMISES DESCRIPTION o A PARCEL OF LAND BEING, SITUATED ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THAT �'' DOCUMENT, RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 710307 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS, SAID 1-}A \ tfi -______.15 REVISED LEASED PREMISES ALSO BEING LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE N 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; THE BASIS OF BEARING N ` FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS 5.89°59'06"E. FROM THE N *OF SAID SECTION 26 AND SECTION 27 TO C1 2 NTHE N -C 16 OF SAID SECTION 26; SAID REVISED LEASED PREMISES BEING MORE PRECISELY POINT OF COMMENCEMENT N rr,1 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REC. NO. 710307 OF 77-1E GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS - l 11 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. xi r- 710307, THENCE N.03°57'22"W., A DISTANCE OF 472.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; ➢ THENCE S.52°08'30"W., A DISTANCE OF 202.63 FEET; THENCE N.37°51'30"W., A DISTANCE OF 27.58 FEET; THENCE S.71°42'03"W., A DISTANCE OF 327.32 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 74.98 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET AND A Q CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35°48'07", CHORD BEARS S.89°36'07"W., A DISTANCE OF 73.77 FEET; THENCE N.72°29'50"W., A DISTANCE OF 174.75 FEET; THENCE N.33°22'17"W., A DISTANCE OF 112.74 FEET; THENCE N.13°31'11"E., A DISTANCE OF 327.51 FEET; THENCE S.76°28'49"E., A DISTANCE OF 486.61 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 119.01 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 115.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 59°17'42", CHORD BEARS N.73°52'19"E., A DISTANCE OF 113.77 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 34.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC QF A NON TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.01 FEET AND A CENTRAL 111111. ANGLE OF 75°16'13", CHORD BEARS N.82°40'44"E., A DISTANCE OF 31.77 FEET; THENCE S.59°40'57"E., A DISTANCE OF 39.77 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 124.65 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 126.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°40'52", CHORD BEARS S.31°20'31"E., A DISTANCE OF 119.63 FEET; THENCE S.03°00'05"E., A DISTANCE OF 59.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 251,375 SQUARE FEET OR 5.771 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. JOHN POWERS RANCH CARBONDALE, CO CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS TANGENT DELTA BEARING CHORD c C4 124.65' 126.00' 67.96' 56'40'52' N 31°20'31' W 119.63' SOP= ENGINEERING, MC. AMENDED EXHIBIT A C5 34.46' 26.00' 20,29' 75°56'38' S 82'20'44' W 31.99' [NViIWei.)ZKAPiVAZINy REVISED LEASED PREMISES C6 119.01' 115.00' 65.46' 59°17'42' N 73°52'19' E 113.77' 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 DES. GRK CK. FILE NO. SHEET 1 C12 74.98' 73.77' CARBONDALE, CO 81623 120.00' 38.76' 35°48'07' N 89°36'06' E 29021-SITE4.dwg (970) 704-0311 CK. DATE 11/21/11 OF 2 REVISED LEASED PREMISES DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND BEING, SITUATED ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THAT DOCUMENT, RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 710307 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS, SAID REVISED LEASED PREMISES ALSO BEING LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS S.89°59'06"E. FROM THE N 1/16 OF SAID SECTION 26 AND SECTION 27 TO THE N -C 1/16 OF SAID SECTION 26; SAID REVISED LEASED PREMISES BEING MORE PRECISELY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 710307, THENCE N.03°57'22"W., A DISTANCE OF 472.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S.52°08'30"W., A DISTANCE OF 202.63 FEET; THENCE N.37°51'30"W., A DISTANCE OF 27.58 FEET; THENCE 5.71°42'03"W., A DISTANCE OF 327.32 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 74.98 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35°48'07", CHORD BEARS S.89°36'07"W., A DISTANCE OF 73.77 FEET; THENCE N.72°29'50"W., A DISTANCE OF 174.75 FEET; THENCE N.33°22'17"W., A DISTANCE OF 112.74 FEET; THENCE N.13°.31'11"E., A DISTANCE OF 327.51 FEET; THENCE 5.76°28'49"E., A DISTANCE OF 486.61 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 119.01 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 115.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 59°17'42", CHORD BEARS N.73°52'19"E., A DISTANCE OF 113.77 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 34.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.01 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 75°16'13", CHORD BEARS N.82°40'44"E., A DISTANCE OF 31.77 FEET; THENCE S59°40'57"E., A DISTANCE OF 39.77 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 124.65 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 126.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°40'52", CHORD BEARS S.31°20'31"E., A DISTANCE OF 119,63 FEET; THENCE 5.03°00105"E., A DISTANCE OF 59.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 251,375 SQUARE FEET OR 5.771 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THE LAN landscape architecture land planning community planning EXHIBIT 144J 1002 Lauren Lane • P.O. Box 107 • Basalt, CO 81621 • Tel 970 927 3690 • landstudio2@comcast.net November 21, 2011 Mr, John Martin, Chair Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Crystal Ranch Corp MIPA-6919 Dear John: Thanks to you and the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners for reviewing the Major Impact Review — Land Use Change Permit for a Substantial Change to a previously appro\ed SUP to continue the concrete batch plant operations on property owned by Crystal Ranch Corp. in Garfield County with a physical address of 13112 Highway 82. This letter is to update the BOCC regarding progress made on site access issues since our Planning Commission hearing on September28, 2011. Many of the Conditions of Approval outlined by Garfield County Staff and Planning Commission relate to emergency access, relocation of the Crystal Ranch Corp. driveway to the concrete batch plant, and improvements to the CR 103 and Highway 82 intersection. On November 2, 2011 CRC representatives met at the CDOT offices in Glenwood Springs to discuss these issues and identify a strategy to deal with each of them. At this meeting there were representatives from CDOT, Garfield County Road and Bridge, Garfield County Public Works, Lafarge, CRC engineering, traffic, and planning consultants, and Cerise pit engineering and traffic consultants. Based on the group input at this meeting the following is a summary of direction and progress: • Emergency Access CDOT identified that there can be no emergency egress back onto Highway 82 on the west side of the concrete batch plant. Sopris Engineering proposed a boulevard concept for the driveway to enter and exit the concrete batch plant from CR 103. This concept separates incoming and outgoing driveway traffic so that if either lane is blocked there is still an open lane for emergency egress. On November 11, 2011, Sopris Engineering met will Bill Gavette of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District and Bill agreed with SE that the boulevard concept as a secondary emergency access is a good solution. Sopris Engineering has provided a drawing to illustrate this access (see attached). Relocation of Private Driveway The Applicant has worked with County Road and Bridge and Public Works to determine the appropriate location for the proposed private driveway access, taking into account stacking distance and site distance. The Land Studio, Inc. • • The driveway to the CRC concrete batch plant has been moved 200' north from its initial proposed location so that it now has a 400' separation from the Highway 82. See the attached Sopris Engineering drawing that illustrates the driveway intersection concept at CR 103. The Applicant will continue to work with the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department to obtain a driveway access permit prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit from Garfield County. CDOT Highway 82 Road Improvements While details have not been finalized, the concept for the Highway 82 and CR 103 intersection as provided by Sopris Engineering is attached. Future plans will show work on Highway 82 as identified in the Coppola and TurnKey Traffic Studies and will include an alternatives analysis related to the location of the CR103 connection to Highway 82. The Applicant will continue to work with CDOT to obtain the appropriate State Highway Access Permit for this project. County Road 103 Right -of -Way The Applicant will deed Right -of -Way to Garfield County for all of County Road 103 that falls on CRC property. Improvements Agreement. The Applicant shall design, engineer, and construct, and shall provide adequate financial securities for, any work to be completed on CR 103, in a form as required by tie County and pursuant to the Garfield County Road and Right -of -Way Regulations. Landscape Plan A revised Landscape Plan is also attached based on the revised location of the CRC driveway connection to CR 103. Crystal Ranch Corp MIPA-6919 Legal Description Due to the driveway access changes to the concrete batch plant, a new legal description is attached for MIPA-6819 to reflect the 5.77 acre concrete batch plant lease area boundary. While this boundary reflects the legal description for the lease of the concrete batch plant, Lafarge's reclamation and driveway/road improvement obligations outside of this boundary, per the conditions of approval, will still apply. Thanks for your consideration of this project and we look forward to working with you at the scheduled December 5, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Best regards, THE LAND STUDIO, INC By: trffirl •ouglas /*ratte The Land Studio, Inc. 99 I4rW ACCESS 10 BE 0001.0 i,y t'14S 44^4,4 1 f! 1 ce. 1r 444'c84426„, oo `--r thiile 44 re. 111 w. lHpr• •••..•••1 •WPM. 10 ..1..t.r...r•.I12 00 .622 .1,410 s-�.�rti..wvwrwl 4. W Pwi..ga nl w•n.•.Mi YV444,•I•+rt..x+a rtcKl Sly41Bt aroJea1narasa 1.e2640+Atu1K1r.... �4.a.1,0P11••w'nra �w. 01•,14.10 .W.1tt1n w` ��w... *0.MlxP..gr W*1*10Bm44. usY Id of its* raw l.. tmar.0,, .1.4 _.d+•.:4 4601 Mllg a nim ear4•,g �rM 1u.r1N.1a•.....aP B'w.w�11....1 ,010.alm.1 ea WW 4e.0.2.041.1.4...151.4 a 2144.04.1.1 a. S.r. PM Ir•.ler nrte .leypuw.0 tN 1.p..• P11.4. g.a W Wrr..b NB4 a 19,111. 1144 da..,Ord 64.4144 marnma1l0ex n.aPa.y 1.w 1.1e. .y,4*121 0014.) * 41w,1.r...11./3002c.va.N.r.w. .441.1 20 lel.* Ma w..14gr.14.N.142 1. +.. 44.e1.4,364114,4w1rN e.. ••4041ra.r.lr» x+>v+ro...4ro 11.04940 011. ow pr. Am ama mer., 04 r:rs1..ai m:A+�o• SI IN 1..e*rq N ...la rr r,bwa. N a. M1er• 4..1.46-, 4ue1..1.a nmr 119. p, .g cnco IN 4go4ry.sM g 5 1/ .1In4sV a N141mIN[.I.e111rr1019Q114. r.' a1N .a ep64e44.0.d W m+, NS:1640o*04.a. 194. Wg rynWNp4w.•.'n V<.•,..•.gaun...has• 1 9.00l1FVnr.e. Wel 60.,.0014,4 .0..044" 1»grp41r1w«, l4l. 00001 p.4* mad s.rs 104,....1 .g 1M...1,11....,r g. 04141.0vwsl oda ae..4.r.••. W APa•.w 1la Oa N.1 1^...aatlr4MR 16` rprcr4vpel ..bn• .,4a1.•r1441.*1,�„'^ 1.6r.r1m.., I1.04.v.,.. .. 1.wa .m.M1I.manre.n..b... „▪ 14...,.11~.*044.4401112041gp111,.1.4.. r .44,4fas..a.. W •rn N 1'x1 NYru se W1 91•W 1.y�nw.0,• fuilr ad A14r.w. NI cl�NMr0.•1.6b*4.4..*111100..9(014 my.. lo an...411m II Walt a mama. I. 1,. aameamamma.. eglw Oram es IN tro W. a.rNx g/N MMS 41b.a .b •ln Tr Sin 416 0.6.40.1. cc*Ie.lA000 I Aso • 4.4,9*ra,r 114 /4.11114 1e.. pew la.rwn mn w/ IX ,z • kms":.A,. Al) I0423.- ibf .111 6.902.1 ,11•101 S010 .9. 1.S *Uri Sew Re Ietot Seed 1.•g 1411 PPCPOSE11 POW 4,010 a mrr EI/0 i0! 0.0 NNE CONCEPTUAL See Sapris Engineering ftedamation Plena for all proposed landscape outside of these halched areas. [A.tIK v., r Crystal Ranch Corp Concrete Batch Plant LS1 v Highway 82 J CR 103 Landscape Plan Sub0r1M1lb*1N4r 21 2014 In C0.4.1Cnl•Ily 175 G5 06 PONT OF BEGINNING, LEASE OESCRIP7IGN REVISED LEASE PREMISES DESOYIPRON 5.771 ACRES +/- C12 EXISTING BUILDING Nrie 1 POINT OP COMMENCEMENT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN RIO NO 710307 OF THE GARFIELD 0017NTY 0100055 15 r4 CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS TANGENT DELTA BEARING CHORE C4 124.65' 126.00' 67.96' 56'40'52' N 3025'3L" V 11963' C5 34.46' 2600' 2029' 75'56'38' S X2.20'44" V 31.99 C6 119.00' 11500' 65.46' 59'17'42' N 73.52'19' E 113,77' 012 74.98' 120.00' 38.76' 35.4007' N 69'36'96' E 73.77' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L2 N59'4 0'57.V 39.77' L11 1.103.00'05'V 59.00' L12 052'0030'V 202.63' L13 N37.51'30'V 27.50 1_14 07042'03'V 327.32' L15 072'29'50'W 174.75' L16 633.22'17'V 112.74' 117 N13'3121•E 327.51' L18 176.28'49'E 406.61' SCALE: 1--I00' REV{5ED LEASED PREMISES OESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF FANO BE {NG, SITUATED ON A P0RT10N OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THAT DOCUMENT. RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 7103870F THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS. SAI REVISED LEASED PREMISES ALSO BEING LOCATE DIN SE011ON 26, TOWNSHIP 710UTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 5161 P.M., LOUNTYOF GARF I ETD, STATE OF COLORADO; THE BA515 OF NERAL FIG FOR THIS 0ESC RI PTION 155.89'5206"E. FROM THEN * 06 SAID SECTION 26 AND 5EC110N 22 TO THE N.0 ACE SAI0 SECTION 26; 57.I7 REV1510 LEASED PREMISES RE IMG MORE PRECISELY 0E50010E0 AS FOLLOWS COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 100107. THENCE N,03.557'22.W., A DISTANCE OF 47262 FEET TO THE POINT OF 66011,114196; THENCE 5.52'06'30'W.. A DISTANCE OF 20263 1EEL THENCE N.37'S1'30'W., A DISTANCE OF 27,56 FEET; THENCE 671'42'03'W.. A DISTANCE OF 12732 FFE5 THENCE A DiS TAME OF 7498 FEET ALONG THE RAC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15'41107', CHORD REARS 5.69'36'01'W., A DISTANCE OF 73.77 FEET; THENCE N.72'29'50'W., A DISTANCE OF 174,15 FEET: THENCE N.33'22'11"w_, A DISTANCE OF 112_74 FEET; THENCE N.13.31'Ir .. A DISTANCE OF 321151 FEET; I400065.76"25401.,3 DISTANCE OF 48661 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 119.01 FEET ALONG THE ARC OFA CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RAD165 OF 115.00 F1E1 AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5417'42'. CHORD BEARS N73'52'14F..A DISTANCE OF 113.71 FEET; THENCE ADISTANCE OF 34-17 FEET ALONG THE ARC 012 NON TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAYING A HA010S OF 26.01 FEFT AND ACENIRAL ANGIE OF 70'16'13%16000 BEARS 71.52'4044'6.. A DISTANCE OF 31.77 FEET; THENCE 5.59'40'57'1., A DISTANCE OF 39.77 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 124.55 FEET ALONG EHE ARC OF A CORVE TO THE RIGHT HAYING A RADIUS OF 126.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15'4452'. CH DRO BEARS 5.31'20'31'6., A DISTANCE Of 119.63 FEET; THENCE 5 03'00'05"E..A 015TANCE OF 5900 FEET TO THE POINT OF REGINNING_ SA10 PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 201,375 SQUARE FEET OR 5.771 ACRES. 0001 OR LE SS. 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 (070) 704-0311 JOHN POWERS RANCH CARBONDALE. CO AMENDED EXHIBIT A REVISED LEASED PREMISES OES.CRK CK. FILE No. SHEET 1 CK. DATE 11 /21 /11 29021-SFTE4Aw9 00 2 REVISED LEASED PREMISES DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND BEING, SITUATED ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THAT DOCUMENT, RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 710307 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS, SAID REVISED LEASED PREMISES ALSO BEING LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS S.89°59'06"E. FROM THE N 1/16 OF SAID SECTION 26 AND SECTION 27 TO THE N -C 1/16 OF SAID SECTION 26; SAID REVISED LEASED PREMISES BEING MORE PRECISELY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 710307, THENCE N.03°57'22"W., A DISTANCE OF 472.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 5.52°08'30"W., A DISTANCE OF 202.63 FEET; THENCE N.37°51130"W., A DISTANCE OF 27.58 FEET; THENCE 5.71°42'03"W., A DISTANCE OF 327.32 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 74.98 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35°48'07", CHORD BEARS S.89°36'07"W., A DISTANCE OF 73.77 FEET; THENCE N.72°29'50"W., A DISTANCE OF 174.75 FEET; THENCE N.33°22'17"W., A DISTANCE OF 112,74 FEET; THENCE N.13°31'11"E,, A DISTANCE OF 327.51 FEET; THENCE S.76°28'49"E., A DISTANCE OF 486.61 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 119.01 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 115.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 59°17'42", CHORD BEARS N.73°52'19"E., A DISTANCE OF 113.77 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 34.17 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.01 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 75016113", CHORD BEARS N.82°40'44"E., A DISTANCE OF 31.77 FEET; THENCE 5.59°40'57"E., A DISTANCE OF 39.77 FEET; THENCE A DISTANCE OF 124.65 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 126.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56040'52", CHORD BEARS S.31°20131"E., A DISTANCE OF 119.63 FEET; THENCE S.03°00'05"E., A DISTANCE OF 59.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 251,375 SQUARE FEET OR 5.771 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SI FIRE • EMS • RESCUE November 28, 2011 Tamra Allen Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Powers Pit Concrete Batch Plant - Access Dear Tamra: I have reviewed the proposed new access for the Powers Pit concrete batch plant. The proposed new access to the plant would be off County Road 103 and the existing access off Highway 82 would be abandoned. The new access is proposed to have two separate lanes, separated by an 8 - foot wide median. The proposed access is acceptable. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I may be of any assistance. Sincere] Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569 Tamra Allen 9 a 3 EXHIBIT From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 5:15 PM To: Tamra Allen Cc: Betsy Suerth; Michael Prehm Subject: RE: Powers Batch Plant - updated & Final traffic study Tamra — Thank you for the opportunity to review the Power Batch Plant. This is a very complex intersection, because we have three different items going on (Gravel Pit, Batch Plant, and CDOT Deer Fence project). I would recommend that the applicant be required to get an access permit for CR 103. 1 realize the gravel pit will also need one and they are the same applicant. But we need to make sure the applicant will be responsible for the obtaining Access Permit and fulfilling the terms and conditions of the access permit. Here is the recommendation of the traffic engineer - 1 Recommended Lane Geometry on CR -103 CR -103 would need to be widened to the west (towards Powers Site) to construct the northbound left turn lane. CR -103 should be 3 -lanes wide between SH -82 & the Powers Site Access, with a total width of 40 -ft. This would accommodate two 12 -ft wide through lanes and one 16 -ft wide left turn lane. Based on the Powers Site Access design by Sopris Engineering, there would be 225 -ft between the edge of pavement on SH -82 and the centerline of Powers Site Access. The center lane should be striped to accommodate southbound left turns onto SH -82 (70 -ft of storage) and northbound left turns onto Powers Site Access (50 -ft of storage). There should be a 50 -ft taper between the two left turn pockets. This layout would allow 5 -ft between the SH -82 edge of travel lane and the stop bar for southbound traffic. It would also allow a 50 -ft turning radius for vehicles turning left into the Powers site access. North of the Powers Site Access, the southbound through lane would need a 240 -ft redirect taper to match existing southbound lane alignment. Actual existing pavement width may vary but the taper ratio should be 15:1. Summary of Results and Recommendations The improvements at the intersection of CR -103 & Cerise Site Access would be the responsibility of another party and are not included in this summary. The following improvements are recommended at the intersection of CR -103 & Powers Site Access: • Construct a northbound left -turn deceleration lane. • Turning radii should be capable of serving a WB -67 design vehicle. • Truck warning signs should be installed on the CR -103 approaches to the site access with a stop sign installed on the access approach to CR -103. 2 EXHIBIT w STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 5th, day of December, 2011, there were present: John Martin , Commissioner Chairman Mike Samson , Commissioner Tom Jankovsky , Commissioner Andrew Gorgey , County Attorney Carey Gagnon , Assistant County Attorney Jean Alberico , Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners Ed Green , County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT, MIPA 6919, FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT KNOWN AS THE "POWER'S PIT CONCRETE BATCH PLANT" PARCEL NO. 2393-234-00-131 Recitals A. The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, received an application from Crystal Ranch Corp, (the "Applicant') for a Land Use Change Permit for a substantial modification to an existing Special Use Permit operating pursuant to Resolution 1980-58. B. The subject property, depicted and described in Exhibit A, is located at the northwest corner of State Highway 82 and Crystal Spring Creek Road (County Road 103) and is approximately two (2) miles northeast of Carbondale, Colorado with a property address of 013114 State Highway 82. C. The subject property is described in the application documents and located within the parcel described in the attached Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference. D. The subject property is located within the Rural zone district and a Land Use Change Permit for a substantial modification to an existing Special Use Permit requires approval through a Major Impact Review Process conducted by Garfield County. 1page E. The Board of County Commissioners is authorized to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Land Use Change Permit for "a substantial change to a Special Use Permit" pursuant to Sections 1-301 and 4-106 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. F. The Garfield County Planning Commission opened a public hearing on September 28, 2011 upon the question of whether the Land Use Change Permit application for a substantial change to an existing Special Use Permit should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the application. G. The Garfield County Planning Commission closed the public hearing on September 28, 2011 and forwarded a recommendation of approval with conditions to the Board of County Commissioners. H. The Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the 5th day of December, 2011 upon the question of whether the Land Use Change Permit application for the substantial modification to an existing Special Use Permit should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the application: I. The Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on December 5, 201 1 to make a final decision. J. The Board of County Commissioners on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determinations of fact: 1. That the hearings before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard. 2. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 3. That the application, if all conditions are met, will be in conformance with the applicable Sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 4. The modification of the landscaping standards are an appropriate deviation as per Section 7-305A.7.a of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, and that the modification to include the planting of 1 1/2 inch caliper trees is appropriate. 2lPage 5. The proposed use is the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County so long the conditions of approval are met. RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that: 1. That the hearings before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard. 2. That the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 3. That the application, if all conditions are met, will be in conformance with the applicable Sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 4. That the modification of the landscaping standards are an appropriate deviation as per Section 7-305A.7.a of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, and that the modification to include the planting of 1 '/z inch caliper trees is appropriate. 5. That the proposed use is the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County so long as the following conditions are met: a. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commi ssioners; b. That the operation of the facility be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility; c. All new lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property; d. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the applicant shall resolve with County Road and Bridge and CDOT outstanding issues with road improvements and access which include but are not limited to: Wage i. Appropriate Signage. The applicant shall work with County Road and Bridge to determine the appropriate type and placement of signage including but not limited to stop signs, truck warning signs and speed signs. ii. Relocation of Private Driveway. The Applicant shall work with County Road and Bridge to determine the appropriate location for the proposed private driveway access taking into account stacking distance and site distance. The applicant will provide a copy of an approved Driveway Access Permit to the Planning Department. iii. CR 103 and SH 82 Improvements. The Applicant shall work with CDOT and County Road and Bridge to determine the necessity of any additional road improvements, including but not limited to turn lanes, deceleration/acceleration lanes, and drainage improvements. A copy of an approved CDOT access permit shall be provided to the Planning Department. iv. Improvements Agreement. The Applicant shall design, engineer, construct and provide adequate financial security for any work to be completed on CR 103, in a form as required by the County and pursuant to the Garfield County Road and Right-of-way Regulations. e. The applicant shall deed to the County all portions of CR 103 that fall upon or cross the Crystal Ranch Corp. property. f. All vehicles using County Road 103 to access the Crystal Ranch Corp Concrete Batch Plant shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall be obtained from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. g. All trucks using the site access and/or CR 103 shall not use engine Jake Brakes to decelerate. h. The concrete batch plant shall be allowed to operate Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. while on-site administrative and/or maintenance activities may operate Monday through Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. There shall be no operations on Sunday except in the case of an emergency or for standard maintenance purposes. i. All noise generated from the operation shall not exceed the maximum permissible limits set forth in C.R.S. § 25-12-103. j. The property owner and operator acknowledge that Garfield County has the following performance standards, and failure to comply with such standards could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit: 41Page i. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping; ii. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of-way; iii. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; iv. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property; and v. Every use shall be operated so that it does not emit, heat, glare, radiation, dust, 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 signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. lc. The applicant shall implement the revised landscaping plan in areas outside of those directly impacted by the continued operation of the concrete batch plant by April 30, 2013. The full extent of the landscaping plan shall be implemented upon the termination of the batch plant lease in 2028. 1. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit an Emergency Preparedness Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department. m. Gravel for this concrete batch plant shall be hauled from Cerise Mine except for limited quantities of specialty products not available at this location which may be brought in from other sources. Contrary to any provision in the County's Unified Land Use Resolution in effect at the time of the request, the Director of Building and Planning or the Board of County Commissioners may consider any change to this condition of approval as either a "non -substantial change" or a "substantial change" depending upon the evidence of any changes to off-site impacts of the approved Land Use Change Permit, and the requested change will be reviewed accordingly. n. All conditions of approval will remain in full force as required in Resolution 1980-58 John G. Powers SUP) in addition to the conditions herein. Wage Dated this 5th day of December , 2011 ATTEST: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: COMMISSIONER CHAIR JOHN F. MARTIN COMMISSIONER MIKE SAMSON COMMISSIONER TOM JANKOVSKY STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield , Aye/Nay , Aye/Nay , Aye/Nay 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 5th day of December , 2011. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 6 Page