Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 09.28.2011Planning Commission — Public Hearing Exhibits Crystal Ranch Corp. Comprehensive Plan Major Amendment September 28, 2011 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 Draft Resolution 2011 -XX Q Draft Certification Letters to BOCC, Municipalities and Surrounding Counties R Referral — Town of Carbondale, dated September 21, 2011 S Gary and Catherine Marshall, dated September 22, 2011 Ta 3 EXHIBIT PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT (OWNER) PLANNER/CONSULTANT LOCATION PHYSICAL ADDRESS ACRES ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Comprehensive Plan Amendment Crystal Ranch Corp. c/o Art Daily, Holland and Hart, LLP Douglas Pratte, The Land Studio, Inc. Northwest corner of Highway 82 and CR 103, Parcel # 239323400131 13112 Highway 82 24 Acres (Total Site 414.8 Acres) Rural Residential -Medium I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Highway 82 and CR 103 southeast of Carbondale. The existing uses on the site include aggregate extraction operations, aggregate washing, aggregate sales, aggregate shipping and a concrete batch plant. LaFarge currently leases this site for its operations from the land owner of record and runs the operation per a Special Use Permit approved in 1980 (Resolution 2008-58). The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, in conjunction with MIPA- 6919, for the addition of a Rural Employment Center (REC) to the adopted Comprehensive Plan 2030 Future Land Use Map. This would place a REC on a 24 -acre portion of the overall 414.8 acre site of which 68 acres is currently being utilized for a sand and gravel extraction and processing operation. The applicant notes that the extraction operations will cease on the site in 2013, however, the existing concrete batch plant has a current lease with the property owner to operate until 2028. The applicant would like to plan for new/additional future uses on this site that would be, in their opinion, more Figure 1: vicinity Map Wage Planning Commission September 28, 2011 CPAA-6920 compatible with the REC designation than the adopted designation of Residential -Medium. Existing uses on the 24 acre site include the existing concrete batch plant and extraction (site to be reclaimed by 2013) as well as the adjoining residential, agricultural and aggregate extraction uses. Proposed Emergency Access 61w jR.r►s:�..'� CR 103 Proposed Driveway l 3 pro amu. Powers Pit Concrete Batch Plant Comprehensive Plan Amendment 21 Aa. R421 imWre,eag C. . Ccvecic* Mwirwr, Figure 2: Conceptual diagram of potential uses that may occur within a designated Rural Employment Center The previously adopted Comprehensive Plan 2000 designated the existing 68 acre aggregate pit and concrete batch plant as Resource Extraction as it was existing at the time and the remainder of the property ("'247 acres) as Residential -Medium and Residential -Low ("'54 acres). The existing plan (2030) designates the entirety of the area as Residential- Medium and also identifies the site in Chapter 3, Section 9, Mineral Extraction, Map: Gravel Potential as having an active gravel permit. Figure 3: FLUM 2000 indican ng R -Low (10+ AC/DU), R - Medium (6 to <10 AC/DU) and Resource Extraction 11. ADJACENT USES Adjacent uses include residential, agricultural and aggregate extraction. Rural zoning, public lands (BLM) and Residential -Low existing adjacent or proximate to the site. 21P age Planning Commission September 28, 2011 CPAA-6920 III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The process and standards for approval for amending the Comprehensive Plan are included in Chapter 4, Amending the Plan. The amendment process includes standards first a determination of the degree of amendment (comprehensive, major and minor). Based on the description of the amendments, staff recommends this application to be considered a Major Amendment as it "constitutes a significant change in the vision, goals, policies and/or land uses of the County," and does not conversely "include a small project that is consistent with the surrounding area," or is "correcting text or map errors" which describes a minor amendment. The applicant has responded to this list of standards of approval in their application. Staff has provided an evaluation of these required findings in the Staff Analysis section of this report. IV. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Referral comments were received and contained the general information 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) — states concern that a precedent could be set establishing this area as a REC which could potentially create a node which could be expanded and effectively create an area similar to Cattle Creek. The Town also cites that the existence of a gravel pit and batch plant should not establish an industrial area. 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. It also provides additional concerns that address the concrete batch plant request for a Major Impact Review. 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 provides additional concerns that address the concrete batch plant request for a Major Impact Review. Garfield County Road and Bridge, email dated September 14, 2011 (Exhibit L) — provides additional concerns that address the concrete batch plant request for a Major Impact Review. 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. 3 I P a g e Planning Commission September 28, 2011 CPAA-6920 Garfield County Road and Bridge, email dated September 16, 2011 (Exhibit N) — provides additional concerns that address the concrete batch plant request for a Major Impact Review. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, email dated September 19, 2011 (Exhibit 0)— states a future use such as the maintenance facility might be necessary in the future. Also expresses concerns about any transit facility being located outside of an urban growth area. Additional referral comment requests were sent to the following agencies, of which no response has been received: Garfield County Environmental Health Town of New Castle RE -1 School District City of Glenwood Springs CO Water Resources/Engineer's office Town of Silt CO mined Land Reclamation Board City of Rifle CO Department of Public Health Eagle County CO Division of Wildlife Pitkin County Bureau of Land Management Rio Blanco County US Forest Service Mesa County Routt County VII. STAFF ANALYSIS The adopted Comprehensive Pian 2030 sets forth that a major plan amendment shall be approved if the Planning Commission makes specific findings that: 1. The existing comprehensive plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment; and Comments: The current use on the property (extraction and processing) constitutes a use significantly different than those allowed through a Residential — Medium designation. In addition, the concrete batch plant operation is leased and proposed to operate at this site until 2028. The applicant also believes this site to be appropriate for uses related to the REC, of which uses are not otherwise allowed for or designation provided for in much of the proximate Roaring Fork Valley area. Figure 4: FLUM 2030 showing subject property as R - Medium (6 to <10 AC/DU) and R -Low (10+ AC/DU) 2. The proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding area (a), and the goals and policies of the Plan (b); and 41Page Planning Commission September 28, 2011 CPAA-6920 Comments: (a) Surrounding land uses beyond the 24 acres of proposed REC area include resource extraction (on approx 68 acres) which is in the process of reclamation, agricultural uses and limited residential uses. Comments: (b) Staff has identified several goals and objectives within the Comprehensive Plan which are relevant to this amendment request. i. Plan: Chapter 2 — Future Land Use A simple but fundamental theme of this Chapter, as highlighted in the Plan is that "most new growth should occur in areas that have, or can easily be served by, urban services." Comments: As proposed, this area does not and will likely not in the future have easily accessible urban type services ii. Plan: Policies: Growth in Designated Centers There are small concentrations of commercial and business uses throughout Garfield County that primarily serve the needs of surrounding rural residents and rural businesses. These centers add to the economic diversity of the county. The ongoing viability of these existing centers, as well as new ones, is encouraged provided they have suitable access and services and that they meet the general guidelines identified below for the various types of centers envisioned. Rural Employment Centers. Rural employment centers are geographically consolidated areas where there is a concentration of light industrial and business park uses. This includes uses such as construction yards, equipment repair, and storage areas often found along 1-70 or SH 82. Comments: This request appears to be consistent with the intent of the rural employment center, excluding the intent of the center to "primarily serve the needs of surrounding rural residents." As proposed, this "center" would service a significant area beyond those of the nearby rural residents. A proposed center must also demonstrate suitable access and services. iii. Chapter 3, Section 1— Urban Grown Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination. Goal #3: Retain rural character outside of the UGA limits. Comment: This proposal does not retain the rural character outside of the UGA limits. In this case, the closest UGA limit (Carbondale's) is approximately 1.4 miles from the project site. S I P a g e Planning Commission September 28, 2011 CPAA-6920 Chapter 3, Section 3 —Transportation Goal #1: Ensure that county roads are constructed and maintained on a safe and fiscally sustainable basis. Comments: Significant improvements will likely be required on both CR 103 and SH 82 upon the development of a project at this site due to limited site distance, substandard stacking distance and need for acceleration, deceleration and turning lanes. These issues need to be resolved between the applicant, CDOT and County Road and Bridge. Action #2: Focus infrastructure improvements (and road maintenance) in a cost- effective pattern, in areas where growth is appropriate. Comments: Significant traffic already exists at CR 103, however it should be contemplated whether or not additional development should be determined appropriate at this location. Chapter 3, Section 4 - Economics, Employment and Tourism Policy #3: the County will encourage the development of a diversified industrial base recognizing physical location -to -market capabilities of the community, and the social and environmental impacts of industrial uses. Comments: As defined, an REC allows for light industrial and commercial park type of uses. However, the request indicates the desire for on-going operations of a concrete batch plant that would generally fall into an industrial use category. There is a limited supply of light industrial and commercial uses in this area of the county and an additional center would likely diversify allowed uses in this area. Policy #5: The County will direct industrial developments to the airport center and other appropriately designated areas. Comment: The County should designate appropriate areas for industrial use as all uses may not be appropriate to locate at/near the airport center. Wage Planning Commission September 28, 2011 CPAA-6920 Action #4: Ensure that commercial/industrial developments are compatible with adjacent land uses and preserve the visual quality of the county. Comments: Significant berming of this site, as will be implemented with their reclamation plan, may help preserve the visual quality of this part of the county. The proposed REC may be compatible with adjacent land uses considering there is limited residential development, close access to a state highway and significant public lands near this site. 3. The proposed amendment will have no major negative impacts on transportation, services, and facilities; and Comments: As reported by Turnkey Consulting, LLC in the submitted Traffic Assessment for the Powers Rural Employment Center, significant traffic impacts may result from the development of a REC at this location. However, the report does indicate the degree of improvements that may be warranted and asserts that there is the ability to mitigate the impacts with a variety of improvements ranging from acceleration/deceleration lane extensions to signallzation of the Hwy 82/CR 103 intersection. Specific improvements would be warranted only at the time of actual application for a land use change permit on the subject property. it is not anticipated that other services or facilities will be impacted by this amendment request. 4. The proposed amendment will have minimal effect on service provision, including adequacy or availability of facilities and services, and is compatible with existing and planned service provision; and Comments: No services (water/sewer) are currently provided to this site. if necessary, and pending a permit to construct uses within the REC, the project will need to supply adequate sewer and water to future uses on this site. The applicant provides information that water would likely be supplied by an existing domestic well on the property and waste water would be provided by an on-site wastewater treatment system with an active secondary treatment system, as permitted by the County. Raw water would continue to be received from the Roaring Fork River for processing and current/future irrigation uses. Minimal to no impact would be experienced for other services, including utility companies. 5. The proposed amendment is consistent with the logical expansion of services; and Comments: 68 acres of this site has been operating as an extraction and processing facility since it was permitted to continue sand and gravel extraction, processing and the establishment of a gravel washing and concrete batch plant as part of the operations in 1980. Though expanded use at this site will likely require significant intersection 71Page Planning Commission September 28, 2011 CPAA-6920 improvements along Hwy 82 and CR 103, which may present challenges to the expansion of services at this area, one could assert that due to the already disturbed nature of this site, the need to reclaim, and the interest in reusing this site is appropriate. Though minimal, this site currently serves as a place of employment and may continue to do so at a larger scale with the designation of the site as a REC. 6. The county or the general area in which an amendment is proposed has changed or is changing to such a degree that the amendment is in the public interest; and Comments. This area has not significantly changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan 2000 or 2030. However, the 2030 plan only recognized the gravel extraction operation and its impending reclamation and did not contemplate the longer term existence of the batch plant operations. Conversely, the applicant asserts that the designation of Residential -Medium is not compatible with on-going operations of the batch plant and there is a general scarcity of REC sites in this area of the county. The Planning Commission should determine if this change is in the public interest. 7. Strict adherence to the Plan would result in a situation neither intended nor in keeping with other key elements and policies of the Plan; and Comments: Staff believes it was the intent of the Comprehensive Plan 2030 to designate this area Residential -Medium, assuming that the sand and gravel operations were ceding to reclamation. However, staff does not believe that the continued operation of the concrete batch plant at this site was contemplated during the planning process. The Planning Commission should determine if the continued operation of the batch plant on this site and the addition of the REC to the Future Land Use Map is in keeping with the other key goals, policies and strategies of the plan. 8. The proposed plan amendment has a significant public benefit, will promote the public welfare, and will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and the elements thereof. Comments: The proposed REC designation has the potential for providing public benefit in that it may diversify uses in this area, provide a variety of sales and property tax generating uses, as well support the retention of the existing use on the property. The Planning Commission should determine if the requested amendment is consistent with the key goals, policies and strategies of the plan. 81P a ge Planning Commission September 28, 2011 CPAA-6920 VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was complete and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map is a Major Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2030 because it constitutes a significant change in the vision, goals policies and/or land uses o f the county. 4. That the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Ma "[IS r IS NOT] in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review this request and determine if it is appropriate to approve or deny the requested major plan amendment that would include a new Rural Employment Center on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan 2030, as requested by the applicant, or continue the public hearing in order to receive additional information that the Planning Commission care deems necessary to make a decision. If the Planning Commission moves to approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, a motio - co-° should follow to 1) recognize this request as a major amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2030, 2)--- authorize )--authorize the Chair to sign the attached Resolution thereby amending the Comprehensive Plan 2030, 3) authorize the Chair to sign the letters certifying the amendment to the BOCC, municipalities and the surrounding counties and 4)-1uthorize the secretary to sign the Future Land Use Map, as amended. 9 I P a g e From: Robert Knight To: Tamra AIlen 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 J. Knight Town Of Parachute Town Administrator (970) 285-7630 Work robertk` parachutecolarado,com EXHIBIT 1 September 12, 2011 Garfield County Planning Commission Garfi 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Crystal Ranch Dear Commissioners: TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 xi1181T . 1 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 Tamra Allen From: Michael Prehm Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 6:11 AM To: Tamra Allen Cc: Betsy Suerth Subject: Crystal Ranch Corp. 143 EXHIBIT 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 morehm(@darfield-county.com 1 SEP 1 5 2011 September 13, 2011 Ms. Tamra Allen Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNT ENGINE EXHIBIT K CIVIL AND 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, legal 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.rnountaincross-eng.coni Tamra Allen From: Michael Prelim Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:13 AM To: Tamra Allen Cc: Betsy Suerth; Deb Fiscus Subject: Crystal Ranch Corp. Tamra, .14 2 a EXHIBIT L 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 Prelim Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman / Glenwood District Office (970) 945-1223 Fax. (970) 945-1318 Cell (970) 618-7109 rnprehm@garfield-county.com 1 Tamra Allen EXHIBIT 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, Bail; 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. 1 would suggest the property owner get with CDOT this issue. The location of the access on to CR 103 isn't ideal (see attachment). 1 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 1 1 \\ 1 \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ 1 l \ \ul \ a \ \ \ t \ d \\ \\ �/ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ i \ l \ Q 0 1 \o4$y oo az _.1..1 !\ \ s -, <5� '` 4 \ 1 O [ d YQ \ ualn- w la\04 1 �t \\ i ra ` i } x w 1 i < 0 l1 a [ a 1 \ i 1 1 (Jo et � N z 0 71 / U / 041 x // / / / r wqM w 21UMWi � ,�n CIMML41110.1.I .32113V4112.. `LiVv.L7nswa 71Al.TI .7'!T .9 N1H3?N19.NaS1WrIOS n 4.61M lx,1unmo NVId EJNIGVUD :jONINOO 1N31M03s V NO19O83 0CIVtl0100'AINf]00 Ci13IdUV 1N3NCN3IW NV1d d1,1O01144/1d N01VB 313110aVO01I S83MOd 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 EXHIBIT O 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 Hacker; 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) 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 4 ; f which date only the batch plant l I \;' operation will continue. After that date, t 'r y / p 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 1211 cam KKR defined in the Comp' Plan as =nmQrYt 'Geographically consolidated areas +fir rrfx}�.y�ser c..,u "" where there is a concentration of light industrial and business park uses. This includes uses such as construction yards, equipment repair, and storage areas often found along 1-70 and SH82.") 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 Areal of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and the Highway 82 transit corridor has no future land use designation to accommodate transit related and Tight 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 BaseltJEI 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 time 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(c)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. 2 Tamra Allen Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 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 Town Planner EXHIBIT SEP 2 7 ?r:I MARSHALL September 22, 2011 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Garfield County Administration Building Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Land Use Change Permit Request at Northwest Comer 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. Catherine L. Marshall 12748 Highway 82, Carbondale, CO 81623 USA phone number 970-963-3878 1 fax number 970-963-9055 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) EXHIBIT At a Special Meeting of the Garfield County Planning Commission, held at the County Administration Building in Glenwood Springs on Wednesday, the 28th day of September, 2011, there were present: Philip Vaughan Cheryl Chandler Jock Jacober Bob Fullerton Adolfo Gorra Sean Martin Greg McKennis Andrew Gorgey Carey Gagnon Fred Jarman Tamra Allen Chairman Planning Commissioner Planning Commissioner Planning Commissioner Planning Commissioner Planning Commissioner Planning Commissioner County Attorney Assistant County Attorney PIanning Director Long Range Planner when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. PC — 2011- A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE AMENDMENT OF THE ADOPTED MASTER PLAN FOR GARFIELD COUNTY KNOWN AS THE GARFIELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF 2030. Recitals A. Garfield County is a legal and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, for which the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to act. B. Pursuant to the law, the Board of County Commissioners has duly constituted and appointed the Garfield County Planning Commission. C. Section 30-28-108, C.R.S., as amended, requires the adoption of the master plan by resolution, and authorizes the planning commission to amend, extend, or add to any master plan from time to time, also by resolution. E. The Planning Commission has from time to time adopted and amended master plans for Garfield County, the most recent being the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 as adopted by Resolution 2010-01 on November 10, 2010. Page 1 ar'3 F. The Garfield County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 28, 2011, pursuant to public notice, upon the question of whether the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 should be amended to add a Rural Employment Center to the Future Land Use Map at a site known as the "Power's Pit." G. The public hearings before the Planning Commission were extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and all interested parties were heard at those hearings. H. Section 30-28-109, C.R.S., as amended, requires the Planning Commission to certify a copy of its master plan, or any adopted part, amendment or addition of it, to the Board of County Commissioners and to the planning commissions of all municipalities within the county. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Garfield County Planning Commission as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated by this reference. 2. The Garfield County Planning Commission hereby amends the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 Future Land Use Map, as originally adopted in Exhbit A-2 of the Comprehensive Plan and as set forth and attached hereto in Exhibit A 4. Copies of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 shall be certified to the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County and to the planning commissions of each municipality within Garfield County pursuant to the provisions of Section 30-28-109 C.R.S., as amended. The Chairman of the Planning Commission shall be authorized to execute letters of certification. 5. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 shall be utilized for all purposes as authorized and required within Section 30-28-101, et seq. C.R.S., as amended. 6. The Chairman of the Planning Commission and the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall be authorized to execute all documents required to implement this resolution. 7. The effective date of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended is September 28, 2011. The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission this 28th day of September 2011, upon a motion duly made and seconded by the following vote: Philip Vaughan Cheryl Chandler Jock Jacober Bob Fullerton ay ay A e/Nay Aye ay Paec2of3 Adolfo Gorra Sean Martin Greg McKennis Aye/Nay A ,/Nay ay GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION By: Chairperson, Philip Vaughan As Secretary to the Garfield County Planning Commission, I do hereby attest that I am witness to the foregoing signature for this Resolution. ATTEST: Secretary, Bob Fullerton Date Page 3 ora Fc&J EXHIBIT Garfield County September 28, 2011 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Certification of Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 Dear Chairperson: On September 28, 2011, the Garfield County Planning Commission adopted by Resolution 2011- an amendment to the master plan for Garfield County known as the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030. Pursuant to Section 30-28-109 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Garfield County Planning Commission hereby certifies that amended plan to you, the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. Enclosed please find a copy of the adopted amendment to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030. Respectfully, Philip Vaughan, Chain n Garfield County Planning Commission Chairperson Enclosure. RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Clerk and Recorder Acting as Clerk to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners