The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.0 Staff report PC 11.13.2013Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 METCALF SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY PROJECT INFORMATION TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT (OWNER) CONSULTANT OPERATOR Major Impact Metcalf Property Management, LLC Lorne Prescott — Olsson Associates Caerus Piceance LLC LOCATION Southwest of the Town of Parachute on the north side of CR 300 (Stone Quarry Road) — SE % NW % Section 24, Township 7 South, Range 96 West of 6th P.M. SITE ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 35.079 -acres - Parcel Number 2409 - 242 -00 -158 Rural Residential Medium -High (2 to <6 acres per dwelling) I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Application for a Land Use Change Permit (LUCP) for Processing and Material Handling has been submitted for a proposed facility to treat soil, The subject property is located on the north side of County Road 300 and is owned by Metcalf Property Management, LLC. The proposed operator of the facility is Caerus Piceance LLC, an entity that just completed the purchase of Petroleum Development Corporation /PDC Energy (PDC) operations in the area, see Exhibit H. The proposed facility would utilize approximately 9.226 -acres of the ±35 -acre subject site to "...remediate hydrocarbon impacted soils prior to their beneficial reuse at [the operator's] natural gas development locations." The facility is proposed to be accessible 24 -hours a day, 7 -days a week, 365 -days per year with further information provided that 'personnel will use this facility primarily during normal working hours from approximately 7:30 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday.' The site will be utilized on an 'as- needed' basis, with transportation of the impacted soils to the site dependent upon the frequency and volume generated by the ongoing natural gas production operations. Delivery of the soils to the site will be made by 30 ton dump trucks with an estimated of maximum volume of soils managed by the facility per year equivalent to no more than 300 truckloads. Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 An overview of the process included the following information: "Land treatment or land application is an above- ground remediation technology for impacted E &P waste that reduces concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents through natural biodegradation... This technology involves using a loader with screening mechanism to remove rocks and other debris when the soil is first excavated at an off -site location. The soils are then loaded on a truck for transport to the proposed facility. The initial processing also aerates the sail and provides initial volatilization of the material and reduces the potential for odors. Once the material is transported to the proposed site, the soil is fed through a pub mill to stimulate aerobic microbial activity. This is accomplished by mixing the contaminated soil with beneficial microbes, fertilizers and moisture while further aerating it. The enhanced microbial activity will result in degradation of absorbed petroleum hydrocarbon constituents through microbial respiration. [The Applicant] anticipates that typical operation of the pugmill will provide for aeration and the addition of materials to the extent that the impacted soils can be transported from the facility for beneficial reuse almost immediately after processing. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (BOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) that occur due to volatilization of the hydrocarbons form the facility soils are addressed via the CDPHE permit approval process. In accordance with the CDPHE air quality permit, best management practices (BMPs) will be used to reduce emissions from the facility. The facility will contain one 2.76 acre remediation cell. Should the soils processed by the pugmill require additional remediation, they will be moved to the cell to allow for continued microbial respiration and degradation of adsorbed petroleum hydrocarbon constituents prior to beneficial reuse. The cell will be monitored for contaminates as described in the Operations and Maintenance Compliance Plan. When it has demonstrated by analytical testing that the processed /treated soil complies with COGCC Table 910 -1 requirements for beneficial reuse, it is [the Applicant's] intention to apply the soil elsewhere within its Piceance operational area. Potential reuse of the soil includes access road construction, berm construction, or backfill for excavations at spill remediation site. [The Applicant's] goal is to remediote certain wastes as they are produced, eliminating the need for disposal at landfill facilities. Allowable wastes include: • Water based bentonitic drilling fluids and /or associated drill cuttings. • Soil impacted by spills — produced water increases the potential for elevated sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and electrical conductivity in soils. Treated soils to be removed from the facility with elevated SAR and EC levels may be treated with an amendment such as gypsum. • Any other waste directly attributable to and characteristic of, primary gas production activities. As noted in the bullet above, some 'allowable' wastes are not recommended for the facility. Wastes not allowed at the facility include, but are not limited to: • Wastes contaminated by refined or processed materials, such as diesel, motor oil, lube oil, greases, or solvents. • Wastes generated by anyone other than [the Applicant]. 21 P a g e Planning Commission . November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 • Aerosol cans, light bulbs, batteries, or any other garbage not unique to an upstream gas producer and not qualifying as a waste exempt from hazardous regulation under Subtitle C or RCRA. Waste Preparation and Application Dewatered wastes will be transported to the facility by end -dump trucks, processed, amended via processing through the pugmill, tested for total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) and either placed in the remediation cell for treatment or transported off -site for beneficial reuse if it meets standards established by the COGCC. The volume and type of each waste will be recorded in a facility log book kept at the site and subsequently entered into an electronic waste log spreadsheet. For operational and logistical reasons, wastes may be stockpiled in the staging are prior to application in the remediation cell. The waste will be applied to a depth of approximately 12 to 18 inches. The time elapsed between spreading and tilling will be documented for each application of waste. The time between spreading and tilling will be operationally minimized to reduce VOC and HAP emissions. Tilling and Plowing The waste will be thin- spread and tilled to a depth of 12- 18 inches. Tilling serves two purposes: first, reducing VOC emissions, and second, aerating the soil. To ensure adequate oxygen exposure, the waste will not be tilled any deeper than 12 —18 inches during the waste application processes. After the initial tilling, the cell in the remediation phase will be periodically shallow tilled during the active months (approximately April — October). The shallow tilling frequency should be at least monthly, and more often to enhance bioremediation. Geo- hydrologic investigations of the soils on -site indicate a potential for permeability. Based on imput form the COGCC and the CPW, and in order to address potential impacts to the groundwater table, and impermeable layer will be installed at a depth of approximately 18 — 20 inches. Depending upon overall costs, this layer will be either: 1) bentonite clay installed to an appropriate thickness and compaction, or 2) a geo- synthetic liner. (Exhibit D — Project Description) Excerpts from 'Additional Operation Details' include: • Facility will have some positive impacts on traffic in the area as typically the remediated soils would be transported to regional landfills via the interstate highway system. • Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to ensure installation and operation of the facility will not impact surface runoff, stream flow, or groundwater. • A Drainage Plan addresses flows on and off the site and will accommodate a 100 year, 24 hour off -site storm event. The retention pond will accommodate a 25 year on -site storm event. 3 I P a g e Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 • Hydrocarbon based liquids such as fuel or tankage will be stored on -site, if necessary. (Exhibit D - Project Description, Page 5). • No fuel, except contained within equipment, will be stored on the proposed facility. (Exhibit D — Standards, Page 5). • Potable water will be delivered to the site on an as- needed basis to be utilized on the same day therefore water storage is not anticipated. • Water used in the remediation process and for dust suppression is subject to a water supply contract with the Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD), Contact No. CW06004. The water will be drawn from a water draw facility located north of the Town of Parachute. • To ensure water quality, the Operator] will install one (1) ground water monitoring well down gradient of the facility. (Exhibit D — Standards, Page 5). • Solid waste refuse will be stored in wildlife proof containers. (Exhibit D — Standards, Page 5) — not clear if only during construction of facility. • All trash will be removed from the site by personnel when they leave the site. (Exhibit W — Response to Staff Questions, Page 8; and Response to Agency Comments, Page 21). The submitted Water Supply Plan proposes to utilize water from the Chevron Water Draw facility, located at the base of Garden Gulch approximately seven (7) miles northwest of the Town of Parachute. The application of water to the soils is necessary "...to facilitate the application and maintain the viability of the microbes which are applied as part of the remediation process." (Exhibit D — Water Supply Plan, Page 1) Requested Waivers included: Submittal Requirements Water Supply Plan, Landscape Plan, and Improvements Agreement; Minimum Standards— Roadway Standards - exceeding 10% road grade. In addition to a Garfield County LUCP, this proposed use requires Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission ( COGCC) permit for an "E &P Waste Facility" which is assessed within the context of the COGCC Form 2A and regulated in accordance with COGCC Rule 303; air quality permits such as a Construction Permit (issued April 3, 1013) and an Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) from Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ( CDPHE), potential for additional permits based upon equipment utilized at the site; monitoring well permits from the Colorado Division of Water Resources; a Construction Stormwater Permit from CDPHE (Exhibit D - O &M, Page 6). f ' ,..n' -11 Al ,rey h.. IL+ Crew oa. ,1E tiZEL 7 CONTOUR INf€RVALS 8th P.M. y .acrfs'w�a � I l Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 r a � / ARStN1 +CCES7 ,up * MA Mp ((AL W1 YYFL T p IY �SFMAP,N1JM60M1 LaPA'J NM !MIL 4� y \ /j M nug LS/ 2NAU 2241IR u NNIN! ALA PLA Y UNf. TONY 9fU A A6Q3 ACgl1 N019 lot LCCATCN (1 sou N 1t$r CM MAN) 24' 14,14124 N64.4!! N'f■A1MNA1m 71/0N00019AttA IT L P Cu+L11 CI (FfY (6 II ) CNSTNO 9'd410246 042401 (4) NNW i-osma fitON N6Aa MUNI fiCR m+6 .11L,1, of 4149 4L7 4641:9f1 AEU! aim i g,t ia", O1 Y 1ROFlA MILS co,„,„„ Ca r awry im rim* MU! mug AVp,�tiffAp pnpwlw0 AFtC fro 101AM 51 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 II, ADJACENT USES AND ZONING Adjacent properties to this site include the Battlement Mesa PUD; large lot residential and agricultural parcels to the west and south zoned as Rural; and the Colorado River and floodplain to the north (Rural). The map, left, indicates the subject site outlined in blue, and adjacent zone districts including the Floodplain Overlay zone district. The map below intends to graphically indicate the developed areas and Public /Semi- Public /Recreation areas within the adjacent PUD. Stone 1-Mige Monument Creek Village Metcall Site Ik1111111114110 Saddleback 6L+' Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 46` 'ep� `vim t 1 v' � .•� ,� itrit r / `, � i ;� # fiii64 c 1.11 d'.j.i'h°t `4 , iiiat� K i+ . i . ''-'1';',%;;t:::1 +i 1-1,1.7.1.--1;. ' 1 fillitab� r �Ci}' ilk', ��4 r� 'R1L 't�/ `I.!.lf I .s¢ %tS,'I It s'tE 1i *4i AI' .flr 'w4I.4'6t'j i -'.'J. r -'" ;`J•1.,U1 6c' . r r rr�rral ^ 6.4 git64 :-, 1 f Jr. ••,rlt t{ sly, �+, t 1111N 1111 Et 1 y∎. l',/,;:!......!,!, 11 1:.1`t s t' -• i i 1°L 1+ /}t .ME..EJa 1 _ � Itat � ` !�! /�[ • '., llrifi. �t,liadt~ •r•Irr .".,,tuaL 4't•V_ ttittl,' jj , �-. in. t/a A1j r"tiY „rr' 1,1110Aptrr. !I1 't {'141 .'1:. h t Ret. :'tEftl.l 'r 11- C t. Nl frJ►HIA .'v R.' / .,s�A }�j dti z< 1, �' irrr'rr +vVrrr +1r tt r+"i , Fj. i '� �/ r+� Q4 P* '' 1. 3TP 1tl��f ✓ i . 1, i+"aCT..,.- ,s.a5.7YT 1 r^.?1i.11 j h ✓ +r�t4' The map, above, is an aerial view of the subject site and the adjacent residential communities. Battlement Mesa PUD PSR zone district is immediately adjacent to the proposed facility and is an area that permits uses such as school sites, government office, police and fire stations, library, day -care centers, public and semi - public health care centers, recreation uses, churches, community center, water well sites, sewage treatment facilities, water treatment and storage facilities and other public and private utility facilities and buildings, open space and parks. Extraction and processing of natural resources is listed as a Special Use in the zone district. 111. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Submittal documentation was forwarded to the numerous federal, state and local agencies for review and response. Comments have been received from: Garfield County Road and Bridge: Garfield County Sheriff: Garfield County Vegetation Management: Garfield County Oil & Gas Liaison: Garfield County Environmental Health: Mountain Cross Engineering: Colorado Department of Transportation: Colorado Parks and Wildlife: Grand Valley Fire District: Battlement Mesa Service Association: Planning Staff: Exhibit 1 'No Comment' Exhibit M and AE Verbal - confirmation of COGCC application Exhibit 0 and V Exhibits N and AG Exhibit K Exhibit R, Y and AB Exhibit L Exhibit AF Exhibit U Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 No response was received from the following agencies: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - Water Quality Control Division Town of Parachute United States Army Corps of Engineers IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS SECTION 4 -203 G. IMPACT ANALYSIS Where the proposed Development will impact specific features of the site, the Applicant shall describe both the existing conditions and the potential changes created by the project. 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: This information has been submitted. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1,500 -foot radius. Staff Comment: Applicant response is that the site is located between CR 300 and the Colorado River. Adjacent uses include an electrical power line to the south along with hay fields and meadows. An Open Space tract and the RV /Manufactured Home Park within Battlement Mesa is to the east and rural residential uses are located to the west. 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. Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 81t Olia. Facing NW from driveway on -site Staff Comment: Response contained in the application describes the project area as being located on a bench approximately 25 to 55 feet above the Colorado River being relatively flat with a gentle slope toward the river. A bluff is located near the east boundary of the property with the top of the bluff approximately 70 feet above the site. An intermittent drainage is located along the western boundary of the project site. The site is currently used as a hay field. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site that have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: NRCS Soil Survey information was provided that the facility area consists primarily of Nihill Channery Loam which is a deep, well - drained soil with a moderately high to high capacity to transmit water. The Geologic and Soil Hazard Report includes other types of soils on the site that also consist of characteristics that include moderately high to high transmission of water. Conclusions and Summary of the report include consideration of Stormwater controls and BMP's due to the geology and soil present at the location and that pits and catchment basins should be site and designed so as not to add weight to potentially unstable area. 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or manmade hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: The Applicant utilizes Garfield County GIS data to state that overall geologic and soils hazards appear to be low. Supporting materials contained in the application included a Geologic and Soil Hazard Report and supplemental information was provided, Exhibit W, in the form of a Geology and Hydrology report. Geologic and Soil Hazard Report _ The site is "...located in an area of Garfield County that has been mapped by Garfield County for landslides or landslide potential. No major 91 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 slope hazards have been identified in the immediate area. And "Much of the Wasatch Formation consists of fine - grained materials that are weakly cemented. These materials are often overlain by indurated strata that are more resistant to weathering...resulting in different erosion rates and over steepening of slopes. The Wasatch Formation also may contain expansive clay minerals that can reduce rock strength and slope stability." Geology and Hydrology — Section 7.0 Possible Mitigation, states "This site is not well suited for a COGCC Rule 908 Centralized E &P Waste Management Facility due to its proximity to the Colorado River, and considering the surficial geology of the site. The part of parcel 240924200158 proposed for the PDC soil treatment facility development consists of fan deposits derived from mudflow and landslides that have advance out onto the Colorado River floodplain. Once earthflows and landslides occur in an area, it is likely that future slides will occur in the same areas." The report also states that there is an "...intermittent drainage that runs parallel to the south side of Stone Quarry Road that drains the northeast flank of High Mesa. This drainage collects the flow from approximately 19 intermittent tributary drainages on the northeast flank of High Mesa and discharges to the Colorado River through an existing drainage located along the southwest and west sides of the proposed soil treatment facility location." The report recommends 'diversion of surface water flows around or away from the facility' and recommend that 'the channel will need to be designed with engineering controls with a capacity to capture the expected runoff for a 100 year storm event and control the expected volume of the drainage basin that lies between the Stone Quarry Gulch to the east and the Dry Creek.' Other recommendations include grading for stormwater collection and retaining moisture from the impacted materials onsite. The report indicates that "The site is located on an alluvial fan which can flood during high precipitation events or during exceptionally high runoff periods. The drainage along the toe of the slope of High Mesa and south of the proposed site location poses a risk to material draining into the Colorado River from the proposed site location in the event of a high enough precipitation event and engineering controls are needed to mitigate this risk." 6. 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: Response to this issue, and potential impact, was addressed by describing the site as being located directly above the Colorado River and the 100 -year floodplain. Off -site stormwater runoff will be prevented from entering the treatment area by development of a swale and berms will direct on -site stormwater to a retention pond that is proposed to be located between the treatment area and the Colorado River. Originally one monitoring was planned for the facility but additional information has been submitted that a total of three (3) monitoring well is proposed, two down - gradient and one up- gradient from the treatment area. Existing domestic wells on the site are proposed to be plugged. 10 1 P a g e Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 7. Environmental Impacts. 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: Native vegetation on the site is minimal due to the prior disturbance of the site and use of the property for hay production. Grass /forb species and shrub will be removed and vegetation can be restored to its present condition. Wetland vegetation was observed along portions of the intermittent drainage located at the western edge of the project area. Potential impacts to wildlife include critical habitat for four federally- listed fish species, impacts on raptor nesting habitat and disturbance of elk and mule deer. Mitigation can occur to protect fish species by preventing increased sedimentation into the Colorado River and hydrocarbon impacted soils by design and construction of the retention pond. WestWater Engineering (WWE) recommends implementation and application of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Spill Prevention measures. A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan may not be required and therefore may not be implemented. Wildlife - WWE found no direct impacts to raptor nesting habitat which does not occurs within a '4 mile of the site and that 'due to the available habitat surrounding the project area, it is likely that birds would relocate to alternate breeding and foraging areas.' It is important to note that WWE stated that the raptor surveys were conducted past the annual nesting season for raptors and other migratory birds present in Western Colorado. (Exhibit D — Wildlife and Vegetative Analysis, Page 1) Facing SE from retention pond area WWE goes on to say that the soil treatment facility would be located within mile of trees used for roosting by Bald Eagle and nesting for Great Blue Heron. It is unlikely impact will occur from this facility due to proximately of oil and gas activities and residential housing. Page 9 Elk and Mule Deer disturbance may occur due to human presence and activities and may cause avoidance of the area. It is likely that elk and deer populations that currently use this are habituated to human presence. WWE has noted that the facility is located within CPW mapped mule deer overall winter range, severe winter range and winter 111 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 concentration area. The site is also located within Elk overall winter range, severe winter range and winter concentration area. "It is likely that in addition to migrating big game, the habitat is utilized to some extent by resident populations of deer. The elements necessary to provide year -round habitat for this species (forage, water, and cover) are present in or near the project area." Page 6 Black bear impacts are possible, particularly if garbage or food is available on the site. b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, and historic resources; Staff Comment: A letter report of findings related to a Class I Cultural Resources Study was provided by Flattops Archaeological Consultants. This letter recommends a finding of "no historical properties affected." c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical Wildlife Habitat; Staff Comment: As stated under the Flora and Fauna section of this code WWE findings resulted in minimal impact to wildlife habitat. d. 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: WWE stated that the proposed facility would not create a hazardous attraction. Further, that no migration corridors will be affected and that project construction has a low potential to affect wildlife in a negative manner. e. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments; and Staff Comment: No potential radiation hazards were identified in the application materials which researched CDPHE and Garfield County websites for information. f. Spill prevention control and counter measures plan, if applicable. Staff Comment: Analysis of potential impact related to spills was addressed by stated that "A SPCC Plan is not applicable at this facility because of the mount of petroleum liquids contained at this site is less than the threshold required to trigger such a plan. However, PUDC will immediately remove and properly dispose of any soil contaminated by any minor spills associated with the operation of equipment and the transfer of fuel at this site." (Exhibit D — Impact Analysis, Page 5) 12 1 P a e e Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 8. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comment: "Adjacent property will not be impacted by generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations." (Exhibit D — Impact Analysis, Page 5) Limitations are proposed when actual operation and movement of soil will take place to Monday through Friday during regular work hours. The application also states that activities and the use of internal combustion engines will be minimal and intermittent due to the proposal to deliver equipment to the site as- needed and remove it when the processing is complete. Further statements: • That the land use will not cause air quality to be reduced below acceptable levels established by Colorado Public Health and Environment; • A Construction Permit (air permit) has been issued; • Odor impacts will be minimized via adherence to CDPHE air quality permitting...a majority of the volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the soil will be dissipated during excavation, loading and transporting the material to the site. • Operation of the facility will not exceed the noise standards established by COGCC. 9. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7 -212. Staff Comment: Steve Anthony, County Vegetation Manager, has responded to the referral request, Exhibits M and AE, with the original comments submitted without benefit of knowing that the project was proposed to be temporary. Temporary facilities are subject to reclamation (restoration of the site to pre - project standards) as well as revegetation. Longer term projects are not required to provide reclamation plans or security to assure completion of reclamation. Mr. Anthony has recommended that the Applicant be required to provide ? ?? DIVISION 1. GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS. The following standards are approval standards that shall apply to all proposed Land Use Changes, including Divisions of Land, not otherwise exempt from the standards set forth in this Code. 13 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2 013 MIPA7593 SECTION 7 -101. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONE DISTRICT USE RESTRICTIONS. . The Land Use Change shall comply with Article 3, Zoning, including any applicable zone district use restrictions and regulations. Staff Comment: The proposed facility is permissible upon issuance of Land Use Change Permit for Processing and Material Handling through a Major Impact review. SECTION 7 -102. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS. The Land Use Change is in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and complies with any applicable Intergovernmental Agreement. Staff Comment: The Applicant has stated that the facility "...generally conforms to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The site is classified as Residential MH — 2 to <6 acres per dwelling unit in Garfield County Comprehensive Plan." (Exhibit D - Standards, Page 1) This statement is supported by Mineral Extraction Policies: Section 9 — Mineral Extraction — Policies 2. Mineral resource extraction activities will protect critical wildlife habitat as identified by state and federal agencies. Development within these designations that cannot be designed, constructed and conducted so as to have a minimum adverse impact upon such habitat or these wildlife species shall be discouraged. 4. Facilities that are appurtenances to oil /gas development activities (compressors, etc.) are considered appropriate in all land uses so long as they meet the respective mitigation requirements of the ULUR to maintain compatibility with surrounding land uses. Staff disagrees with the applicability of Policy 4 to this proposal. The premise that a soil remediation facility is an 'appurtenance' to Oil & Gas extraction and production activities is questionable as typically these soils have been disposed of in landfills or used on -site for reclamation of the well pad. This processing of soils is not an activity that is necessary to extract or produce natural gas, nor is this activity necessary in the transportation or processing of the gas itself. This facility is an industrial use of processing that just happens to process soils impacted by hydro- carbons produced during natural gas activities. Further, the acceptance of these other activities (compressors, etc) in all land uses is due to the necessity of location — a compressor station must be located proximate to a pipeline which is necessary to be located proximate to the location that the gas is produced. The proposed location of the Metcalf Soil Remediation facility is not proximate to the location where the hydrocarbon impacted soils are created, nor is the site located proximate to the source of water proposed to be utilized in the processing of the soils. The remediation process can occur in any location, whereas appurtenant O &G uses are dependent upon a particular location or vicinity proximate to O &G production. 14 I Planning Commission November 13, 2013 M IPA7593 Other components of the proposed project are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are itemized in the Staff comment letter to the Applicant, dated October 11, 2013 (Exhibit U) and include the following issues: 1. Future Land Use Map a. Residential Medium High designation for the site - recommended density of 2 to less than 6 dwelling units per acres. This designation includes a description of small farms, estates and clustered residential subdivisions with compatible zoning listed as Rural and PUD. b. Adjacent designations include Urban Growth Area (Town of Parachute) and Residential High Density for battlement Mesa. c. Resource Production /Natural (RPN) is listed appropriate for agricultural and grazing land used primarily for oil, gas, oil shale, coal mining...including support buildings and facilities needed for the natural resource extraction industry... Economy, Employment and Tourism includes statement regarding encouragement to develop a diversified industrial base...recognizing physical location -to- market capabilities of the community, and the social and environmental impacts of industrial uses. This section also states that "the County will direct industrial development to the airport center and other appropriately designated areas. 3. Natural Resources - Policies 1.: The county will encourage and cooperate with the protection of critical habitat including state and federally protected, threatened, or endangered species; Policies 2.: Garfield County will encourage the protection of watershed, flood plains, and riparian areas. 4. Mineral Extraction - Policies 1: Garfield County recognizes that surface and mineral owners have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to extract and develop these interests. Private property owners also have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to have the mineral estate developed in a reasonable manner to have adverse impacts mitigated. SECTION 7-103. COMPATIBILITY. The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed use are compatible with adjacent land uses and will not result in an adverse impact to adjacent land. Staff Comment: The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated that this industrial use is compatible with the adjacent developed residential community of Battlement Mesa, rural agricultural and residential uses, the Colorado River, or with the hydrology, geology and soils of the site. SECTION 7 -104. SUFFICIENT ADEQUATE, LEGAL, AND PHYSICAL SOURCE OF WATER. All applications for Land Use Change Permits shall have an adequate, reliable, physical, long -term, and legal water supply to serve the use. Staff Comment: Potable water is not proposed to be provided on the site as the Water Supply Plan has stated that water will be delivered to the site on the same day as soils are delivered for processing. 15 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 Water necessary for the processing and remediation of the hydrocarbon impact soil appears to be an adequate, reliable, physical and legal water supply to serve the use. The question of 'long -term' may not be applicable to this project due to the three -year limitation requested. Water is proposed to be provided from the Chevron Water Draw. A Substitute Water Supply Plan, and non - potable water supply contracts with both the Colorado River Water Conservation District and West Divide Water Conservancy District entitles the operator to the water. In addition, the application contains the following statement "On rare occasions, fresh water used for operational activities at the proposed facility may also be secured from a licensed provided with demonstrated access to water supplies." SECTION 7 -105. ADEQUATE CENTRAL WATER DISTRIBUTION AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS. The Land Use Change shall be served by water distribution and wastewater systems that are adequate to serve the proposed use and density. Staff Comment: Central Water and Wastewater Distribution Systems are not proposed at this facility. SECTION 7 -106. ADEQUATE PUBLIC UTILITIES. Adequate Public Utilities shall be available to serve the Land Use Change. Staff Comment: Public utilities — natural gas, electric, etc. are not necessary for the operation of this facility. SECTION 7 -107. ACCESS AND ROADWAYS. All roads shall be designed to road design standards set forth in Section 7 -308 and all roads shall be reviewed by the County Engineer. Staff Comment: Upon issuance of a revised driveway permit and construction of required improvements, the site will have access to County Road 300. The traffic study appears to demonstrate that adequate capacity exists on the roads utilized in the proposed haul route. The driveway access has been described by the Applicant as having sight distance slightly less than desirable distance and installation of warning signs on CR 300 will alert drivers of entering /exiting trucks. The traffic study described the site distance analysis as "...either way is limited by horizontal curves on CR 300..." and "there are no stated adjustments for truck stopping sight distance as there are many factors that both increase and reduce sight distance needed for a truck. In this case, due to the horizontal curves on CR 300, it was assumed that there would be an increased need for truck's stopping distance." The engineer concludes that "While it would be desirable to provide the required sight distance, CR 300 is a very low volume and low speed roadway and the available intersection sight distance is not grossly inadequate." The site does not meet the minimum requirements with regard to sight distance. The low volume, low speed of CR 300 does not mitigate the safety issues, nor does it bring the site into compliance with sound engineering standards. The Applicant's engineer stated that an increase in the truck's stopping distance was needed due to physical characteristics of CR 300. 161 ' Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 SECTION 7 -108. NO SIGNIFICANT RISK FROM NATURAL HAZARDS. The use is not subject to significant risk from Natural Hazards and will not exacerbate existing Natural Hazards. Staff Comment: Hydrology, soil, and geology were all identified as potential natural hazards that exist on this site. Vegetation surrounding stream area minerals that can reduce rock strength and slope stability. Hydrologic concerns includes the flood plain for the Colorado River and potential impact to the river, as well as concern related to the intermittent /ephemeral stream on the west side of the project area. Soils on the site are described as containing a moderately high to high transmission of water and mitigation measures proposed include diversion of water so as not to add weight to potentially unstable areas. Further, the Geologic and Soil Hazard Report states that the area may contain expansive clay Geology of the site is mapped for landslides and landslide potential. The Geology and Hydrology report states that the site is not well suited for the facility due to its proximity to the Colorado River, and in consideration of the surficial geology of the site. DIVISION 2. GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS. The following resource protection standards shall apply to all proposed Land Use Changes, including Divisions of Land and exempt Subdivisions, not otherwise exempt from the standards set forth in this Code. SECTION 7 -201. AGRICULTURAL LANDS. Staff Comment: The application states that the project will not adversely impact to agricultural operations in the area, and that an 8' tall fence will enclose the project area in order to reduce impacts to agricultural operations and livestock. On and off-site irrigation ditches will be protected by implementation of the drainage plan and stormwater controls. SECTION 7 -202. WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS. The Applicant shall consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife or a qualified Wildlife biologist in determining how best to avoid or mitigate impacts to Wildlife Habitat areas. 17 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 Staff Comment: WestWater Engineering (WWE) completed an analysis of the proposed project and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) have commented on the project, Exhibits R, Y and AB. Facing SW from area of retention pond Wildlife habitat areas that have been identified for potential impact include critical habitat for four federally- listed fish species, raptor nesting habitat and disturbance to elk and mule deer. The Applicant has proposed to mitigate concern with fish species by implementing stormwater BMP's which would prevent increased sedimentation in the river and construction of a retention pond to prevent discharge of hydrocarbon impacted soils to the river. WWE stated that it is unlikely that impact will occur to raptors and that elk and mule deer have become acclimated to human presence. CPW review of the proposal identified that "The project location is utilized year -round by many species of game and non -game wildlife. The site lies within areas mapped by CPW as mule deer sever winter concentration range, elk winter concentration rand and wild turkey production areas. Additionally, the site is located within the floodplain of the Colorado River near a Bald Eagle Night Roost site and is directly adjacent to riparian habitat. Riparian habitat typically exhibits the highest level of species diversity in the state and is a critical ecological component of the landscape. Finally, the proposed soil treatment site lies less than a % mile from the Colorado River in an area of critical habitat for four - federally listed fish species." (Exhibit R) CPW recommendations include the following: 1. Prevention of contaminants from reaching the Colorado River: a. Use of Best Management Practices to contain runoff including an impermeable berm surrounding the entire soil treatment field that has been engineered to withstand a 100 - year flood event. b. Prevent seepage into the ground by use of an impermeable ground layer underlying the treatment field. 181. Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA75g3 c. Retention basins and removal of standing water at 50% capacity levels should be considered to account for excess stormwater or spring run -off. 2. Facility operation timeframe should be limited with ceasing of operations between December 1 through April 15 to address disturbance to elk and mule deer. Activities during operation periods should be limited to daylight hours to reduce disturbance to wildlife. 3. Exclude wildlife from the soil treatment area by a 6 -foot high chain link fence. 4. Water source concerns — Exhibits Y and AB identify this issue as having been adequately addressed by the Applicant. 5. Recommendation to utilize on -site irrigation water — this has been addressed as above. 6. Testing of groundwater should occur bi- annually for presence of contaminates. 7. Install and utilize bear -proof dumpsters and trash receptacles pursuant to COGCC Rule 1204 a -1. Applicant response to these issues was provided and additional review and comments were provided by CPW. It would appear that the impermeable berm issue, water source concerns and requirement for bear -proof trash cans recommendations have been rescinded and that all other recommendations have been agree to by Caerus (Exhibit W — Response to Referral Agency Comments). SECTION 7 -203. PROTECTION OF WETLANDS AND WATERBODIES. Staff Comment: Exhibit D — Wildife and Vegetation Impact Analysis, Pages 1 and 2 - "During biological surveys, WWE biologists also recorded any potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (WoUS) and associated wetlands. Width and depth of WOUS were recorded where they would be directly impacted by project construction." MNUM 1IN TrKGNNI /�IIIry �I.I9S I Wml I\4.W 1N.54 N0•u1 .Iw.ny sera "The site would be located in a relatively flat area adjacent to the Colorado River. There is an intermittent drainage located along the western boundary of the project area that is approximately 2 feet wide by 2 inches deep (Figure 1). Wetland vegetation was also observed along portions of the drainage." It appears that there is potential for wetlands to be located on the site, particularly in the vicinity 19 4 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 of the intermittent drainage. Additional information should be provided on presence of wetlands on this site and the potential impact to those wetlands if the Planning Commissioner seeks to make a recommendation of approval of the project. The Applicant has stated that they are not located within 35' of the highwater mark of the Colorado River and the intermittent stream however no documentation was provided with regard to the location of the highwater mark of these Waterbodies. Likewise, the Applicant has not adequately demonstrated compliance with further prohibition of activities within the restrictive inner buffer zone — such as construction or excavation activities, and disturbance of natural surface drainage characteristics. SECTION 7 -204. WATER QUALITY FROM POLLUTANTS. The following regulations shall apply to all Land Use Change Permits. A. Compliance with State and Federal Regulations. Staff Comment: The proposed site will be operated in compliance with all State and Federal regulations. B. Storage Near Waterbodies Restricted. 1. The storage of hazardous materials within 100 horizontal feet of any Waterbody is restricted. When no practical alternative exists, site specific best management practices shall be employed to minimize potential adverse water quality impacts. 2. Sand and salt for road traction shall not be stored within 100 horizontal feet of any Waterbody unless there is no practicable alternative, in which case suitable Site specific best management practices shall be utilized. Staff Comment: The Applicant proposes to store and treat the soil within 100' of the intermittent stream on the west side of the project area. The definition of 'hazardous' is based upon the ULUR which defers to CDPHE. The Applicant has responded to this concern that no hazardous materials will be on this site. C. Spill Prevention. Staff Comment: The Applicant has responded that a SPCC Plan is not required since no hydrocarbon liquids or associated tanks will be located at the facility. D. Machine Maintenance. Staff Comment: The Applicant has responded that no machine maintenance will occur within 100 feet of any waterbody. Should the Planning Commission seek to recommend approval, Staff would recommend the addition of a condition that "No maintenance of Equipment or Machinery shall be permitted at this site." Since the equipment and machinery will be delivered as needed to the site there should be no need to provide maintenance on -site. This restriction would further protect the Waterbodies from potential impact. E. Fuel storage Areas. Staff Comment: The Applicant states that no fuel will be stored on -site, however fuel will be delivered on an as- needed basis. Restrictions regarding where this fuel transfer can occur on -site, and necessary 20 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 precautions to prevent a spill, should be required if the Planning Commission would recommend approval of this project. F. Waste Storage. Staff Comment: The Applicant states that no waste shall be stored on the proposed facility (even though the project is entitled `E &P Waste Facility?) SECTION 7 -205. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. All land development, excluding agricultural grading activities, disturbing 1 acre or more are subject to the CDPHE, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, unless otherwise exempted by CDPHE. Staff Comment: The Applicant states that the proposed facility will obtain all necessary CDPHE permits for this site and that a Stormwater Permit (COR03K530) has been issued. This meets the requirement for the NPDES Permit. The site has been designed to prevent off-site stormwater from entering the site while on-site stormwater is self - contained. SECTION 7 -206. DRAINAGE. Staff Comment: This standard requires that design of the project facilitate positive drainage and that the site drainage coordinate with the area pattern. The application contained a Drainage Report prepared for the facility. No comments with regard to drainage issues were provided by the reviewing engineer. SECTION 7 -207. STORMWATER RUN -OFF. These standards shall apply to any new development within 100 feet of a Waterbody and to any other development creating 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area. Staff Comment: A Stormwater Management Plan and Stormwater Permit are in place for the facility. SECTION 7-208. AIR QUALITY. The Land Use Change shall not cause air quality to be reduced below acceptable levels established by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. 21 1 • Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 Staff Comment: The Applicant states that the project will not cause impacts to air quality or impact from odor to be reduced below the level established by CDPHE. Many of the public comment letters received identify air quality and odors as an issue. Project compliance with the minimum standards required by CDPHE may still result in impacts to the adjacent community. SECTION 7-209. AREAS SUBJECT TO WILDFIRE HAZARDS. The following standards shall apply to Land Use Changes in areas subject to wildfire hazards, as identified on the County Wildfire Hazards Map. Staff Comment: The site is designated as having a low wildfire hazard potential. SECTION 7 -210. AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS. The Development shall be designed to eliminate or mitigate the potential effects of hazardous site conditions by a qualified professional geotechnical engineer. Staff Comment: Garfield County GIS Mapping includes this site within the Geologic Hazards Study Area as indicated by the dark pink line in the maps below. Left is the Colorado River Floodplain and right is the all major hazards map. The application contained a Geological and Soil Hazard Report and Supplement Information, Exhibit W, contained a Geology and Hydrology report prepared for the proposed facility. These reports indicate that the site is composed of Landslide Deposits or Colluvial Deposits consisting of earthflow, mudflow, landslide and talus deposits. The unconsolidated gravels that comprise the 22 I Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 rnudflow and fan gravel have been transported to their present position as successive mudflows and debris - clogged streams from intermittent streams in the area. The Applicant has responded that the site is not within any mapped hazard areas for landslide, rockfall, avalanche, mudflow or alluvial fan. Further that the site is not located on a slope of 20% or greater. The Geology and Hydrology, Exhibit W, report contains the following statements: The shallow aquifer for the area of the proposed site consists of young terrace, mudflow, landslide and fan gravels of the Grand Mesa formation. The proposed PDC land treatment cell will be constructed on an alluvial fan deposit that lies approximately 30 feet to 50 feet above the 100 year floodplain of the Colorado River. SECTION 7 -211. AREAS WITH ARCHEOLOGICAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL, OR HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE. The proposed Land Use Change shall be designed to avoid or mitigate negative impacts upon previously identified archeological, paleontological, and historical resources that exist in areas to be affected by the proposed Development. Staff Comment: There are no mapped resources within the project area. SECTION 7 -212. RECLAMATION. Staff Comment: Reclamation is applicable to this site due to the fact that the facility is proposed to be temporary, for a period of three years. Steve Anthony, County Vegetation Manager, responded with comments in Exhibits M and AE that the revegetation requirements will apply to the 10 -acre site at $2,500.00 per acre for a required revegetation security in the amount of $25,000.00. DIVISION 3. SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. These standards shall apply to all Land Use Changes proposing 2 -unit and multi -unit dwellings, Commercial and Industrial Use, and Divisions of Land not otherwise exempt from this Code. SECTION 7 -301. COMPATIBLE DESIGN. The design of Development associated with the Land Use Change shall be compatible with and enhance the existing character of adjacent uses. A. Site Organization. Staff Comment: The site design and organization does take into account the relationship to streets. B. Operational Characteristics. The operations of activities on the site shall be managed to avoid nuisances to adjacent uses relating to hours of operations, parking, service delivery, and location of service areas and docks. 1, Objectionable Emissions. Dust, odors, gas, fumes, and glare shall not be emitted at levels that are objectionable to adjacent property. 23 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 2. Noise. Noise shall not exceed state noise standards pursuant to C.R.S., Article 12 of Title 25, as amended, unless the use is regulated by the COGCC. In this case, the use shall be subject to COGCC Rule 802, Noise Abatement. 3. Hours of Operation. Hours of operation shall be established to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses. 4. Roadway System Impacts. Impacts to the County roadway system associated with hauling, truck traffic, and equipment use shall be mitigated through roadway improvements or impact fees, or both. Staff Comment: Objectionable emissions and noise are concerns identified in the public comment letters received and by the Battlement Mesa Service Association, Exhibit AF. Hours of operation have been recommended by the CPW as daylight hours with further limitations on operations between December 1 and April 15. A noise analysis was included in the submittal materials which indicate that operation of the facility will remain within acceptable decibel levels as established by the COGCC. Roadway impacts will occur however the proposed route is on a haul route, access to the site has also been identified as an issue. C. Lighting. Staff Comment: It is unknown what lighting is proposed for the site as conflicting information has been provided. Either no lighting will be installed or emergency lighting will be utilized, as necessary, with sources being shielded and inward facing. Since the hours of operation are restricted to daylight hours it would appear that the only lighting necessary would be for security purposes. Should the Planning Commission seek to recommend approval Staff would suggest a condition requiring a lighting plan compliant with the ULUR. D. Buffering. Staff Comment: The ULUR requires that buffering shall be installed to mitigate visual, noise, or similar impacts to adjacent property whenever adjacent uses are in a different zoning district. The subject site is zoned Rural while Battlement Mesa is zoned as PUD. No buffering is proposed, and the Applicant has responded the adjacent PUD zoning is Open Space. Further, the RV Park is on top of a bluff and therefore the site is not visible. Other zoning adjacent to the site is Rural. E. Materials. Staff Comment: Not applicable. F. Building Scale. Staff Comment: Not applicable. 241Pa ge Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 General Staff Comment: Compatibility, as defined by the ULUR, includes elements such as traffic and access with other important characteristics as landscaping, lighting, noise and odor. These components should allow differing uses to be located near or adjacent to other in harmony. Adjacent residential uses will be impacted with regard to these elements and characteristics if the proposal is approved. The approval of this project will not enhance the existing character of adjacent uses. SECTION 7 -302. BUILDING DESIGN. Staff Comment: Not applicable to this proposal as no buildings are proposed. SECTION 7 -303. DESIGN AND SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT. Staff Comment: The Applicant response is that the site will be disturbed on an ongoing basis and will be revegetated upon ceasing of facility use. SECTION 7 -304. OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS. Staff Comment: The application states that the soil and all necessary equipment will be delivered to the site as necessary. This necessitates a loading area to SECTION 7 -305. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS. A. General Standards B. Multi - Family, Commercial, and Industrial Development. 1. Lots in a Residential Zoning. District that contain multi- family dwellings and Lots in the Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts shall be landscaped in the areas not covered by impervious materials. 2. Landscaping shall be installed to effectively buffer proposed Commercial or Industrial Uses from surrounding Residential Uses and to provide a landscaped buffer along collector and arterial streets. 3. Landscaping in multi - family, commercial and industrial Development Areas shall be used to screen from view uses such as trash enclosures, storage areas, mechanical equipment, loading docks, and similar items where such areas are visible from public roads, sidewalks, or Open Space. Staff Comment: The application requested waiver of the submittal requirement of a landscape Plan, however a waiver from compliance with the minimum standards of the code was not requested. If the Planning Commission seeks to recommend approval of the project Staff would recommend that adequate landscaping be required to buffer the site as required by this section of the code. SECTION 7 -306. LIGHTING STANDARDS. Staff Comment: No activity should be occurring on the site after daylight, pursuant to comments from CPW — Exhibits R and Y. The Applicant has stated that no lighting, other than for emergency purposes is currently proposed and that any lighting utilized at the site will meet the requirements for downcast, shielded, flashing, and hazardous lighting. (Exhibit D — Impact Analysis, Page 5). The Applicant should clarify if lighting is proposed for the site and, if so, where the lighting is located and information related to the provision of power. A condition of approval is recommended if the Planning Commission seeks to conditionally approve the request. 25 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 SECTION 7 -307. SNOW STORAGE STANDARDS. Staff Comment: The application states that snow will be stored in a vacant section of the existing disturbed area, however this is not indicated on the site plan. Even with facility use limited to April 15 and November 30th there is a need for snow storage on the site. This is critical information due to the locations proximity to both an intermittent stream and the Colorado River. If a recommendation of approval is issued by the Planning Commission Staff would suggest a condition requiring designation of the snow storage area on the site plan with the information further reviewed and determined sufficient by Mountain Cross Engineering. SECTION 7 -308. ROADWAY STANDARDS. Staff Comment: The County has general roadways standards for design and circulation, some of which are applicable to this project. An existing private road has been constructed on the site however improvements are necessary. These include reducing the grade to meet maximum grade of 10% and maintaining curve radii at 35'. The Applicant has requested waiver of these minimum road standards. Other improvements that may be required include construction of an adequate apron where this private road accesses CR 300. This includes a Road & Bridge recommended 100' paving width for the apron. The Applicant has stated that these latter requirements are 'impractical'. Industrial uses are required to design roads to minimize conflict between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Though pedestrian traffic does not apply to this proposal there is potential for vehicular conflict due to the site distance constraints at the driveway. SECTION 7 -309. TRAIL AND WALKWAY STANDARDS. Staff Comment: Not applicable to this proposal. SECTION - 7.310. UTILITY STANDARDS. Staff Comment: It does not appear that public utilities will be necessary to the operation of this facility as any necessary water and/or power (combustible engines) will be brought to the site. DIVISION 11. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES. SECTION 7 -1101. INDUSTRIAL USE These standards shall apply to all Industrial Uses: A. Residential Subdivisions. Industrial Uses shall not occupy a lot in a platted residential Subdivision. Staff Comment: Pioneer Glen was an approved subdivision on this site which has been vacated therefore the industrial uses will not occur within a platted residential subdivision. B. Setbacks. Staff Comment: The Applicant has stated that the activity will maintain a 100 -foot setback from adjacent residential communities. 261 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 C. Concealing and Screening. Staff Comment: The Applicant has not provided any information related to the screening of this facility other than to say that it will maintain the appearance of an agricultural activity. Screening is required to be eight (8) feet high and obscure the facility and /or operation from view at the same elevation. D. Loading and Unloading. Staff Comment: Loading and unloading is proposed to occur within the property boundaries. E. Storing. Staff Comment: This standard requires that all products be stored a minimum of 100 feet from an adjacent property line. The Applicant has stated that no storage will occur on the site as equipment, soil amendments and microbes will be delivered on an as- needed basis. Staff does not consider the soil being remediated in the cell as `storage', however the application also indicates that soil, both pre and post - remediation, will be stored on the site. No impervious or spill containment is proposed other than the bentonite layer. The proposed storage of soil outside of the remediation cell is a concern due to the fact that it may be contaminated soil that could potentially leach into the soil. F. Hours of Operation. Staff Comment: Based upon referral agency comments the operation of the facility is now proposed to be during daylight hours with further restrictions that operation shall cease from December 1 to April 15. G. Industrial Wastes. Staff Comment: The proposed facility is to remediate hydro - carbon impacted soil. The Applicant has stated that no industrial waste is anticipated, but if generated it will be disposed of according to Federal State and Local regulations. H. Noise. Staff Comment: A noise survey was conducted to determine potential sound impacts of the operation of the pugmill at the proposed facility. This does not appear to have included an analysis of the other equipment that will be used on the site for loading and unloading, as well as tilling of the soil. The pugmill noise data was collected from a site that provided representative samples closely approximating sound impacts for the proposed use and then extrapolated to determine potential impacts at the proposed site. The apparent worst case resulted in dB(A) of 52.6 at 281 feet from the pugmill though other results were 42.6 dB(A) at 360 feet from the pugmill. COGCC daytime maximum dB(A) for adjacent residential properties is 55 therefore the noise created by the operation of the pugmill is assumed to be in compliance with the COGCC rules. The application represents the use of a variety of equipment at the site however only the pugmill was analyzed. This does not adequately demonstrate compliance with the noise standard. 271P a g e Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 The extrapolation of the noise generated by the pugmill located at a different site might result in different noise levels based on topography and other conditions specific to the Metcalf site. The map, below, indicates a general pugmill location X feet from the property boundaries utilizing that distance to state that they will remain in compliance. However it does not appear that they correctly analyzed the noise based on COGCC requirements which requires analysis at 350' from the source or the property line, whichever is greater nor have they provided information related to the noise level as measured at 25' from adjacent residences. It is standard for the County to require the noise study be conducted on the site due to issues such as topography and other site constraints or qualities. The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated compliance with noise standards. %LFt .+ _ .42499 489„ . Ins 8ATITOE AMINE 5A RV!PI,{R f"' ;soGN10510a ;IA/ T1 F 0.N MI MF',A AAF T 1O4YYI IRAN 11L.1 NIC:T y i 210924100124 ICJ .E$E 'E,E Lifland Minted Pic. r 1Paresis — Hiphwayrtnwttxi ^— Courtly Roads 4 325' 650 1,300 w E MOSCI RO: 0110011 OR Nair xra Meilmo DATE /262011 DISTANCES TO PARCELS MAP POC ENERGY METCALF SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO O\OLSSON ASSOCIATES int ma cenea ,LI IN ]Ll TIN ail r07L1,Cf , uu DP•1 Should the Planning Commission seek to recommend approval of this request Staff would suggest a condition of approval requiring demonstration of site compliance with the COGCC noise standards. 28 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 I. Ground Vibration. Staff Comment: The Applicant has stated that ground vibration will not be measureable along the boundary of the site. No supporting documentation or further explanation has been provided. J. Interference, Nuisance, or Hazard. Staff Comment: As above, a statement was made that the facility will comply with these restrictions but no supporting documentation was provided. Emission of heat, glare, radiation or fumes should not substantially interfere is existing uses on adjacent property. The Operation & Maintenance Plan contained in Exhibit D states that if odors become an issue that they will be aggressively mitigated by tilling the soil. V. STAFF DISCUSSION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION -- PUGM(LL Staff understanding of the proposed project, based upon the submitted project description, was that this facility was proposed to remediate the soil by use of a Pugmill. Secondary treatment of the soil, should it be necessary, would utilize the remediation cell for spreading and tilling of the soil if additional processing was required pursuant to COGCC standards. Additional information contained in Exhibit W — Response to Site Visit Questions, Page 28 — states that: The proposed soil treatment facility has the option of using a pugmill to mix the contaminated soil with beneficial microbes, fertilizers and moisture while aerating it to stimulate aerobic microbial activity and /or spreading the contaminated soils 12 -18 inches deep on the 2.76 acre remediation cell and tilled to reduce VOC emission and aerate the soil as well as further mixing in the beneficial microbes. Most soil treatment facilities utilize spreading and tilling only. Caerus will utilize the pugmill to augment the soil remediation process and to shorten the total time required for remediation. Staff is concerned that this is a fairly significant departure from the original request. Referral agency review and public comment was based upon the proposed shortened time frame for processing the soil that results from use of the pugmill. The potential for extension of the timeframe for processing when the spreading and tilling method is utilized is a concern. This could lead to additional or greater impacts to adjacent properties that were not originally considered in the review of this application. B. OPERATION TIMEFRAME The application states that the facility will `be accessible to [the operator] 24 hours a day, 365 -days per year, however personnel will use this facility primarily during normal working hours from approximately 7 :30 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday.' (Exhibit D - Project Description, Page 4.) 29 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 M1PA75g3 Subsequent information has been provided that "Delivery and remediation activities will take place during normal daylight hours, primarily between 7 :30 am and 7 pm, Monday through Friday. " (Exhibit W - Response to Staff Comments, Page 10.) Based upon Colorado Parks and Wildlife comments the Applicant has also stated: 2. Agency Comment: The facility should not be operated during the winter months. CPW recommends that operations of the facility shall cease between December 1 thru April 15 to address disturbance to mule deer and elk during the critical winter months. Additionally, soil treatment activities should occur only during daylight hours during non - winter months to reduce disturbance to the local wildlife. Response: Caerus will comply with request. (Exhibit W, Response to Agency Comments, Page 20) The question that remains is whether or not the site could be utilized for contaminated -soil and remediated -soil stockpile /storage area outside of this time period. Daylight hours, as recommended by CPW, vary through much of the year therefore the statement that use will occur between 7:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. may not meet the goal of this recommendation. Several inconsistencies exist with regard to the "use" versus "operation" of the site and when activities are permitted to occur at the site. Operation versus remediation, delivery and removal of materials and equipment should all be specified within this operation timeframe so that the goal of minimizing disturbance to elk and mule deer is met. The Applicant should address 'activity' on the site, referencing specific uses that may be requested to occur within this restricted timeframe so that the decision - makers have all the necessary information available to determine potential impacts. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request Staff would suggest a condition that would specify the timeframe that the site and facility could be used, as well as define what those uses may be during specific time of the day and year. C. STAGING and STORAGE OF 5OIL Construction phase of project clearly states that no staging areas are required however operation of the facility and the project description state that "For operational and logistical reasons, wastes may be stockpiled in the staging area prior to application in the remediation cell." (Exhibit D — Project Description, Page 3). Staff is concerned with the aspect of "Storage" on the site, which was not requested in this application. Further, the application states that "For operational and logistical reasons, wastes may be stockpiled in a staging area prior to treatment via the pugmill or application in the remediation cell." (Exhibit D - Operation and Maintenance Compliance Plan, Page 5) 30 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 Other sections of the application provide the following information: e. Soil Stockpile and Snow Storage Areas: Soil stockpiles and snow storage are anticipated to be within the pugmill turnaround location. (Exhibit D - Letter from Olsson Associates to Glenn Hartmann dated April 16, 2013) 3.12 Winter Operations During winter months when the soil is snow covered and /or frozen, any waste material generated for Facility remediation will be stockpiled in a staging area. (Exhibit D - Operation and Maintenance Compliance Plan, Page 8) The application is unclear on several issues related to material 'storage' or 'stockpiling' of soil on the site - both prior to remediation and post - remediation. The application appears to describe the operation as one that is utilized intermittently with delivery of all material and equipment to the site when the processing will take place with removal of all equipment and materials from the site (the equipment removed and soil transported for beneficial reuse). It is unclear whether this site will be utilized for "Storage" and, if so, where that storage will be located. If the storage area is located outside of the remediation cell then an impermeable layer should be required to prevent potential groundwater impact from hydro - carbon impacted soils. Should the Planning Commission seek to recommend approval of the application, Staff recommend a condition that either prohibits the "storage" of soil on the site; or requires that the site plan be updated to indicate location of storage areas, and measures to protect surface and groundwater. This aspect of "Storage" does not include the soil placed in the remediation cell for additional processing, post pugmill. D. PROTECTION OF WATERBODIES The ULUR contains standards related to protection of Waterbodies in Section 7 -203 which requires a 35' buffer from the high water mark which Limits activities that can occur within that area. The site plan does not indicate the high water mark and there is concern regarding the aspect of where storage and other activities will occur on the site. No supporting documentation was provided to indicate compliance with the required buffer areas and the Typical and Ordinary high Water Mark (TOHWM) should be located and provided so that a determination can be made that the project is in compliance with this standard. The application contains the following statements: B. Storage Near Waterbodies No hydrocarbon liquids or associated tanks will be located on the proposed facility. PDC will operate the facility and associated activities in order to maintain the required buffer between the disturbed area and the natural vegetation and waterways. No hazardous materials will be stored on the proposed facility. E. Fuel Storage Areas No fuel, except contained within equipment, will be stored on the proposed facility. Fuel will be delivered to the site on an as- needed basis. 31 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 F. Waste Storage No waste will be stored on the proposed facility. If necessary, human generated wastes will be accommodated by portable toilets placed near the boundary of the proposed facility. (Exhibit D - Standards Section, Page 5) C. Concealing and Screening There will be no outside storage of equipment on this site. The proposed facility will be fenced, No landscaping is proposed. E. Storing No vehicles, tanks or structures will be stored on site. Appropriate equipment will be delivered to the site as needed. Soil amendments and microbes required for the remediation will be delivered on an as- needed basis, but will not be stored on site. There will be no on site fuel storage and water required for the remediation process will accompany delivery of the equipment. (Exhibit D— Standards Section, Page 11) It appears as if the Applicant is stating what won't occur on the site, rather than what will. Broad statements do not provide an adequate demonstration of meeting the minimum standards in the ULUR. E. TRAFFIC IMPACTS The Applicant has stated that "...the Process Limitation for this Soil Treatment Facility is an annual limit of 30,000 cubic yards." (Exhibit W — Response to Site Visit Questions, Page 28) The application also states that "Delivery of soils to the site will be made by 30 ton dump trucks,..equivalent to no more than 300 truckloads." (Exhibit D - Project Description, Page 5) A basic Traffic Study was performed which includes information regarding operation of the facility for a period of 3 years. Trip Generation and Distribution were estimated, based upon information from the operator, and the expected average and maximum trips were discussed. Operation of the facility would result in an average of 18 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) per day [Staff research resulted in a calculation indicating that a truck is approximately 3.5 PCE] and a potential maximum of 30 PCE trips per day. It is difficult to calculate the annual PCE trips based upon daily use as the number of days the site will be in operation is unknown. Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 Table 2: Trio Gefteration — Land Farm Facility Phase Average Trips /Day (e Maximum Trips /Day (PCE) Peak Hour Trips Trip Distribution Total Peak Hour Trips Maximum Trips Percent Trucks PCE Enter Exit Enter Exit Daily AM Peak Hour Construction of Facility 16 30 6 33% 10 70% 30% 7 3 Operation 18 30 3 90% 8 50% 50% 4 4 Reclamation 18 28 5 40% 9 70% 30% 6 3 PM Peak Hour Construction of Facility 8 33% 10 30% 70% 3 7 Operation 3 90% 8 50% 50% 4 4 Reclamation 5 40% 9 30% 70% 3 6 PCE: Passenger Car Equivalent Traffic volume was also calculated to determine increases to the existing road network. This was done utilizing Vehicles Per Day (vpd) as shown below: Table : Traffic Volume Increase Calculations - Land Farm Fact ity Roadway Bkgd Year Bkgd ADT 2013 Bkgd Construction (18 vpd) Operation (14 vpd) Reclamation (20 vpd) CR 215 2002 920 1310 1.2% 1,4% 1.4% Bypass - - - 80 70 100 CR 3002 2002 255 360 4.4% 5.0% 5.0% CR 3003 2002 110 160 10.2% 11.5% 11.5% HWY 6124 2011 710 770 2.1% 2,3% 2.3% 1T Volumes not avaitable Values sfiown are m n mu VDTs (vpd) to not exceed 20% ihro ho 2. CR 300 Volumes near the Intersection with Highway 6/24 3. CR 300 volumes near the site drive. 4, 2013 volumes calculated using an assumed 4% growth rate. This calculation utilizes an average of 14 vehicles per day during operation to calculate the percentage increase of traffic on the roadways. This traffic study data appears to include an average of 1 trip per week to transport the water from the Chevron Water Draw Facility located at the base of Garden Gulch on CR 215 to this site, as well as an average of 1 trip per week for a "low boy" to transport equipment to the site. Chris Hale, Exhibit AG, responded to Staff questions and further explained the potential impacts of trucks versus vehicles and how this terminology is used. Staff concern was related to statements regarding a maximum of 300 30- ton trucks to transport a maximum of 30,000 CY soil, which does not appear to be an accurate reflection of traffic impacts created by the operation of the facility. Chris Hale stated that the traffic study 33,1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 indicates greater than 300 soil truck trips. Lorne Prescott responded to these comments, Exhibit AH, that the traffic study utilizes 'worst case scenario' which may not equate to actual trips. F. SAFETY AND ACCESS Access to the site is proposed to be an existing driveway from CR 300. Road & Bridge comments, Exhibit J, states that an existing driveway permit is in place however the 'driveway was not constructed to take the truck traffic.' Response: The driveway will be completed to include a concrete or asphalt apron. A new culvert is not required. There is a 20 inch culvert in place. It will be cleaned out. A 100 -foot driveway entrance is impractical in this location given the adjacent slopes and drainages. See photo below. Approxrm 100 feet R &B recommendations include expanding the driveway to 100 -foot, installing a concrete or asphalt apron, and installation of a 15" or larger culvert at the entry. Continued use of the existing culvert would require that it be cleaned. The image, left, indicates the Applicant's response which appears to be that they will not construct a 100' driveway access, as recommended, due to the fact that it is "impractical" given site constraints. Site Distance constraints were also identified as an issue in the submittal documentation. Site distance is a calculation utilized to determine the distance, or length of the roadway, that a vehicle exiting the driveway can see in attempting to access the road or conversely, the distance at which a vehicle traveling the County Road can first see the driveway or a vehicle attempting to exit or enter the driveway. The issue was also discussed in comments from Mountain Cross Engineering, Exhibit N, who concurred with a recommendation of advanced warning signage, at a minimum, that should be required if site distance length cannot be achieved. The proposed 'minimum' of safety improvements may not be 34 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 sufficient, and consideration should occur in constructing a driveway that meets this standard or use of traffic flagger's on CR 300 during operation of the facility. Below are Staff photographs of the intersection, both from on -site and on CR 300 hearing west toward the site. First two photos indicate the approach from the east, to the site. From sna drfraway looking west From site driveway Iauki+se east 35 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 G. WILDLIFE The Application contained a Wildlife and Vegetative Impact Analysis prepared by WestWater Engineering (WWE) which contained Mitigation Recommendations, including: • A Stormwater Management Plan be prepared and implemented to prevent degradation of water quality in the Colorado River; • Project construction should be completed prior to nesting season (May) or the site should be re- inventoried; • Temporal and spatial restriction for activities near active raptor nests; • Facility would be situated near on -going O &G development and residential housing. Implementation of an aggressive noxious weed program would increase production of desirable vegetation; • Garbage and food items should be removed daily; • If brush clearing is necessary it should be done outside of nesting season (May 15 to July 31); • Preservation of natural vegetation; • Noxious weeds control practices should be implemented that include cleaning equipment of soils and vegetative debris. The Division of Parks and Wildlife, Exhibits R, Y and AB, ultimately recommended restrictions related to use of the site to minimize impacts to elk and mule deer, proper controls (stormwater and impermeable surfaces) to prevent increased sedimentation and transport of impacted soil to the Colorado River and to protect the river during flooding events, fencing and removal of trash daily or use of bear -proof trash receptacles. It is unclear if the impermeable berm surrounding the site, recommended in the original comments, is still an issue. It appears that the Applicant has consulted with CPW during this process and agreements have resulted regarding the mitigation measures and improvements necessary for this site. H. WATER USE AND CHEVRON WATER DRAW Chevron USA, Inc. as owner and PDC Energy as Operator, have recently obtained a Land Use Permit for Water Storage and a Pump House for a water draw facility (Resolution 2013 -38) within the Resource Land — Gentle Slopes zone district. This application was approved for a water draw facility that would utilize a pump station to transport water from Parachute Creek to a water storage tanks and a fill station via a pipeline. This facility is located seven (7) miles northwest of the Town of Parachute on CR 215 at the base of the access road to Garden Gulch. This facility is proposed to be used to provide the water utilized in the soil remediation process at the Metcalf site. Adequate water rights appear to be in place, including a Substitute Water Supply Plan (SWSP) and contract water from both West Divide Water Conservancy District and the Colorado River Water Conservation District. Staff is concerned with the use of and transport of water located distant from the site. 361Page Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 I. REVEGETATION /RECLAMATION Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Manager, has responded to the referral request, Exhibits M and AE. The Revegetation Plan and Noxious Weed Inventory are sufficient. Disturbance that is required to be revegetated has been calculated based upon the entire facility area of ten (10) acres. Standard calculation of $2,500.00 per acre results in a revegetation security required for the site in the amount of $25,000.00 Section 7 -212 of the ULUR includes requirements regarding reclamation, specifically "All areas disturbed during Development that do not comprise the longer -term functional areas of the site but are those areas used for the short -term preparation of the site." Questions regarding details related to reclamation and removal of the bentonite liner have resulted through the review of additional material submitted in Exhibit W. The Applicant has responded, Exhibit AH, to these concerns by stating that the property owner requires removal of the bentonite liner. J. GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY The application appears to contain conflicting information with regard to geology on the site. The submitted reports, prepared by qualified individuals, appear to locate the site within some geologic hazard areas while the response to compliance with geologic standards states that the site is not located within geologic hazard areas. The Geology and Hydrology report states that the site is not well suited for a facility of this type while other sections of the application provide measures that may mitigate the geologic issues to an acceptable level. K. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Review of the Comprehensive Plan components included the Future Land Use Map, Economy, Employment and Tourism, Natural Resources and Mineral Extraction. Staff does not find the proposal in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. L. COMPATIBILITY OF USE AND IMPACTS TO ADJACENT OWNERS Compatibility is defined in Article 16 of the ULUR as: The characteristics of different uses or activities or design that allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility includes height, scale, mall, and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access, and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor, and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather compatibility refers to the sensitivity of Development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. Morgan Hill, Environmental Health, identified several issues, Exhibit 0, including questioning unsubstantiated statements regarding lack of nuisance impacts to adjacent lands. The close proximity of 37I Pa ge Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 the Battlement Mesa community and the Colorado River may result in impacts to adjacent land. Proper dust mitigation, noise controls and mitigation of potential odors should be considered. Battlement Mesa Service Association, the entity responsible for administering the Battlement Mesa PUD, has responded to this application, Exhibit AF, that their residents have identified concerns with this project including air quality and odors, dist control, truck traffic and noise. Other public comment letters have been received which primarily identify similar issues as well as questions about the need to haul the soils from uninhabited locations to one that is located next to their neighborhood. Morgan Hill, Environmental Health, Exhibit 0, states that "Adjacent land WILL be affected by this facility at least to some extent by dust and noise as well as potential odors." Aerial looking east These comments all result in questioning the compatibility of locating an industrial use next to a developed residential community. The definition cited above closes with the statement that 'compatibility refers to the sensitivity of Development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development.' Other than the use of the proposed haul route which utilizes the Una Bridge, Staff has not identified any measures that have been instituted to minimize impact to Battlement Mesa nor has the proposal maintained the character of existing development. M. PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS 381 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 Numerous letters and emails have been submitted for Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner for consideration in the decision - making process for this soil remediation facility. Excerpts of the comments are provided below: Garry Evenson, Exhibit P — Mr. Evenson is a Battlement Mesa resident who lives % mile east of the project site. His concerns include the potential for fumes and impact to the Colorado River. The transportation of the soils from the Piceance could result in hazards such as spill, noise and pollution. Kevin Passmore, Exhibit g - Opposed to the request due to lack of limitation on maximum quantity of soil to be remediated, the lack of limitation on length of time that soil can remain on the site, use of biocides, potential for flood impact and air quality issues. Mr. Passmore also states that he would support such as facility if limitations on volume of processing were required, the use of non -toxic additives were utilized, timing restrictions and environmental review were instituted. Mary Haggood, Exhibit X — As a resident of an adjacent neighborhood, Tamarisk Meadows, Ms. Hagood is concerned with protection from hydrocarbon and other contaminant evaporation, noise, fumes and vibration. Explore options, including enclosing the facility and other sites not adjacent to a neighborhood. Don Gray, Exhibit Z — Mr. Gray urges that the County Commissioners not approve this request as there are remote locations more appropriate for the industrial activity. Specific concerns include why the soils would be brought from remote locations on the Piceance to their residential neighborhood, prevailing winds will carry dust, dirt and toxic vapors to residential areas, flood potential, potential health and property value impacts. Carol Boyd, Exhibit AA — Ms. Boyd is in support of the project as it will not hurt the environment or create harm to anyone. Ms. Boyd states that the Metcalf s are good people who help others. Diana Lawrence, Exhibit AD — Ms. Lawrence expresses her avid support of the project which is responsible and Eco friendly. The natural gas industry is trying to be conscientious. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has the following options with regard to a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Recommend approval of the application; 2. Recommend approval of the application with conditions; 3. Recommend denial of the application; 4. Continue the Public Hearing to request additional information. A. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL 39 1 Planning Commission November 13, 2013 M1PA7593 A recommendation of approval with conditions should consider the following findings and conditions that may be necessary to mitigate identified issues and potentially bring the application into general conformance with the ULUR and Comprehensive Plan: 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 extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the Land Use Change Permit for the Metcalf Soil Remediation Facility may be in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County if recommended conditions of approval are adopted. 4. That upon compliance with recommended conditions of approval the application is in general conformance with the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. 5. That upon compliance with recommended conditions of approval the application is generally consistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, 2030. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. This Land Use Change Permit shall be valid for a period of three years of facility operation with expiration of this permit on November 30, 2017. Should an amendment to this permit be requested to extend this timeframe the process to amend the permit shall be identical to the original permit review requiring Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners consistent with the standards and requirements utilized in this review. 3. Any changes to the existing approval, other than life of the facility, shall require an amendment to the Land Use Change Permit pursuant to the land use regulations in effect at the time of the request. 4. No activity related to this use may occur at this site until such time as a Land Use Change Permit is issued for the Metcalf Soil Remediation Facility. 5. No activity related to the soil remediation facility, including stockpiling of soil, may occur on the site between December 15t and April 15th annually. 401P age Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 6. Operation of the facility must be in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and permits governing the operation of this facility of this type. 7. The remediation of soil on this site is limited 30,000 cubic yards of soil annually, as calculated by calendar year of operation. 8. The facility is limited to 300 trips annually, based on a calendar year, of 30 -ton trucks for delivery of hydro - carbon impacted soil. Water truck trips shall be limited to 27 trucks annually based upon the Applicant representation of one water truck trip per week. 9. Remediation of soil at this facility is limited to soil originating from operations of the Land Use Change Permit holder, Caerus Piceance, LLC in Garfield County. 10. The operation of this facility shall utilize the Pugmill as the primary processing of contaminated soil at this site. Should additional processing be required, post Pugmill processing, the 2.76 -acre remediation cell shall be utilized for the spreading and tilling process. 11. The site may not be utilized for "Storage" purposes, prohibiting stockpiling of soil (remediated or not), fuel storage or any equipment at this site. All material and equipment shall be delivered to and removed from the site during daylight hours by the beginning and end of each day of processing. Soil actively being remediated in the 2.76 -acre remediation cell shall not be considered "Storage ". 12. Prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide sufficient information related to the construction, installation and maintenance of the bentonite layer of impermeability in the remediation cell. 13. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide the Community Development with all Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) permits related to air quality and water quality at the site. 14. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall obtain, and provide to Garfield County Community Development, the required COGCC permits for an E &P Waste Facility at the site. 15. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall obtain, and provide to Garfield County Community Development, a Driveway Permit from Road & Bridge consistent with the requirements and conditions of this land use permit. These requirements include a 100' foot width driveway entrance with a concrete or asphalt apron and a 15" or larger functioning culvert at the driveway intersection with CR 300. Ongoing maintenance of the culvert shall be required. 16. Prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide a detailed site and landscape plan, including a lighting plan, deemed acceptable by Community Development as sufficient to meet the standards and requirements of the ULUR. 17. Prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide adequate security to assure completion of revegetation and reclamation of the site. 18. Prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide the Community 41 1 P a g e Planning Commission November 13, 2013 M I PA7593 Development Department with a site plan and written information sufficient to determine that adequate snow storage areas, compliant with water quality standards and the standards ULUR, will be provided on the site. This shall include provision of adequate separation of snow stage areas from any Waterbodies on or near the site. 19. Prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide copies of the three Monitoring Well Permits issued by the Colorado Division of Water Resources for the site. 20. Prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide all necessary documentation to assure that the domestic water wells on the site have been appropriately abandoned and capped or converted to permitted Monitoring Wells. 21. Prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit the Applicant must provide documentation locating where fuel exchange shall occur on the site and required protective measures to be implemented in case of a spill. This location shall not be permitted within 100 -feet of a waterbody. 22. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall a revegetation bond in the amount of $25,000.00. 23. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide demonstration that the project will operate in compliance with COGCC noise standards. 24. No chemicals or manufactured solvents may be used for snow maintenance on the project. 25. The private driveway into the site shall be improved to meet ULUR standards and sound engineering practices, including the following: a. Site access shall not exceed 10% grade. b. Curve Radii shall not exceed 35'. c. Site distance constraints shall require construction of improvements so that the site distance requirements are satisfied or that adequate signage be placed on CR 300 and flaggers be located on the roadway during truck ingress or egress form the site. 26. The County commits to notifying the property owner of any compliance concern and allows an inspection with site personnel and the designated County inspector prior issuing any Notice of Violation. 27. The County can request a site inspection with one calendar day's notice to the Property Owner. Full access to any part of the facility will be granted. On request, all relevant paperwork must be shown pursuant to operations of the facility. 28. The Property Owner acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit if continued violations of the permit occur over a period of time. 29. No materials or wastes shall be deposited on the property in a form or manner that may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural cause or force. 421P a g e Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 30. All vehicles hauling equipment and materials for this application shall abide by Garfield County's oversize /overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize /overweight permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. All vehicles applying for these permits shall have on file with Garfield County Road and Bridge Department a letter or e-mail stating said vehicles can obtain oversize /overweight permits under their road bond on file with Garfield County. 31. The haul route utilized for this facility shall be limited to use of CR 215 to the Parachute By -Pass to State Highway 6 to CR 300, with approach to the facility from eastbound CR 300. In no circumstances shall access to this site be utilized through the Battlement Mesa PUD. 32. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendation of the County Vegetation Manager regarding treatment of the Russian knapweed and provide treatment records to the Vegetation Manager prior to commencement of activity on the site. 33. No maintenance of Equipment or Machinery shall be permitted at this site 34. The Applicant shall implement all storm water management improvements as represented in the Application, obtain State Storm Water Management Permits and provide ongoing maintenance of retention pond. 35. 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. 36. If any lighting is proposed to be located at this facility the Applicant shall provide a lighting plan indicating location, height and source of power. Any lighting proposed shall comply with ULUR standards including, but not limited to, lighting directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. 37. The Applicant must obtain a building permit from Garfield County to construct a minimum 6 -foot high chain link fence that encloses the facility. 38. The site shall be required to comply with the following industrial performance standards unless more restrictive standards have been applied in this approval: A. Residential Subdivisions. Industrial Uses shall not occupy a lot in a platted residential Subdivision. B. Setbacks. All activity associated with these uses shall be a minimum of 100 feet from an adjacent residential property line, unless the use is on an industrially zoned property. C. Concealing and Screening. All storage facilities, including outdoor storage, fabrication, service, and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or have adequate provision to conceal and screen the facility and /or operations from adjacent property(s). Screening shall be at least 8 feet in height and obscure the facility and /or operation from view at the same elevation. All screening shall be maintained. 43I Page Planning Commission November 13, 2013 MIPA7593 D. 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. E. Storing. All products shall be stored in compliance with all national, State and local codes and shall be a minimum of 100 feet from an adjacent property line. In addition, petroleum, and hazardous products shall be stored in an impervious spill containment area(s). F. Hours of Operation. Any activity requiring that will generate noise, odors, or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, or as approved by the decision - making authority. G. Industrial Wastes. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with Federal and State statutes and requirements of CDPHE. H. Noise. Noise shall not exceed State noise standards pursuant to C.R.S., Article 12, Title 25, as amended, unless the use is regulated by the COGCC. In this case, the use shall be subject to COGCC Rule 802, Noise Abatement. I. 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. J. 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. B. DENIAL A recommendation of denial must be accompanied by findings to support the decision. Should the Planning Commission seek to recommend denial of the application Staff includes the following information and findings for consideration: 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 extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 441P a g e Planning Commission November 13, 2013 M IPA7S93 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the Land Use Change Permit for the Metcalf Soil Remediation Facility is not be in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed Soil Remediation Facility is compliant with the minimum standards and regulations required by the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. A. Compatibility with adjacent residential communities; B. Traffic Impacts; C. Safety and access concerns; D. Noise; E. Storage; F. Potential impacts to river and other water quality concerns; G. Geologic and hydrologic concerns; H. Potential wildlife impacts including aquatic animal life. 5. That the application is not generally consistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, 2030. A. The Future Land Use Map; B. Economy, Employment and Tourism; C. Natural Resources; D. Mineral Extraction. 451Page