HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report) -5—& a
r.!_c•
ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY - SILT PIT
Owner: Asphalt Paving Company
Planning/Engineering: Rindahl and Associates
Location: %, mile south of Silt, on two islands in the Colorado River, west
of County Road 311.
Site Data: The proposal will affect approximately 86 acres on the islands, 70
acres of which will be mined. The northern -most island is presently
vacant. The southern -most island has one existing residence.
Water: Bottled water will be provided on-site for employees.
Sewer: Portable chemical toilets will be provided on-site for employees.
Proposed Roads: The applicant proposes to construct a two lane asphalt entrance to
tie in with County Road 311. All approaches would be signed
appropriately.
Existing Zoning: AI
Adjacent Zoning: North: Town of Silt
South: AI
East: AI
West: AI
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan:
The proposed pit is in Urban Area of Influence of Silt. Therefore, staff recommends that
the Town's comments be given considerable merit.
Description of Proposal:
Project Description:
The applicant is proposing an open pit sand and gravel mine, and asphalt and concrete batch
plants. The mining would proceed in five phases, from west to east, over a 10 year period.
Reclamation would proceed at the end of each mining phase.
Major Concerns and Issues:
1) The applicant is proposing to use County Road 311 and the Silt bridge for access
to the interstate highway. At present, however, the Silt bridge has a 15 ton load
limit.
A Contract has been let for construction of a new bridge; however, construction
would not begin until fall 1982, and is expected to be completed within 3 to E mos.
after that date.
2) The property is adjacent to a parcel being annexed by the Town of Silt, and is
not compatible with the uses proposed for the site.
3) The proposal is not compatible with Silt's existing comprehensive plan. And as
the Town is currently in the process of developing a new comprehensive plan, it
seems premature to allow development in the area at this time.
4) The applicant has addressed the areas affected by the 100 -year floodplain for the
proposal. However, no substantiating information has been developed to indicate
the proposal's potential affect on stream flow and water quality, and the effects
of these on Silt's nearby water intake system and wastewater facility.
5) The Division of Wildlife has identified the site as an extremely sensitive wildlife
area. The Colorado River corridor near Silt is an extremely important wintering
area for the endangered bald eagle. The largest known great blue heron rookery
on the Colorado River is found on the island adjacent to the proposed site. Another
important specie potentially impacted by the proposal is the Canadian goose. The
Division's policy is to discourage development in such critical areas. Their
enclosed letter addresses these concerns, and specifies the need for certain amend-
ments, or conditions, to the proposal, if the project is approved.
Comprehensive Plan:
The County Comprehensive Plan encourages industrial expansion where similar development
already exists in appropriate areas; and although Frei and Sons received approval for a
large gravel operation nearby (see enclosed map), the general area remains very rural in
character. The Comprehensive Plan discourages development that would impact Silt's agrarian
character.
The plan encourages industrial development in areas where adequate transportation facilities
and public utilities are available. Because construction of the Silt Bridge appears
to be 8 months to one year away, the project cannot be adequately served by existing
facilities. Specifically, the plan states that development should be required to
contribute to the bridge's replacement or that approval be withheld until the bridge
can safely and adequately accommodate additional traffic. Further, the Plan allows
the county to deny a project based on inadequate road access which would lead to
further deterioration of the road and large daily traffic volumes, an additional
concern of the Town of Silt.
The Comprehensive Plan addresses at length the issue of compatibility of proposed and
existing uses. Specifically, it speaks to a proposal's adverse "impacts on the desir-
ability of the surrounding community," "alteration of the basic character of adjacent
land uses," and "impairment of the stability or value of adjacent or surrounding
properties." The Plan speaks of smoke, noise, dust, odors, and visual unsightliness
as "hazards to public health and safety" and "nuisances to the surrounding community."
Finally, the Plan provides for the "protection of unique natural and scenic resources
such as unique vegetation or major wildlife habitats."
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
Reviewing Agencies:
1. Town of Silt -recommendation for denial (see attached letters of 1/22/82 and 3/3/82;
as of 4/21/82, the town's concerns and recommendations for denial remain)
2. Division of Wildlife -see attached letters of 1/14/82, 3/4/82, and 4/7/82.
3. Army Corps of Engineers -will weigh county's decision heavily in their decision to issue
a 404 permit.
4. Mined Land Reclamation Board -will withhold a decision until the county has made its
review.
See also: 5. Letter from Gingery Associates for Asphalt Paving, 3/24/82.
6. Letter from Asphalt Paving in regard to concessions/considerations/
amendments to their proposal.
7. Letter of opposition from Gerald and Carolyn Bernhardt
8. Letter of concern from Garfield County Citizens Association
9. Letter of support from Don and Marian White
PREVIOUS HISTORY:
A decision by the Planning Commission on the request was originally scheduled for March 8,
1982. A delay was requested by the applicant to further discuss concerns with the
Town of Silt and other agencies. On March 26, 1982, a meeting was held at the Planning
Department Offices with Silt's Town Planner, Asphalt Paving representatives, Rindahl
and Associates representatives, the Division of Wildlife, the County Road Supervisor,
and staff. Concerns were discussed with these representatives, although no
elimination of concerns or changes in position were noted.
RECOMMENDATION:
While the County Comprehensive -Plan would allow development in areas where its
impacts could be mitigated, the basic problems of incompatibility with existing
surrounding uses and premature development of an area would not be lessened. Also,
there remains the concern of the cumulative effects of industrial uses in an area
in fairly close proximity to eachother, and in an area in which those industrial uses
are incompatible. Therefore, the Planning staff recommends denial of the Asphalt
Paving Company Special Use Permit for the following reasons:
1. The proposed use is incompatible with the uses existing in the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposal would be injurious to the character of the established neighborhood.
3. The impacts on traffic volume created by the project would be injurious to the surroundin
community.
4. The area is premature for development due to inadequate access; and due to the fact
that Silt has just commenced a reworking of their Comprehensive Plan, and the project
site is a logical area for extension by the Town of Silt.
5. The proposal has potential substantial impacts on wildlife in the surrounding area,
including impacts to the bald eagle, an endangered specie.
n
A
Gilbert F. Rindahl, P.E.
Ann B. Hodgson
Rindahl & Associates • P.O. Box 24166 • 2180 S. Ivanhoe Street • Denver, CO 80222-0166 • 692.0922
March 9, 1982
Ms. Terry Bowman
Garfield County Planning Dept.
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ref: Asphalt Paving Company
Silt Pit
Dear Terry:
As we discussed on the phone last week, the Asphalt Paving Co. Silt Pit
application has been reviewed by the MLRB staff for adequacy.
The MLRB staff has determined they are in agreement with the operator's
proposals to mitigate the possible impacts of the proposed operation on
the wildlife species in the area.
If you have any questions regarding these comments or if you require
additional information regarding the MLRB review, please call me.
Very truly yours,
RINDAHL & ASSOCIATES
Ann B. Hodgson, Manan?r
Environmental Services
ABH/ln
Resource Engineering & Environmental Services
March 8, 1982
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT
Ms. Terry Bowman
Garfield County Planning Commission
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Ms. Bowman:
14802 W. 44TH AVENUE
GOLDEN, COLO. 80401
279-6611
tno
MAR 1 0CARi
FIELD
We hereby confirm a telephone conversation between you and Mr. Gib
Rindahl of Rindahl & Associates to indefinitely continue our request
to extract and process gravel products from our property located in
the vicinity of Silt, Colorado.
The reason for this request is to give all parties concerned ample
and additional time to resolve some minor misunderstandings that
exist.
WJK:nb
Respectfully yours,
ASPHA T PAVING C
liam J
President
ler
The sir% o/ 2ualikt
April 1, 1982
Mr. Arnold Mackley, Chairman
Garfield County Planning Commission
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Proposed Gravel Pit
Dear Mr. Chairman:
14802 W. 44TH AVENUE
GOLDEN, COLO. 80401
279-6611
r�L
LAPR 61982
GARFIELD CO. PLANNER
I would like to take this opportunity to list for you and the other com-
mission members the concessions that Asphalt Paving Co. has made in order
to mitigate the concerns associated with our proposed Silt Pit.
The concessions are as follows:
1. Eliminating phase V from the mining plan. This was done to protect
vital wildlife habitat and to add an increased buffer between our
operation and the Town of Silt's water intake system.
2. We agree to leave 100 ft. buffer zones, as opposed to the originally
proposed 50 ft. buffer zones, between the Colorado River and any excava-
tion. This was done in accordance with recommendations from the Colorado
Division of Wildlife and the Mined Land Reclamation Division.
(As you can see from #1 and #2, we, as operators, have dropped from 86
acres to 54 acres of proposed mining area. This is a drop of approxi-
mately 36 percent which, needless to say, creates a substantial burden
on us as both owner and operator.)
3. We will leave all cottonwood trees within the 100 ft. buffer zone as
well as replant new ones in our reclamation process. This is to satisfy
the Colorado Division of Wildlife in regard to bald eagles and great
blue herons, and to satisfy the Mined Land Reclamation Division.
4. No activity will occur at the western end of the project between March 1
and May 15 to afford protection to nesting great blue herons and Canada
geese.
5. We will leave irregular shorelines and construct a 70 - 90 ft. mudflat
to satisfy a Division of Wildlife recommendation.
6. We have also agreed to work with the Division of Wildlife and pay for
nesting platforms for the Canada geese.
Arnold Mackley
April 1, 1982
Page 2
7. We agree to hold trucking to a minimum until the completion of the new
Silt bridge (which looks to be complete around the end of 1982.) In
addition, we will repair any damage to the county roads that is caused
by Asphalt Paving Co. hauling units. These concessions are acceptable
to Mr. Leonard Bowlby, Garfield County Road Supervisor.
8. We have also agreed to work with the Town of Silt and pay our fair
share of a traffic study to be done by Centennial Engineering Co. of
Carbondale.
9. We also employed Gingery Associates, Inc. to analyze the situation in
regard to Silt's water system. In addition, we agreed to pay for Ted
Wing's time in any such analysis. (Ted is of Armstrong Associates and
is the engineer for Silt's water system.)
10. We have also agreed to limit intensive activity to the plant site rather
than the entire site.
In addition, we have adhered to the permitting process and have obtained or
will be obtaining water discharge permits, air emission permits and 404 permits
for dredging and filling. We will also have to post a bond for reclamation,
which will be done in accordance with the Mined Land Reclamation Board.
In conclusion, I believe this letter expresses our concern and commitment
towards making our operation compatable with, and an asset to Garfield
County. This company stands ready to work with Garfield County for a mean-
ingful working relationship to minimize any important issues.
Please don't hesitate to call us if you have any questions or if you need
additional information.
Respectfully yours,
ASPHALT PAVING CO.
Y
eKeller
JWK:nb
cc: Terry Bowman
Garfield County Planner
2030.200
Asphalt Paving Company Gravel Pit
Silt, Colorado
Special Addition to Planning Commission Submittal
Asphalt Paving Company is planning a gravel mining operation in
the Colorado River immediately west of the County Hwy. 311 bridge
south of Silt (See attached map). A11 mining operations will take
place on the two islands outlined in red. A11 structures will be
located on the large island on the downstream side of Hwy. 311,
and will be above the estimated 100 -year flood elevation of 5426.
The only materials to be stored within the floodplain will be the
mined aggregate and crushed rock. All potentially toxic materials,
such as diesel fuel and gasoline, will be stored at the plant site,
which is above the 100 -year flood elevation. Also, temporary
sanitation facilities for employees will be located at the plant
site.
As shown on the enclosed cross sections, no alterations will be
made to the Colorado River channel. Because of this, no adjoining
properties, upstream or downstream, will be adversely affected
during a 100 -year flood event. The increased floodwater storage,
created by the removal of the gravel, will tend to lower the flood
elevation and velocities in the immediate vicinity of the pits.
In conclusion, the Asphalt Paving Company gravel pits will not
adversely impact the 100 -year floodplain on the Colorado River,
and will not create a danger to public health or safety if the
plant site and toxic material storage are located on high ground
on the west side of County Hwy. 311.
Prepared By:
Ronald R. Fromknecht, P.E.
Gingery Associates, Inc.
f657
"E3
155
6S
w'
0-
a
Wo
1 ? o 0
7o
W
W.
0
LPST _.
5460
crc
oo _S
ol'e
VNPNG'.
`549 (�Oc
3233
4379
o_, �a
v\ 5e oo�l�i
ii
I I
b
8OQj
,t ,
21 ie*
\ - ✓ _y d 4377
/T2r\i v r 23
O
M
Lo
0
N
ct to
z
Z
_
w
CC
w
CD
a
1
a
Z
W
U)
J
w
2
Z
4
1
0
0
M
�
0
—
in
0
�
in
o
v
w
>
o
o
a
0
=
w
a
o
N
ASPHALT PAVING CO.
Silt Pit
PREPARED BY RINDAHL B ASSOCIATES
2180 S. IVANHOE ST.
DENVER , CO. 80222
NMOHS SV 3"1VOS
SHEET 2 OF 2
o
o
¢
w
>
Ix
0
w
m
w
w
>
¢
-
R
=
w
>
o
0
s
-
o
z
J
a
U
N
0
w
m
w
>
e
0
m
rew
w
cr
/
I
a
vl
inIin
J
JI
wl
al
31
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
°�
o�
M
x
I-
o
co
_
z
f
0
Z
2-
2--.
2
cc
w
F-
a
a1
a
Z
O
F-
0
J
W
Z
a
r
o
N
m
Oi
cv
_
W
1-
a
o
O
V
111
O
N
V'
to
O
M
d"
1n
O
d
1l7
O
10
10
1n
/.
e• 8:11.::::'1
Aro .lam CPO.
Solloa•e
Peryorly LW
60' Setback, lyp.
e•
TO p''
SILT 1n1.r.t $ b J
Noy z.
tie CASTLE u
U505 SIH 7.6'
Depth of wol.r 6'± (.<o.orrll
Typo of a.brl•1 Sea 1 grove 1
N.INof of eendluy: Dr .21u•
Ej APPLICATION AREA
PL AN
Scot.+1 1000
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
OTo.. of Sill
0 Volley forst, 1.0.
VICINITY MAP
16 10 3 0
6A5 A LT
n
Scoo In Nil.e
60'
0'
VARIES
ATER LEVEL ELEV. 5412.0'
( USBS Sill T.6' 1
o.
SECTION - PRIMARY ISLAND
SCALE HOR B VER. II . 40'
VARIES
EXISTINB
RIVERBED
SECTION- SECONDARY ISLAND
SCALE - HOR. 11 VER. I� = 40'
3. 1
EX STING
R VERbED
PROPOSED GRAVEL PIT
IN THE COLORADO RIVER
1/2 NILE SOUTH OF SILT, COLORADO
COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO
APPLICATION BY ASPHALT PAVING CON PANT
PREPAREC 8Y R.:DAdt AND ASSOCIAT ES, INC.
2180 :GUTH IVANHOE ST REET
DENVER, COLORADO 50222
SHEET 1 OF 2
DATE" 12/1•/61