Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportREQUEST: • 1 PC 2/8/95 PROJECT INFORMATI•N AND STAFF COMMENTS An Amendment to Resolution No. 81-384, for a Special Use Permit to allow for the permanent access to State Highway 82 for the BlueGravel Pit APPLICANT: Western Slope Aggregates LOCATION: Located in portions of Section 25 and 26, T7S, R88W of the 6th P.M.: more practically described as a parcel north of State Highway 82, across for the Ranch at Roaring Fork (The Blue Gravel Pit). SITE DATA: A parcel of approximately 110 acres WATER: Existing adjudicated water rights SEWER: Chemical Toilets / ISDS EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD, Ranch at Roaring Fork P/D, O/S I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is located in District A - Town of Carbondale Urban Area of Influence. H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL A. Site Desc ion: The site, known as "The Blue Gravel Pit", has been operating under aS ial Use Permit (81-384) since 1981. A vicinity map is attached on pagt . B. Requested Amendment: Resolution 81-384 (attached on pages igm1i ) included condition (#6), which restricted access to the pit via County Road 103 and 104. The applicants are requesting the addition of a permanent access directly to State Highway 82, in addition to the existing access onto County Roads 103 and 104. Access would be via two existing roadways, the upper access being on the Blue property, and the lower route bein4, within SH 82 ROW. The State has approved the access request (see page 14.1, ). A schematic showing the location of the access roads is attached on page 13'. In 1993, by Resolution No. 93-051 the County approved the temporary use of this access by the applicant to fulfill a contract with the Department of • • t ••" 44 • • • 6 • • Transportation. Access to the SH 82 site using the proposed route was from from June lst, 1993 to November 1, 1993. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1. Impact Statement: Section 5.03.07 requires the submittal of an impact statement for all industrial uses within the County that require a Conditional or Special Use Permit. Section 5.03.07 requires the following: 1. The impact statement must show that the use shall be designed and operated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the County, State and Federal governments, and will not have an adverse effect on: A.) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface runoff, stream flow or ground water; B.) Use of adjacent land through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; C.) Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions; 2. Truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses shall not create hazards or nuisances to areas elsewhere in the County; 3. Sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed uses; A cop of the impact study submitted with the application is attached on pages . Staff Staff agrees with the applicant's assertion that the proposed amendment does not increase the truck noise impacts on the Ranch at Roaring Fork above the current levels created by the existing highway traffic Additionally, the proposed access will reduce the traffic impacts on County Road 103 and 104, by the reduction of the majority of the truck traffic onto those roads and the CR103/Highway 82 intersection. 2. Impacts on Adjacent Land: Primary impacts to adjacent lands by the amendment to the haul route are two -fold: the impact of removing traffic from the current CR 103/104 route; and the impact associated with the new haul route. Staff suggested during previous hearings on this project, that the current route creates an incompatible traffic mix between industrial, residential and school bus traffic on these roads. Due to the rniminimal right-of-way width on the 103/104 route, the direct route proposed in the amendment is preferable due to safety concerns, as well as energy conservation. Adjacent land uses from the proposed route, namely residents from the Ranch at Roaring Fork, could experience additional noise. The applicants have indicated their willingness to mitigate these impacts by widening and paving the road and revegetating the disturbed areas. Staff has suggested in the past that 2. • • Y • • the noise impacts associated with the alternative access would be minimal due to the volume of traffic currently using SH 82. Additionally, the nonuse of fake breaks coming into the Highway 82 access point and down the hill, except in an emergency, will reduce the amount of noise. The use of this access for a temporary access by the applicant provided an opportunity to assess the long- term impacts of this access alternative. There were no complaints received by the County as a result of this use, which was very heavy. 3. Traffic Impacts: The prii:.ary issue for the access amendment are the impact on adjacent land uses (1(b) above) and the impact on truck and automobile traffic (#2 above). Note the amendment does not increase the level of activity in the pit itself, but only the haul route from the pit Conditions of the State permit include full acceleration/deceleration lanes for the upper access road. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the meeting before the Plannning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the meeting. 2. That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the amendment based on the following condition: 1. That all verbal and written representations made by the applicants in the application and at the public hearing shall be considered conditions of approval unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Jake brakes will not be used, except in an emergency. �3• All other conditions of approval contained in Resolution 81-384 must be complied with by the applicant. Violation of these conditions could result in revocation of the existing SUP. %r(L 4.44 / ,Ike. • £4»// 7.2• t►-' . — gyp, + , 14.1 -- F , 4 / / D 71P 4 . Aut. oc c u-•- • n- iw- /03 e /o d' / 3 1' i 2). / )67//1- iaJ „45-#4-12:27,441.4.26rel l7/t - 11 A:1 1-j-14-- ajf4- • T" /6 / -- 7 L 4Lrt4' 61,4 4410/ 4.4124 /fir J 92 - "0-1-Z 4-1 72/4-?'