HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 10.21.2002• •
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
TYPE OF REVIEW: Special Use Permit
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
LOCATION:
BOARD - 10/21/02
Public Hearing
TP
The Applicant requests a Special Use
Permit for storage and accessory uses to
accommodate the relocation of GMCO's
chip sealing and magnesium chloride
trucking operation from Carbondale to
the subject property.
GMCO, Inc.
Tim Thulson — Balcomb & Green P.C.
The subject property is located 2 miles
east of the city limits of Rifle.
EXISTING ZONING: A/I (Agricultural/Industrial)
I. ISSUE:
Over the past couple weeks, the Applicant's representative has verbally indicated to staff that the
Applicant may either be completely withdrawing the application pending comments from the City of
Rifle, or a request would be made, at the meeting, to continue the application to a date certain. Due to
these representations and the need for additional information, staff has not completed a memorandum
discussing the request. Staff is not prepared to discuss this Special Use Permit request at this time and
requests a continuance.
II. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the BOCC CONTINUE this application for 90 days, unless the Applicant decides
to withdraw the application all together.
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW NOTES
BAILEY PIT SPECIAL USE PERMIT
August 19, 2002
ZONING REVEW: FROM ZONING RESOLUTION
1. From supplementary standards contained in Section 5.03, 5.03.07 and 5.03.08, the
project is subject to theses standards.
2. Because of knowledge of the US Army Corps of Engineers floodplain study of
1986, is this project subject to the provisions of Section 6.00 (ie., floodplain
reglulations)?
3. From 2.02.52 (5) Special Use permit requirement is defined.
4. From 2.02.31, Industrial operations are classified.
Special Use Permit for storage and accessory uses instant to the proposed
facilities of GMCO. The approval of this application will allow the Applicant to
relocate its chip sealing and magnesium chloride trucking operations from their
present location in Carbondale, to the GMCO Site.
On site facilities will be:
Maintenance Facility and office
Truck Rack Washout Facility
Magnesium Chloride Storage Tanks
Sand and Gravel load out bays
Parking and accessways
Fuel Storage and Dispensing area
Individual Sewage Disposal System
Scales and office (existing use)
Camper pads (2 existing on site)
Well houses (2 existing on site)
Individual Septic Systems (2 existing on site)
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5.03
1. Utilities adequate to provided water and sanitation service based on accepted
engineering standards and approved by the Board of county commissioners shall
either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use.
1
• •
i) Water: To be gained from utilizing two existing on-site wells (PortoMix
Wells No 1 and No 2). Water will be augmented pursuant to water
allotment contract with the West Divide Conservancy District. Additional
information is necessary to determine the adequacy of the proposal as
listed as follows:
a. Locations of existing ISDS's need to be provided to determine
adequacy of setbacks from the disposal fields.
b. Protection of wells from River.
c. Appurtenant facilities? (ie., pumping facilities, distribution lines,
electric feed lines)
d. Standards for location relative to other on-site hazards/chemicals (ie.,
fuel and oil storage, cement, etc...)
ii) Sewer: Clarification needs to occur as to the specific location and size of
the existing ISDS's.
a. Standards for location relative to the setback requirements of ISDS
regulations. Note that the City of Rifle has a proposed raw water
supply line alignment in the general vicinity of the proposed dry well
absorption field. It is requested to move the proposed ISDS to a
location south of the proposed buildings. It is recommended that the
new ISDS and existing ISDS's be combined into a single absorption
field meeting all of the setback requirements of the County's ISDS
regulations.
b. Design of system relative to flows, septic tank location, absorption
field location, type of absorption field and maintenance of system as it
relates to the recommendations in note a.), above.
c. As this area is shown being inundated by the 100 -year floodplain of
the Colorado River, how is the field is protected from the 100 -year
flood and the flood protected from the field?
d. I.S.D.S. will need to be designed by an R.P.E. due to the location of
the field to the river, likelihood of colluvial soils (ie., high percolation
rate), depth to ground water and transportation routes, parking areas
and proximity to the City of Rifle water Intake.
e. The existing ISDS's absorption fields will need to be reclaimed as a
result of combining the systems into one, how will this reclamation
take place?
f. If the applicant is allowed to continue his plans of maintaining the use
of the two existing ISDS's and add a third, how do all of the setbacks
from each ISDS relate to each other as well as the other setback
requirements of the County's ISDS regulations?
2
• •
2. Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the
proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in
place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use.
i) Applicant is planning on adhering to the terms of the existing permit for
prior activities.
ii) Applicant will need to provide additional detail as to internal access on the
site relative to the parking area and fuel dispensing area.
iii) In order to comply with Section 5.03.08.5.0 of the zoning resolution, the
applicant will need to elevate (as is stated in the application) certain
portions of the site. How are grading and access going to look as a result
of this activity?
iv) Are any portions of the primary access and parking lot to be paved?
3. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent
uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the
periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points,
lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood
character.
i) The applicant claims that the use is consistent with past uses and no
additional screening or landscaping will be required to meet the intent of
the section of the resolution.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CODE REVIEW OF SECTION 5.03.07
1. The required impact statement has been provided in report form with narrative
discussion of items A -F addressed with specificity. Those areas of response
generating questions or concerns are noted as follows:
A) Water pollution is a concern relative to the location of and number of ISDS's that
are to be located on this property. Also, specific construction requirements of fuel
containment facilities need to provided. Finally, concern exists as to the effects of
magnesium chloride upon water quality, particularly as it is located immediately
upstream of the City of Rifle's primary intake structure.
1.) ISDS Concerns:
a.) Number of ISDS's on this site. With the addition of another ISDS on site,
concern results as to the adequacy of the setbacks required to be met in
accordance to State and County standards. Additionally, the total
wastewater flow anticipated for the site becomes a concern. Additional
information needs to be provided that shows that all applicable setbacks
can be met. This information needs to be submitted in light of the City of
Rifle's intent to utilize the area north of the proposed buildings as a
3
• •
corridor to install a raw water delivery line from the Bailey Pond, west to
the City's pump house.
b.) It is recommended that the two existing ISDS's and the proposed ISDS
have their absorption fields combined to minimize setback requirements.
It should be noted that setback requirements exist between minimum
distances from adjacent absorption fields.
c.) Due to the close proximity of the Bailey Pond, adjacent wetlands and the
Colorado River, the design of the septic tanks need to consider bouancy
effects. The septic tanks are exposed to high ground water as a result of
the flood waters (100 -year) being above the existing ground elevations.
d.) Because the computed 100 -year floodplain is above the existing ground
surface, the disposal fields need to be protected from the waters of the
100 -year flood plain. Accordingly, the waters from the 100 -year
floodplain need to be protected from the ISDS's. The drywell design
concept provides for waters to directly access the waters of the 100 -year
floodplain without proper treatment (natural filtering) to take place.
e.) The current ISDS design for the proposed new ISDS incorporates an
"assumed" percolation rate. Additional percolation testing (along with
provision of soil profile holes) will be necessary to assure that the ISDS is
properly constructed to meet State and County regulations.
2.) Fuel Containment Facilities Concerns:
a.) The SPCC plan is silent on the specific construction requirements
(graphic) of the specific containment facilities for fuel spills. The plan
does identify that these facilities are proposed, however.
The anticipated scenario's predicted to involve a spill are listed as follows:
1. Failure of a fuel storage tank (as applicable to the on site storage tank)
2. Spills could occur during truck and/or equipment loading or unloading.
(as applicable to the on site storage tank)
3. A spill indoors from one of the vehicle fluid storage containers. (as
applicable to the vehicle maintenance shop)
4. A spill from the over flow of the storage tanks. (as applicable to the
truck wash facility)
5. A spill that could occur during the process of emptying the tanks (as
applicable to the truck was facility)
b.) On-site storage tank concerns:
1. The construction of the onsite containment vessel describes,
narratively, the dimensions of the containment vessel. Aside from
noting that the facility is to be constructed of steel, no additional
information exists that describes the specific installation requirements,
such as steel plate thickness, size of H -beams and tubular sections,
4
• .
corrosion protection (ie., finishes) and elevation of the facility in
relationship to the 100 -year floodplain. No information exists to
discern how the facility is to be protected from the flood waters of the
Colorado River and visa versa.
2. For the truck loading and unloading area, it is noted that spills can
occur both inside and outside of the containment area. For those spills
inside the containment area, their will be no specific concerns as long
as the procedures outlined in the SPCC plan are adhered to. However,
for spills outside of the containment area, it is noted that the facility is
not intended to have a quick -drain system. The spilled fuel is then
expected to be absorbed into the site area. With the exposure that
exists to the City of Rifle's intake structure, we would recommend that
the loading/unloading area be designed in such a fashion that any spills
that could occur from this activity also be collected in a "leak proof"
vessel. From this leak proof vessel, the fuel could then be disposed of
in accordance to the applicable state and federal requirements. We do
not recommend that any spills be allowed to be absorbed by any of the
on site soils.
Construction of a facility that would incorporate a "leak proof' vessel
will most likely require the loading/unloading area to be constructed of
a slab with drainage designed to collect all fluids "spilled" on the slab.
The slab could drain to this vessel and /or a sand/oil trap.
c.) Vehicle Maintenance Shop Concerns:
1. The only provision proposed to mitigate spills in the maintenance shop
is to provide sufficient absorbent materials to apply to a spill prior to a
spill moving to the exterior. The concern with this mitigation
technique is that it requires continuous observation to detect any spills
(and/or leaks). An undetected leak (say overnight) could go
undetected and thus, untreated or uncollected until it is too late. We
would recommend that interior slab grading be provided for the
building design that incorporates the use of a oil/sand trap to collect
any spills that may occur in the Vehicle Maintenance Shop.
2. Used oil tanks are proposed with this facility. The application appears
to be silent on specific detail for construction and/or location of these
facilities. It is discerned from the SPCC plan that transfer of liquid is
to occur with these facilities. Of concern is the statement that a "spill"
of estimated 50 gallon volume could spread out on gravel surface and
be absorbed. As with the truck loading and unloading area previously
discussed, with the proximity to the City of Rifle's intake structure and
the exposure to the 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado River, these
spills should be collected in a "leak proof' vessel and accordingly,
disposed of in accordance to the applicable state and federal
regulations. A specific "transfer slab" is recommended to be provided
5
• •
that incorporates a design to collect any and all spills related to this
part of the operation.
d.) Truck washing facility concerns:
1. The two 2500 gallon concrete effluent collection tanks are proposed to
be located to the south side and exterior of the buildings. As such, the
design of these tanks will be exposed to high ground water conditions.
Bouancy should be considered in the design of these tanks.
2. The tanks will need to be protected from the effects of the 100 -year
water surface of the Colorado River. (ie., infiltration into, erosion and
bouancy).
3. The Colorado River 100 -year flood plain will need to be protected
from these tanks. Both from a direct overflow of the tanks standpoint
and a spill (during vacuuming tanks) needs to be considered.
4. A "maintenance slab" will most likely be necessary to assure that any
spill (or dripping) resulting from the vacuuming operations is collected
and disposed of properly.
3) Magnesium Chloride tank storage concerns:
a.) Because the magnesium chloride will be a concentrated fluid that will be
contained on site in significant volume, we are equally concerned about
the environmental and health impacts that may exist as a result of a
rupture and or spill of the storage facilities containing the magnesium
chloride. We recommend that the storage, loading and dispensing
facilities for the magnesium chloride be contained in a similar fashion as
outlined in the comments for fuel and oil storage, loading and dispensing
facilities.
We provide this recommendation, as the following is true:
1. The magnesium chloride is perceived as a recognizable pollutant to the
Colorado River.
2. The site is directly tributary to a public water supply.
3. The site is subject to flooding from the 100 -year floodplain of the
Colorado River.
4) Site development concerns:
a.) Because this site will be utilized by an operation that has in past exhibited
a high level of transportation related uses, concern over general pollutants
that may be introduced into the adjoining stream and watershed (from
normal rainfall/runoff producing events) if not properly collected and
treated. We would recommend that the site planning incorporate, in its
design of access ways and parking areas, a drainage plan that directs all
6
• •
runoff to a central area that collects and treats the runoff prior to allowing
flows to be directed offsite. We would further recommend that these
facilities be designed to function during and not be impacted by the 100 -
year flood event of the Colorado River. The on-site facilities will need to
utilize the 25 -year rainfall event for the specific appurtenant design.
F) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for
the standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of the Zoning Resolution still need to
be further addressed. Specifically, Section 5.03.08.(5).(C) needs to be further
addressed:
Section 5.03.08.(5).(C) states: "No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a
property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the property by
any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces;
The entire site is exposed to the 100 -year flood from the Colorado River. Gravel
storage piles, Magnesium Chloride storage tanks, buildings, parking areas and
accessways, etc... are all going to be exposed. The application needs to
specifically identify how these facilities are going to adhere to Section
5.03.08.(5).(C) of the Zoning Resolution.
1.) We would recommend that all facilities be elevated to above the 100 -year
floodplain of the Colorado River to mitigate concerns relative to this section
of the zoning resolution.
2. The permit may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate
mitigation for the following:
A) A plan for site rehabilitation has been prepared and submitted. The plan is subject
to approval by the County Commissioners.
B) Security will need to be provided as determined by the County Commissioners.
C) Impacts identified in the impact statement and compliance with the standards
contained in Section 5.03.08 of the Zoning Resolution are adequately mitigated.
In accordance to 5.03.07.(1)(A) and (F) above, these issues need to be further
address in the application in order for the Commissioners to grant the permit.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
1. We would recommend that the application be modified to address the issues
outlined and discussed in the section of this report entitled "REVIEW
COMMENTS FROM REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5.03."
7
• •
2. We would recommend that the application be modified to address the issues
outlined and discussed in the section of the report entitled "REVIEW
COMMENTS FROM CODE REVIEW OF SECTION 5.03.07."
3. We would recommend that any condition of approval for this Special Use Permit
be conditioned upon the applicant's successful acquisition of any other required
permits including the City of Rifle's Watershed permit.
4. We would recommend that the applicant coordinate the site plan design with the
City of Rifle's proposed raw water system improvements that include
development of the Bailey Pond as a secondary intake for the City of Rifle. Of
importance to coordinate are the proposed pump station location and the proposed
alignment of the raw water delivery line.
8
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER
TO:
MEMORANDUM Re_e_ti__S cV,2a/5 L
Mark Bean, Director of Building and Planning
Garfield County
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81061
FROM: Jefferey S. Simonson, P.E.
DATE: 8/19/2002
SUBJ: GMCO/Bailey Pit Special Use Permit
Mark,
Please find attached a draft copy of our review comments for the GMCO/Bailey Pit
Special Use Permit application. I am mailing a copy of this to Dennis Stranger for
his review. Let me know when you desire to meet and discuss this particular
application.
Upon your receipt and review, if you have any questions or concerns, please don't
hesitate to contact myself.
Thanks
Jeff S.
CC: Dennis Stranger
I:\2002-233\02\corresp\garcomemo.doc
118 W. 66 Street, Suite 200
AIL TO
Pew413 i-My,t Eg
"1/474/1z.t.60- 4140 Pc47NIAlmi c. leie$
Ex /213
B/L:, .0z._
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1004
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-5948 FAX
garcomemo
Created Monday August 19, 200201:35 PM
GARFIELD COUNTY
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW NOTES
BAILEY PIT SPECIAL USE PERMIT
August 19, 2002
ZONING REVEW: FROM ZONING RESOLUTION
EMT
1. From supplementary standards contained in Section 5.03, 5.03.07 and 5.03.08, the
project is subject to theses standards.
2. Because of knowledge of the US Army Corps of Engineers floodplain study of
1986, is this project subject to the provisions of Section 6.00 (ie., floodplain
reglulations)?
3. From 2.02.52 (5) Special Use permit requirement is defined.
4. From 2.02.31, Industrial operations are classified.
Special Use Permit for storage and accessory uses instant to the proposed
facilities of GMCO. The approval of this application will allow the Applicant to
relocate its chip sealing and magnesium chloride trucking operations from their
present location in Carbondale, to the GMCO Site.
On site facilities will be:
Maintenance Facility and office
Truck Rack Washout Facility
Magnesium Chloride Storage Tanks
Sand and Gravel load out bays
Parking and accessways
Fuel Storage and Dispensing area
Individual Sewage Disposal System
Scales and office (existing use)
Camper pads (2 existing on site)
Well houses (2 existing on site)
Individual Septic Systems (2 existing on site)
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5.03
1. Utilities adequate to provided water and sanitation service based on accepted
engineering standards and approved by the Board of county commissioners shall
either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use.
1
• •
i) Water: To be gained from utilizing two existing on-site wells (PortoMix
Wells No 1 and No 2). Water will be augmented pursuant to water
allotment contract with the West Divide Conservancy District. Additional
information is necessary to determine the adequacy of the proposal as
listed as follows:
a. Locations of existing ISDS's need to be provided to determine
adequacy of setbacks from the disposal fields.
b. Protection of wells from River.
c. Appurtenant facilities? (ie., pumping facilities, distribution lines,
electric feed lines)
d. Standards for location relative to other on-site hazards/chemicals (ie.,
fuel and oil storage, cement, etc...)
ii) Sewer: Clarification needs to occur as to the specific location and size of
the existing ISDS's.
a. Standards for location relative to the setback requirements of ISDS
regulations. Note that the City of Rifle has a proposed raw water
supply line alignment in the general vicinity of the proposed dry well
absorption field. It is requested to move the proposed ISDS to a
location south of the proposed buildings. It is recommended that the
new ISDS and existing ISDS's be combined into a single absorption
field meeting all of the setback requirements of the County's ISDS
regulations.
b. Design of system relative to flows, septic tank location, absorption
field location, type of absorption field and maintenance of system as it
relates to the recommendations in note a.), above.
c. As this area is shown being inundated by the 100 -year floodplain of
the Colorado River, how is the field is protected from the 100 -year
flood and the flood protected from the field?
d. I.S.D.S. will need to be designed by an R.P.E. due to the location of
the field to the river, likelihood of colluvial soils (ie., high percolation
rate), depth to ground water and transportation routes, parking areas
and proximity to the City of Rifle water Intake.
e. The existing ISDS's absorption fields will need to be reclaimed as a
result of combining the systems into one, how will this reclamation
take place?
f. If the applicant is allowed to continue his plans of maintaining the use
of the two existing ISDS's and add a third, how do all of the setbacks
from each ISDS relate to each other as well as the other setback
requirements of the County's ISDS regulations?
2
• •
2. Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the
proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in
place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use.
i) Applicant is planning on adhering to the terms of the existing permit for
prior activities.
ii) Applicant will need to provide additional detail as to internal access on the
site relative to the parking area and fuel dispensing area.
iii) In order to comply with Section 5.03.08.5.0 of the zoning resolution, the
applicant will need to elevate (as is stated in the application) certain
portions of the site. How are grading and access going to look as a result
of this activity?
iv) Are any portions of the primary access and parking lot to be paved?
3. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent
uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the
periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points,
lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood
character.
i) The applicant claims that the use is consistent with past uses and no
additional screening or landscaping will be required to meet the intent of
the section of the resolution.
REVIEW COMMENTS FROM CODE REVIEW OF SECTION 5.03.07
1. The required impact statement has been provided in report form with narrative
discussion of items A -F addressed with specificity. Those areas of response
generating questions or concerns are noted as follows:
A) Water pollution is a concern relative to the location of and number of ISDS's that
are to be located on; this property. Also, specific construction requirements of fuel
containment facilities need to provided. Finally, concern exists as to the effects of
magnesium chloride upon water quality, particularly as it is located immediately
upstream of the City of Rifle's primary intake structure.
1.) ISDS Concerns:
a.) Number of ISDS's on this site. With the addition of another ISDS on site,
concern results as to the adequacy of the setbacks required to be met in
accordance to State and County standards. Additionally, the total
wastewater flow anticipated for the site becomes a concern. Additional
information needs to be provided that shows that all applicable setbacks
can be met. This information needs to be submitted in light of the City of
Rifle's intent to utilize the area north of the proposed buildings as a
3
•
corridor to install a raw water delivery line from the Bailey Pond, west to
the City's pump house.
b.) It is recommended that the two existing ISDS's and the proposed ISDS
have their absorption fields combined to minimize setback requirements.
It should be noted that setback requirements exist between minimum
distances from adjacent absorption fields.
c.) Due to the close proximity of the Bailey Pond, adjacent wetlands and the
Colorado River, the design of the septic tanks need to consider bouancy
effects. The septic tanks are exposed to high ground water as a result of
the flood waters (100 -year) being above the existing ground elevations.
d.) Because the computed 100 -year floodplain is above the existing ground
surface, the disposal fields need to be protected from the waters of the
100 -year flood plain. Accordingly, the waters from the 100 -year
floodplain need to be protected from the ISDS's. The drywell design
concept provides for waters to directly access the waters of the 100 -year
floodplain without proper treatment (natural filtering) to take place.
e.) The current ISDS design for the proposed new ISDS incorporates an
"assumed" percolation rate. Additional percolation testing (along with
provision of soil profile holes) will be necessary to assure that the ISDS is
properly constructed to meet State and County regulations.
2.) Fuel Containment Facilities Concerns:
a.) The SPCC plan is silent on the specific construction requirements
(graphic) of the specific containment facilities for fuel spills. The plan
does identify that these facilities are proposed, however.
The anticipated scenario's predicted to involve a spill are listed as follows:
1. Failure of a fuel storage tank (as applicable to the on site storage tank)
2. Spills could occur during truck and/or equipment loading or unloading.
(as applicable to the on site storage tank)
3. A spill indoors from one of the vehicle fluid storage containers. (as
applicable to the vehicle maintenance shop)
4. A spill from the over flow of the storage tanks. (as applicable to the
truck wash facility)
5. A spill that could occur during the process of emptying the tanks (as
applicable to the truck was facility)
b.) On-site storage tank concerns:
1. The construction of the onsite containment vessel describes,
narratively, the dimensions of the containment vessel. Aside from
noting that the facility is to be constructed of steel, no additional
information exists that describes the specific installation requirements,
such as steel plate thickness, size of H -beams and tubular sections,
4
•
corrosion protection (ie., finishes) and elevation of the facility in
relationship to the 100 -year floodplain. No information exists to
discern how the facility is to be protected from the flood waters of the
Colorado River and visa versa.
2. For the truck loading and unloading area, it is noted that spills can
occur both inside and outside of the containment area. For those spills
inside the containment area, their will be no specific concerns as long
as the procedures outlined in the SPCC plan are adhered to. However,
for spills outside of the containment area, it is noted that the facility is
not intended to have a quick -drain system. The spilled fuel is then
expected to be absorbed into the site area. With the exposure that
exists to the City of Rifle's intake structure, we would recommend that
the loading/unloading area be designed in such a fashion that any spills
that could occur from this activity also be collected in a "leak proof'
vessel. From this leak proof vessel, the fuel could then be disposed of
in accordance to the applicable state and federal requirements. We do
not recommend that any spills be allowed to be absorbed by any of the
on site soils.
Construction of a facility that would incorporate a "leak proof' vessel
will most likely require the loading/unloading area to be constructed of
a slab with drainage designed to collect all fluids "spilled" on the slab.
The slab could drain to this vessel and /or a sand/oil trap.
c.) Vehicle Maintenance Shop Concerns:
1. The only provision proposed to mitigate spills in the maintenance shop
is to provide sufficient absorbent materials to apply to a spill prior to a
spill moving to the exterior. The concern with this mitigation
technique is that it requires continuous observation to detect any spills
(and/or leaks). An undetected leak (say overnight) could go
undetected and thus, untreated or uncollected until it is too late. We
would recommend that interior slab grading be provided for the
building design that incorporates the use of a oil/sand trap to collect
any spills that may occur in the Vehicle Maintenance Shop.
2. Used oil tanks are proposed with this facility. The application appears
to be silent on specific detail for construction and/or location of these
facilities. It is discerned from the SPCC plan that transfer of liquid is
to occur with these facilities. Of concern is the statement that a "spill"
of estimated 50 gallon volume could spread out on gravel surface and
be absorbed. As with the truck loading and unloading area previously
discussed, with the proximity to the City of Rifle's intake structure and
the exposure to the 100 -year floodplain of the Colorado River, these
spills should be collected in a "leak proof' vessel and accordingly,
disposed of in accordance to the applicable state and federal
regulations. A specific "transfer slab" is recommended to be provided
5
that incorporates a design to collect any and all spills related to this
part of the operation.
d.) Truck washing facility concerns:
1. The two 2500 gallon concrete effluent collection tanks are proposed to
be located to the south side and exterior of the buildings. As such, the
design of these tanks will be exposed to high ground water conditions.
Bouancy should be considered in the design of these tanks.
2. The tanks will need to be protected from the effects of the 100 -year
water surface of the Colorado River. (ie., infiltration into, erosion and
bouancy).
3. The Colorado River 100 -year flood plain will need to be protected
from these tanks. Both from a direct overflow of the tanks standpoint
and a spill (during vacuuming tanks) needs to be considered.
4. A "maintenance slab" will most likely be necessary to assure that any
spill (or dripping) resulting from the vacuuming operations is collected
and disposed of properly.
3) Magnesium Chloride tank storage concerns:
a.) Because the magnesium chloride will be a concentrated fluid that will be
contained on site in significant volume, we are equally concerned about
the environmental and health impacts that may exist as a result of a
rupture and or spill of the storage facilities containing the magnesium
chloride. We recommend that the storage, loading and dispensing
facilities for the magnesium chloride be contained in a similar fashion as
outlined in the comments for fuel and oil storage, loading and dispensing
facilities.
We provide this recommendation, as the following is true:
1. The magnesium chloride is perceived as a recognizable pollutant to the
Colorado River.
2. The site is directly tributary to a public water supply.
3. The site is subject to flooding from the 100 -year floodplain of the
Colorado River.
4) Site development concerns:
a.) Because this site will be utilized by an operation that has in past exhibited
a high level of transportation related uses, concern over general pollutants
that may be introduced into the adjoining stream and watershed (from
normal rainfall/runoff producing events) if not properly collected and
treated. We would recommend that the site planning incorporate, in its
design of access ways and parking areas, a drainage plan that directs all
6
runoff to a central area that collects and treats the runoff prior to allowing
flows to be directed offsite. We would further recommend that these
facilities be designed to function during and not be impacted by the 100 -
year flood event of the Colorado River. The on-site facilities will need to
utilize the 25 -year rainfall event for the specific appurtenant design.
F) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for
the standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of the Zoning Resolution still need to
be further addressed. Specifically, Section 5.03.08.(5).(C) needs to be further
addressed:
Section 5.03.08.(5).(C) states: "No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a
property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the property by
any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces;
The entire site is exposed to the 100 -year flood from the Colorado River. Gravel
storage piles, Magnesium Chloride storage tanks, buildings, parking areas and
accessways, etc... are all going to be exposed. The application needs to
specifically identify how these facilities are going to adhere to Section
5.03.08.(5).(C) of the Zoning Resolution.
1.) We would recommend that all facilities be elevated to above the 100 -year
floodplain of the Colorado River to mitigate concerns relative to this section
of the zoning resolution.
2. The permit may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate
mitigation for the following:
A) A plan for site rehabilitation has been prepared and submitted. The plan is subject
to approval by the County Commissioners.
B) Security will need to be provided as determined by the County Commissioners.
C) Impacts identified in the impact statement and compliance with the standards
contained in Section 5.03.08 of the Zoning Resolution are adequately mitigated.
In accordance to 5.03.07.(1)(A) and (F) above, these issues need to be further
address in the application in order for the Commissioners to grant the permit.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
1. We would recommend that the application be modified to address the issues
outlined and discussed in the section of this report entitled "REVIEW
COMMENTS FROM REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5.03."
7
• •
2. We would recommend that the application be modified to address the issues
outlined and discussed in the section of the report entitled "REVIEW
COMMENTS FROM CODE REVIEW OF SECTION 5.03.07."
3. We would recommend that any condition of approval for this Special Use Permit
be conditioned upon the applicant's successful acquisition of any other required
permits including the City of Rifle's Watershed permit.
4. We would recommend that the applicant coordinate the site plan design with the
City of Rifle's proposed raw water system improvements that include
development of the Bailey Pond as a secondary intake for the City of Rifle. Of
importance to coordinate are the proposed pump station location and the proposed
alignment of the raw water delivery line.
8
SENT BY: RFPD;
0706252063; OCT -7-02 2:05PM;
• •
RIFLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
October 7, 2002
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8"d Street Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Attention: Tamara Pregl
Reference: GMCO Special Use Permit
Ms. Pregl,
The Rifle Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposed site plan and special use
permits of the GMCO site Fast of Rifler At this time, the project meets the requirements
of the District. M the project proceeds, the District will require review of the proposed
improvements. The applicant should be aware that available fire protection water and
fire protection systems will be evaluated dura the building permit process_ in addition,
the District will want to review the site and plans prior to installation of the fuel and
magnesium chloride tanks.
Thank you for your cooperation and feel free to contact me if you have any additional
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Mike Morgan.
District Chief
Telephone (970) 625-1243 • Fax (970) 625-2963
1850 Railroad Avenue • Rifle, Colorado 81650
PAGE 2/2
Oct 11 02 08:03a Brian Gray
(970)625-8009
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
SAI Owens,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUALOPPORTUNLTY EMPLOYER
Russell George, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (309)-297-1182
October 10, 2002
Tamara Pregl
Garfield County Planning Department
108 8a' Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: GMCO Inc. / Special Use Permit
Dear Tamara:
For Wildlife -
For People
1 had the opportunity to visit. this site several months ago to look atthe.wildlife habitat associated with
the parceL I have also reviewed the special use application paperwork included with the referral
documents.
The location of the proposed use of the site occurs in an area that is already heavily disturbed. Impacts to
wildlife m the immediate vicinity of the new development will probably be minimaL However, the site is
in close proximity to the riparian zone of the Colorado River, and the increase in human activity in the
area could impact wildlife that utilize the area along the river. Adding or enhancing native vegetation
between the development and theriparian area could mitigate impacts to wildlife.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on land use issues in Garfield County. If you have any
questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Brian Gray
District Wildlife Manager
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Walcher, Executive Director
WILDLFE COMMISSION, Rick Enslrom, Char • Robert Shoemaker. Vice -Chair • Marianna Rattopouios, Secretary
Members, Bernard Black. Tom Burke. Jeffrey Crawford. Philip James • Bad Phelps • Oivc Valdez
Ex•OlFdo Members, Greg E. Welcher and Don Ament
P.3
• •
Tamara Pregi
From: Matt Sturgeon [matt@rifleco.org]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 5:34 PM
To: Mark Bean; Tamara Pregl
Subject: Public Service Company SUP/Rifle Gas Plant
Rifle staff reviewed the subject Special Use Permit. The City of Rifle has no objection
to the proposed compressor station.
Matt Sturgeon, Director
Department of Planning and Development
City of Rifle
PO Box 1908
Rifle, CO 81650
970-625-6253, (fax) 970-625-6268
matt@rifleco.org <mailto:matt@rifleco.org>
1
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
www.watenstate.co.us
September 25, 2002
RECEIVED
SEP 3 u 2[U2
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
Tamara Pregl
Garfield County Planning Dept
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: GMCO, Inc. Special Use Permit
SW'/4 NE' Sec. 15, T6S, R93W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 45
OF • COt
1876
4
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Ms. Pregl:
We have reviewed the propose water supply for the above project. The applicant
indicates that the wells decreed in Case Nos. W-2503 and W-2504 (Well Permit No. 10448-F) will
be used for in-house office personnel and the cleaning of trucks and other heavy equipment.
Porto -Mix Well No. 1 was decreed for domestic use. So long as the historic use of this
well was for office use we have no objection to the continued use of this well for such use.
Porto -Mix Well No. 2 was decreed for industrial use for the operation or a ready mix
concrete operation. So long as the historic use of this well included the washing of equipment we
have no objection to the continued use of this well for such use. However, Permit No. 10448-F
was issued for the NE'/4 of the SW'/4 of said Section 15, but the bearing and distance in the
decree indicates that the well is located in the SW'/4 of the NE'/4 of said Section 15. Thus, either
the decree or the permit should be amended to the correct location. (Form Nos. GWS -11 is
enclosed for the applicants use should the decreed location be determined correct.)
If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig
Lis of this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Craig M. L s
Water Resources Engineer
Enclosures: Change in Ownership/Address Correction of the Well Location (GWS -11)
Permit No. 10448-F
CML/GMCO.doc
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer
Robert C. Klenda, Water Commissioner, District 45
Form
No.
GWS-I 1
03/02
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Deriver, CO 80203
(303) 866-3581 Fax (303) 866-3589
For Office Use Only
CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP/ADDRESS
CORRECTION OF THE WELL LOCATION
Insert the
Well Permit Number .
Name, address and phone of the person claiming ownership of the well:
NAME(S)
Mailing Address
City, St. Zip
Phone ( 1
If your well has an absolute water right, decreed
by the court and the well is not registered with the
State Engineer, enter the Water Court Case
Number / Civil Action Number and well number
as decreed.
This form is filed by the named individual/entity claiming that they are the owner of the well permitted as referenced above.
This filing is made pursuant to C.R.S. 37-90-143.
WELL LOCATION: County
Owner's
(City)
_ N. or S., Range
Well Designation
E.
Ft. From
, Block
(State) (Zip)
or W., ____ P.M.
E. or W. Line.
, Filing/Unit
(Address)
1/4 of the____ 1/4, Sec. _, Twp.
Distance from Section Lines Ft.
From N. or S.,
Lot
Subdivision Name
The above listed owner(s) say(s) that he, she (they) own the well described
amended for the following reasons: Change in name of owner
Correction of location for exempt wells permitted prior to May 8, 1972
May 17, 1965. Please see the reverse side for further information regarding
herein. The existing record is being
Change in mailing address
and non-exempt wells permitted before
correction of the well location.
I (we) claim and say that I (we) (are) the owner(s) of the well described above and that the commencement of
extraction of ground water from this well, lawfully made under the well permit, occurred on the date indicated, and
that the statements made herein are true to my (our) knowledge.
Please print the Signer's Name & Title
Signature(s) of the new owner.
Date
It is the responsibility of the new owner of this well to complete and sign the form. Signatures of agents are acceptable if an
original letter of agency signed by the owner is attached to the form upon its receipt.
For Office Use Only
State Engineer By Date
• •
March 29, 2002
INSTRUCTIONS CHANGE OWNERSHIP -ADDRESS LOCATION CORRECTION FORM
NO FEE IS REQUIRED
The form must be typewritten or printed in BLACK INK. Initial and date any changes you make on the form.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED BY PHOTOCOPYING OR WORD PROCESSING MEANS.
INCOMPLETE FORMS WILL BE RETURNED.
Be sure to include the well permit number in the space provided at the top of the form.
The form is to be completed by the new owner (the individual, company or entity claiming ownership
of the well). Print the new owner's name and include the mailing address and phone number.
Complete the well location information. If the address of the well location is different than the mailing
address of the owner, include the address where the well is located. The actual well location must
include 1/4, 1/4, Section, Township and Range. Check the appropriate boxes for North or South and
East or West directions. Complete the Subdivision, Lot, Block and Filing information, if applicable.
Indicate in the appropriate boxes if the form is submitted to change the ownership and/or address, or
both.
The individual, company or entity claiming ownership of the well must sign the form. If you are
signing as a representative of a company who owns the well, then your title must also be included
in the first block. Sign the second block and date the last block.
USE THIS FORM TO CORRECT THE LOCATION OF YOUR WELL IF:
A. Your well was permitted, registered, or first used prior to May 8, 1972 for ordinary household
purposes in up to three single-family dwellings, fire protection, the watering of poultry, domestic
animals, and livestock on farms and ranches and the irrigation of not over one acre of home gardens
and lawns.
B. Your well is not of the type described in A above, but was permitted or registered prior to May 17,
1965. Inside the Designated Ground Water Basins, other procedures and publication may be
required.
C. Your well was decreed by the Water Court for the correct location.
IN ALL OTHER CASES USE FORM GWS -42 (CORRECTION OF WELL LOCATION FORM).
If you have questions, contact the Denver or the Division Office where your well is located.
Division 1
Division 2
Division 3
Division 4
810 9th St. 2nd Floor
310 E. Abriendo Ave Ste B
422 4th St
1871 East Main St.
Greeley, CO 80631
Pueblo, CO 81004
Alamosa, CO 81101
Montrose, CO 81402
(970) 352-8712
(719) 542-3368
(719) 589-6683
(970) 249-6622
Fax (970) 391-1816
Fax (719) 544-0800
Fax (719) 589-6685
Fax (970) 249-8728
Division 5
Division 6
Division 7
Denver Office
Direct mail to Box 396
Direct mail to Box 773450
701 Camino Del Rio Ste. 205
1313 Sherman St. Rm. 818
Glenwood Spgs CO 81602
505 Anglers Dr. Suite 101
Durango, CO 81301
Denver, CO 80203
50633 U.S. Hwy 6 & 24
Steamboat Spgs, CO 80477
(970) 247-1845
(303) 866-3581
Glenwood Spgs., CO 81601
(970) 879-0272
Fax (970) 866-5417
Fax (303) 866-3589
(970) 945-5665
Fax (970) 879-1070
Fax (970) 945-8741 Call First
Fprm C Rev.
9-62/10M
- Applican
•
ST
APPLICATION FOR:
OF COLORADO
PERMIT TO USE GROUND WATER
A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL
P.O. Addres
Quantity appiie
f.
gp
AF
or
Storage
Used fort.,; Purposes
on/at
(legal description of land site)
Totem acreage irrigated and other its
ESTIMATED DATA OF WELL
Hole size; / J in. toJ)ft.
In. to ft.
Casing Plain /0 in.
in.
Open or Perf. in.
in.
PUMP
from () to/ift.
from to ft.
from to ft.
from to ft.
cutlet
DATA: Type41ji,g,44..r 44HP4SizeJ
/ County // t-
�VE
* ofs !J r, of Sect. /S, Twp. (D S r'"
Rge. , J , / P. M. OR
1
WEIXilirXml
NOS I L
*L4/101965
OCATION OF WEL �QRADQ'
0 A ) %RWM
lM
Use initiation date Jl�, J-9 . 0
(Use Supplemental pages for additional data)a"
A�3
THIS APPLICATION APPROVED
PERMIT NO. 10488 - F
ISSUED:
DATE E DEC 13 1965 19
Street Address or Lot & Block No.
Town or Subdivision
E
Locate
well in
40 acre
(small)
square
as near
as possible.
Large square
is one section.
•
$25.00 fee required for uses other
than Domestic or Livestock.
Applicantc.»2
Agent or
Drill
Addres
NOTE — SATISFACTORY COMPUTION/z,I1 QUIRED FOR APPet
VAL OF APPLICATION
r
.
E
Locate
well in
40 acre
(small)
square
as near
as possible.
Large square
is one section.
•
$25.00 fee required for uses other
than Domestic or Livestock.
Applicantc.»2
Agent or
Drill
Addres
NOTE — SATISFACTORY COMPUTION/z,I1 QUIRED FOR APPet
VAL OF APPLICATION
P R $ .11011.--
,
1A ;--,
''k''7271464,4
Index No X5
IDWD yS
Use
Registered..:
(For State Engineer's Use)
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
GROUND WATER SECTION
Driller
Owne
Street City
Tenant
LOG AND HISTORY OF WELL
PERMIT NO X17
is No.
'Lr,'rr0.c
Use of WaterL.x:Y ,�
No.
On or By Acres
(description of site or land) /
Date Started �! — , 19l�.
Date Completed /1.— <�
•
(N.! fir
FEB1 1966
-.R.(.5'.] Witi di SECT.
COLORADO
MATE ENGINEER
WELL LOCATION
County
L '/• of /?/ Y of Sect. f<_,
/ E
Twp h '- , Rge- (a-PPM
Yield
WELL DESCRIPTION:
Depth to Water
GPM or
Hole
Dia meter
TEST DATA:
How Tested
Date Tested.
in.
1/
CFS
ft Total Depth ft
(measured from ground surface)
from C2. ft to ft.
from
from ft_ to ft
from ft to . ft
in,
in.
Pumpor_-- ,/' Balled
19 - Length___/___hrs
Rate *-67C) GPM Drawn Down ft
PUMP DATA:
Pump Type utlet Size in
Driven by HP
CASING RECORD:
Plain Casing
Size, t(ind from_—ft. tosft.
•
Size._..._.._.._—, Kind from
ft to ft
Size..,.._..._..., Kind from ft to ft
Perforated Casing
Size, Kindr24�l frpri? .eft. to olY
Size , Kinder � frprnt, ft to ft
Size Kind from ft to ft
ft
West
Herth
i
i
--Nyr
- - -__
_- Sys__.
,
,
,
t
1
1
1
1
,
,
South
Emil
ABOVE DIAGRAM REPRESENTS ONE FULL SEC-
TION. LOCATE WELL ACCURATELY IN SMALL
SQUARE REPRESENTING 40 ACRES.
or
If the above is not applicable fill in:
No. Street
lot
City or Town
Or
Block
Subdivision
(include filing or number)
TO BE MADE OUT IN QUADRUPLICATE:
Original Blue (both sides) and Duplicate Green
Copy must be filed with the State Engineer
within 30 days after well is completed. White
copy is For the Owner and Yellow copy for the
Driller. SIGN BLUE COPY
1
~..tT_R7-
r
Ground Elevation
y, ¢
a. 4 �
WELL LOG ..
(if known) How DrilleH
FROM
FEET
TO
FEET
FEET
OF MATERIAL
REMARKS
(such as Cementing, .
Packing, Shut cif, etc-)
I
§ t g
I3 ED
I
a•-
I 13 A
This
knowledge
p t s
(if .ane apace is required ewe oidlMianal
.
WELL DRILLER'S STATEMENT
well was drilled under my supervision and the above information
and belief.
Sig
fi P 171.L.R.iv.,
sheaf) ' _- -
is true and correct to the
.. E _.... . ,_•',=.'- " . --_
I
best of my
iL . . .
I
gy tri Y e.4 t.C_ I-f't,(s-,V.L.-
�
f//jjj R. SI t l
r,-
! � �7' •--Ari.'`. 3 i
r cf4 + `o �:
i x o ;d� a rtiF 1.5 o
d
• •
Sec. IS, T.6 S,)1.(43W
.
;
I1
1
s
1
I
1
1
� s
1
1
t
,
1
1
,
,
r
1
1
1
,
1
-d
1
,1
1
j
1
,
1
t
1
1
1
t
t
1
r
_»
t.
,
f
1001
1
1
�
{
1-�
. • 1 ;r _~
.Q X1
1
1
:
1
1
1v
I
t
t
1
r,
1
1
1+
i
r
,
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
• r....._y--_m
1
t
1
1
1
1
.----1. --------
r
1
1
1
1
1
1_-_.r
1
1
.,-..�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
F 1+__-.
1
1
1
1
1
._-__L-_-_
t
t
t
1
1
____.I._ -----
r
1
-.-
_-
... --w
1
t
1
---4-rr-
1
C -'al` I -etd CO
5=45
114'1. 06101ullD /eioer
J/
1
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
SANDER N. KARP
DAVID C. HALLFORD
DAVID H. McCONAUGHY
SUSAN W. LAATSCH
JAMES S. NEU
JULIE C. BERQUIST
NICOLE D. GARRIMONE
ANNA S. ITENBERG
MICHAEL J. SAWYER
JOSLYN V. WOOD*
*Of Counsel
LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
Telephone: (970) 945-2261
Facsimile: (970) 945-7336
jsn@LKLawfirm.com �-y RE F' J TE csimile: (303) 825-3997
a �/*(Please direct all correspondence
DENVER OFFICE:*
WAZEE EXCHANGE BUILDING
1900 WAZEE STREET, STE. 203
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
Telephone: (303) 825-3995
October 11, 2002
Mark Bean, Director
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
108 8th, Suite 203
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: GMCO, Inc. Special Permit Application
Dear Mark:
OCT 1 7 2 ri our Glenwood Springs Office)
GARFIELD COUNTY
3UILDING 8, PLANNING
VIA FAX (970) 384-3470
and U.S. MAIL
Enclosed are comments from the City of Rifle regarding the GMCO, Inc. Special Use Permit
Application currently being reviewed by Garfield County. As you can see, the City is extremely
concerned with the uses proposed by GMCO adjacent to its municipal water intake. We hope that
the County closely scrutinizes this Application and deny it as the health and safety of several
thousand City and Garfield County residents is at stake.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
•
JSN:
Enclosures
cc: City Council (w/encs.)
Selby Myers (w/encs.)
Bill Sappington, P.E. (w/encs.)
Matt Sturgeon (w/encs.)
I:\2002\Clients\RIFLE\R-2\Letters\Bean-GMCO. wpd
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C.
�Se�'."siU R C E •
Sill■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C.
James Neu, Esq.
Leavenworth & Karp, P.C.
PO Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs CO 81602
RE: GMCO, Inc. Special Use Permit
Dear Jim:
EE UU LSE
OCT 10 2dQ2
LEavEN\NoRTK & PC.
October 7, 2002
At your request Resource Engineering, Inc. reviewed the Special Use Permit Application for
GMCO's chip sealing and magnesium chloride operation on Bill Bailey's property directly
east of the City of Rifle's water intake on the Colorado River. The proposed operation
consists of existing facilities including office building, fuel storage area, camper pads and
appurtenant ISDS systems, and new facilities including diesel and magnesium chloride
storage tanks, a truck maintenance and washing facility, buried holding tanks and an office
building.
The site is located immediately upstream from the City's Colorado River intake structure
for its municipal water supply and immediately downstream from the Bailey Pond, which
is a proposed future intake point. As you are aware, the Colorado River intake provides the
City with 90% of its water supply, and with this proposed industrial use adjacent to that
water intake, this Application requires extremely close scrutiny. The Applicant will also
have to apply for a City or Rifle Watershed District Permit for the proposed uses.
We reviewed the Special Use Application to determine if there is any potential for
contaminating the City's water supply and whether these concerns are adequately
addressed in the application. The proposed operation includes multiple sources of
contaminants including the on-site storage of diesel fuels, motor oil, lubricants, hydraulic
fluids, magnesium chloride and possibly other materials, all of which could cause a serious
situation if they entered the City's water supply. The application also includes multiple
ISDS systems. Therefore, if Garfield County approves GMCO's Special Use Permit, it
would create a clear potential for a disastrous contamination of the City's water supply at
either intake point. This risk is further enhanced by the fact that the site is within the 100 -
year floodplain.
Although the Special Use Application does address water pollution issues, both in written
form as answers to specific questions in the application and by means of plans depicted
on drawings and site plans, there is no guarantee that the plans are adequate to protect
the City's water supply. To begin analyzing the potential impact of this proposed use on
the City's water supply, which would occur more thoroughly through the Watershed
District Permit process, we would need to see detailed grading and drainage plans showing
all on-site drainage contained on the property and all off-site drainage bypassing the
property; the entire project area would need to be filled to an elevation above the 100 -year
flood elevation; details for all spill containment facilities would need to be designed with
the potential risks involved to the City in the event of a leak; and all potential spill areas
and collection ponds or tanks isolated from groundwater by impervious barriers.
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
909 Colorado Avenue E Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 i (970) 945-6777 E Fax (970) 945-1137
• •
James Neu, Esq. October 7, 2002
Page 2
It can be argued that it is possible to design and construct the proposed facility to provide
protection against contamination of the City's water supply, but there is always some level
of risk with the proposed uses that cannot be completely mitigated. Even with the design
features mentioned above, it is our opinion that this risk becomes unacceptable when the
direct health and safety of an entire city is at issue. One incident of human error could
cause a disaster for Rifle. If the groundwater becomes contaminated, such an incident
would have long-term consequences as contaminants slowly infiltrate into the City's intake
pond.
To attempt to mitigate such risk involves the development of a detailed and adequate
watershed protection plan, including a spill response plan, which is lacking in the
application. However, of greatest concern to the City, there is no long term reliability of
any such watershed protection plan. Considering the close proximity of the proposed use
to the City's water source, the large amount of contaminants present, the high level of
human activity on the site and the long term nature of the project, all of these lead to a
high probability that some pollution event will occur due to unpredictable circumstances,
human error or negligence. In other words, there is no cost effective fool -proof solution
to the risks the proposed uses pose to the City.
We strongly recommend that the City oppose the Special Use Permit application before
Garfield County and that the applicant be encouraged to find a more appropriate site for
the project.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
Paul S. Bussone, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
PSB/dlh
341-10.0 in gmco.341.wpd
:::::RESOURCE
re®c®
NGINEERING INC
• CITY RIFLE •
202 Railroad Ave. • P.O. Box 1908 • Rifle, Colorado 81650 • (970) 625-2121. Fax (970) 625-3210
October 2, 2002
Garfield Board of County Commissioners
c/o Mark Bean, Planning Director
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: GIVICO/1ai::y Pond Special Use P:f;rail
Dear Commissioners:
OCT 0 7 2002
D)
LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C.
The City of Rifle opposes the GMCO/Bailey Pond Special Use Permit application filed with
Garfield County. The request to relocate the applicant's chip sealing and magnesium chloride
trucking operations to the proposed location posses a significant threat to the City of Rifle's
potable water supply.
Rifle's water intake from the Colorado River is immediately below the subject property.
Additionally, the City of Rifle has been evaluating the feasibility of using Bailey Pond as a water
intake; Bailey Pond is part of the subject property.
The applicant, in the Special Use Permit application, indicates Best Management Practices will
be used to mitigate any potential of introducing pollutants to the City of Rifle's water supply.
We believe it is impossible for the applicant to provide a 100 -percent guarantee that the City of
Rifle water supply will never be polluted by the proposed use.
Lastly, Rifle City Council requests the Board consider the fact that Special Use Permits run with
the land. You may feel comfortable with this operator and the proposed management practices:
however, GMCO reserves the right to sell the operation to another company. Please also
consider the proposed management plan requires on-going monitoring. Rifle does not possess
the resources necessary to constantly monitor this operation to ensure compliance, nor do we feel
it is appropriate to have this responsibility placed on us.
In summary, this is not an appropriate land use to place next to a municipal water supply serving
7,000 City and Garfield County residents. The risks are great, and the impacts of a large spill or
long-term pollution could be grave. The City of Rifle respectfully requests the Board of County
Commissioners deny the subject application.
Bailey Pond SUP
City of Rifle
Page 2 of 2
Should you have questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact Matt Sturgeon,
Planning Director at 625-6253 or Loyal (Lee) Leavenworth, City Attorney at (970) 945-2261.
Sincerely,
Keith Lambert, Mayor
c. City Manager
City Attorney
Planning Director
Public Works Director