Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Planning Commission CommentsPLANNING COMMISSION MEET1NG'"rtrmurns FROM MARCH 25'2009 Staff Present KathY EastleY, Planner David Pesnichak, Planner Fred Jarman, B&P Director Deborah Quinn, Assistant Cty' Atty' Roll call was taken and the followingmembers are absent tonight: Phil vaughan' ;;;;; ryt", Jock Jacober and Adolfo Gorra' Allmemberspresenttonightareregularvotingmembersforthisevening. The first item on the agenda is a pubric meeting request to.review a project to relocate the Glenwood Springs Wirt"*ut.r Treatment"#ifi' Planning Commission must review consideration of Location and Extent "rn'*'i' lf'" City"of Glenwood Springs' Fred Jarman stated that it turns out that this property is located within the city Limits of Glenwood Springs and can be removed ?'"'l tt'i aglnda tonieht' No action is required by the pranning c"r;i;Jrrtl.uur",rri, pr"p.nv *f, *t*"d"into the city limits' TwopeopleareheretonightrepresenlingtheCityofGlenwoodSpringsandFredJarman gu.r" it "* the opportunity to speak if they want to' Mike McDylan, Engineer with the City of Glenwood ry::g' spoke first. -The reason for the point of confusi;n that carne up isit is property was annlexed into the city of Glenwood sprirgr^J*ii", ,rri, y"* rr,. city of Glenwood Springs is looking for an approval from the"italte orCorl*a" f;;-thit;ew facility' There is a Form #208 that needs to be signed off by the commi;";;rr. Deboratr Quinn said that is not our jurisdiction. ChadPaulsonwithschmueserGordonMeyerwouldliketomakesomeadditional comments. This is a big proje.t f*.th" ;;-;;unity whictr-itr"y **1to besuccessful and appreciate *y "o'*ir-"^;r:y;; *"{ have. This is a state orirt" utt plant' There are a lot of things they need;; *i is"i". Don't;;;;iitiv,o ut visible to people coming into PC Members Present Cheryl Chandler Bob Fullerton Sean Martin Greg McKennis town. GregMcKennisaskedwhatthecapacityis.ChadPaulsonitwouldbedoubledto2 million gallons ". ;;;;,"d. It is i*po't*t to have lots of capacity for future growth' No further comments were made on this item' CherylChandlerwantedtochangetheagenda.orderandmovetoitem#5next.Ms' chandler thinks this is way too i*port*"t1o aiscuss with only four Planning commission 1 Members present tonight. Bob Fullerton is in agreement that we need to have allmembers present to discuss this item. David Pesnichak doesn't think this infolna]ign is^anything new that we haven,t alreadycontemplated' There are some changes thar they r"""J i"'si^t;;;;"r rri",ti'"'non"rr,,wasn't aware of before in terms of re=fenals. Greg McKennis asked where we are in terms of the whole process. cheryl Chandler saidthat's under other business and not part of this. David Pesnichak made mention that the RFQ's for the comprehensive plan re-write weredue today by 5:00 p.m. Deborah Quinn said we need to open.up this hearing item and review the noticingrequirements because it was a noticed puu1i9 h";C ^"M:. euinn reviewed the proof ofPublication from the citizen Telegram and the Gleniood post Independent. Notice waspublished in both papers on FebruLy 12,2009._-r" qrt" said notice appears to beadequate and it's okay to proceed. Proof of PublicatiJiwas entered into the record asExhibit A. Exhibit A waJaccepted into the record. Bob Fullerton made a motion to move this item to the April22,2009 planningcommission Meeting in hopes we have greater participation in this decision and SeanMartin seconded the motion' A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Bob Fullerton has one comrnent. He is in agreement with David pesnichak comment thatwe have seen most of this information but h! rrur uiro pu.ticipated enough that even withinformation we had once we have everyone here it's interesting what comes out and hethinks it would be beneficial for that to occur. The next item on th:1gj1du is a public hearing request is to review a Special use permitApplication for the RTZ Gravet pit ror extracttn, ,torug. and material handling ofnatural resources for sand and gravel extraction in the .A7vno zone district. Theproperty under review is rocated on the sw^Smel oinigrr*uy 6 and cR 300,approximately 5 miles south of the Town of Parachut.. irr.. applicants are SpecialtyRestaurants corporation and Stockton Restaurant co.po*tiorr. Present for the Applicant are Tim Thulson who is an Attorney with Balcomb & Green,and rony zancanerawho is withZancanera &Associates. Deborah Quinn reviewed noticing requirements with the applicant,s representative TimThulson' Names of adjoining ptop.tty owrers and mineral owners were obtained byusing the Garfield county a.tltso. ana ctert & Recorde., ,..ordr. Notice was sent tothese people between.3g *d 60 days from hearing date. i*o "..tined letters wereretumed as unclaimed' Ms' Quinn asked Mr. Thuirooif t.n"rs were sent to the addressesthat the Assessor had and rim Thurson said yes it *ur. a "opy of the notice dated2/19/2009 that was published was given to Ms. euinn. This is the same information that 2 was included in the certif,red mailing. The property was posted with the sign provided by the Planning Departme nt on2llglZOg artait stiff in place today' Mr' Thulson provided a copy of the newspaper with the published notice to ivls. Quinn' Mr' Thulson did not have the actual proof of publication. Ms. Quinn believes this is adequate' Tim Thulson said he would supplemerrt record with the proof of publication later. Exhibit A: Mail receiPts Exhibit B: Copy of newspaper & published notice Both exhibits are accepted into the record' Kathy Eastley is the County Planner on this project and-she will present the-project information and staff comments. Kathy Easitey entered the rest of the exhibits into the record: Exhibit c: Garfield county zoningRegulations of 1978, as amended B*friUit D: Garfield Couniy Compiehensive Plan of 2000, as amended Exhibit E: ApPlication Exhibit F: Staff Memorandum Exhibit G: Staff Presentation Exhibit H: Memo dated February 10, 2009 from Jake Mall Garfield County Road & Bridge DePartment Exhibit I: Memo dated February 23,2OOg from Steve Anthony Garfield county VegetationManager , r , Exhibit J: Email dated March g,2oo9 from Jim Rada, Environmental Health Exhibit K: Email dated February 13,2OOg from Dan Roussin - R3 Permit Manager' CDOT Exhibit L: Letter dated February 23,2OOg from JT Romatzke, Division of Wildlife Exhibit M: Letter aat"a February 18, 2009 from Rob Ferguson, Grand valet Fire Protection District Exhibit N: Letter dated March 4,2009 from Freda L' Webb Exhibits C - N are accepted into the record' This apptication was submitted prior to the adoption of the new Land Use Code so this is ;"i;g reviewea under the old ctae. This is foi review of a Special Use P-ermit application for the RTZ Gravel Pit which will be located next door to the Una Gravel Pit' Kathy Eastley showed slides of the surroundin g areaan{ what is presently in place in this area. This parcel is a 1200 acres site but the leise area for the gravel pit is limited to 130 acres. The property is zoned A/R/RD. There is an existing Special Use Permit on this parcel that was approved in 198i via Resolution#81'227' No extraction activity has occuned on the site prrsuarrt to the 1981 approval. The.CGS and Gravel Pit map was also shown. Site plan of property was shown. The applicant proposes three phases to this project to take place over a ten year period' The project site is located in Study AreaZof the comprehensive Plan and identif,res future land use as "Privatety owned land with site specif,rc limitations to be evaluated at J plan review". Ms. Eastley looked at Chapter 11 of the Comprehensive Plan related to Goals, objectives and Polices regarding gravel extraction operations. The first policy in Chapter 11 is: 1) Transportation: We are all aware that there are significant issues related to the intersection at Highway 6 and CR 300 as we have seen in other applications that have come before you. This application also increases those issues at that intersection. We recommend the requirement for a State Highway Access permit. We received some comments from Road & Bridge Department and Jake Mall requests the Applicant to have an on-site inspection with him. 2) Mitigation of Environmental Constraints: High water table on property. The surface mining operation will encounter ground water which they have a de- watering plan with treatment in the detention pond with a discharge plan to the Colorado River. The Applicant has adequately addressed the conitraints of their site for that issue. 3) Preservation and mitigation of the drainage also works right into the detention pond swells they are providing and the treatment of discharge to the river.4) Protection of Wildlife Habitat: This property is part of and adjacent to the Colorado River and the DOW's main concern was the protection of the river corridor for the values that are in there. The DOW is recommending a 300' buffer from the Colorado River. The Applicant is proposing a 200' buffer. The site is also constraint as far as setback issues from the railroad. They are providing a 200' buffer with some wetlands they are avoiding. From the staffs perspective the 200' buffer should provide an adequate protection for those values. 5) Mitigation of impact to adjacent properties: For the visual impact the plan proposes to construct berms based on phasing plan and will provide some screening through that. They also propose some re-vegetation to mitigate issues as well. 6) Dust, odors and fumes: They did provide noise assessment study for the project. Staff has made some recommendations which have been included in the conditions of approval. Jim Rada, Environmental Health Officer with Garfield County stated that the Fugitive Dust Plan is somewhat vague and due to the potential for visibility impairment on CR 300 a strong plan should be required to alleviate safety concerns. Section 5.17 in the Zoning Regulations lists the criteria and supplementary regulations for Gravel Extraction. Section 5.17.01 relates to Water Quantity & Quality Impacts / Flood Plain impacts: There are existing permits in place. There are a couple of well permits they will be required to obtain. Not unlike other gravel pit applications, they have not obtaine d,90% of the required permits. The come to the County first to seek the Land Use approval and then they go to the State and all Federal Agencies to obtain other necessary permits. Staff makes a recorlmendation that the Special Use Permit will not be issued until such time when all of those permits are submitted or demonstration that issuance are provided to the Planning Department. 4 Section 5.lT.O1relates to Air Quatity: There are a significant number of permits that are required for this application related to air quality. This is also included with the conditions of approval requirements. Section 5.17.03 relates to Noise/Vibration: This section requires compliance with State Statutes. Currently there are a lot of industrial uses in this area. The nearest residence is over 1000' away from this operation. Section 5.17.04 relates to Visual Impacts: Berming will be used. Section 5.17.05 relates to Impacts to County Road System: CR 300 intersection is an issue. Application states that a majority of the truck traffic from the gravel pit will use the StatsHighway system. However, there is also the potential for some of that traffic to use CR 300. Staffhas included a conditional requirement that all of the truck loads coming out of this site be covered. Section 5.17.06 relates to Impacts to Wildlife: Would like Planning Commission to have a discussion related to the 200' versus the 300' buffer and what may be sufficient. Section 5.17 .07 relates to Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses: There is an existing gravel pit across CR 300 so certainly it is compatible with the surrounding uses in the area. The Code also discusses the cumulative impacts of multiple gravel pits being located in close proximity of one another. The BOCC is required to make a particular finding that there is sufficient distance that separates these two operations and not a cumulation of multiple impacts that resolve. It is really questionable per the applicant that these two pits will be running at the same time or not. Section 5.17.08 relates to Reclamation / Enforcement: Reclamation of the site is planned for two lakes. The application also talks about there may be some future residential development. That would be a totally separate application. Recommended conditions of approval and findings are listed on pages 19-23 in the staff report were discussed next. Would like to discuss the time frame condition. Kathy Eastley added condition that Special Use Permit will expire in 10 years. Original Special Use Permit was issued in 1981 and work never occurred and permit is still hanging out there. Wilt ask for revocation of the original Special Use Permit when this goes to the BOCC for consideration. Greg McKennis asked staff do we know who Freda Webb is. Tim Thulson thinks she is a mineral interest owner. Bob Fullerton mentioned Jim Rada's letter and that all conditions in Jim's memo need to be incorporated into conditions and be met before the SUP Permit can be issued. Bob Fullerton also mentioned the 300' buffer that DOW brought up. Staff said they are okay with a 200' buffer. Thinks the intent of the DOW 300' buffer is to keep the integrity of the river. 5 Greg McKennis asked about the cumulative f,rnding and how does the BOCC make that finding when two pits are next to each other. Deborah Quinn said she is not sure how but the applicant needs to address. Greg McKennis said that seems like a large issue. He asked if we have any other applications that we can look at conceming the cumulative issue. Fred Jarman said this is the first one under the new regulations. Gravel Study looked at this in a general sense and economic impacts. The burden is on the applicant to show you no added impact will take place with their project. Kathy Eastley said she found a Special Use Permit for a batch plant for the Una Pit that expired in 2005. Bob Fullerton said the decision is subjective. Fred Jarman said it's the applicant's burden to show they met that requirement. Bob Fullerton asked have we put time limits for permits to expire in the past. Kathy Eastley said no. Bob Fullerton understands why you want it. Kathy Eastley said the applicant can come in and amend their permit or they can come in before time expires and explain what's going on. Greg McKennis mentioned a previous gravel pit that had a time frame on it. Sean Martin doesn't believe there is a 10 year time frame in our regulations. We moved to the applicant for their presentation next. Tim Thulson, Attorney with Balcomb & Green is representrngRTZ Industrial tonight and he will speak first. Stockton Restaurant Corporation and Specialty Restaurant Corporation own the 1200 acre parcel that this gravel pit will be located on. With Mr. Thulson tonight are Tony and TomZancanellaof Zartcanella and Associates. Tim Thulson thanked the Planning Commission and Staff for their time. Appticant is in agreement with most of the conditions listed on pages 20-23 in the staff report but would like to discuss condition #2 related to SUP to expire in 10 years from date ofissuance. Cumulative impact between Silt and Rifle was discussed. Tim Thulson named all the gravel pits in that area. Capacity is one million tons of gravel to be extracted from this site. Una Pit is partially being reclaimed right now. Applicant has concurrent reclamations requirements. Can't move to the next phase until they complete their current phase. The site has shale which is good for construction of roads, well pads, and if you can locate next to demand that will help with impacts. Will get permits from all appropriate agencies. In regards to 10 year time limitation if they have DRMS reclamation bonding in place then they should be able to keep working it out. Allow permit to continue when reclamation is completed and then they would be willing to revoke the Special Use Permit. 6 Other conditions staff set forth are acceptable. Greg McKennis asked do you have any other permits in place. Tim Thulson said DRMS is about 95%o done. No wetlands so no permit is needed for that. CR 300 and Highway 6 &24 studies have been done by High Country Engineering per the BOCC's request to see what is needed at that intersection. Greg McKennis also asked is Specialty Restaurants property next to this would it be cumulative to this. How do you review this? Tim Thulson responded if we were going to mine the whole 1200 acre property then yes that may come into plEy. Sean Martin asked applicant have you talked to Grand Junction Pipe to see what they project as the life oflheir pit. Tom Zancanellawith Zancanella and Associates said they don't really have a projection at this point. Sean Martin asked about access permit. Do you think that everyone in that area can get together and get that access figured out and you can get your permit? Tim Thulson said that is their hope because it is a faiting interchange right now and there is a fairly strong consensus to getting this done. Bob Fullerton said he is having a tough time with the cumulative scenario because gravel is only located in one corridor. Bob Fullerton asked staff about the 10 year time frame discuised by Mr. Thulson and how does that strike staff. Kathy Eastley said it pretty much leaves it open ended and if they can't sell the gravel it pretty much leaves this permit open ended. Bob Fullerton mentioned concern DOW has with protecting the river and the 300' buffer request. Tim Thulson said they have a little difference of opinion with the DOW and that their wildlife biologist thinks 200' is adequate and that is the DRMS standard also. Bob Fullerton asked *orld a 300' buffer affect the operation. Tim Thulson said yes it would. Cheryl Chandler has a comment on the 10 year time frame. It will take some recovery time for things to come back around. Maybe bump that time frame to 15 years. Tim Thulson said we have every motivation to get this done as lessees. Sean Martin also mentioned with bond in place he thinks that is motivation to the applicant (lessee) to get this done and he feels that bonding takes care of time frame. Greg McKennis said we don't know if bond will be sufficient in 50 years from now and he is not comfortable with that. He likes the thought of a 15 year time frame' That seems reasonable. Bob Fullerton wanted to comment here. He is not anti where the discussion is going and he is having a tough time digesting that all of a sudden we are drawing a line in the sand on this application here. Dowe just subjectively pick projects that we want to limit? If the County Code allows Special Use Permits to run with the land he doesn't think that we interject and all of s sudden say guess what we aren't going to do that anymore' Kathy Eastiey said the intent of this condition is to simply hold them to what they are 7 requesting. Bob Fullerton said he doesn't want to be negative to what Kathy Eastley is saying but there is another side of that coin that he is tussling with. Sean Martin agrees it's a much bigger question. Tim Thulson said what gives them the most pause is the fact that we don't really have a procedure for extending. Kathy Eastley has a couple of comments. The revocation or the vacation of the Special Use Permit upon the release of your reclamation bond is all well and good but in 15 years is somebody going to be watching out for that. Fred Jarman said concerning the issue of the bond. Bonding for reclamation is a DRMS thing that they do well. That is something they look at every year. He also mentioned that under the new Land Use Code an Amendment to a Special Use Permit can be applied for. Bob Fullerton asked even if it's approved under the old code? Yes was Fred Jarman's response. Fred Jarman has a couple of questions for.applicant. 1) Question on pond. How do you envision keeping the pond filled? 2) If you back cut closer and closer to the edge of the wetlands you could actually have the affect of draining the wetlands. Do you have enough buffers in there and have you looked at that issue? Tim Thulson said they need to look at that with more clarity. The wetlands are down gradient from them. Tim Thulson responded concerning question number one. The ponds will have fluctuation because of the water table. As far as coming them to a set level I guess you could seal them and have a separate water source for them. Tony Zancanella added some comments. He thinks that issue came up because of the fact that at some of the other gravel pits the ponds are dry. Tim Thulson said we have our water court augmentation in place. Fred Jarman said he understands Tony what you are saying. Reclamation plans have improved over the last four years. How can you guarantee that this stays as a full lake? How can you guarantee that the County is not faced with mud holes versus the plan you propose to the County. Tony Zxrcanella believes it's the water table because you're lowering the site there with aTYo slope which is your final reclamation and the existing wetlands right there it's already showing the water table is there and available to keep the ponds full. Tom Zancanella said the river would have to dry up in order for the water table not to be there. He also mentioned that the ponds next door to this don't dry up and they are in the same water table so they don't believe these will either. They will fluctuate as the river goes up and down. Tim Thulson testimony per Fred Jarman's question is that yes those ponds will always have water. Bob Fullerton said if we are approving a reclamation plan that says it's going to have water in it and it ends up not having the water rights or it just doesn't happen, where does that leave us? Tim Thulson said they condition the fill of the lake in the existence of the Colorado River. 8 Greg McKennis asked is your decree for evaporation off of these ponds? Tim Thulson said that is correct and we are paying for augmentation. Kathy Eastley mentioned that the reclamation bond on Mamm Creek has not been released. Moved to the public for comments next and none we received so we came back to the Planning Commission for'further comments, questions and possibly a motion. Greg McKennis said the cumulative thing is not a deal breaker to him. There is some indication that adjacent pit is buffering itself from this one. Hopes they can make County Road and State Highway issue go away. His only issue is the length of time and he likes the idea to set a 15 year plan. Applicant can come in and amend if needed. Tim Thulson said he would like to comment on that with the 15 years. They would not have any objection if for instance there is a standard that if you are just changing the phasing of your line plan that it be subject to Administrative review. That would go a long way for them in solving any heartbum they have with this. Bob Fullerton thinks that was their intent when putting that in place. Deborah Quinn said we don't know what code will say in 15 years anyway. Sean Martin said he is 100% in agreement with what Greg McKennis said other than the time table of this. He does feel that the bonding is there for a reason and that's why it's there. He also agrees that he doesn't want to see gravel pits opened ended from here to eternity but he feels like now with the phasing and the bonding this is a whole different animal now. He is in 100% agreement with revoking or turning back in the Special Use Permit when project completed. Cheryl Chandler said she is on board with the rest of the guys. Greg McKennis said his reaction to that is the idea of this hanging. Someone can go out on this site and just putts around and it could go on and on and on. Meanwhile the adjacent neighborhood may begin to change. It just seems to him that this is a reasonable request to have this get done in a reasonable amount of time. Bob Fullerton asked staff and council what liability does the County face if we randomly put this scenario in place on different SUP's. Deborah Quinn thinks Ms. Eastley's point is a good one when an applicant makes a representation in the application that this is a 1O-year project and that we don't face much liability in holding them to that time. She would also suggest as you are looking at gravel pit regulations tonight you might want to include something specific in the code amendments to address that. The public comments portion of hearing is now closed. Bob Fullerton made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit Application for the RTZ Gravel Pit as proposed with the recommendation of staff listed on pages 20-23 of the 9 staff report with a change to condition number 2. "The SUP will expire in 15 years from the date of issuance"; a change to the'buffer zone recommended by the DOW from 300' to 200' and adding a condition number 26 revoking the old Special Use Permit with the approval of the nerv SUP. Greg McKennis seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed unanimouslY. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request is to review proposed Text Amendments to the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008. Fred Jarman will present this information. Deborah Quinn reviewed the noticing requirements. Proof of publication was provided. Notice of hearing was published in the Citizen Telegram with a description of amendments on Februar y 19,2009. Proof of publication was accepted into the record as Exhibit D. As of the first of this year we started administering the new Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008. We have identified conflicts, mis-references, typographical errors, unintended timelines, and unanticipated omissions of language and regulatory provision that did not carry over into the New Land Use Code from the ZoningResolution of 1978, as amended anditre Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. In order to resolve these issues, staff has put a memorandum together which contains those proposed amendments to the New Codt. We will probably have additional changes in the future. These are the first ones tonight. Fred Jarman entered the exhibits into the record: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Gravel Extraction Regulations Certificates for plats Revised Article XIII: Financial Guarantee Proof of Publication Staff Memorandum Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 Exhibits A - F are accepted into the record. Cheryl Chandler thinks with all these roman numerical changes and a, b, & c's she doesn't really want to go over each one of those. Fred Jarman said you could say all those that relate to simple changes say let it be so kind of thing. Cheryl Chandler thinks that's a greatidea. As far as some of these changes she knows we do have to look at these at the front because she has questions on some of them. Bob Fullerton asked so Exhibit A the Gravel Extraction Regulations need to be incorporated. Fred Jarman said yes that is correct. Bob Fullerton also said to Fred Jarman that he mentioned a time frame or deadline for a permit to expire. Cheryl Chandler asked who is going to keep up with time lines. Greg McKennis thinks we do need a time frame for permits to end. Need a sensible use on a property in the county. 10 Greg thinks we should give a person a reasonable time to complete a project. Encourage productive use of our land. Bob Fullerton said we can hold an applicant to time lines that they suggest. Sean Martin said the BOCC has the ability to call up an applicant to talk about what's going on with their project. Fred Jarman said not really. If there is a phasing plan and they are in violation then yes we could call that application up. Greg McKennis said he doesn't see why we can't put a time limit in place. Need this land for residential development. Need density not just ponds and lakes. Bob Fullerton said it comes back to what the land owner wants to do with his land. As a Land Planner we can make recommendations to the applicant. The electricity went out in the County Administration Building and surrounding area of Glenwood Springs so hearing had to come to an end for tonight. Bob Fullerton made a motion to continue this item to the April 8, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting and Sean Martin seconded the motion. All agreed unanimously. David Pesnichak handed out a list of people/agencies that he received RFQ's from for the Comprehensive Plan re-write. Meeting adjoumed. 11 JoO [Le'l .-Js^xs@ko6 pafrf Uw'trltN htr* ?A/l/ro.Vos, lowrb Jr bch,u'oL,b- (p-* .{3beo4n> "C<-)'( =a v 3 4 l$i4 2 l+al,rc 'rtqrttlA ?L'l ARn 3- w W N 0?fi/\f0r-o/u4 -,+J,oti'sn/tr+ fttrftobl"& /,P,A IruJ.n" %d4d4rrrJl M ,( w-( ??'t1> t 'hA