ROUTT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES JUNE 16, 2011

ROUTT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES JUNE 16, 2011 The regular meeting of the Routt County Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p...
Author: Abner Eaton
2 downloads 0 Views 83KB Size
ROUTT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES JUNE 16, 2011 The regular meeting of the Routt County Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chairman Jay Gallagher and Commissioners Jeff Fry, John Ayer, Sandi Gibson, Andrew Benjamin, Dick Klumker, Wayne Adamo and Brita Horn. Commissioners Donna Hellyer, Brian Arel and Alan Goldich were absent. Planning Director Chad Phillips also attended. Sarah Katherman recorded the meeting and prepared the minutes. ACTIVITY: PP2011-018 PETITIONER: Peabody Sage Creek Mining, LLC PETITION: Special Use Permit for the expansion of the existing Red Rock Gravel Pit LOCATION: Approximately 10 miles south of Hayden off CR 53; located in the SW1/4 of Section 20, T5N, R88W Mr. Scott Cowman, representing the petitioner, indicated on an aerial photograph the location of the existing pit. He outlined the area of the proposed expansion. He presented a site plan of the area and indicated the location of the pit, as well as the nearby coal mining operations, the site of the Sage Creek Mine and the haul route along CR 53, CR 27 and CR 27A. Mr. Cowman noted that the existing gravel pit had formerly been operated by Routt County and that the County is in process of transferring the existing state permit to Peabody Sage Creek Mining, LLC. He said that the material from the pit would be used to construct the roads serving the new coal mine and by Routt County Road & Bridge Department. He clarified that the pit run would be used by Peabody Sage Creek and that the County would crush and screen other material for their own use, reserving 25% of the material for use by Peabody Sage Creek. Mr. Cowman explained that the proposed pit would be a truck/shovel/dozer operation. He noted that the pit would not be a commercial operation and none of the material produced by the pit would be sold. He stated that the proposed commencement of operations is summer of 2011, with expected termination in 2021. Mr. Cowman explained that the material to be extracted is layered sandstone situated above coal seam outcroppings that have been exposed to oxygen and “burned.” The exothermic reaction alters the sandstone and increases its durability into red rock scoria. Mr. Cowman presented a geomagnetic survey of the area and indicated the area that had been burned and transformed into scoria. He indicated the location of the Brandenburg residence, which is directly across the road from the pit. He stated that the only concern expressed by the Brandenburgs was dust. They want to ensure that the road will be watered to suppress the dust. Mr. Cowman noted that there is approximately one mile of

R.C.P.C.

MINUTES

JUNE 16, 2011

gravel road leaving the pit site toward Hayden before the pavement begins. Mr. Cowman stated that the total permitted area would be 41.8 acres, with a total mined area of 23.3 acres. He said that the mining would be done in three phases as follows: 2 – 5 yrs. Phase I: 8.3 acres 2,700 cu. yds. 3 – 5 yrs. Phase II: 8.6 acres 6,900 cu. yds. 3 – 5 yrs. Phase III: 6.5 acres 5,200 cu. yds. Mr. Cowman stated that Peabody Sage Creek will comply with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) guidelines for fencing. He reviewed the haul route on a site plan and the other routes used by nearby operations for hauling. He noted that he expects the rail spur to be used for coal hauling by the end of this year, significantly reducing the number of trucks on CR 27. Mr. Cowman indicated on a site plan the proposed area for the conservation mitigation, adjacent to the mine site. He noted that additional information was needed regarding this requirement. He stated that several options for satisfying this requirement had been considered. Mr. Roy Karo, the reclamation manager for the project, stated that he had managed the reclamation for mines for many years and had done the reclamation of the Seneca Mine. He presented photos of virgin, undisturbed land adjacent to the existing mine and of areas around the pit that had already by reclaimed. One photo showed an area that had been reclaimed approximately 2 yrs. old; another showed an adjacent area that had been reclaimed approximately 15 years ago. He noted that some scoria would be left in the hillside to support the slope. He added that the reclaimed hill would be somewhat less steep that the existing slopes, but that portions of the outcrop will remain in place to preserve the natural appearance. Mr. Karo noted that although scrub oak and service berry are difficult to re-establish, other native shrubs and woody plants would be used, along with native grasses, in the revegetation of the site. Mr. Phillips noted that Ms. Bessey was the planner on this project, but that she is currently attending the Hayden Town Board meeting to discuss the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan update. Mr. Phillips stated that the Road & Bridge Department does not have any current average daily trip data (ADTs) for CR 53. Regarding the referral sent to the CDOW, Mr. Phillips stated that no response had been received. However, Ms. Bessey had contacted the Hayden District representative, who said that the CDOW did not have any issues with the proposal. Mr. Phillips stated that the comments were the same as those expressed in the letter submitted to the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety by Jim Haskins of the CDOW, included in the fact packet. Mr. Phillips stated that the adjacent property owners along the entire haul route

2

R.C.P.C.

MINUTES

JUNE 16, 2011

had been informed of the petition and that the Planning Department had not received any comments, letters or phone calls regarding the proposal. He noted that the County’s use of the pit is clarified on page 3 of the staff report. Regarding the required 13.3-acre conservation mitigation requirement, Mr. Phillips stated that the applicant has a copy of the template for the standard agreement between the County and operators of gravel pits. He noted that the agreement generally restricts future residential and commercial development of the mitigation parcel. Relaying a question from Ms. Bessey, Mr. Phillips asked if the applicant planned to seed the top soil storage piles. Mr. Karo stated that the piles would be seeded if they were going to be there long enough to allow growth, but suggested that with the concurrent reclamation of the site in phases the piles would not remain in place for very long. He added that Best Management Practices would be employed to protect against top soil migration. Mr. Phillips noted that the referral letter submitted by Heather McLaughlin of the Road & Bridge Department clarifies that only one access to the pit will be allowed at any one time. When a new access point is needed as each phase of the pit is opened, the operator will need to obtain a new access permit from the Road & Bridge Department. Commissioner Ayer asked if the gravel loads should be tarped, and whether or not this was a requirement of the state. Commissioner Fry offered that tarping would be the responsibility of the subcontractors hauling the gravel. Commissioner Ayer proposed adding a condition of approval to address this issue. He also asked if a condition should be added requiring the operator to comply with the fencing recommendations of the CDOW. Mr. Phillips stated that a condition was not necessary because the CDOW-approved fencing is part of the application. Commissioner Ayer noted that during the road construction period at Sage Creek Mine (Phase I) the operation would generate approximately 900 trucks during 2011. He suggested that it might be appropriate to require signage warning of heavy truck traffic during this period along the haul route. Commissioner Ayer also noted that suggested Condition #19 refers to “sales.” Mr. Phillips suggested that this wording could be changed to “prior to hauling” or “prior to the issuance of the permit.” Commissioner Ayer asked if it would be appropriate to limit the height of stock piles to 20 ft., even though there are few concerns regarding visual impact in this area. Chairman Gallagher suggested that the angle of repose of the material might make piling higher than 20 ft. impossible. Mr. Mike Ludlow of Peabody Sage Creek, LLC stated that it might be possible to pile slightly higher, but not much. Commissioner Gibson noted that the hours of operation stated in the Road & Bridge comments are from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m., whereas the suggested conditions

3

R.C.P.C.

MINUTES

JUNE 16, 2011

specify the hours of operation as 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Mr. Phillips explained that 6 a.m. – 4 p.m. are the preferred hours of the Road & Bridge Department, but that 7 a.m. – 7 p.m. is the standard used at other gravel pits in the County. Commissioner Horn asked how the site would be secured. Mr. Cowman noted that although fuel would be brought to the site for the vehicles, there would not be storage tanks on site. Only equipment would be stored there. Mr. Karo said that a berm would be constructed to prevent access to the site and that there would be a locked gate at the access point. In response to a question from Commissioner Benjamin, Mr. Karo clarified that the list of plant species to be used in the revegetation, as listed in the application, includes only what the County has approved as a standard. He noted that in the state permit the list has been improved by the addition of woody plants and brush. Chairman Gallagher asked about weed control on the top soil storage piles. Mr. Karo stated that the plan used at the Seneca Mine would also be used here, beginning with mechanical means of suppression. He noted that the weed management plan is included in the fact packet and had been approved by Rick Brown. There was no public comment. Commissioner Horn asked if the pit expansion would create any new jobs. Mr. Ludlow stated that although this would depend on the demand for the material, it was likely that the project would be staffed with existing employees and some seasonal workers. He added that local trucking companies would be subcontracted to do the hauling. Mr. Ludlow asked that suggested Condition #19 limiting the future residential and commercial development of the conservation mitigation acreage exempt underground coal mining. He stated that there may be a reserve under this area. Mr. Cowman added that it is difficult to plan ahead regarding what surface activities may need to be performed in this area if there is a coal reserve underground. He asked that Condition #19 exclude all mine-related activities. Chairman Gallagher suggested that some surface activities may not be consistent with the goals of the conservation set-aside. Mr. Phillips noted that in the County Zoning Regulations the Mining zone district is listed separately from the Commercial zone district. Chairman Gallagher noted that the area proposed for the conservation mitigation, which is immediately adjacent to the pit, may not qualify as “off site.” Mr. Phillips reviewed that the reason the regulations require the conservation mitigation is to offset some of the negative impacts to the area that are on-going for the duration of the mine operation. He suggested that some mine-related surface activities, such as the installation of a vent fan, would have significant impacts of their own, and might negate the intended purpose of the mitigation. Mr. Phillips noted that the required agreement is between the

4

R.C.P.C.

MINUTES

JUNE 16, 2011

permittee and the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Gallagher offered that although Planning Commission could make a recommendation, the matter was probably best addressed at the Board of County Commissioners’ hearing. Commissioner Ayer offered that the conservation set-aside was intended to support different goals, such as providing wildlife habitat. He said that many surface activities would be incompatible with the preservation of wildlife habitat. Mr. Cowman noted that any facilities on the site would not be permanent; they would only remain for the life of the mine. He added that the land was owned by Peabody Energy. Chairman Gallagher reiterated that the issue should be taken up with the Board of County Commissioners. MOTION Commissioner Ayer moved to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit for the continuing operation and expansion of the Red Rock Gravel Pit. This approval is based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposal with the following conditions meets the applicable guidelines of the Routt County Master Plan and is in compliance with Sections 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Routt County Zoning Regulations. 2. The Special Use Permit with the following conditions will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposal with the following conditions is compatible with the immediately adjacent and neighborhood properties. This approval is subject to the following conditions: General Conditions: 1. The SUP is contingent upon compliance with the applicable provisions of the Routt County Zoning Regulations including but not limited to Sections 4, 5, 6 and 9. 2. The SUP is limited to uses and facilities presented in the approved project plan. Any additional uses or facilities must be applied for in a new or amended application. Minor amendments may be approved by the Planning Director subject to Section 3.2.10 of the Zoning Regulations. 3. Any complaints or concerns which may arise from this operation may be cause for review of the SUP, at any time, and amendment or addition of conditions, or revocation of the permit if necessary. 4. In the event that Routt County commences an action to enforce or interpret this SUP, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs in such action including, without limitation, attorney fees. 5. This approval is contingent upon all required federal, state and local permits being obtained and complied with; the operation shall comply with all federal, state and local laws. Copies of permits or letters of approval shall be submitted to the Routt County Planning Department prior to operation.

5

R.C.P.C.

MINUTES

JUNE 16, 2011

6. Prior to the issuance of the permit, the permittee shall provide evidence of liability insurance in the amount of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence with either unlimited aggregate or a policy endorsement requiring notice to Routt County of all claims made. Routt County shall be named as an additional insured on the policy. Certificate of liability insurance shall include all permit numbers associated with the activity. 7. The permittee shall prevent the spread of weeds to surrounding lands, and comply with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act as amended in 2003 and Routt County noxious weed management plan. A weed mitigation plan shall be developed by the permittee and reviewed and approved by the Weed Supervisor prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit. 8. The Special Use Permit shall not be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Failure to pay fees may result in revocation of this permit. Permits/Approvals that require an ongoing review will be assessed an Annual Fee. Additional fees for mitigation monitoring will be charged on an hourly basis for staff time required to review and/or implement conditions of approval. 9. Fuel, flammable materials, and hazardous materials shall be kept in a safe area. Any spills of fuels or hazardous materials shall be reported to the Routt County Planning Department within three days of occurrence. 10. No junk, trash, or inoperative vehicles shall be stored on the property. 11. Any land survey monuments shall be recorded in the Colorado Land Survey Monument Records prior to commencement of mining, and if removed, shall be replaced following reclamation. 12. Copies of all financial guarantees related to the project shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit. The Board of County Commissioners may require a financial performance guarantee to insure restoration of the site and access roads and compliance with other conditions of this permit. The County will not require financial guarantees that are duplicative of that required by the State. Specific Conditions: 13. The SUP is valid for ten (10) years provided it is acted upon within one year of approval. 14. The permittee shall obtain a Right-of-Way Access Permit from the Road and Bridge Department prior to any change to the site access. 15. Any amendments to the DRMS permit must be approved by the Planning Director and may be cause for a review of the SUP. 16. The hours and days of operation shall not exceed the following: a) Extraction, reclamation, crushing, processing, loading, and hauling: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. b) Extraction, reclamation, loading, and hauling: 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

6

R.C.P.C.

MINUTES

JUNE 16, 2011

Saturday. c) No extraction, processing, hauling, or operation of trucks or other equipment shall occur on Sundays and national holidays, which are Christmas Day, Thanksgiving Day, New Year’s Day, Fourth of July, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day. d) Warming of equipment is allowed 15 minutes prior to startup. e) The Board of County Commissioners may grant temporary waiver of hours and/or days of operation for public projects or for projects with special technical requirements, by special hearing with at least 24 hours notice to adjacent property owners. f) The hours of operation may be amended at the Board of County Commissioners’ discretion to avoid conflicts with school busses. 17. The operator shall submit the current DRMS Annual Report for the pit to the Planning Department on or before February 15th each year. 18. Permittee shall implement the Reclamation Plan in a manner concurrent with the phased mining plan. The Reclamation Plan shall be approved by the DRMS as the final Reclamation Plan for this site prior to the issuance of the SUP. 19. Prior to any hauling under the SUP, permittee shall enter into an agreement with Routt County to protect from any future residential or commercial development on a contiguous 13.3-acre parcel of land located within five miles of the subject site. 20. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and opaquely shielded. 21. Fugitive dust will be controlled by the use of water and other control measures as appropriate, as often as necessary, to reduce, control and minimize all dust generated by traffic, material processing and other activities related to the gravel mine that occur at the site and along the haul route. The Planning Director or Environmental Health Director may require temporary closure of the facility if dust control measures are not effective. 22. No off-site transport of visible dust emissions shall be allowed. 23. Noise from all on-site sources and from haul trucks shall be in compliance with the performance standards in the State noise statute (C. R. S. 25-12101). Violations of performance standards shall be enforceable by the Routt County Environmental Health Department and may be cause for a review of the SUP by Planning Commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners. 24. The operation shall meet or exceed accepted industry standards and Best Management Practices. 25. The permittee shall coordinate with the Hayden School District to determine appropriate safety measures for hours that hauling may conflict with school bus routes. Terms and conditions agreed upon by the permittee and Hayden

7

R.C.P.C.

MINUTES

JUNE 16, 2011

School District shall be submitted to the Routt County Planning Department. 26. Gravel loads shall be tarped if required by the Road & Bridge Department or by the State of Colorado. 27. The permittee shall install signage along the haul route indicating heavy truck traffic, if determined to be necessary by the Road & Bridge Department. Commissioner Fry seconded the motion. Discussion and Friendly Amendments Commissioner Benjamin offered that Condition #26 as suggested by Commissioner Ayer was unnecessary. Mr. Phillips agreed that the issue was covered by Condition #24. The condition was deleted, as indicated above. The motion carried 8 – 0, with the Chair voting yes. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Commissioner Ayer reported that he had attended a Conservation Development Workshop held by CSU. He reviewed the participants, who included academics, developers, conservations group and planners. He reported that, much to his surprise, the case study presented at the conference was of Routt County’s LPS program. Commissioner Ayer stated that he had served on a panel related to planning and regulatory issues. He reviewed the discussion and noted that there was some criticism of the choice of the case study because many of the participants generally dealt with conservation within an urban setting, whereas the LPS system is fundamentally a rural-based program. Commissioner Ayer said that organizers of the workshop plan on developing a model of what types of development have been successful financially and in terms of conservation values. He said that prior to attending the workshop he had contacted Peter Patten for comments regarding the LPS program. He said that Mr. Patten was very enthusiastic about the program. Commissioner Ayer offered that through the follow-up to be done on the workshop, the association between Routt County and CSU would continue for some time. Commissioner Ayer distributed a summary of LPS projects over the years since the regulations were approved, and noted an interesting comparison between the Creek Ranch LPS and the nearby Deerwood Ranch 35-acre development. He noted the clear benefit of the LPS. He stated that one of the conclusions drawn from the discussion of the LPS program was that as Steamboat Springs grows there may be a need to rethink the LPS system to address the needs of more urban types of development. Mr. Phillips stated that he had recently received a copy of a letter sent by Morrison Creek Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District to a developer who has expressed interest in purchasing the ski area property at Stagecoach. He stated that this was the first he had heard of this, but noted that if the project develops the County may be approached with a request for added density at the base area. Mr. Phillips stated that in the 1999 Stagecoach Area Community Plan no additional density had been recommended for the base area because it was assumed that density from other areas within Stagecoach could be transferred. 8

R.C.P.C.

MINUTES

JUNE 16, 2011

He said that a significant amount to the property had since changed ownership. He said that he would keep Planning Commission informed. Mr. Phillips reminded Planning Commission of the annual dinner scheduled for July 14, 2011. He said that no meeting would be held on July 7, 2011. He reviewed the agenda for July 21, 2011, which will include a review of the information gathered regarding the update of the SSACP. Mr. Phillips reported that he had attended a BLM forum on fracking attended by members of the COGCC as well as the environmental community. He said that he would like to screen the documentary Gasland for Planning Commission on June 30th. He said that a joint meeting with the BCC and representatives of the COGCC was being scheduled, perhaps for late July. There was a general discussion of the issues coming to Routt County with the increase in oil & gas development. Chairman Gallagher reminded Planning Commission of the very limited role that the County can have in regulating oil & gas development as defined by state statute. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.

9

Suggest Documents