Laserfiche WebLink
Since some time has passed since commenting previously, so I would like to visit the site to verify OWTS <br />performance and request septic tank servicing documentation form the applicant. Can you please provide <br />contact information or ask that a GCC representative contact me regarding this arrangement? " Chad <br />Engelhardt <br />12. US Army Corns <br />Submitted comments in a letter dated May 4, 2015 concluding that construction of the King II Mine did <br />not require a permit under Section 404 of Clean Water Act. <br />Additional Agencies <br />Although contacted, the department had not received comments from the following agencies prior to the <br />writing of this report: <br />• Atmos Energy <br />• City of Durango Public Works <br />• Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment <br />• Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife <br />• Hay Gulch Ditch <br />• Mining Safety and Health Administration <br />• Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe Resource Dept. <br />X. PLANNING COMMISSION — CONTINUATION <br />During the October 8, 2015 hearing, the Planning Commission (PC) conducted a public hearing and <br />CONTINUED, upon the applicant's request, the Class II Land Use Permit petition to a date certain of <br />February 25, 2016. The motion received three votes in support from Commissioners Gorton, Minkler, and <br />Tencza, with dissenting votes from Commissioners Baizel and Lockwood. Minutes from the hearing are <br />included as Attachment 1. <br />X1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION <br />Based on specific findings, the Planning Commission may vote to continue the project, recommend approval <br />of the project with or without conditions, or recommend denial of the project. The Planning Department and <br />County staff recommends that Project Number 2012-0089, GCC Energy King II Coal Mine Class II Land Use <br />Permit, be DENIED based upon the following findings: <br />Findings: <br />1. The proposed project increases traffic on 6.4 miles of north County Road 120 between State Highway <br />140 and the project site, thereby requiring the road to be improved to the local, 10 plus units standards <br />(LPLUC Secs. 74-91 & 82-161); <br />2. In its current condition, the 6.4 miles of north County Road 120 between State Highway 140 and the <br />project site does not meet the following standards applicable to a road classified as local, 10 plus units: <br />minimum 24 -foot wide paved road plus 3 -foot shoulders, 60 -foot right-of-way, safe road alignment, and <br />appropriate sight distance (LPLUC Sec. 74-91); <br />3. Absent an executed Road Improvement Agreement that includes a schedule of road improvements with <br />specific dates by which to complete construction, the proposed project fails to demonstrate, if and when, <br />required improvements will be constructed to north County Road 120 between State Highway 140 and <br />the project site (LPLUC Sec. 82-161); <br />Project No. 2012-0089 PC <br />4852-5627-2942, v.3 <br />Page 30 of 32 <br />(DM, VS, DP) <br />