CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Bobbi Wells | 1/1/2007 5:39:42 AM |
| Submitted by Bobbi Wells for Birchwood Council Overall Concerns: Site 1 & 4 are both classified as Development Reserve under the C-ER Comp Plan Update passed Dec, 2006. Development Reserve areas require a public master planning process prior to development.(pg11). Development is defined in T21 rewrite as the commencement or expansion of resource extraction. While site 1 is zoned PC (21.40.250), & site 4 is zoned Transition (21.40.240), each zone district has very special requirements & conditions. For example, in a PC district no removal of existing vegetation shall be cleared or disturbed except in the area shown on the approved master plan or, absent a master plan, the PC district shall be restricted to the uses and regulations of the R-8 district. In the Transition district which requires a CUP for natural resource extraction, it also requires adequate mitigation of produced noxious or hazardous emissions such as noise, fumes, vibration, or the storage of explosive materials. Storing 10,000 gallons of fuel on site, operating a jaw crusher, asphalt plant and a concrete batch plant during days and hours as yet unspecified for 10 years with heavy equipment & trucks all operating within a mile of a large residential area that is rapidly expanding is an area of concern. The resource developer on page 14 states that emissions will not adversely affect the Anchorage area. I think they will affect the Chugiak-Eagle River area, especially operating 24/7 for 10 years. The Native Village of Eklutna, Thunderbird trailhead, and the Thunderbird Heights subdivision are all within a mile of Site 1 work. This CUP implies on pages 11 & 12 that both sites will likely be used as open space after reclamation, with the final reclamation plan on site 1 serving as the master plan. The developers may not envision natural resource extraction as development. Can you address this in your deliberations? Returning to page 12 and the concern regarding traffic; we will have large volume trucks constantly moving between sites 1 & 4, presumably on the New Glenn. Within those same time periods, development will begin on Tract 40A (accessed thru North Eagle River Interchange/Eklutna Park Drive/Frontage Rd as well as the other phases of Powder Ridge utilizing the area. We will also have more large volume trucks moving resource material from the ARRC site by the Native Village of Eklutna, presumably also on the New Glenn, under their new CUP. Couple all this with the increased volume of commuters and summer visitors on this particular stretch on the New Glenn, and the words “traffic impact” take on an entirely new intensity. Please address these cumulative conditions somehow. Site 4-specific concerns: -SOA/DNR reclamation 10 yr Permit for Sec 26 only. Why? (attachment F) -Agreements with adjacent landowners not in place. Prudent to set a specific date of approval or wait until agreements are in place. (pg.1 at 1.1, last sentence) -Wetlands in area? Will they be disturbed, directly or indirectly? (pg.10 at ‘A’, second to last sentence) -Access down Eklutna Park Drive to ARRC’s Tract ‘C’ fm N ER Interchange (pg.3) This intensity of use on Eklutna Park Drive is compounded by the frequency, size, weight, & type of vehicles needed. Can something be done to ease this? -Under processing it states that ‘washed aggregate’ will be imported from site 1 to site 4 in addition to on-site material processing. (pg.5 in paragraph 3, next to last sentence) So will there be a wash plant set up on Site 1? Will there be other kinds of processing equipment there also? I’m thinking about noise & air emissions. -Hours/days of operation are unknowns (pg13, last sentence on page) as agreements have not been reached ‘with the parties involved’. Please do not give approval to CUP without agreeing upon hours/days of operations. -Annual concrete production will be 40,000 cu.yds, about 3,300 Redi-Mix truckloads (pg.5, third paragraph). Estimate 6 trucks per hour exiting site. (pg.6, first paragraph) This is 130 acre site (pg.3, first sentence) and will also be excavating/selling pit run material (pg.5, third paragraph) How many trucks do they estimate per hour for pit run? Also operating an asphalt plant. What will be the traffic per hour for this production? When one factors in the arriving rigs from Site 1 how many trucks per hour total are anticipated? -Wants to start immediately when CUP approved. (pg.7,single sentence in paragraph 2) Suggest you set a future definite start date with so many unknown factors: days/hours of operation, number of trucks per hour, no agreements in place on certain issues. Site 1-specific concerns: -SOA/DNR Ten year Reclamation Permit for sec 25 & 26 only. None for section 24. Why? -Work to begin on extraction site in sec 24 & 25 first. (begins on pg.1 but see pg.2 in first paragraph, last sentence) Processing site is different location. (pg.2, second paragraph) Why isn’t reclamation needed for section 24? - 60 ac will be cleared & grubbed (pg.3, last sentence on page) Is 60 acres just the excavation site, or is this both parts of site 1? 6 million cu.yds. available for processing & export (pg.6, third paragraph) Is this figure correct..it’s an awfully high yield..and a big hole. -Wetlands in area by Eklutna River should be protected by a stream setback. Can they be disturbed? (pg.10, second sentence of response) -Access via Eklutna Village Rd (pg3) to excavation site: 20 lite vehicle trips a day estimated. Does the Village believe this will be a problem for them? -Excavation will be west of New Glenn and will level all rises and excavate to a depth of 20 feet below groundwater. (pg.4, sixth paragraph). So, how deep is that, on the average? -The crushing, screening, & wash plant for processing mentioned on page 5 (end of second paragraph) is unclear whether this is referencing the site 1 or site 4 process area. Under processing it states that ‘washed aggregate’ will be imported from site 1 to site 4. (pg.5, third paragraph). This is going to be very noisy & dusty for the T-bird Heights subdivision. -Does not yet have a permit for conveyor from ADOT. (pg.5, middle of second paragraph). Please do not approve until all permits are in hand since the terms might require a change in their CUP. -From east side of New Glenn on the processing site, 10 trucks per hour, about 45 to 90 truck round-trips per day (pg.13, second paragraph), will export 2,500 tons of aggregate per daily. During construction season (with weight restrictions off?) will ship material 24 hrs day from early April to late October. The extraction & processing will operate from 6AM-8PM, April thru October (pg.6, last paragraph). Will use the New Glenn Eklutna exit north of processing site, accessed off Old Glenn for ingress/egress (pg.7, last paragraph) This seems intense with noise, dust, traffic impacts to Village and to T-Bird heights residents all within a mile of active areas + T-Bird Falls access area. How can this be further mitigated? Concerns with CUP application when conflicting info is in SOA/DNR Reclamation Permit (Attachment F) -Shouldn’t reclamation/restoration be required for all disturbed sections? (first page) -Item 2 required backfilling but the CUP application makes no mention of this. (second page) Where would the backfill come from? Would it be imported? Lowering existing elevations the depth stated by developer could have a lot of negative consequences without backfilling. -Site 1 at 60 acres and Site 4 at 130 acres doesn’t total 540 acres stated here. What other property is involved, and where? And the total volume listed in the permit is less that what is stated in the CUP application? (fifth page) -I don’t see the equipment listed to run two different crushers, screening, or the wash plant, conveyor, etc. This seems incomplete. Or is it the work “owned” that quantifies this list shown as Attachment 1 to the Permit. Lastly, Map on website is incomplete & in error | |
| Chugiak Community Council Linda Kovac, Secretary-Treasurer | 12/14/2006 8:10:13 PM |
| At the monthly meeting of the Chugiak Community Council (the “Council”) held on November 16, 2006, the Council discussed Case No. 2007-002. This case is a request for a conditional use for natural resource extraction (gravel) on both sides of the Eklutna River on the west side of the Glenn Highway (PC Zoning District). ----- The Council unanimously passed a motion to request that the Municipality add conditions to the permit to: (1) Minimize impacts from sand/gravel/rock operations on surrounding neighborhoods, e.g., dust, noise, vibration, traffic, drainage, damage to the water table, damage to established water wells, etc.; (2) Reduce the impact to traffic on public roadways due to increased hauling; (3) Minimize possible damage to vehicles on public roadways caused by gravel and rocks falling from trucks. ----- Specifically the conditional use permit should include: Designation of haul routes; Limitation of the number of trucks allowed to haul loads on public roadways during peak traffic hours; Requirement for keeping dust down on the public roadways located near the site of operation using a water truck or other means; Requirement for cleaning-up spills on public roadways; Establishment of the days/hours allowed for hauling, blasting, crushing, etc.; Establishment of a blasting plan; Limitation of the types of materials and equipment that can be stored at the site of operation; Requirement for a restoration plan; and Protection of the Eklutna River. ----- Finally the Council recommends the establishment of municipal or state laws requiring that all trucks hauling loads of sand/gravel/rock be covered on public roadways. | |