Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportBoard of County Commissioners — Public Hearing Exhibits Federal Express — Warehouse and Distribution Center Substantial Amendment to a Land Use Change Permit, Limited Impact Review (File LPAA-8073) Applicant is CLH Properties, LLC Co/1 December 15, 2014 (Continued from November 3, 2014, November 10, 2014 and November 17, 2014) Exhibit Letter (Numerical) Exhibit Description 1 Public Hearing Notice Information Form 2 Proof of Publication 3 Receipts from Mailing Notice 4 Photo evidence of Public Notice Posting 5 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 6 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 7 Application 8 Staff Report 9 Staff Presentation 10 Resolution Number 2014-50 11 Referral Comments from the City of Glenwood Springs (Dated October 17, 2014) 12 Email from David McConaughy of Garfield and Hecht, PC (Dated October 20, 2014) 13 Staff Report for CLH Properties, LLC (Dated September 8, 2014) 14 Minutes from October 16, 2014 City of Glenwood Springs Council Meeting 15 CD of November 13, 2014 Joint BOCC / City Council Meeting 16 Email from Chris Romeyn (Dated November 17, 20104) Email from Cathy Kothals (Dated November 17, 2014) 17 18 Email from Tim Burns and Jenny Lang (Dated November 17, 2014) 19 Email from Kurt Backofen (Dated November 15, 2014) 20 Letter from the Cardiff Glenn Homeowners Association (Dated October 19, 2014) 21 Letter from David McConaughy of Garfield and Hecht, P.C. (Dated December 5, 2014) REQUEST BOCC 11/3/2014 File No. LPAA-8073 DP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Substantial Amendment to conditions #20 and #21 memorialized in Resolution of Approval 2014-50 for a Land Use Change Permit - Limited Impact Review for a Warehouse and Distribution Center. APPLICANT — PROPERTY OWNER CLH Properties, LLC (Federal Express) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 2185-271-00-008 PROPERTY SIZE 8.92 acres LOCATION The property is located at 1097 County Road 116 (Airport Center Road), Glenwood Springs, CO. It is located south of the City of Glenwood Springs in SE Qtr of NE Qtr & in NE Qtr of Section 27, Township 6 South, Range 98 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County ACCESS The facility is accessed by County Road 116 (Airport Center Road). EXISTING ZONING The property is zoned Commercial General (C/G) I. BACKGROUND The Applicant has been approved with conditions for a Limited Impact Review (the permit has not yet been issued as the conditions of approval have not been satisfied) for a 27,000 square foot Warehouse and Distribution Center on an 8.92 acre parcel located south of the City of Glenwood Springs. The facility is to be operated by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx Ground) and is to serve eastern Garfield County. The facility is not intended to serve the general public. In addition, the property is to be fully fenced and gated, is to employ 14.5 FTE workers (9 full-time and 9.5 part-time) and is expected to generate 230 single trips per day at full build out. All access is to be via Midland Avenue and Airport Road. The facility is to be located directly east of the Glenwood Springs municipal airport and the City limits. The property is surrounded by light industrial uses and some residential 1 uses. Water is to be available to the site from a 3/4" line from the City of Glenwood Springs. In order to accommodate the necessary fire flows and irrigation requirements, the facility will have a 200,000 gallon water storage tank located in the northeast corner of the property along the Roaring Fork River. Wastewater is to be handled by a new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS). II. GENERAL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION On October 20, 2014, Staff received an email from David McConaughy of Garfield and Hecht, PC (Exhibit 12) requesting that the public hearing on this Substantial Amendment application be continued one week to the November 10, 2014 BOCC meeting date. This request is to allow the Applicant time to look into additional properties that the City Council suggested may be more appropriate for the location of the new FedEx facility. The Applicant is requesting an amendment to two conditions of approval for a previously approved Resolution for a Limited Impact Review Land Use Change Permit. The application was approved on September 8, 2014 and memorialized under Resolution 2014-50 (Exhibit 10), however the Land Use Change Permit has not yet been issued. The Applicant is requesting to amend two of the Conditions of Approval, specifically Condition numbers 20 and 21. In accordance with Section 4-106(A)(4), "Any requested change of a specific condition(s) as identified in a resolution adopted by the BOCC shall be considered a Substantial Modification." As a result, this request has been processed as a Substantial Modification and has required a new application for a Land Use Change Permit. This review and subsequent decision, however, only affect Conditions 20 and 21 memorialized in Resolution 2014-50. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting amendments to Condition 20, related to improvements to City roads that provide access to the property, as well as Condition 21, related to land dedication to the City for the South Bridge landing. These conditions were included in the approval on September 8 because of comments from the City of Glenwood Springs stating that the roads leading to the property are not adequate to support the proposed use. As a result, Conditions 20 and 21 are intended to ensure adequate access and satisfy Section 7-107 of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code. As memorialized in Resolution 2014-50, Conditions 20 and 21 state: 20. The Applicant shall either contribute $585,000 to the City for road improvements or come to an agreement with the City for specific improvements to be made to Airport Road and Airport Center Road to address the stated dedication, adequacy and safety concerns. A development plan and agreement shall be in place before issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 21. The Applicant shall develop a plan with the City to determine a specific amount of land dedication for the South Bridge landing, if any. This dedication plan and agreement shall be in place before issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. Should the City determine that a dedication is not necessary, a letter from the City stating such shall be provided to the County. 2 The City Council discussed the proposed road improvement agreement and land dedication at a regular meeting on October 16, 2014. As an outcome of this meeting, Andrew McGregor, Community Development Director, provided a letter stating (Exhibit 11): "The City Council of Glenwood Springs requests that the Garfield County Board of Commissioners reconsider their decision and deny the application". While the BOCC is not able to reconsider the overall decision memorialized in Resolution Number 2014-50 as part of this Substantial Amendment, the BOCC is able to reconsider the language within Conditions 20 and 21. Condition 20 and 21 relate to road improvements and land dedication for the South Bridge, respectively. It is the language in these conditions that are requested to be amended due to an impasse in negotiations between the City and the Applicant. The development of appropriate agreements between the City and Applicant are necessary to fulfill the requirements of these conditions. The proposed modifications to these conditions are intended to provide the Applicant a way to obtain a Land Use Change Permit for the proposed development should agreement with the City not be reached. There are three points worth noting with the amendments, (1) because the October 16, 2014 date has passed, the County is requested to be the recipient of both the monetary contribution and the land dedication, (2) the Applicant is requesting the payment for the for the South Bridge land dedication be at fair market value, and (3) the deadline of October 16, 2014, which was the date that the City Council reviewed the development agreements, has already passed. To this end, as the amendments are written, the County would become the recipient of both the financial contribution for the roadways and the land dedication. The Applicant is requesting the following modifications to Condition 20 (changes underlined): 20. The Applicant shall either contribute $585,000 to the City for road improvements or come to an agreement with the City for specific improvements to be made to Airport Road and Airport Center Road to address the stated dedication, adequacy and safety concerns. If the City refuses to accept the tendered $585,000 and does not approve any agreement acceptable to the Applicant by October 16, 2014, then the Applicant may tender the $585,000 to the County in full satisfaction of this condition. A development plan and agreement, if applicable, shall be in place before issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. This condition of approval was originally drafted and adopted in Resolution 2014-50to help make Airport Road and Airport Center Road adequate for the proposed use. As a part of the original review for this development, the City provided documentation that Airport Road and Airport Center Roads are inadequate by City standards to meet anticipated demand. In addition, the City Engineer provided an estimate of $585,000 to cover the costs of making these roads adequate. With this information, Staff recommended this adopted condition of approval as an avenue for the applicant to meet Section 7-107, which requires roads to the proposed use be designed to provide for adequate and safe access. 3 As has been stated, the City and Applicant now appear to be at an impasse in negotiating an agreement for specific improvements to Airport Road and Airport Center Road. As a result, the Applicant has proposed amendments to this Condition 20 which would allow the County to accept the $585,000 instead of providing the contribution to the City. However, it is Staff's opinion that while the County should encourage the Applicant and the City to work toward consensus, the County should not be in the position of intermediary on these negotiations or financial contributions. The Applicant is requesting the following modifications to Condition 21 (changes underlined): 21. The Applicant shall develop a plan with the City to determine a specific amount of land dedication for the South Bridge landing, if any. This dedication plan and agreement shall be in place before issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. Should the City determine that a dedication is not necessary, a letter from the City stating such shall be provided to the County. If the City has neither issued such a letter nor approved any agreement acceptable to the Applicant by October 16, 2014, then the Applicant shall instead grant the County a 10 -year option to acquire the dedication parcel at the location to be determined on the southerly end of the parcel, with a right of way not to exceed 55 feet in width. The Applicant shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for the actual fair market value of the dedication parcel at the time of the conveyance to the County or the City, as applicable, which shall include the costs of relocating or replacing any utilities or other improvements that would interfere with the bridge project. If the parties cannot agree on the amount of compensation informally, then the procedures set forth in C.R.S. § 38-1-121 shall apply. The form of the option agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the County Attorney prior to issuance of building permit. This condition of approval was drafted and adopted because the southernmost portion of this property is within an area identified in the South Bridge Concept Plan as the approximate location for the bridge landing. The City had recommended a land dedication as a part of this development for the South Bridge landing. It is also understood from the Applicant that the development of the South Bridge would increase their efficiency and success at this location. To date, the City and the Applicant have been unsuccessful in developing a plan for land dedication. In the requested amendments, the Applicant would now like to receive payment for the land, which Staff believes is not within the intent or spirit of the original adopted condition. Similar to Condition 20, in the absence of a negotiated agreement between the Applicant and the City, it is Staff's opinion that the County should not be in the position of intermediary on these negotiations or land dedication. 4 Vicinity Map Vicinity Map The 8.92 acre prope s east-southeast of the Glenwood Springs Au -port. 5 Proposed Site Plan .1 44 V me,* Tor ow Ai .6,16 qvc Iaa qmpa 01.50.4.19 70001010 S•10111,.anieau.s1 sinDvd aso.oun X1C13.3 WWI 1M V11144004106094140 \ 6 South Bridge Concept Plan Subject Parcel Location II. LOCATION - SITE DESCRIPTION The parcel is currently developed with a single family home that is to be removed before construction of this proposed facility. The majority of the 8.92 acre parcel is native vegetation consisting of sagebrush, grasses and juniper. The surrounding area is primarily light industrial, airport, residential and the Roaring Fork River. The surrounding County zoning is Commercial General and Commercial Limited across the River while the City of Glenwood Springs adjacent zoning is Industrial and Residential. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Public Notice was provided for the Board's public hearing in accordance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. No public comments have been received at this time. Comments from referral agencies and County Departments are summarized below and attached as Exhibits. 1. City of Glenwood Springs: (See Exhibit 11) • The City Council met on October 16, 2014 to discuss the application for amendments to Conditions 20 and 21 related to road improvements to Airport Road and Airport Center Road and South Bridge land dedication agreements, respectively. The letter states that "The City Council of Glenwood Springs requests that the Garfield County Board of Commissioners reconsider their decision and deny the application". IV. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS In accordance with the Land Use and Development Code, the Applicant has provided responses to the Submittal Requirements and applicable sections of Article 7, Divisions 1, 2, and 3, including Section 7-1001 Industrial Use Standards. The Application materials were limited to those items necessary to review the proposed changes. 7-101: Zone District Regulations The proposed use demonstrates general conformance with applicable Zone District provisions contained in the Land Use and Development Code and in particular Article 3 standards for the Commercial General zone district. 8 ZONING MAP EXAMPLES OF BY -RIGHT USES IN COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONE DISTRICT Professional Office - Nursery/Greenhouse Retail, General Retail, Equipment, Machinery, Lumber Yards Community Meeting Facility - Retail, Vehicle and Equipment Sales Theater, Indoor Eating and Drinking Establishment - General Service Establishment 9 Laundromat Repair, Body/Paint, or Upholstery Shop Lodging Facilities Contractors Yard, Large or Small Cabinet Making, Wood and Metal Working, Glazing, Machining, Welding Storage / Storage, Mini / Storage, Cold Storage Plants Recycling Collection Center 7-102 Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreement Garfield County has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for Development Review with the City of Glenwood Springs as signed on May 7th, 2001 (Reception number 580572). This IGA designates this development as a "Major Development Application" as it is would create a commercial building over 20,000 sq. ft. The subject parcel is directly adjacent to City parcels and is eligible for annexation. The Applicant had previously petitioned the City of Glenwood Springs for annexation, but decided to develop in the County instead. Consistent with the IGA, County staff has referred this application to the City to receive comments that have been incorporated within this report. The Comprehensive Plan 2030 designates the site as Urban Growth Area as it is within the City of Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Boundary. Excerpts from the Land Use Description Section Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 - Section 1, Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination, as well as the City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 are provided below. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 Chapter 2 — Growth in Urban Growth Areas The Plan recognizes the need for existing municipalities to be able to gradually expand into immediately surrounding areas. The county supports and encourages orderly expansion of existing communities. This Plan recognizes existing municipal plans and strongly supports and encourages infill and redevelopment of existing communities. These growth areas are the preferred locations in Garfield County for growth that require urban level services. They are also the preferred locations for commercial and employment uses that can take advantage of supporting infrastructure and a close by client base that reduces travel demands. The most effective way to encourage growth in designated and planned UGAs will be by ensuring the following: i. Each municipality's plan for its UGA is incorporated into the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. ii. Urban developments in the UGAs are encouraged to annex into the respective municipality. iii. If there is a public benefit to allowing development within a UGA prior to annexation, the County and municipality will cooperatively endeavor to facilitate such development through such means as: 1. County zoning in the UGAs adjusted to a close approximation of the municipality's plans. 10 2. Development in the UGA is required to obtain a local review with comment (not approval) before submitting for county review. 3. A procedure for municipal/county review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners will be developed in an IGA with each community. 4. Each community is expected to extend services and infrastructure to development in the UGA that substantially complies with their plan for the UGA (landowners and the respective municipality are strongly encouraged to enter into pre -annexation agreements that provide commitments with respect to extensions of services and infrastructure, densities, etc.). Section 1 - Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination Garfield County has worked with municipalities to direct development to UGAs where public services and infrastructure are provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Intergovernmental cooperation between municipalities and other public agencies has demonstrated successful collaboration and has resulted in the creation of new partnerships and collaborative efforts on behalf of the residents of the county. Policies: 1. Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies. 2. Projects proposed adjacent to local municipalities requiring urban services will be encouraged to annex into the affected jurisdiction if contiguity exists. 3. Development in an UGA will have land use and street patterns that are compatible with the affected municipality. 4. Within a locally planned UGA, development applicants will be required to obtain project review comments from the local community prior to submitting for county review. The process should be defined in an executed IGA. City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) The Urban Growth Boundary represents an area that can support urban -level development. Urban development is characterized by densities typical of urbanized areas and by the types of services required to support that development such as water, wastewater, roads, police and emergency services, and other similar services. It also represents an area of future annexation. Although this area lies outside of the city and is subject to Garfield County land 11 use requirements, according to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, development and land use within the Urban Growth Boundary should be consistent with the future land use objectives of the municipality. Both the Garfield County and Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plans recommend entering into Intergovernmental Agreements to assure mutually acceptable land use and development within the Urban Growth Boundary and to determine a process by which land use proposals will be evaluated by both jurisdictions. The Urban Growth Boundary has been determined using the following criteria: • Ability of the City to provide adequate infrastructure, particularly water service, to new development without placing undue burdens on the City ' s ability to meet current municipal demands while maintaining adequate levels of service. • Areas where there would be a public benefit for the City to manage growth, giving consideration to visual impacts, economic impacts and benefits, open space and environmental benefits, and impacts on schools and other public facilities. • Areas which, if annexed to the City, would simplify the city limits and provide unity of services. • Location of existing topographical features which serve as opportunities or constraints to development. Low Density Residential Low Density Residential is a designation for land that is outside of the city limits but within the urban growth area. This designation consists of single-family residential development that is intended to maintain a rural character. Appropriate development densities will be determined by, among other things, current land uses, topographic constraints, existing and future utility connections, and existing road networks. Riverside Protection Land and habitat along the Colorado and Roaring Fork rivers should be protected. These areas are indicated with a blue cross hatch on the Future Land Use Map (Maps 2.1, 2.2, 2.3). Hillside Preservation Glenwood Springs is defined by prominent ridge lines, steep slopes, varied unstable geologic conditions, rock outcroppings, and extensive vegetation. Development of hillside areas requires special care. Hillside preservation areas, those with slopes in excess of twenty percent, are indicated on the Future Land 12 Use Map with a green cross -hatch. Development is discouraged in these areas unless it is at very low densities, in limited areas and done with little impact (physically and visually) to the hillsides. Land Uses Outside City Limits but within the Urban Growth Area Future land use designations have been applied to properties within the Urban Growth Area. It is intended that these properties within the Urban Growth Boundary be annexed into the city at some point in the future. Among other things, these future land use designations take into account current uses, topographic constraints, existing/future utility connections, existing road networks, and land uses on adjacent properties. Values and Vision for Economic Development Despite a decent level of diversification in the Glenwood economy, the region surrounding the city is greatly influenced by the mining, oil and gas, and construction -related industries. The influence that these industries have on the region makes Glenwood Springs susceptible to the associated boom and bust economic cycles that are typical of western Colorado. Therefore, the City must work to further diversify its economy in order to minimize the impacts of boom and bust cycles. While taking steps to continue diversifying the economy, the City should focus efforts on attracting high -paying jobs to help offset the abundance of low-paying jobs associated with the robust tourism and service industry. Community Goals Supported by Economic Development Maintain Glenwood's role as a regional center Policies to Enhance Economic Development • The City should encourage the development of a well-trained workforce. • The City should continue to make improvements that enhance the community's quality of life and that make Glenwood Springs a place that is attractive for new businesses and their employees. • The City should actively pursue businesses and industries whose operations and products are compatible with the Glenwood Springs vision. Strategies and Actions to Promote Economic Development Attract Diverse Businesses and Industries - The City should diversify the economy in at least three major ways: creating a community where employers/employees 13 want to live, creating opportunity for new and expanding local businesses, and actively seeking targeted businesses. Ensure an Attractive Community - Good jobs are provided by good employers. Good employers will locate in communities where they and their employees will want to and can afford to live. Allocate Adequate Land - Adequate land for new industries and businesses is limited within city limits. However, what is available will need to be zoned to allow a business easy development. The City should consider revising the zoning code to allow for more flexibility of uses for a structure or site in order to better respond to the industrial and commercial real estate market. An adequate supply of attractive and accessible office space for professionals is also important. The City should consider adaptive reuse of structures and land availability prior to contacting targeted businesses. For new office and retail opportunities, the City should help facilitate redevelopment of existing retail buildings in order to meet evolving retail markets and community needs. To better understand the types of commercial office space needed in the community, the City should conduct an analysis on the amount of space currently existing. Options immediately adjacent to the city limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary should also be examined for the ability to accommodate business and industry. An example site is the parcel north of the Glenwood Springs Mall in West Glenwood where the City could assist in preparing it to become a mixed-use office area or business park. The City should also consider partnering with governments or organizations to plan and possibly develop an industrial park in the immediate area. In accordance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Policies, "Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies." To this end, the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan defers to the land use goals and policies of the local municipalities for land within the UGA. The City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as Low Density Residential along with certain protection areas on the subject property, including Hillside Preservation and Riverside Protection (See excerpts above). It is Staff's opinion that provided the City's policies on economic development as well as the language within the Low Density Residential designation that states that "Appropriate development densities will be determined by, among other things, current land uses, topographic constraints, existing and future utility connections, and existing road networks," the application is in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. To this end, at the time when infrastructure is available, the City may permit greater densities and more impactful uses in these locations. 14 City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan 15 Map 2.3: Future Land Use - South Portion of City Chapter 2: Future Land Use Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan 16 Surrounding Land Use and Aerial Map 7-103 — 7-106: Compatibility, Source of Water & Waste Water Systems, Public Utilities These Standards are not part of the Substantial Amendment application and were deemed satisfied as a part of the original approval. 7-107: Access & Roadways Please see Section II for a more detailed discussion of the proposed amendments related to Access and Roadways. As noted in Section II, Conditions 20 and 21 as memorialized in Resolution 2014-50 are intended to make the roadways leading to the subject property, which are owned and 17 maintained by the City of Glenwood Springs, adequate to support the proposed use. As a part of the initial review for the Public Hearing on September 8, 2014, the City of Glenwood Springs identified the City owned streets leading to the property as inadequate. In addition, the property was identified as being within the landing area for the planned South Bridge. As negotiations between the Applicant and the City appear to be at an impasse, the Applicant is requesting an amendment to these conditions to allow them to move forward with the project without the City's participation. 7-108 — 7-306: Natural Hazards; Fire Protection; Agricultural Lands; Wildlife Habitat Areas; Protection of Water Bodies; Drainage and Erosion (Stormwater); Environmental Quality; Wildfire Hazards; Natural and Geologic Hazards; Reclamation; Compatible Design, Parking, and Loading; Landscaping; Lighting; Snow Storage; Trails These Standards are not part of the Substantial Amendment application and were deemed satisfied as a part of the original approval. 7-1001 INDUSTRIAL USE STANDARDS The Applicant represents that the facility will comply with all the Industrial Use Standards contained in Section 7-1001. The following summary addresses the applicable provisions. A - I. Residential Subdivisions; Setbacks; Concealing and Screening; Storing; Industrial Wastes; Noise; Ground Vibration; Hours of Operation; Interference, Nuisance, or Hazard These Standards are not part of the Substantial Amendment application and were deemed satisfied as a part of the original approval. V. SUPPLEMENTAL AND ADDITIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant has requested a continuance of this Public Hearing from November 3 to November 10. This request is to allow the Applicant time to consider a couple other potential properties to relocate the facility that were suggested by the City Council at the October 16, 2014 meeting. Staff foresees no issues allowing this continuance. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff understands that the City, who owns and maintains all roadways accessing this development, considers Airport Road and Airport Center Road to be inadequate to support the proposed use. In addition, referral comments received from the City indicate that progress toward developing road improvement and land dedication agreements as required in Resolution 2014-50 are at an impasse. Considering that an agreement has not been developed between the two parties and a letter from the City has been 18 submitted recommending that the BOCC deny the application, the BOCC generally has two options: deny the amendments or approve the Applicant proposed amendments. Alternatively, the BOCC may otherwise modify Conditions 20 and/or 21 as deemed appropriate or continue the Public Hearing to a date certain as requested by the Applicant. These options are outlined below. 1. CONTINUANCE (Continue the public hearing as requested by the Applicant) Continue the Public Hearing from November 3 to November 10 regular BOCC meeting date. 2. DENIAL (Leave conditions as they were approved) SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Substantial Amendment to Conditions 20 and 21 in Resolution of Approval Number 2014- 50 for a Land Use Change Permit for CLH Properties, LLC (Riverside FedEx Facility) is NOT in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5. That the proposed Substantial Amendment to Conditions 20 and 21 in Resolution of Approval Number 2014-50 for a Land Use Change Permit for CLH Properties, LLC (Riverside FedEx Facility) does NOT adequately meet Section 7-107, Access and Roadways, of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. 3. APPROVAL (Accept Applicant suggested revisions) SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 19 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Substantial Amendment to Conditions 20 and 21 in Resolution of Approval Number 2014- 50 for a Land Use Change Permit for CLH Properties, LLC (Riverside FedEx Facility) is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5. That the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. 4. APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATION (Modify the language in Conditions 20 and 21, as deemed appropriate) SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the Substantial Amendment to Conditions 20 and 21 in Resolution of Approval Number 2014-50 for a Land Use Change Permit for CLH Properties, LLC (Riverside FedEx Facility) is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5. That the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. 20 EXHIBIT I Garfield County PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. QMy application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. Mailed notice was completed on the day of `, r ,r c r-- , 2014. All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] ■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. ❑✓ My application required Published notice. ,NS Notice was published on the =�'\c1 day of ' � �� �" , 2014. ■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. ✓0 My application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the ---2.--),\(1 day of SE;jt. vn b F'r—", 2014. Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. I testify that the above information is true and accurate. Name: -,V'S “-rckr Signature: U(,tr- -y Date: 9/0--:)(t"7� Ad Name: 10578732D Customer: Western Slope Consulting Your account number is: 1023467 PROOF OF PUBLICATION THE r \ IFLL CITIZEN TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD I, Michael Bennett, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of The Rhe Citizen Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 10/2/2014 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/2/2014 the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this 10/06/2014. Michael Bennett, Publisher Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 10/06/2014. CI477.21A- PUBLIC NOTICE EXHIBIT -2- TAKE TAKE NOTICE that CLH Properties, LLC has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request approval for An Amendment to an Approved Land -Use Change Permit on a 8.7 -acre parcel located on Airport Center Road (AKA County Road 116) in the County of Gar- field, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: A tract of land described as follows (the Permit Parcel"): A Parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said parcel lying westerly of the centerline of the Roaring Fork Riv- er and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in said Centerline of the Roaring Fork River from which the East Quarter Corner of said Section 27 bears approximately S88°20'00'E, 786.50 feet; thence upon said centerline S11 °55'12"W, 163.83 feet to the Southeast Corner of a Parcel of land described in Book 348 at Page 87 of the Garfield County Public Records; thence departing said centerline and upon the boundary line of said Parcel re- corded in Book 348 at Page 87 the following three (3) courses: 1) S63°48'00"W, 174.13 feet to the east- erly right of way line of a 300 foot airport Runway Strip; 2) N26°12'00"W, 100.58 feet upon said easterly right of way; 3) N01 °40'00"E, 208.83 feet to the westerly line of a Parcel of Land described in Book 275 at Page 346 of said Public Records; thence departing said lands described in Book 348 at Page 87 and up- on said westerly line N30°19'00'W, 428.49 feet to the eastern right of way line described in Book 343 at Page 365 of said Public Records; thence upon said eastern right of way the following four (4) courses; 1) N15°57'00°W, 9.21 feet; 2) N13°19'17"W, 52.35 feet; 3) with all bearings contained herein based upon, N18°51'56"W, 239.57 feet; 4) N21 °05'54°W, 119.29 feet; thence departing said easterly right of way line N69°11'48°E, 470.20 feet more or less to said centerline of the Roaring Fork River; thence upon said centerline of the Roaring Fork River the following two (2) courses: 1) S09°55'31 E, 346.20 feet; 2) S07°00'00"E, 660.40 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 8.70 Acres more or less. The above-described Permit Parcel is a portion of the property owned by the Applicant as of July 25, 2014, which is described as follows (the "Ownership Parcel"): A Parcel of Land Situated in the Southeast' Ne 'A and in the Ne' Se 'A Of Section 27, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, Said Parcel Lying Westerly of the Center of the Roaring Fork River and Being More Particularly Described As Follows: Beginning at the Centerline of the Roaring Fork River, from Which the East Quarter Corner of Said Sec- tion 27, a GLO Brass CAP Standard Monument Bears S 88° 20' 00" E a Distance of 786.50 Ft.; Thence SOT 00' 00" E along Said Centerline a Distance of 5.11 Ft.; Thence S 11° 55' 12" E along Said Center- line a Distance of 167.56 Ft. to the Southeast Corner of That Parcel Described in Book 348 at Page 87 of the Garfield County Records; Thence S 63° 48' 00' W along the Southerly Line of Said Parcel, a Distance of 310.00 Ft.; Thence N 26° 12' 00" E along the Westerly Line of Said Parcel, a Distance of 176.64 Ft.; Thence NO1 Degree 40' 00" E along the Westerly Line of Said Parcel, a Distance of 204.14 Ft. to the Westerly Line of That Parcel of Land Described in Book 275 at Page 346 of the Garfield County Records; Thence N 30° 19' 00" W along the Westerly Line of Said Parcel, a Distance of 438.00 Ft. to the Southerly Line of That Parcel of Land Described in Book 343 at Page 365 of the Garfield County Records; Thence N 15° 57' 00" W a Distance of 9.21 Ft.; Thence N 13° 19 17' W along Said Westerly Line, a Distance of 52.35 Ft.; Thence N 18° 51' 56" W along Said Westerly Line, a Distance of 239.57 Ft.; Thence N 21° 05' 54° W a Distance of 119.29 Ft.; Thence N 69° 11' 48 E along the Northerly Line of Said Parcel, a Dis- tance of 470.20 Ft. to the Northeast Corner of Said Parcel at the Center of the Roaring Fork River; Thence 509° 59' 48' E along the Easterly Line of Said Parcel, and along the Center of Said River, a Distance of 346.19 Ft.; Thence S07° 00' 00" E alongthe Easterly Line of Said Parcel and along the Center of Said River, a Distance of 655.29 Ft. to the oint of Beginning. Excepting Therefrom the Right of Way for County Road. County of Garfield, State of Colorado The Applicant and the City of Glenwood Springs have agreed to exchange quitclaim deeds to correct an error in the legal description for the Ownership Parcel, which is expected to be completed prior to the hearing with the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. The resulting full parcel to be owned by the Applicant as of the hearing date will still include the entire Permit Parcel and will be described as follows (the "Revised Ownership Parcel"): A Parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said parcel lying westerly of the centerline of the Roaring Fork River and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in said Centerline of the Roaring Fork River from which the East Quarter Corner of said Section 27 bears S88°39'07"E, 785.29 feet; thence upon said centerline Si 1 °55'12"W, 248.88 feet to the Southeast Corner of a Parcel of land described in Book 348 at Page 87 of the Garfield County Public Records; thence departing said centerline and upon the boundary line of said Parcel recorded in Book 348 at Page 87 the following three (3) courses: 1) S63°48'00'W, 121.62 feet to the easterly right of way line of a 300 foot airport Runway Strip; 2) N26°12'00"W, 167.49 feet upon said easterly right of way; 3) N01 °40'00°E, 208.83 feet to the westerly line of a Parcel of Land described in Book 275 at Page 346 of said Public Records; thence departing said lands described in Book 348 at Page 87 and upon said westerly line N30°19'00"W, 428.49 feet to the eastern right of way line described in Book 343 at Page 365 of said Public Records; thence upon said eastern right of way the following four (4) courses; 1) N15°57'00"W, 9.21 feet; 2) N13°19'17"W, 52.35 feet; 3) with all bearings contained herein based upon, N18°51'56"W, 239.57 feet; 4) N21°05'54"W, 119.29 feet; thence departing said easterly right of way line N69°11'48"E, 470.20 feet more or less to said centerline of the Roaring Fork River; thence upon said centerline of the Roaring Fork River the following two (2) courses: 1) S09°55'31E, 346.20 feet; 2) S07°00'00"E, 660.40 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 8.92 Acres more or less practical Description: 1097 County Road 116, Glenwood Springs, CO. It is located south of the City of Glenwood Springs in SE Qtr of NE Qtr & in NE Qtr of Section 27, Township 6 South, Range 98 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County and Is part of a property known by Assessor's Parcel No. 218527100008. Description of Reauest: This is a Substantial Modification application to amend the conditions within a resolution of approval for a Limited Impact Review Land Use Change Permit to construct an approximately 27,000 square Warehouse and Distribution Center. The overall property is approximately 8.92 acres. The Property is zoned Commercial General (C/G). All persons affected by the proposed project are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing on the application has been scheduled for the 3rd day of November, 2014, at 1:00 P.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, 108 8th St, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County My Commissbn Expires 11/01/2015 Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 (-1 W cr ("1 9 0 C. 0 CA 0 X O7 N )1Ivety? (Extra Fee) 92.6E 9h2.T 0000 099T 600L 0 SECTION ON DELI • C. Date of Deliver 2 0 >-z DO N DOE E 5,2'; g i4.!,,c)- ......, ...- C...) .SJ c cA / ...... (.7 ------ g C - 0 Z i , 1 , >— 1 ...... •_..1 e-, a 0 0 _ U.. 9 0cc H t.J.1 CD 8 76-Lrg z -t -I u cc t -8 'E § ? .0 i 'al g Le. a 2 22 '-'. Lu ul C.) ghLT 0000 099T 600L Certift 69 Total Postage A Feq 120 Midland Ave, Suite 140 City. State. ZIP :ilenwood Springs, CO 81 livery? (Extra Fee) ,74 5 Pt> VE g o -0 to 0 0f1 -9hLT 0000 0992 600L PS Form 3811, F 'a ru 1-1 (75 rR n 2T0h ghLT :74 DO 0000 099T 600L >-z 0 0' Toter C E 8 ° 0 ODD 353 GOOSE LANE 2 >- CARBONDALE. CO 81623 __.r r rR ra1V a to 0 0 ti y '-3 1217 COUNTY ROAD 116 m ru rr m m N GLENWOOD SPRINGS E26E 91-12...T 0000 09911 6002. 2 iF ;22 E QmQ O m 0 0 <,,,,, 0 0 0 0 it a o E -0 N Q mmm .E -E, 2 gEo i uucco m N 1748 3961 N Cr cc U N E 0 a- 2 PS Form 3811, F O m t v < CD C3 O LUcaN cc CLQ cl�Lu �Ua 2 0 0 0 2 orm 3811, Fe CTION ON DELIVER' 4 °l LU U c° W C j ca0Q° cn D o LLI 4 W W m N U- Certified Fee Ef. P.O. Box 918 Pueblo, CO 81002-0918 1748 4029 PS Form 3800. 626h QhUE 0000 OQ9T 600L OO o v CL F4' W:Q Uc� W� C C c J < Z C) C.1) C1 0LLI` U7ta- c C ui Wo �Ua 0 11, February 2004 o TR GLEN WOOD SPGS, CO 81602-0222 PS Form 3800 3 Form 3811, Febru M I 1111MaGWRWCVI1,11M1,1,11.1billii11II1 Reception#: 853611 09/16/2014 10:24:27 RM Jean Alberico 1 of 8 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT I 1� STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building in Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 8th day of September A.D. 2014, there were present: John Martin Mike Samson Tom Jankovsky Frank Hutfless Kelly Cave Jean Alberico Andrew Gorgey , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner County Attorney , Assistant County Attorney , Clerk of the Board County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 2o I'- - S D A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR A LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT TO INCLUDE A WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER (LIPA-7988), ON AN 8.92 ACRE PROPERTY OWNED BY CLH PROPERTIES, LLC, LOCATED AT 1097 AIRPORT CENTER ROAD SOUTH OF THE CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS AND ADJACENT TO THE CITY AIRPORT IN THE SE QTR OF NE QTR & IN NE QTR OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 98 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY PARCEL NO# 2185-271-00-008 Recitals A. The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, "Board" received a request for a Land Use Change Permit to allow for a Warehouse and Distribution Center, as further described in Exhibit A, Site Plan. B. The Warehouse and Distribution Center, known as the Riverside FedEx Facility, is located on an approximately 8.92 acres parcel of land owned by CLH Properties, LLC. C. The subject property is located within unincorporated Garfield County in the Commercial General zone district, adjacent to the Glenwood Springs airport and south of the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado accessed by private roads off Airport Center Road. 1 11111i7dI 'KieihiltMilir1117CGRkMULK,filiii 11111 Reception#: 853611 09/16/2014 10:24:27 RM Jean Alberico 2 of 8 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO D. A Warehouse and Distribution Center may be permitted in the Commercial General zone district with a Limited Impact Review. E. The Board is authorized to approve, deny or approve with conditions a Limited Impact application resulting in issuance of a Land Use Change Permit pursuant to the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. F. The Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the 8th day of September, 2014 for consideration of whether the proposed Land Use Change Permit should be granted or denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the request. G. The Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on the 8th day of September, 2014 to make a final decision. H. The Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determinations of fact: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit for CLH Properties, LLC (Riverside FedEx Facility) is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. S. That with the adoption of the Conditions of Approval the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that: A. The forgoing Recitals are incorporated by this reference as part of the resolution. 2 lll1;i111RAMLAMereANI VAI W 11111 Reception: 853611 09/16/2014 10:24:27 AM Jean Alberico 3 of 8 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO B. The Land Use Change Permit for a Warehouse and Distribution Center, also known as the Riverside FedEx Facility is hereby approved subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the operation of the CLH Properties, LLC Warehouse and Distribution Center (Riverside FedEx Facility) shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 3. The Applicant shall control fugitive dust during the construction and operation of the site. 4. The facility shall maintain compliance with Section 7-306 Lighting, with all lighting to be directed inward and doward toward the interior of the site. 5. Facilities and storage tanks shall be painted a non -glare neutral color to lessen any visual impacts. 6. The Applicant shall control all noxious weeds during construction and operation of the site. 7. Operation of the site as proposed is permitted 24 hours per day. 8. A minimum of a 200,000 gallon water storage tank shall be provided onsite and as demonstrated in the proposed site plans for use in firefighting and operating the fire sprinklers. Should demand for fire protection water exceed a total of 200,000 gallons, the tank shall be enlarged to meet the requirements as recommended or necessitated by the International Building Code, the International Fire Code, the fire protection district, the Garfield County Building Department or the project engineer. This tank shall be painted a non -reflective neutral earth tone color. 9. The proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) shall obtain all necessary County permits. 10. As a result of high bear activity in the area, all outdoor refuse containers must be certified bear -proof. 3 11111 Reception#: 853611 09/18/2014 10:24:27 AM Jean Alberico 4 of B Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee10.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 11. The SWMP does not provide evidence that the site is covered under the CDPHE permit. The Applicant shall submit a coverage letter to Garfield County once it is obtained. 12. With exception to the control of noxious weeds, no development or disturbance of the hillside along the Roaring Fork River shall occur unless identified in the approved site plan. Conditions Prior to Issuance of Permit 13. All Dalmation Toadflax shall be treated on the site. In addition, as Diffuse Knapweed is common in the area, any occurrences of Diffuse Knapweed should be treated as well. These noxious weeds shall be treated prior to construction with satisfactory confirmation of the treatment submitted to the Garfield County Vegetation Manager by October 31, 2014. This treatment and confirmation shall be completed prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 14. Conflicting information was provided regarding fertilization in the hydroseed. The Applicant shall clarify this issue to the satisfaction of the Garfield County Vegetation Manager prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 15. The Applicant has indicated that the total area to be landscaped is 68,309 square feet, or 1.56 acres. As a result, a revegetation security of $3750 (1.5 acres x $2500 per acre) shall be provided prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. This security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards section in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. The Reclamation Standards are cited in Sections 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #2002-94). 16. The fire protection systems design including fire hydrants, water storage tank, sprinkler systems, Knox key and access shall be finalized with the Fire Department. The Applicant shall provide the Planning Department with the final designs as agreed to by the Fire Protection District prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The site plans shall be updated with any changes made to the fire protection system. 17. Engineered details of the water supply infrastructure, equipment and fire protection systems shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County contract engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. If necessary, the site plans shall be updated with any changes 4 11111 Receptson#: 853611 09!1612014 10:24:27 RM Jean Rlberico 5 of 8 Rec Fee:$O.OD Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO made to the water supply infrastructure, equipment or fire protection system. 18. The Applicant shall modify the site plans, SWMP and Drainage Report to demonstrate compliance with Sections 7-204.C.3.a (post -development peak discharge rate does not exceed pre -development peak discharge rate) and Section 7-204.C.3.d (bio -retention ponds conform to standards) of the LUDC. Should the Applicant wish to obtain a waiver from Sections 7-204.C.3.a, compliance with Section 4-118 is required. These amended plans and reports or request for waiver shall be provided to the Garfield County contract engineer for review and acceptance prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. In addition, the OWTS shall be evaluated by the Garfield County Contract Engineer for potential impacts to the Roaring Fork River. 19. The Traffic Impact Analysis did not consider the 27th Street / Highway 82 interchange. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall address this intersection and/or explain why this intersection was not evaluated. This evaluation shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County consulting engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 20. The Applicant shall either contribute $585,000 to the City for road improvements or come to an agreement with the City for specific improvements to be made to Airport Road and Airport Center Road to address the stated dedication, adequacy and safety concerns. A development plan and agreement shall be in place before issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 21. The Applicant shall develop a plan with the City to determine a specific amount of land dedication for the South Bridge landing, if any. This dedication plan and agreement shall be in place before issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. Should the City determine that a dedication is not necessary, a letter from the City stating such shall be provided to the County. 22. The Applicant shall demonstrate whether the proposed building encroaches on the 7:1 transitional surface as described in the City's Airport Layout Plan. This analysis shall be conducted by a licensed surveyor. The results of this survey shall be reviewed by City staff. Should it be found that the building encroaches into the 7:1 transitional surface, the Applicant shall submit amended plans to the Garfield County Planning Department for additional review and referral to effected agencies prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 5 •111 raIF:1l1,rtif11. Its 1'' 171411.iLilrfo ri1®I III Reception#: 853611 09/16/2014 10:24:27 AM Jean Alberico 6 of 8 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 23. The Applicant shall establish a fisherman's easement along the Roaring Fork River to allow fisherman to wade and anchor along the property line. This easement shall be five feet above high water mark to the center of the river or the furthest extent towards the centerline, whichever is greater. This easement language and revised site plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County Community Development Department prior issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. The easement document shall be recorded with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders Office. Dated this 1 tt- day of , A.D. 20 / V . ATTEST: ARFIELD C• MISSI CO TY, COUN NERS, OLO BOARD OF GARFIELD of the Board Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: COMMISSIONER CHAIR JOHN F. MARTIN COMMISSIONER MIKE SAMSON COMMISSIONER TOM JANKOVSKY Aye , Aye , Nay STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the 6 ■III 1)r1UIZIO,Qii1 14.'4 II III Reception#: 853611 09/16/2014 10:24:27 AM Jean Alberico 7 of B Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 20 . County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 7 1111Kir+tiKT,'r+ui.1 W61111:Ktl'eililiKli 11111 Reception#: 853611 09/16/2014 10:24:27 AM Jean Alberico 8 of 8 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT A SITE PLAN cram n.e Ane 91.01 I WA USW. I Mno ,11A I n w +a .no 9a - nar.I lino go not aew W. rasa aca wne ANY{.* 52 nAcwsvim azr iDva uNaoiio xiaiti cry 301 A VI EXHIBIT I it MEMORANDUM October 17, 2014 l TO: David Pesnichak, Garfield County Community Development FROM: Andrew McGregor, Community Development Department RE: LPAA-8073 CLH Properties -Riverside Fed Ex Warehouse and Distribution Facility — Substantial Modification Thanks for providing the City of Glenwood Springs with the opportunity to comment on the above noted land use application for a Fed Ex facility in South Glenwood adjacent to the airport. As with the original application, we submitted this to relevant City departments for their review. Those comments are attached. Because of the considerable implications associated with the development of this project, and consistent with the original application referral process, we presented this matter to City Council for their comments at their meeting on October 16, 2014. The Council conducted a public hearing where multiple residents of South Glenwood expressed serious concerns about the project's impacts on their neighborhood. At the conclusion of the hearing, Council moved to forward the following recommendation to the BOCC for their consideration: The City Council of Glenwood Springs requests that the Garfield County Board of Commissioners reconsider their decision and deny the application. We appreciate your consideration of the City's input in this application. City of Glenwood Springs 101 West 8'" Street, Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 PH: 970-384-6411 FX: 970-945-8582 Page 1 of 1 PLANNING ITEM: 37-14 SUBJECT: County Referral re FedEx CITY ATTORNEY (Jan Shute) CITY MANAGER (Jeff Hecksel) POLICE DEPARTMENT (Terry Wilson) PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (Robin Millyard) ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (Dave Betley) — I do not support the proposed modifications. Airport Road is in a state of disrepair and will need improvement, performed at any increase in traffic. The City's request for land dedication and for the South Bridge Project has not changed from the City's application to the County's application. This should be an easy condition to resolve. BUILDING DEPARTMENT (Patrick Seydel) — No comments. CITY ENGINEER (Terri Partch) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Andrew McGregor) CITY ELECTRIC (Doug Hazzard) Developer will need to follow Glenwood Springs Line Extension policy (copy attached.) WATER/WASTEWATER (Buddy Burns) — Refer to previously submitted comments. FIRE DEPARTMENT (Ronald Biggers) — See attached and email sent 10/2/14. AIRPORT BOARD (c -o Dave Betley) David Pesnichak From: David H. McConaughy <dmcconaughy@garfieldhecht.com> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:40 AM To: David Pesnichak Cc: Davis Farrar; Kevin Kiernan; Jeff Hecksel; Andrew C McGregor; Jan Shute; Andrew Gorgey; Karl J. Hanlon Subject: FedEx EXHIBIT David, During the recent City Council meeting, it was suggested that FedEx explore feasibility of several other potential sites within Glenwood Springs and the vicinity. My client would like to take the opportunity to do that, and we would therefore request a 1 -week continuance for the pending application from 11/3 to 11/10 if that works for the County. We understand that both the 11/3 and 11/10 meetings are scheduled to be in Glenwood Springs. Please advise. Thank you. David H. McConaughy GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. 420 Seventh Street #100 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 dmcconaughy@garfieldhecht.com (970) 947-1936 Tax Advice Disclosure: Any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending any entity, investment plan or other transaction 1 EXHIBIT :3 Board of County Commissioners — Public Hearing Exh • Federal Express — Warehouse and Distribution Facility Limited Impact Review (File LIPA-7988) - Applicant is CLH Properties, LLC September 8, 2014 Exhibit Letter (Numerical) Exhibit Description 1 Public Hearing Notice Information 2 Proof of Publication 3 Receipts from Mailing Notice 4 Photo evidence of Public Notice Posting 5 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 6 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 7 Application 8 Staff Report 9 Staff Presentation 10 Referral Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (dated August 25, 2014) 11 Referral Comments from Garfield County Road and Bridge (dated July 16, 2014) 12 Referral Comments from Garfield County Road and Bridge (dated August 7, 2014) 13 Referral Comments from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (dated August 15, 2014) 14 Referral Comments from Garfield County Vegetation Management (Dated August 24, 2014) 15 Referral Comments from the Garfield County Sheriff's Office (Dated August 18, 2014) 16 Referral Comments from CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division (Dated August 14, 2014) 17 Invoice from the West Divide Water Conservancy District (Dated August 18, 2014) 18 Referral Comments from Glenwood Springs Fire Department (Dated August 26, 2014) 19 Referral Comments from Mountain Cross Engineering (Dated August 28, 2014) 20 Referral Comments from the City of Glenwood Springs (Dated August 26, 2014) 21 Letter from David McConaughy of Garfield and Hecht, P.C. (Dated September 5, 2014) BOCC 9/8/2014 File No. LIPA-7988 DP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Land Use Change Permit - Limited Impact Review for a Warehouse and Distribution Facility. APPLICANT — PROPERTY OWNER CLH Properties, LLC (Federal Express) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 2185-271-00-008 PROPERTY SIZE 8.92 acres LOCATION The property is located at 1097 County Road 116 (Airport Center Road), Glenwood Springs, CO. It is located south of the City of Glenwood Springs in SE Qtr of NE Qtr & in NE Qtr of Section 27, Township 6 South, Range 98 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County ACCESS The facility is accessed by County Road 116 (Airport Center Road). EXISTING ZONING The property is zoned Commercial General (C/G) I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant is requesting a Limited Impact Review for a 27,000 square foot Warehouse and Distribution Center on an 8.92 acre parcel located south of the City of Glenwood Springs. The facility is to be operated by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx Ground) and is to serve eastern Garfield County. The facility is not intended to serve the general public and is expected to operate 6 days per week for trailer operations and 5 days per week for delivery and pickup operations. The facility is to be fully fenced and gated and is to employ 14.5 FTE workers (9 full-time and 9.5 part-time) and is expected to generate 230 single trips per day at full build out. All access is to be via Midland Avenue and Airport Road. The facility is proposed to operate 24 hours per day, 6 days per week. 1 The facility will be located directly east of the Glenwood Springs municipal airport and the City limits. The property is surrounded by Tight industrial uses and some residential uses. Water is to be available to the site from a 3/4" line from the City of Glenwood Springs. In order to accommodate the necessary fire flows and irrigation requirements, the facility will have a 200,000 gallon water storage tank located in the northeast corner of the property along the Roaring Fork River. Wastewater is to be handled by a new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS). The Applicant had previously petitioned the City of Glenwood Springs for annexation, but the Applicant decided not to pursue annexation after discussions with the City. On August 21, 2014, the City Council reviewed the proposal as referred by Garfield County. At this meeting, the City Council voted to recommend the BOCC deny the application and outlined a number of reasons as further discussed in this report. Vicinity Map VirtyMap The 8 92 acre property is east-southeast of the Glenwood Springs Airport. 2 Proposed Site Plan llM c La N -v2 a. w as �w flar. it .10 RIX N:X yN n 'w c Mr c1 WffA ! 09 90N..Y 900691110 MNta 1111211S NI010.71 LLI'II:)` d UNI102U0 XHURti N.,, 3a % Building Elevations §1 3 View of single family home on subject property from Airport Center Road View of Subject Site from Airport Center Road Subject Parcel 5 View of Airport Center Road in Front of Subject Site II. LOCATION - SITE DESCRIPTION The parcel is currently developed with a single family home that is to be removed before construction of this proposed facility. The majority of the 8.92 acre parcel is native vegetation consisting of sagebrush, grasses and juniper. The surrounding area is primarily Tight industrial, airport, residential and the Roaring Fork River. The surrounding County zoning is Commercial General and Commercial Limited across the River while the City of Glenwood Springs adjacent zoning is Industrial and Residential. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Public Notice was provided for the Board's public hearing in accordance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. No public comments have been received at this time. Comments from referral agencies and County Departments are summarized below and attached as Exhibits. 1. Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering: (See Exhibits 19) 6 • The Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) will require permitting through the Garfield County Building Department. • All site plans should be updated to show only one access. All access permits should by obtained. • The traffic analysis does not address how the traffic will impact the intersection of Highway 82 and 27th Street. The Applicant should address this intersection and/or why this intersection was not evaluated. • The Applicant proposes to not provide detention for storm water peak attenuation as required in Section 7-204.C.3.a of the LUDC. • The Applicant should address how the bio -retention ponds that are proposed conform to Section 7-204.C.3.d of the LUDC. • The Storm Water Management Plan does not provide evidence that the site is covered under the CDPHE Permit. A copy of the coverage letter should be submitted to Garfield County once obtained. • The plan sheets show that a 3/4" water service tap is to provide fire protection and potable supply to a fire pump and storage tank. No details were included for this equipment. The Applicant should provide engineering information and obtain approvals from the Fire District. 2. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: (See Exhibits 11 and 12) • Comments state that the access road is under City of Glenwood Springs jurisdiction. In addition, all anticipated road impacts are expected to be on City maintained roads. No impacts are expected on County maintained roads. 3. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: (See Exhibit 14) • The submitted noxious weed inventory is acceptable. • It is recommended that the Dalmation Toadflax be treated on the site. In addition, Diffuse Knapweed is common in the area and any occurrences of Diffuse Knapweed should be treated. • It is recommended that the identified noxious weeds be treated prior to construction with satisfactory confirmation of the treatment submitted to the Garfield County Vegetation Manager by October 31, 2014. • Conflicting information was provided regarding fertilization in the hydroseed. Staff recommends that fertilizer not be utilized in the hydroseed as it tends to favor the establishment of weeds. It is requested that the Applicant clarify whether fertilizer will be used in the hydroseed. • The Applicant has indicated that the total area to be landscaped is 68,309 square feet, or 1.56 acres. As a result, a revegetation security of $3750 (1.5 acres x $2500 per acre) is recommended to be held by the County until successful revegetation is established. 4. Glenwood Springs and Rural Fire Protection District: (See Exhibit 18) • As the facility is proposed to have a gate at the main access, the Applicant needs to install a Knox key switch, which can be obtained from the Fire Department. • If the facility is not able to be connected to the City of Glenwood Springs water supply, then all other options need to be further discussed with the Fire Department. • The building needs to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system that is designed and installed to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13 standards. The fire alarm system needs to be designed and installed to NFPA 72 standards for sprinkled buildings and adhere to Glenwood Springs Fire Departments amendments to the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC). • The site will be required to have at least one fire hydrant and possibly two, depending on final Fire Department review. 5. Colorado Parks and Wildlife: (See Exhibit 10) • No adverse impacts to wildlife are expected as a result of the project. • As a result of high bear activity in the area, CPW recommends that all refuse containers be bear -proof. 6. Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR): (See Exhibit 13) • The DWR has no objection to connecting to City of Glenwood Springs water system. • Ivan Franco of the DWR notes that "In any scenario that includes a water well or surface diversion, the applicant should note that the stream system is over -appropriated, that as any potential water right is subject to curtailment, and is therefore not adequate for year-round use without an augmentation plan. Also, the applicant will be required to make an application with this office for a new non-exempt commercial well permit, should a well be included in the final water supply plan." 7. Garfield County Sheriffs Office: (See Exhibit 15) • Jim Sears of the Garfield County Sheriff's Office has indicated that he does not have any comments or concerns about the proposed development. 8. CDPHE — Air Pollution Control Division (APCD): (See Exhibit 16) • The development may be required to obtain a permit from the APCD. 9. Garfield County Emergency Management: • The Garfield County Emergency Management Office has indicated that there are not any comments or concerns about the proposed development. 8 10. City of Glenwood Springs: (See Exhibit 20) • City circulated the application among Staff and reviewed the Garfield County proposal with the City Council. • The City Council met on August 21, 2014 and voted to recommend that the BOCC deny the application. Council based this vote on the following findings as quoted from the comment letter dated August 26, 2014: i. There are currently significant shortcomings in the South Glenwood transportation infrastructure. This project will impact Airport Road (largely unpaved), Midland Avenue from 4 Mile Road to 27th Street intersections at S Grand and S. Glen and no immediate opportunities to construct the South Bridge for emergency egress from S. Glenwood and Four Mile areas. Any County approval should obligate the developer to make contributions to the upgrading of Airport Road and other system deficiencies. ii. Public safety concerns with increased truck traffic and with lack of pedestrian facilities, increased noise, etc. iii. Truck traffic has a greater deleterious effect on road pavement and structure than do passenger cars. iv. Concerns with impacts on the airport including safety concerns with truck traffic at the runway's south end and building encroachments into the transitional surface parallel to the runway. v. Lack of sufficient water and sewer service without connections to the City's systems. vi. Need for land dedication to accommodate west touchdown for the South Bridge. vii. Need for protections on the hillside above the river and below the developed portion of the site. viii. Need for protection of riparian areas along the riverbank. ix. No design standards for building or site development. • Recommendation to add signs with flashing red lights and additional signage that states, "Yield to landing and departing aircraft" at the location where Airport Center Road crosses in front of the runway. 11.Other agencies that did not submit comments include: the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (Water Quality Control Division and Air Pollution Control Division). 9 IV. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS In accordance with the Land Use and Development Code, the Applicant has provided detailed responses to the Submittal Requirements and applicable sections of Article 7, Divisions 1, 2, and 3, including Section 7-1001 Industrial Use Standards. The Application materials include an Impact Analysis and related consultant reports, technical studies, and plans. 7-101: Zone District Regulations The proposed use demonstrates general conformance with applicable Zone District provisions contained in the Land Use and Development Code and in particular Article 3 standards for the Commercial General zone district. 7-102 Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreement Garfield County has an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for Development Review with the City of Glenwood Springs as signed on May 7th, 2001 (Reception number 580572). This IGA designates this development as a "Major Development Application" as it is would create a commercial building over 20,000 sq. ft. The subject parcel is directly adjacent to City parcels and is eligible for annexation. The Applicant had previously petitioned the City of Glenwood Springs for annexation, but decided to develop in the County instead. Consistent with the IGA, County staff referred the initial application as well as the Substantial Amendment application to the City to receive comments that have been incorporated within this report. The Comprehensive Plan 2030 designates the site as Urban Growth Area as it is within the City of Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Boundary. Excerpts from the Land Use Description Section Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 - Section 1, Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination, as well as the City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 are provided below. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 Chapter 2 — Growth in Urban Growth Areas The Plan recognizes the need for existing municipalities to be able to gradually expand into immediately surrounding areas. The county supports and encourages orderly expansion of existing communities. This Plan recognizes existing municipal plans and strongly supports and encourages infill and redevelopment of existing communities. These growth areas are the preferred locations in Garfield County for growth that require urban level services. They are also the preferred locations for commercial and employment uses that can take advantage of supporting infrastructure and a close by client base that reduces travel demands. The most effective way to encourage growth in 10 designated and planned UGAs will be by ensuring the following: i. Each municipality's plan for its UGA is incorporated into the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. ii. Urban developments in the UGAs are encouraged to annex into the respective municipality. iii. If there is a public benefit to allowing development within a UGA prior to annexation, the County and municipality will cooperatively endeavor to facilitate such development through such means as: 1. County zoning in the UGAs adjusted to a close approximation of the municipality's plans. 2. Development in the UGA is required to obtain a local review with comment (not approval) before submitting for county review. 3. A procedure for municipal/county review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners will be developed in an IGA with each community. 4. Each community is expected to extend services and infrastructure to development in the UGA that substantially complies with their plan for the UGA (landowners and the respective municipality are strongly encouraged to enter into pre -annexation agreements that provide commitments with respect to extensions of services and infrastructure, densities, etc.). Section 1 - Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination Garfield County has worked with municipalities to direct development to UGAs where public services and infrastructure are provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Intergovernmental cooperation between municipalities and other public agencies has demonstrated successful collaboration and has resulted in the creation of new partnerships and collaborative efforts on behalf of the residents of the county. Policies: 1. Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies. 2. Projects proposed adjacent to local municipalities requiring urban services will be encouraged to annex into the affected jurisdiction if contiguity exists. 3. Development in an UGA will have land use and street patterns that are compatible with the affected municipality. 11 4. Within a locally planned UGA, development applicants will be required to obtain project review comments from the local community prior to submitting for county review. The process should be defined in an executed IGA. City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) The Urban Growth Boundary represents an area that can support urban -level development. Urban development is characterized by densities typical of urbanized areas and by the types of services required to support that development such as water, wastewater, roads, police and emergency services, and other similar services. It also represents an area of future annexation. Although this area lies outside of the city and is subject to Garfield County land use requirements, according to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, development and land use within the Urban Growth Boundary should be consistent with the future land use objectives of the municipality. Both the Garfield County and Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plans recommend entering into Intergovernmental Agreements to assure mutually acceptable land use and development within the Urban Growth Boundary and to determine a process by which land use proposals will be evaluated by both jurisdictions. The Urban Growth Boundary has been determined using the following criteria: • Ability of the City to provide adequate infrastructure, particularly water service, to new development without placing undue burdens on the City ' s ability to meet current municipal demands while maintaining adequate levels of service. • Areas where there would be a public benefit for the City to manage growth, giving consideration to visual impacts, economic impacts and benefits, open space and environmental benefits, and impacts on schools and other public facilities. • Areas which, if annexed to the City, would simplify the city limits and provide unity of services. • Location of existing topographical features which serve as opportunities or constraints to development. Low Density Residential Low Density Residential is a designation for land that is outside of the city limits but within the urban growth area. This designation consists of single-family residential development that is intended to maintain a rural character. Appropriate development densities will be determined bv, among other things, 12 current land uses, topographic constraints, existing and future utility connections, and existing road networks. Riverside Protection Land and habitat along the Colorado and Roaring Fork rivers should be protected. These areas are indicated with a blue cross hatch on the Future Land Use Map (Maps 2.1, 2.2, 2.3). Hillside Preservation Glenwood Springs is defined by prominent ridge lines, steep slopes, varied unstable geologic conditions, rock outcroppings, and extensive vegetation. Development of hillside areas requires special care. Hillside preservation areas, those with slopes in excess of twenty percent, are indicated on the Future Land Use Map with a green cross -hatch. Development is discouraged in these areas unless it is at very low densities, in limited areas and done with little impact (physically and visually) to the hillsides. Land Uses Outside City Limits but within the Urban Growth Area Future land use designations have been applied to properties within the Urban Growth Area. It is intended that these properties within the Urban Growth Boundary be annexed into the city at some point in the future. Among other things, these future land use designations take into account current uses, topographic constraints, existing/future utility connections, existing road networks, and land uses on adjacent properties. Values and Vision for Economic Development Despite a decent level of diversification in the Glenwood economy, the region surrounding the city is greatly influenced by the mining, oil and gas, and construction -related industries. The influence that these industries have on the region makes Glenwood Springs susceptible to the associated boom and bust economic cycles that are typical of western Colorado. Therefore, the City must work to further diversify its economy in order to minimize the impacts of boom and bust cycles. While taking steps to continue diversifying the economy, the City should focus efforts on attracting high -paying jobs to help offset the abundance of low-paying jobs associated with the robust tourism and service industry. 13 Community Goals Supported by Economic Development • Maintain Glenwood's role as a regional center Policies to Enhance Economic Development • The City should encourage the development of a well-trained workforce. • The City should continue to make improvements that enhance the community' s quality of life and that make Glenwood Springs a place that is attractive for new businesses and their employees. • The City should actively pursue businesses and industries whose operations and products are compatible with the Glenwood Springs vision. Strategies and Actions to Promote Economic Development Attract Diverse Businesses and Industries - The City should diversify the economy in at least three major ways: creating a community where employers/employees want to live, creating opportunity for new and expanding local businesses, and actively seeking targeted businesses. Ensure an Attractive Community - Good jobs are provided by good employers. Good employers will locate in communities where they and their employees will want to and can afford to live. Allocate Adequate Land - Adequate land for new industries and businesses is limited within city limits. However, what is available will need to be zoned to allow a business easy development. The City should consider revising the zoning code to allow for more flexibility of uses for a structure or site in order to better respond to the industrial and commercial real estate market. An adequate supply of attractive and accessible office space for professionals is also important. The City should consider adaptive reuse of structures and land availability prior to contacting targeted businesses. For new office and retail opportunities, the City should help facilitate redevelopment of existing retail buildings in order to meet evolving retail markets and community needs. To better understand the types of commercial office space needed in the community, the City should conduct an analysis on the amount of space currently existing. Options immediately adjacent to the city limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary should also be examined for the ability to accommodate business and industry. An example site is the parcel north of the Glenwood Springs Mall in West Glenwood where the City could assist in preparing it to become a mixed - 14 use office area or business park. The City should also consider partnering with governments or organizations to plan and possibly develop an industrial park in the immediate area. In accordance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Policies, "Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies." To this end, the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan defers to the land use goals and policies of the local municipalities for land within the UGA. The City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as Low Density Residential along with certain protection areas on the subject property, including Hillside Preservation and Riverside Protection (See excerpts above). It is Staff's opinion that provided the City's policies on economic development as well as the language within the Low Density Residential designation that states that "Appropriate development densities will be determined by, among other things, current land uses, topographic constraints, existing and future utility connections, and existing road networks," the application is in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. 7-103 Compatibility The Applicant has also provided information describing the character of the area and adjacent land uses. The request demonstrates general compatibility with adjoining uses that are primarily light industrial, airport, residential and agricultural as well as many of the City's stated policies, strategies and actions in regard to promoting economic development. The property potentially falls within the avigation easement for the City of Glenwood Springs airport. This easement is further defined within the City's Airport Layout Plan. This Plan identifies a 7:1 transitional surface within which encroachment is limited. The Applicant did not provide evidence as to whether or not the building would fall within the defined transitional surface. In addition, through conversations with City staff, it is understood that rough calculations show the building could be within this easement area. As a result, Staff suggests a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to determine whether the building falls within this transitional surface as defined in the City's Airport Layout Plan. This analysis should be conducted by a certified land surveyor and results should be reviewed by City staff who are familiar with the Plan. Should the analysis require a change in the building or site layout, any modified plans would need to be further reviewed by County Planning staff and referred back out to any effected agencies for additional comment. 15 Surrounding Land Use and Aerial Map 16 Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan 17 7-104 & 105: Source of Water & Waste Water Systems The Applicant is proposing to serve the Warehouse and Distribution Center with a 3/" water line from the City of Glenwood Springs. The Applicant has provided a letter from the City of Glenwood Springs Public Works Director indicating the ability and willingness to serve the development via a 3/4" line. This service from the City began in 1957 and is currently serving a single family home. The property would need to annex into the City to obtain increased municipal water service. A letter from the Applicant's engineer, Michael Erion, PE, states that "Conservatively assuming the existing tap can deliver 5 gallons per minute (gpm) of flow to the proposed building, the existing service line is adequate to provide for the potable "in-house" uses for the employees, irrigation and fire protection for the proposed project with use of on-site storage." Mr. Erion goes on to explain that "The fire protection supply for the building sprinkler system and the firefighting water would be provided with on-site storage. Approximately 200,000 gallons would be required including roughly 20,000 gallons (estimated -actual will be based on building materials and size of building) for building sprinklers and 180,000 gallons (1,500 gpm for 2 hours) for firefighting. The 200,000 gallons could be filled by the 3/4" service line in 28 days prior to the date the fire protection system must be operational." The Applicant has proposed to place the 200,000 gallon water storage tank in the northeast corner of the property along the Roaring Fork River. The Applicant originally proposed potentially serving the facility with either an exempt commercial well or a surface diversion from the Roaring Fork River. Staff has reviewed the application with the understanding that the 3/" City water line is the proposed alternative. Comments from the DWR has indicated that either a well or surface diversion will require an augmentation plan as both sources are over appropriated. To this end, the Applicant has provided an augmentation plan as well as an invoice from the West Divide Water Conservancy District (Exhibit 17) but this will not be needed based on the Applicants representation that the facility will be served by a 3/4" City water line. Wastewater is to be provided by a new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS). The Applicant has identified a location south of the parking area for the OWTS and has provided percolation tests for that location. These tests show that an OWTS can be successfully installed and operated at this location. 7-106: Public Utilities The Applicant has demonstrated that adequate public utilities will be available to serve the proposed use. 18 7-107: Access & Roadways Access to the property is from City owned and maintained streets via Airport Center Road, Airport Road and Midland Ave. The submitted traffic study anticipates all traffic using Airport Center Road, Airport Road and Midland Ave. The facility is not to be open to the public, so the traffic generation projections are limited to employees, delivery vans and tandem tractor trailers. The delivery vans are expected to be 30 ft. long while the tandem tractor trailers are expected to be approximately 70 ft. long. 82 passenger vehicles, 29 30 ft. vans and 4 70 ft. tandem tractor trailers are expected to access the site each day at full operation. Total ADT to the site at full operation is expected to be 230 (115 vehicles). Of this 230 ADT, approximately 91 are expected to occur between 7 and 8 AM (47 trips) and 5 and 6 PM (44 trips). This amounts to a 151.32% increase in ADT on Airport Center Road (152 ADT to 382 ADT) and a 2.85% increase on Midland Ave between Sopris Dr. and 27th St. (8065 ADT to 8295 ADT) based on first year operations compared to projected background traffic (current traffic plus 2% annual increase). The traffic impact analysis concludes that "based on the analysis contained within this report, all studied intersections and roadways are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of the project traffic." The studied intersections included (and indicated on the map below) 27th St/Grand Ave, Midland/27th St, Midland/Sopris Dr, Midland/4 Mile Rd, and Airport Center Road/Project Driveway. No additional road improvements are suggested as a result of the traffic impact analysis and the only traffic control device recommended is a stop sign at the exit to the proposed facility. This application has been reviewed by Garfield County Road and Bridge (see exhibits 11 and 12) indicating that the traffic generated by the proposed project would primarily impact City maintained streets. The application was also reviewed by the Garfield County consulting engineer, Chris Hale, who noted that the Traffic Impact Analysis did not consider the 27th Street / Highway 82 interchange. Staff suggests a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to address this intersection and/or explain why this intersection was not evaluated (see access and intersection study map below). 19 Studied Access Routes to the Proposed Site 'Sky Ranch Dnvc' WA NOT be used ty fell. The application was also reviewed to the City of Glenwood Springs staff and City Council. The referral letter from the City recommends that the BOCC deny the application mostly due to inadequate road infrastructure (see photos below) and public safety concerns from overall truck and passenger vehicle traffic as a result of vehicle - pedestrian and vehicle -aircraft conflicts. In addition, the City has indicated that a land dedication is necessary in order to accommodate the South Bridge. Although the application reviews overall traffic flow in terms of Level of Service (LOS) at select intersections, the application as submitted does not address the City's concerns. In conversations with the City Engineer, Terri Partch and City Community Development Director, Andrew McGregor, Staff understands that the City would like to see improvements made to 2253 linear feet of Airport Road from the southern edge of Cardiff Glenn to the turnoff for Airport Center Road. The cost of improving this section of roadway is estimated at $585,000 not including grading or retaining walls. The proposed street cross section is below: 20 Arport Road Ro dway Section 1'0" 55.0" 8'0" Sidewalk Bike Lone 2'6" 2'6" u r>b & Curb & suite r Gutter 11'0" 11'0" 5'0" Travel Lane Travel Lone Landscape -- Area ►eta 8'0" Sidewalk Me Lane Landscape Area 1'0" To this end, Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to come to an agreement with the City for specific improvements to be made to Airport Road and Airport Center Road to address their adequacy and safety concerns or contribute $585,000 to the City to do the improvements. A development plan and agreement would need to be in place before issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. In addition, the City would like to obtain a land dedication from the developer in order to accommodate the landing of the South Bridge. With the provided site plan, it appears that the southernmost portion of the property will remain unused and is generally too steep for other development (see the south bridge concept plan below). Staff suggests a condition of approval requiring the applicant to develop a plan with the City to determine a specific amount of land dedication for the South Bridge landing. If so desired by the City, this dedication plan and agreement would need to be in place before issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 21 South Bridge Concept Plan Subject Parcel Location 22 Airport Road at End of Cardiff Glenn Airport Road 23 Airport Road and Airport Center Road Intersection Airport Center Road at End of Runway 24 Airport Center Road in Front of Proposed FedEx Facility 7-108: Natural Hazards The Application provides information on natural hazards including information on soils, geology, and slopes associated with the site as identified through Garfield County GIS. The site is within an identified Septic System Constraints due to a high water table along the Roaring Fork River. The proposed development and OWTS are to be located outside this constraint area, however. The information supports a determination that the proposed use is not subject to significant natural hazard risks. All proposed development is to occur more than 35 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Roaring Fork River as well as outside the designated floodplain. 7-109: Fire Protection The Applicant is proposing to install a 200,000 gallon water storage tank for firefighting and fire sprinklers. It is anticipated that with the 3/4" water line from the City, it will take 28 days to fill the 200,000 gallon tank. Once this tank is filled and the fire protection systems are operational, all daily water needs and irrigation are to be provided by the 3/4" line. The Application was referred to the Glenwood Springs and Rural Protection District. The comments received from Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal for the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, indicated several concerns. Most notable of the concerns was access and water supply. Mr. Biggers noted that should the facility be gated, the Applicant will need to obtain a Knox key switch from the Fire Department; and, should 25 a connection to City water not be made, the Department asks for further review (staff has reviewed this application assuming connection to City water based on the supplied can and will serve letter from the City Public Works Department). In addition, the Department requested review for the sighting of the fire hydrant(s). Provided the low flows and the estimated 28 days it will take to fill the 200,000 gallon water storage tank from the 3/" City water line, Staff suggests a condition of approval that the whole fire protection system be reviewed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. The Application was also referred to the Garfield County contract engineer, Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Engineering. Mr. Hale noted that no details were included for the water service or fire protection equipment including the fire pump or storage tank. Staff suggests a condition of approval that engineered details for the water supply and fire protection equipment be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County contract engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 7-201: Agricultural Lands The site is currently not used for agriculture and no impacts on nearby agricultural activities are expected. 7-202: Wildlife Habitat Areas The Applicant has provided a wildlife habitat study completed by Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC (dated July 18, 2014). The study concludes that "As with most development in western Colorado, the implementation of the proposed project will have some direct and indirect effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The property, however, is embedded in a highly developed landscape. It is adjacent to an airport and surrounding properties are occupied with dense residential and commercial development. Although the proposal will result in the direct loss of vegetation and habitat, given the surroundings and indirect impacts of the existing development, this loss will be negligible." A review of the application by Perry Will of CPW (Exhibit 10) agrees, stating that "CPW staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts to wildlife as a result of this project..." The letter does go on to make the following suggestion: "Given the number of bear related incidents that have occurred in the area of the proposed project, the proponent must utilize bear -proof garbage containers for all trash generated at this facility. Garbage must be 100% secured in these certified bear -proof containers to eliminate any attractants for bears or other wildlife species." Staff suggest a condition of approval requiring certified bear -proof refuse containers. No other threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or other sensitive species were noted to occur in the project area. However, several noxious weeds were found on the site. A recommendation from Steve Anthony of the Garfield County Vegetation Management Office suggests that the identified Dalmation Toadflax and any Difuse Knapweed, which is common in the area, be treated with confirmation of treatment 26 provided to the Vegetation Manager by October 31, 2014. Staff suggests a Condition of Approval that requires satisfactory confirmation that the identified noxious weeds be treated prior to October 31, 2014. 7-203: Protection of Water Bodies The site location is adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. In addition, the City Comprehensive Plan identifies this stretch along the River for Riverfront Protection as well as Hillside Preservation. The steep slope going down to the river is proposed to remain in its natural state with this development. All development is also to occur more than 35 feet back from the River. In order to ensure protection of the Hillside, staff suggests a condition of approval requiring all disturbance and development to occur as indicated on the submitted site plan in order to limit disturbance to the hillside. In addition, conversations with City staff indicate that their preferred method for Riverfront Preservation is to dedicate a fisherman's easement. The purpose of this easement is to allow fisherman to wade and anchor along the property lines. This easement would extend 5 feet up from the high water mark and extend to the center of the River or to the farthest extent of the property line, whichever is greater. Staff suggests a condition of approval that the Applicant designate a fisherman's easement meeting this criteria along the banks of the Roaring Fork River. 7-204: Drainage and Erosion (Stormwater) The Applicant has provided a copy of the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and Drainage Report for the facility. The Garfield County contract engineer has reviewed these documents and has provided several comments concerning a lack of compliance with Section 7-204.C.3.a and a need to demonstrate compliance with 7-204.C.3.d. Specifically, the Applicant has proposed to not provide detention for storm water peak attenuation (that post -development discharge rates do not exceed pre -development discharge rates) and has not demonstrated that the bio -retention ponds meet the requirements in the LUDC. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant modify the site plan, SWMP and Drainage Report to demonstrate compliance with Sections 7-204.C.3.a and Section 7-204.C.3.d. As an alternative, for Section 7- 204.C.3.a the Applicant may demonstrate compliance with Section 4-118 to request a waiver from this specific standard. These amended plans and reports or request for waiver will need to be provided to the Garfield County contract engineer for review and acceptance prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. In addition, Mr. Hale noted that the SWMP does not provide evidence that the site is covered under the CDPHE permit. Staff suggests a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to submit a coverage letter to Garfield County once it is obtained. 7-205: Environmental Quality No hazardous materials are anticipated to be stored onsite. In addition, no air pollution aside from vehicles is expected. The application was referred to CDPHE Air Pollution 27 Control Division (APCD) and Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) for their review. The APCD indicated that a permit may be necessary, but it is unlikely because there are no additional air emissions outside of vehicles and Glenwood Springs is not in Non - Attainment. No comments have been received from WQCD. 7-206: Wildfire Hazards Map 7, Wildfire Susceptibility, of the Garfield County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) does not rate this property. However, the 30 meter wildfire hazard GIS mapping shows the property as "low". In addition, the CWPP Wildfire Intensity GIS map show the property as "Low" to "Moderate". As a result, it is Staff's opinion that the wildfire risk on this property is within manageable levels. 7-207: Natural and Geologic Hazards See Section 7-108, above. 7-208: Reclamation The Applicant has included a landscaping plan that addresses re -vegetation and reclamation. This plan was reviewed by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager, Steve Anthony. Mr. Anthony states that the noxious weed inventory, seed mix and landscaping materials are acceptable. The treatment of identified noxious weeds prior to construction is recommended as is a revegetation security (bond) in the amount of $3750. 7-301 & 302: Compatible Design, Parking, and Loading The 26,795 square foot building (2,656 square feet of office and 24,140 square feet of warehouse) is proposed to be a standard warehouse / industrial style metal building. Provided the generally industrial surrounding property uses, this kind of architecture appears to be appropriate for this location. Access to the site is entirely vehicular with no proposed sidewalks or non -vehicular infrastructure along with basic landscaping proposed as a measure of reclamation and revegetation. The 70 proposed parking spaces far exceeds the County requirement of 23 spaces for the square footage of proposed office and warehouse space. The Applicant is proposing five loading spaces for tractor trailers while Section 7-302(B) requires the warehouse facility to have two. In addition, vehicular circulation appears to meet the requirements in the LUDC. Staff understands that the Applicant would like to have 70 parking spaces, far in excess of the 23 spaces required, because the additional spaces are necessary for vehicular and truck storage. In addition, although the facility only has 14.5 FTE employees, many of the shifts overlap. As a result, it is anticipated that roughly twice as many spaces are needed as there will be employees. 28 7-303: Landscaping As an industrial use, landscaping submittals and standards are not applicable to the proposal. 7-304: Lighting The application proposes cutoff lighting with minimal Tight protrusion outside the development area. It appears that the proposed lighting meets the County's lighting standards. 7-305 Snow Storage Adequate portions of the site plan including areas adjacent to the proposed parking area are available for snow storage. 7-306 Trails The Applicant has not proposed any sidewalks, trails or other multi -modal connections to the site. 7-1001 INDUSTRIAL USE STANDARDS The Applicant represents that the facility will comply with all the Industrial Use Standards contained in Section 7-1001. The following summary addresses the applicable provisions. A. Residential Subdivisions The facility is located on a tract of property adjacent to the Glenwood Springs airport within Garfield County and is not within a platted subdivision. B. Setbacks The LUDC requires a setback of 100 feet from a proposed industrial use to the property line of a property used residentially. The proposed industrial facility is approximately 550 feet from the nearest residentially used property line and appears to be able to meet the 100 foot setback as prescribed in the LUDC. Although the proposed use will be setback only 50 feet from the north property line, the adjacent property to the north (owned by the United States Forest Service) is used for storage and is also industrial in nature. C. Concealing and Screening All activities aside from parking are to take place within the proposed warehouse and office building. As this property is not zoned Industrial, all storage, fabrication, service and repair operations "shall be conducted within an enclosed building or have 29 adequate provisions, based on location and topography, to conceal and screen the facility and/or operations from adjacent property(s)" (Section 7-1001(C)). D. Storing The materials to be at the site will be concealed within a building and will not be transferred off the property by any foreseeable natural causes. No hazardous materials are anticipated to be on the site, however, all industrial products and wastes must be stored in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations. E. Industrial Wastes No hazardous wastes will be stored in the facility. F. Noise This facility is not anticipated to generate any noise outside that generated by vehicular and truck traffic. The Applicant has represented that "This site will not generate vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibrations at any significant levels or at nuisance levels beyond the property boundary. There will be sound generated by truck and vehicular traffic to the site, but that will not exceed normal ambient levels." G. Ground Vibration No ground vibrations are expected from the site. H. Hours of Operation The facility will operate in excess of those outlined in the LUDC (7AM to 7PM Monday through Saturday). The Applicant would like to operate the facility 24 hours per day, 6 days per week. The decision-making body has the ability to alter the permitted hours of operation for the facility. I. Interference, Nuisance, or Hazard No other nuisance or ground vibration hazards are anticipated based on type of use. V. SUPPLEMENTAL AND ADDITIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS See Exhibit 17, Invoice from the West Divide Water Conservancy District. No other supplemental materials were submitted after the application was determined Technically Complete. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff understands that the City, who owns and maintains all roadways accessing this development, considers Airport Road and Airport Center Road to be inadequate to support the proposed use. In addition, referral comments from the City and conversations with City staff indicate that the Applicant and the City have not agreed 30 on a plan to improve the roadways to support the proposed use. Considering that an agreement has not been developed between the two parties and a strong letter from the City Council has been submitted recommending that the BOCC deny the application, the BOCC generally has three options: deny the application, continue the application to allow the Applicant and City time to come to an agreement, or approve the request with conditions addressing these issues. These options are outlined below. 1. DENIAL SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit for CLH Properties, LLC (Riverside FedEx Facility) is NOT in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5. That the application has NOT adequately met Section 7-107, Access and Roadways, of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. 2. CONTINUANCE At the discretion of the BOCC, this application can be continued to a date certain. This continuation would be to allow the Applicant time to meet with the City in order to come to an agreement on road improvements necessary to meet the needs of the proposed development. 3. APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board 31 of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit for CLH Properties, LLC (Riverside FedEx Facility) is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5. That with the adoption of the Conditions of Approval the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following recommended conditions of approval are provided for the Board of County Commissioners consideration. 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the operation of the CLH Properties, LLC Warehouse and Distribution Center (Riverside FedEx Facility) shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 3. The Applicant shall control fugitive dust during the construction and operation of the site. 4. The facility shall maintain compliance with Section 7-306 Lighting, with all lighting to be directed inward and doward toward the interior of the site. 5. Facilities and storage tanks shall be painted a non -glare neutral color to lessen any visual impacts. 6. The Applicant shall control all noxious weeds during construction and operation of the site. 7. Operation of the site as proposed is permitted 24 hours per day, Monday through Saturday. 32 8. A minimum of a 200,000 gallon water storage tank shall be provided onsite and as demonstrated in the proposed site plans for use in firefighting and operating the fire sprinklers. Should demand for fire protection water exceed a total of 200,000 gallons, the tank shall be enlarged to meet the requirements as recommended or necessitated by the International Building Code, the International Fire Code, the fire protection district, the Garfield County Building Department or the project engineer. This tank shall be painted a non -reflective neutral earth tone color. 9. The proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) shall obtain all necessary County permits. 10. As a result of high bear activity in the area, all outdoor refuse containers must be certified bear -proof. 11. The SWMP does not provide evidence that the site is covered under the CDPHE permit. The Applicant shall submit a coverage letter to Garfield County once it is obtained. 12. With exception to the control of noxious weeds, no development or disturbance of the hillside along the Roaring Fork River shall occur unless identified in the approved site plan. Conditions Prior to Issuance of Permit 13. All Dalmation Toadflax shall be treated on the site. In addition, as Diffuse Knapweed is common in the area, any occurrences of Diffuse Knapweed should be treated as well. These noxious weeds shall be treated prior to construction with satisfactory confirmation of the treatment submitted to the Garfield County Vegetation Manager by October 31, 2014. This treatment and confirmation shall be completed prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 14. Conflicting information was provided regarding fertilization in the hydroseed. The Applicant shall clarify this issue to the satisfaction of the Garfield County Vegetation Manager prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 15. The Applicant has indicated that the total area to be landscaped is 68,309 square feet, or 1.56 acres. As a result, a revegetation security of $3750 (1.5 acres x $2500 per acre) shall be provided prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. This security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards section in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. The Reclamation Standards are cited in Sections 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #2002-94). 33 16. The fire protection systems design including fire hydrants, water storage tank, sprinkler systems, Knox key and access shall be finalized with the Fire Department. The Applicant shall provide the Planning Department with the final designs as agreed to by the Fire Protection District prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. The site plans shall be updated with any changes made to the fire protection system. 17. Engineered details of the water supply infrastructure, equipment and fire protection systems shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County contract engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. If necessary, the site plans shall be updated with any changes made to the water supply infrastructure, equipment or fire protection system. 18. The Applicant shall modify the site plans, SWMP and Drainage Report to demonstrate compliance with Sections 7-204.C.3.a (post-development peak discharge rate does not exceed pre-development peak discharge rate) and Section 7-204.C.3.d (bio-retention ponds conform to standards) of the LUDC. Should the Applicant wish to obtain a waiver from Sections 7-204.C.3.a, compliance with Section 4-118 is required. These amended plans and reports or request for waiver shall be provided to the Garfield County contract engineer for review and acceptance prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 19. The Traffic Impact Analysis did not consider the 27th Street / Highway 82 interchange. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall address this intersection and/or explain why this intersection was not evaluated. This evaluation shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County consulting engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 20. The Applicant shall either contribute $585,000 to the City for road improvements or come to an agreement with the City for specific improvements to be made to Airport Road and Airport Center Road to address the stated dedication, adequacy and safety concerns. A development plan and agreement shall be in place before issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 21. The Applicant shall develop a plan with the City to determine a specific amount of land dedication for the South Bridge landing, if any. This dedication plan and agreement shall be in place before issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. Should the City determine that a dedication is not necessary, a letter from the City stating such shall be provided to the County. 22. The Applicant shall demonstrate whether the proposed building encroaches on the 7:1 transitional surface as described in the City's Airport Layout Plan. This analysis shall be conducted by a licensed surveyor. The results of this survey shall be reviewed by City staff. Should it be found that the building encroaches into the 7:1 transitional surface, the Applicant shall submit amended plans to the 34 Garfield County Planning Department for additional review and referral to effected agencies prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 23. The Applicant shall establish a fisherman's easement along the Roaring Fork River to allow fisherman to wade and anchor along the property line. This easement shall be five feet above high water mark to the center of the river or the furthest extent towards the centerline, whichever is greater. This easement language and revised site plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County Community Development Department prior issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. The easement document shall be recorded with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders Office. 35 Garfield County PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. ® My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. Mailed notice was completed on the 5thday of August 2014. All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list} Owners were identified through the Garfield County Clerk & Recorder Records ■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. ® My application required Published notice. Notice was published on the 7th day of August • Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. iff application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the 5th day of August , 2014. , 2014. Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. I testify that the above information is true and accurate. Name: D arrar Signature: Date: August 5, 2014 Ad Name: 10439932D Customer: Western Slope Consulting Your account number is: 1023467 PROOF OF PUBLICATION THE WWL CITIZEN TELG STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD I, Michael Bennett, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of The Rte Citizen Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 8/7/2014 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 8/7/2014 the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this 08/07/2014. _ Michael Bennett, Publisher Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 08/07/2014. •p,RYpV� PAMELA J. SCHULTZ • My Commission Expires 11/01/2015 acme. £otub1ic My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 EXHIBIT PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that CLH Properties, LLC has applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request approval for a Limited Impact Review on a 8.7 -acre parcel located on Airport Center Road (AKA County Road 116) in the County of Garfield. State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: A tract of land described as follows (the'Pennll Parcel.): A Parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 6 South. Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said parcel lying westerly of the centerline of the Roanng Fork Riv- er and being more particularly described as follows; Beginning at a point in said Centerline of the Roaring Fork River Irom which the East Quarter Comer of 'd Sacuon 27 bears approximately 488°2010'E, 786.50 feet; thence upon said centerline 011°55'12'W, 163.83 feet to the Southeast Comer of a Parcel of land described In Book 348 at Page 87 of the Garfield County Public Records; thence departing said centerline and upon the boundary line of said Parcel re- corded In Book 348 at Page 87 the following three (3) courses: 1) S63°48'00'W, 174.13 feel to 100 east- erly right of way line ui a 300 foot airport Runway Slap; 2) N26°12'00°W, 100.58 feet upon said easterly right of way; 3) N01°40'00'E, 208.83 feet to the westerly Ilse of a Parcel of Land described in Book 275 at Page 346 of said Pubfic Records; thence departing said lands described In Book 348 at Page 87 and up- on said westerly line N30°19'00'W, 428.49 1001 to the eastern right of way line described In Book 343 at Page 365 of said Public Records; thence upon said eastern right of way the following four (4) courses; 1) N15.57'00'W, 9.21 feet; 2) N13°19'17'W, 52.35 feet; 3 with all bearings contained herein based upon. N18°51'56'W, 239.57 feet; 4) N21°05'54'W, 119.29 feet; thence departing said easterly right of way Ilne 069°11'48'E,470.20 Leet more or less to said centerline of the Roaring Fork River, thence upon said centerline of the Roaring Fork River the following two (2) courses: 1) S09°55'31E, 346.20 feet; 2) S07°00'00'E, 660.40 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 8.70 Acres more or less. The above-described Permit Parcel is a portion of the property owned by the Applicant as of July 25. 2014, which is described as follows (the 'Ownership Parcel'): A Parcel of Land Situated In the Southeast 50 Ne :4 and In the Ne'/4 Se 14 Of Section 27, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 61h Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, Sald Parcel Lying Westerly of the Center of the Roaring Fork River and Being More Particularly Described As Follows: Beginning at the 00210,ii23 01 the Roaring Fork River, Irom Which the East Quarter Corner of Said Sec- tion 27, a GLO Brass CAP Standard Monument Bears S 88° 20' 00' E a Distance of 786.50 FL; Thence S07. 00' 00' E along Sald Centerline a Distance of 5.11 Ft.; Thence S 11° 55' 12' E along Said Center- line a Distance of 167.56 Ft. to the Southeest Comer of That Parcel Described In Book 348 at Page 87 of the Garfield County Records; Thence 8 63° 48' 00' W along the Soulherly Line al Said Parcel, a Distance of 310.00 Ft.; Thence N 25° 12' 00' E along the Westerly Line of Sald Parcel, a Distance of 176.64 Ft.; Thence 001 Degree 40' 00' E along the Westerly Line of Said Parcel, a Distance of 204.14 Ft. to the Westerly Une of That Parcel of Land Described in Book 275 at Page 346 of the Garfield County Records; Thence N 30° 19' 00' W along the Westerly Line of Said Parcel, a Distance of 438.00 FL to the Southerly Line of That Parcel of Land Described in Book 343 at Page 365 of the Garfield County Records; Thence N 15° 57' 00' W a Distance of 9.21 Ft.; Thence N 13° 19 17' W along Said Westerly Line, a Distance of 52.35 Ft.; Thence N 15° 51' 56' W along Said Westerly Line, a Distance of 239.57 Ft.; Thence N 21° 05' 54' W a Distance of 119.29 Ft.; Thence N 69° 11' 4r E along the Northerly Line of said Parcel, a Dis- tance 01470.20 Ft. to the Northeast Comer of Sald Parcel at the Center of the Roaring Fork River; Thence 509° 59' 48' E along the Easterly Line of Said Parcel, and along the Center of Said River. a Distance of 346.19 FL; Thence S07° 00' 00' E along the Easterly Line of Said Parcel and along the Center of Said River, 0 Distance of 655.29 Ft. to the Point of Beginning. Excepting Therefrom the Right of Way for County Road. County of Garfield, State of Colorado The Applicant and the City of Glenwood Springs have agreed to exchange quitclaim deeds to correct an error In the legal description for the Ownership Parcel, which is expected to be completed prior to the hearing with the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. The resulting full parcel to be owned by the Applicant as of the hearing date will still Include the entire Permit Parcel and will be described as follows (the 'Revised Ownership Parcel ): A Parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. County of Gadleld. State of Colorado. said parcel lying weetady of the centerline et the Roanng Fork River and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning ata point In said Centedine of the Roaring Fork River from which the East Quarter Comer of said Section 27 bears S88°39'07'E, 785.29 feet; thence upon said centerline S11°55'12'W, 248.88 feel to the Southeast Comer of a Parcel of land described in Book 348 at Page 87 of the Garfield County Public Records; thence departing said centerline and upon the boundary line of said Parcel recorded In Book 348 at Page 87 the following three (3) courses: 1)563°48'00'W 121.62 feet to the easterly right of way line of a 300 loot airport Runway Strip; 2) N26°12'00'W, 167.49 feet upon said easterly right of way; 3) N01°40'00'E, 208.83 feet to the westerly line of a Parcel of Land described In Book 275 at Page 346 of said Public Records; thence departing said lands described In Book 348 at Page 87 and upon said westerly line N30°19'00' W, 428.49 feet to the eastern right of way line described In Book 343 at Page 365 of said Public Records; thence upon safd eastern right of way the following four (4) courses; 1) N15°57'00'W, 9.21 feet; 2) N13°19'17'W, 52.35 feet; 3) with all bearings contained herein based upon. N18°51'56'W, 239.57 feet; 4) N21 °05'54'W, 119.29 feet; thence departing said easterly right of way line N69°11'48'5, 470.20 feet more or less to said centerfine of the Roaring Fork River: thence upon said centerline of the Roaring Fork River the following two (2) courses: 1) 009°55'315. 346.20 feet; 2) S07°00'00'E, 660.40 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 8.92 Acres more or less Practical Desariotion: 1097 County Road 116, Glenwood Springs, CO. It is located south of the City of Glenwood Springs in SE Otr of NE Qtr 8 in NE Qtr of Section 27, Township 6 South, Range 98 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County and is part of a property known by Assessor's Parcel No. 218527100008. Description of Roouest• This is a Limited Impact Review Land Use Change Permit to construct an approximately 27,000 square Warehouse and Distribution Center. The 008101property is approximately 8.92 acres. The Property is zoned Commercial General (CM). All persons affected by the proposed project are invited 10 appear and state their views, protests or support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing, than you are urged to stale your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners. and others affected, In deciding whether to grant or deny the request The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing on the application has been scheduled for the 8th day of September, 2014, et 1:00 P.M. in the Carbondale Town Hall Meeting Room - Carbondale Town Hall. 511 Colorado Ave., Carbondale, Colorado. Planning Department Gadleld County Published In the Citizen Telegram August 7, 2014. (10439932) co 0 I U li i .1.1 0 U U LJ LJ LJ U 1.1 1. • • 'i-7.' ',-.; i: •=4.1 -V. --: S. :7;:. T. :• ;1; '' -,- 2 'OH rj E-' MOOD tNIZ :NVIS APO 7009 16811 M". 0 ft •Vo F 0000 _i_291_, 3794 F▪ s) 00 2.7 fri 2 in TOM 03 SOMINdS 1100N4319 Ti 0 c m 3:1 — 0 M (i.4 M — CA z m ‹. 0>0 "a• — r - go m n 0 t7:1 ttt 00 z g r - '148c u©J Sd a 5 w C:3 w 00 L-1 -'3 7009 1680 0000J.748 381? 1 = 000 1 00 • 0 c • m in et II —I 13 6- 0 • cn (1) E z 0 > 0 — ct, 3 • — 0a o 33 m cl C) m 0 o. o. 7 IA pi a I ridBIE RIE Wr (UUi 1:2 0 Li LI U -1 0 z -0 T.; D 0 3 t r4? 70091.1,b81J 0000 i? 3909 • 1•&, 0 a 4 U 4 W. , U -JUJJ Bs mcn m --n >0 CD fir,, z 33 m m o n ,m tO fa4 o+dlZ 'ale1S ''OD 00 a OCA 1748 3879 7009 1680 0000 bop • O Tiu opN CD E < ° T—' c� rQ 335 2m o C) m m R ...I Ci CL 3 r v., I U U I .-41 UU J UIJU .: i "TU 4 ei d 0 O 7 r 0 -D 10918 03 S9NI&4S Q a a Yx 4 g 00 A Z. F o O 3 7009 1680 0000 1748 3787 Cf F t� C; a • w 0 41 w 0 X00 r P E O F D T09T8 03 S0NIMS 000(414319 t7C min AQ d 0 w m go < m i (1) 33 m o n t`em A O cotfL C7 cll ri cr U.S. Postal Servicemr, CERTIFIED MAILTIU RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visft our website atwww.uspa.come BASALT CO 81621-9338 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Ftequtred'. Restricted Deiivery Fee (F -dog cement Required i a $0.49 $3.30 $2.70 0538 $0.00 (21 Tota! Postage & F„e5 $47.49 7 D�ryy A,7 i _. ✓2014 Rj� D AVIA31�� �_,/,11 trooet,Apt No. .l 12 PARK AVE: or PJ Box N. BASALT. ry 81621-9338 C'r)• State. ZIP” BASAL. 1 . CO P& Farm 3800.; ) 0 Agent 0 Addressee (Primed' N'% e) C. ?cite til D_I+aery idems different from item 17 U Yes dear address below: 0 N AM E:xpme Mait fl Saturn Paceipt for Meaohandise all 13 C.O.D. Avery?(atm Feq) 0 Yee 00 1' 4 8 3848 PS Form 381 1: February 2004 Ditm8otic etaVstn qt.rr 10259 5432-4,44640 August 25, 2014 COLORADO Parks and Wildlife ' Department of Natural Resources Glenwood Springs Area Office 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dave Pesnichak Senior Planner - Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8t" Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Riverside FedEx Facility (Garfield County File# LIPA - 7988) Dear Mr. Pesnichak, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has reviewed the submitted application materials for the proposed Riverside FedEx facility in Glenwood Springs. CPW staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts to wildlife as a result of this project, but would like to recommend one requirement for inclusion on the applicant's permit: 1. Given the number of bear related incidents that have occurred in the area of the , proposed project, the proponent must utilize bear -proof garbage containers for all trash generated at this facility. Garbage must be 100% secured in these certified bear -proof containers to eliminate any attractants for bears or other wildlife species. Colorado Parks and Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this project. if there are any questions or needs for additional information don't hesitate to contact Land Use Specialist, Taylor Elm at (970) 947-2971 or District Wildlife Manager, John Groves at (970) 947-2933. Sincerely, erry Wi' , Area Wildlife Manager Cc. John Groves, District Wildlife Manager Dan Cacho, District Wildlife Manager Taylor Elm, Land Use Specialist File EEJb) U ikaleii. 1,), MO( Ceinrado Farl:x and V:+1O& • ['arks and W tkilitk Cunannsion. Rehm Vii Bray • Clieis =aatiI,n.,S'a:ie! ry • ka:v+. I lumc Bill Kat, Cine a Gumllirivrt Er* Fre a James l'rkiaIn= VYdi Drars Mithcilcanrn,9n AkAZOp EXHIBIT Garfield County Road & Bridge To whom it may concern Date: July 16,2014 The Address of: 1097 County Road 116 G!en ood gse SprinCo. "N 'by 81601 Garfield County Road & Bridge does not show any record of a driveway permit at that address. The said address is in the City of Glenwood Spring street system and is not longer under Garfield County Road & Bridge, Any driveway permits wouid need to go through the City of Glenwood. Any questions please call me. Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman/District 1 (970) 945-1223 Office (970) 618-7109 Cell (970) 9454318 Fax David Pesnichak From: Michael Prehm Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 6:09 AM To: David Pesnichak Subject: Riverside FedEx Facility David, EXHIBIT ,' Zr The proposed FedEx facility located at 1097 County Road 116 (Airport Road) will have no impact on the Garfield County road system. Traffic generated by this facility will not be traveling on any County road. Any questions please contact me. Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman/Glenwood District (970) 945-1223 Office (970) 945-1318 Fax. (970) 618-7109 Cell i David Pesnichak From: Franco - DNR, Ivan <ivan.franco@state.co.us> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:20 AM To: David Pesnichak Cc: Alan Martellaro - DNR; Jake DeWolfe - DNR Subject: CLH Properties LIPA-7988 Mr. Pesnichak, This office has reviewed the proposal by the applicant to construct a FedEx warehouse and distribution facility at 1097 County Road 116 in Glenwood Springs. The applicant has not proposed to split or change the size of the existing parcel. Water demands would include drinking and sanitary uses for approximately 14 employees, and the irrigation of approximately 20,000 square -feet of trees and shrubs. The applicant has put forth several alternative sources in a preliminary water supply analysis. The waste water would be handled through a sewer connection with the City of Glenwood Springs. Given the preliminary nature of the application, we can only offer the following general comments at this time. The applicant has proposed the use of either and existing or new connection to the City of Glenwood Springs Municipal water supply system. This office would have no objection to the use of a legal municipal supply. The applicant goes on to propose the drilling of a new commercial non-exempt well to service the facility or a surface diversions from the Roaring Fork River or some combination of the three water supply sources (Municipal, Well, Surface Diversion). In any scenario that includes a water well or surface diversion, the applicant should note that the stream system is over -appropriated, that as any potential water right is subject to curtailment, and is therefore not adequate for year-round use without an augmentation plan. Also, the applicant will be required to make an application with this office for a new non-exempt commercial well permit, should a well be included in the final water supply plan. If you or the applicant have any questions please feel free to contact me at this office. Sincerely, Iv :n Franco, E.I.T. Water Resources Engineer P 303,866.3581 / F 303.866,2223 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818, Denver, CO 80203 ivan.franco@state.co.us / www.water.state.co.us i August 24, 2014 Garfield Coun Dave Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development Department Vegetation Management RE: Riverside FedEx LIPA-7988 Dear Dave, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit. The noxious weed inventory provided in the Ecological Assessment is acceptable. Staff requests that the applicant treat the infestations of the County listed noxious weed, Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dafmatica) found on-site prior to construction. The Ecological Assessment did not mention, the County listed noxious weed - Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffuse), however it is common in the area and should be removed and bagged from the site if located on-site and in the flowering stage. Please submit confirmation of noxious weed treatment to the Vegetation Management Office by October 31, 2014. The seed mixes and landscape materials listed on the Construction Document L1.01 are acceptable. There is conflicting information provided in regards to fertilization. Under Native Seed Mix Schedule the note states that a 15-40-5 fertilizer will be used with the hydromulch mix. On the same sheet, under Weed Management Notes, Item 3, it is stated that fertilizers will not be used in hydroseeded areas due to fertilizer use favoring "weeds over native perennial species." Staff agrees with the latter statement and requests that fertilizers not be used in hydroseeding. Under Landscape Calculations (Sheet L1.01), the applicant indicates that the total area to be landscaped is 68,309 square feet or 1.56 acres. Staff will use that figure to recommend a revegetation security of $3750 (1.5 acres x $2500 per acre). The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards section in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in Sections 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #2002-94). Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939 David Pesnichak From: Jim Sears <jsears@garcosheriff.com> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:56 AM To: David Pesnichak Subject: CLH Properties - Riverside FedEX Warehouse and Distribution Facility EXHIBIT (- David, After review of the submitted documents, the Sheriff's Office does not have any comments or concerns with the submitted application. The hard copy of the application will be placed in relay today returning to you. Thank you, Jim Sears Emergency Operations Sergeant Garfield County Sheriff's Office 107 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-0453 (Office) 970-987-2871 (cell) 1 August 14, 2014 COLORADO Department of. Public Health E; Envi-K e1n,S en't EXHIBIT 1 {(% Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado David Pesnichak Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Riverside Fed Ex Facility- Garfield County Dear Mr. Pesnichak: On August 5, 2014, the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) received a request for an air quality determination concerning Riverside Fed Ex Facility -Garfield County. APCD staff has reviewed the request and has determined that the following provisions of the Colorado Air Quality 'regulations apply to the project. All sources of potential construction project air emissions in Colorado are required to obtain a construction permit unless specifically exempt from the provisions of Regulation No. 3. Go to the website www.colorado.go�/cdphe/APCI D to view this regulation - click on Air Quality egulations, then Regulation No 3. Section II.D.1 lists which projects are exempt from requirements of the regulation. In addition, you will need to establish whether you are in an air quality attainment or non -attainment area, by accessing the information at www.coiorado.go\ Sate11ite,CDPIIE-AP/CBUN'1 ,51593265310. Once it has been deteimined that an Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APEN) is required, the next phase of air permitting involves submission of an Application for Co,rstructio l Permit for each facility and one APEN for each emission source. A source can be an individual emission point or group of similar emission points (see Regulation No. 3, Part A). :,oth APEN reporting and permit requirements are triggered by uncontrolled actual emission rates. Uncontrolled actual emissions are calculated based upon the requested production/operating rate assuming no control equipment is used. In general, an APEN is required for an emission point with uncontrolled actual emissions of any critical pollutant equal to or greater than the quantities listed below: 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer AREA UNCONTROLLED ACTUAL EMISSIONS Attainment Area 2 tons per year Non -attainment Area 1 ton per year All Areas Lead emissions: 100 pounds per year Sources of non -criteria reportable pollutants have different reporting levels depending upon the pollutant, release point height and distance to the property line. Please see !' egulatio.a Noe 3 Appendix A and C to determine the appropriate reporting level for each pollutant, and for a list of non -criteria reportable air pollutants. However, none of the exemptions from an APEN fling requirement shall apply if a source would otherwise be subject to any specific federal or state applicable requirement. Information concerning submittal of revised APEN is also given in Regulation No. 3, Part A. An APEN is valid for five years. The five year period recommences when a revised APEN is received by the Division. If you have any questions regarding your reporting or permitting obligations, please contact the Small Business Assistance Program at 303-692-3148 or 3175. Land development construction activities (earth moving) that are greater than 25 acres or more than six months in duration will require an APEN from the Air Division and may be required to obtain an air permit. In addition, a start-up notice must be submitted thirty days prior to beginning a land development project. Please refer to the website ,1WW.cuIorado.gol,/cdphe/APC I) for information on APEN forms. Click on Construction Permit and Compliance Forms, then click on the menu item that applies to your project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call the phone number(s) listed above, or you may call/ e-mail me directly at 303-692-3127 / Cl 0) II-. Thank you for contacting the Division about requirements for your project or permit. Sincerely, James A. DiLeo NEPA Coordinator Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Governor 1 Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer West Di de Water (onsery;:inc:, District -General Stored Water 818 Taughenbaugh Blvd. # i 01 P. 0. Box 203 1970) 625-5461 Rifle, CO 81650 watertil.wdvvcd.org BILL TO KW Glenwood Springs, LLC 941 Orange Avenue 4512 Coronado, CA 92118 EXHIBIT VO C 8/18,12014 10362 Please reference the Invoice # on your check. Due Upon Receipt. Totai S136.68 On an snared ‘veil non-payment of any portion of the fees due deems the whole contract cancelled. CONTRACT # ACRE FEET RATE IDENTIFICATION 140821K WG(a) 1 In/Commercial DESCRIPTION )TY RATE AMOUNT Augmentation Water Contract Colorado River Augmentation Plan Assessment Recording Fee 1 1 1 61.68 55.00 20.00 61.68 55.00 20.00 Due Upon Receipt. Totai S136.68 On an snared ‘veil non-payment of any portion of the fees due deems the whole contract cancelled. CP‘'��00 A SPRY+ EPAR1 August 26, 2014 To: David Pesnichak< Garfield County Planner From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department RE: File number LIPA-798. Name CLH Properties -riverside FedEX Warehouse and Distribution Facility, applicant CLH Properties LLC., Contact person Davis Farrar (Western Slope Consulting, LLC), Location South of Glenwood Springs adjacent to Glenwood Springs Airport, parcel #218527100008 Comments Assess: There shall be unobstructed Fire Department assess around the entire building. On the submitted plans there appears to be fencing around the building with an assess gate on the south west corner for vehicles to enter this area. If this gate is a controlled assess one it shall have a Knox key switch installed on its exterior west side to permit Fire crews assess to the area around the building. A Knox key box shall be installed on the exterior of building 5'-6' above finished grade above the sprinkler system Fire Department Connection (FDC). In the secured Knox box, keys to the building's exterior/interior doors shall be place in it for the Fire Departments use to assess the building without breaking door. The general contractor shall discuss finial placement of the Knox key switch and Knox key box with the Fire Department staff before installing them. The application to order the Knox products is obtained from the Glenwood Springs Fire Department Administration office located at 806 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs. Fire Protection Water Supply: The best option to meet the fire flow and automatic fire protection systems demands is for the owners to connect to the City of Glenwood Springs municipal water supply. If this connection is not possible the applicant mentions a couple of other options in their application to meet these water demands like; Fire pump required for all, large tank, pond (must also meet water demand in winter when surface is frozen), Roaring Fork River water or a combination of these options. If the connection to the City water supply is not made then all the other options shall be discussed with the Glenwood Springs Fire Department staff prior to the owners and their engineers design the system permanent fire flow water supply system. 0EPAR t Required Building Fire Protection Systems: The building shall have an automatic fire suppression system installed in it. The system shall be designed and installed to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13 standards for the occupancies housed in the building. The building shall have a fire alarm system installed in it that is designed to NFPA 72 standard for a fire sprinkled building and Glenwood Springs Fire Departments amendments to the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC). Fire Hydrants: The site will require at a minimum one fire hydrant and possibly two to be installed on it. Hydrant location shall be approved by the Fire Department staff prior to installation. Premises Identification: Reference Section 505 of the 2009 (IFC). The above are my comments on this application at this time, more may follow if the project moves forward. Please contact me if you or the applicant have questions on the above comments. tuA 0034[i Required Building Fire Protection Systems: The building shall have an automatic fire suppression system installed in it. The system shall be designed and installed to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13 standards for the occupancies housed in the building. The building shall have a fire alarm system installed in it that is designed to NFPA 72 standard for a fire sprinkled building and Glenwood Springs Fire Departments amendments to the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC). Fire Hydrants: The site will require at a minimum one fire hydrant and possibly two to be installed on it. Hydrant location shall be approved by the Fire Department staff prior to installation. Premises Identification: Reference Section 505 of the 2009 (IFC). The above are my comments on this application at this time, more may follow if the project moves forward. Please contact me if you or the applicant have questions on the above comments. August 28, 2014 Mr. David Pesnichak Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design EXHIBIT 1 iy RE: Review of Riverside FedEx Warehouse and Distribution Facility: LIPA-7988 Dear David: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Limited Impact Review application of the Riverside FedEx Warehouse and Distribution Facility for CLH Properties. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: 1. The project narrative evaluates options for providing the proposed site with sanitary services. The project plan sheets only show an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS). The OWTS will require permitting through the Garfield County Building Department. 2. The Applicant proposes to obtain an access license from the City of Glenwood Springs. The application materials propose two accesses. The plans should be revised to show one access. 3. The traffic analysis does not address how the traffic will impact the intersection of Highway 82 and 27th Street. The Applicant should address this intersection and/or why this intersection was not evaluated. 4. The Applicant proposes to not provide detention for storm water peak attenuation. A waiver should be requested from Section 7-204.C.3.a of the LUDC. 5. The Applicant should address how the bio -retention ponds that are proposed conform to Section 7-204.C.3.d of the LUDC. 6. The Storm Water Management Plan does not provide evidence that the site is covered under the CDPHE Permit. A copy of the coverage letter should be submitted to Garfield County once obtained. 7. The plan sheets show that a 3/," water service tap is to provide fire protection and potable supply to a fire pump and storage tank. No details were included for this equipment. The Applicant should provide engineering design for review. The Applicant will need to obtain approvals from the Fire District. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engin erin, Inc.i is Hale, PE 826'%2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT 2.0 August 26, 2014 TO: Dave Pesnichak, Garfield County Community Development FROM: Andrew McGregor, Community Development Director /4"1.-44 RE: LIPA-7988 CLH Properties — Riverside Fed Ex Warehouse and Distribution Facility Thanks for providing the City of Glenwood Springs with the opportunity to comment on the above -noted application for a Fed Ex facility in South Glenwood adjacent to the airport. In order to provide your office and the County Commissioners with the most comprehensive and detailed comments, we circulated the application to various relevant City staff. Staff comments are attached and are generally self- explanatory. Due to the potential for significant impacts associated with this application, we also presented this application to the City Council at their meeting on August 2151 for their comments. Council was presented the application materials by staff in advance of the meeting and provided with a brief presentation by City Staff. At the conclusion of their discussion, Council voted to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they deny the application due to the issues outlined in the staff report and the significant impact to the transportation infrastructure that is wholly inadequate to accommodate this use. The following is a list of issues that have been raised by staff during their review of the annexation , zoning and development applications and included in the August 21 Staff Report. o There are currently significant shortcomings in the South Glenwood transportation infrastructure. This project will impact Airport Road (largely unpaved), Midland Avenue from 4 Mile Road to 27th Street has operational and structural failures, Sunlight Bridge has structural and capacity issues, 27th Street intersections at S Grand and S. Glen and no immediate opportunities to construct the South Bridge for emergency egress from S. Glenwood and Four Mile areas.. Any County approval should obligate the developer to make contributions to the upgrading of Airport Road and other system deficiencies. o Public safety concerns with increased truck traffic and with lack of pedestrian facilities, increased noise, etc. o Truck traffic has a greater deleterious effect on road pavement and structure than do passenger cars. o Concerns with impacts on the airport including safety concerns with truck traffic at the runway's south end and building encroachments into the transitional surface parallel to the runway. o Lack of sufficient water and sewer service without connections to the City's systems. o Need for land dedication to accommodate west touchdown for the South Bridge. o Need for protections on the hillside above the river and below the developed portion of the site. o Need for protection of riparian areas along the riverbank. o No design standards for building or site development. We appreciate your consideration of the City's input in this application. PLANNING ITEM: 33-14 SUBJECT: GarCo Review – FedEx Distribution Facility CITY ATTORNEY (Jan Shute) – No legal comments for GarCo review. Would be a good idea to submit to Transportation Manager/Assistant Public Works Director to obtain safety comments from City Airport Committee. CITY MANAGER (Jeff Hecksel) – Transportation infrastructure in this area is not sufficient to support this use. POLICE DEPARTMENT (Terry Wilson) – Same as prior review—Significant developments should not be permitted in this area until South Bridge is built and/or Midland Ave. and 27th St. Bridge are significantly improved. Traffic from this project should be kept out of adjacent neighborhoods. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (Robin Millyard) ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR(Dave Betley) BUILDING DEPARTMENT (Patrick Seydel) CITY ENGINEER (Terri Partch) - Through the recent traffic impact analysis performed for several annexation and development proposals, I have become increasingly aware of the poor state of our City's transportation system on the south side of Glenwood Springs. The current issues that I am aware of include the following: • The north bound turn lane from SH82/Glen Avenue is under capacity. Dual turn lanes are needed to clear the number of cars wanting to turn west onto 27th Street. • 27th Street does not have the right of way necessary to accommodate a dual turn lane. • The intersection at 23' Street and South Grand Avenue is frequently blocked by people wanting to turn onto South Grand Avenue. • This blockage at 23`d and South Grand Avenue causes cars to back up to the west, through the 27th Street Bridge and the roundabout at 27th and Midland. • The 27th Street Bridge has a sufficiency rating of 42.2 out of 100, a score which is lower than the Grand Avenue Bridge. If Federal or State funds are used, the sufficiency rating is so low that that it cannot be rehabilitated, it must be replaced. The bridge is functionally obsolete, structurally deficient and scour critical. It is also under capacity. • South Midland Avenue from 27th Street south to Four Mile Road is in terrible condition. Poor drainage has caused many areas of subgrade failure, and during the winter months causes large potholes. • The intersection of Mount Sopris Drive and Midland Avenue is highly congested today under school traffic conditions, and is projected to go to failure by 2020. The construction of the South Bridge is projected to siphon approximately 1/3 of the projected traffic from 27th Street in the 20 year planning time frame. Its construction would provide the following benefits: • It will serve as a critical evacuation route for residents of south Glenwood and the Four Mile Canyon area. • It allows some additional development and redevelopment to occur in both southern Glenwood Springs and in the Four Mile Canyon Area of Garfield County. • The project would eliminate the need for the following the right of way acquisitions and capital projects: a. Right of way acquisition for two additional lanes on 27`h Street between South Grand Avenue and SH82/Glen Avenue b. Road and drainage construction for two additional lanes on 27th Street c. Reconstruction of the 27th Street Bridge to a minimum of four lanes. Realignment of the bridge to meet the intersection of SH82 for optimum operational performance. d. Potential relocation of at least five condominium units at Cotton Wood Landing. e. Addition of another lane on the east side of the 27th Street Roundabout. At this time, without additional annexations, developments or redevelopment proposals, I anticipate that the City will need to fund $35 million to $50 million dollars worth of capital improvements to rebuild the existing roadways and bridges and to provide emergency access to the residents of south Glenwood and Garfield County. The Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Federal Express Distribution Facility does not accurately describe the existing conditions of the City system, and does not accurately project future impacts. Larger specific issues in the study include: • Traffic counts were performed in June of 2014. This count date misses the heavy use of the south Glenwood road system during the school year. • Traffic counts were scaled up to account for school traffic, but only at the intersection of Mount Sopris Drive and Midland Avenue. No scaling was applied to the other intersections. • No traffic counts and analysis were performed at the intersection of 27`h Street and South Grand Avenue, an intersection that heavily contributes to congestion in the system. • No 20 year projections were done for the system. Fed Ex proposes to add 230 additional truck trips to the City's system during the AM and PM peak hours. I believe that this will have a significant impact on the City's already taxed system. Due to the poor state of our existing infrastructure and the large need for capital improvements from 27t1' Street south, the City should request that the County ask the developer for a contribution toward the needed capital improvements for the area. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Andrew McGregor) WATERIWASTEWATER (Buddy Burns) — If the developer moves forward with City water and sewer extensions, refer to comments dated 7/29/14. If they choose to only utilize the existing 3/4" water service, note the following: (1) There shall be no interconnection between the existing 'A" water service and any other water source. (2) It is highly recommended that the developer look at water quality on any other water source. FIRE DEPARTMENT (Ronald Biggers) CITY ELECTRIC (Doug Hazzard) STREETS & ALLEYS (Rick Turner) PARKS AND RECREATION (Tom Barnes) FINANCE DIRECTOR (Mike Harmon) AIRPORT COMMISSION (Jim Terry) — Would it be possible for the applicant to install illuminated stop signs on both ends of the south end of the runway where the stop signs are now? Signs with flashing red lights and additional signage that states, "Yield to landing and departing aircraft." With the increased semi -truck and automobile traffic, the improved signage may improve safety for the motorists, pedestrians and pilots. On a hot, windy, summer day, there have been numerous times that I was thankful that there were no cars or trucks on the roadway, lined up with the centerline of the runway, while landing to the north. SOURCE GAS (Westerman & Green) CENTURYLINK (Jason Sharpe) WEST GLENWOOD SANITATION DIST. (Scott Leslie)- a spip /A, tic OtPAER1' August 26, 2014 To: David Pesnichak< Garfield County Planner From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal; Glenwood Springs Fire Department RE: File number LIPA-798. Name CLH Properties -riverside FedEX Warehouse and Distribution Facility, applicant CLH Properties LLC., Contact person Davis Farrar (Western Slope Consulting, LLC), Location South of Glenwood Springs adjacent to Glenwood Springs Airport, parcel #218527100008 Comments Assess: There shall be unobstructed Fire Department assess around the entire building. On the submitted plans there appears to be fencing around the building with an assess gate on the south west corner for vehicles to enter this area. If this gate is a controlled assess one it shall have a Knox key switch installed on its exterior west side to permit Fire crews assess to the area around the building. A Knox key box shall be installed on the exterior of building 5'-6' above finished grade above the sprinkler system Fire Department Connection (FDC). In the secured Knox box, keys to the building's exterior/interior doors shall be place in it for the Fire Departments use to assess the building without breaking door. The general contractor shall discuss finial placement of the Knox key switch and Knox key box with the Fire Department staff before installing them. The application to order the Knox products is obtained from the Glenwood Springs Fire Department Administration office located at 806 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs. Fire Protection Water Supply: The best option to meet the fire flow and automatic fire protection systems demands is for the owners to connect to the City of Glenwood Springs municipal water supply. If this connection is not possible the applicant mentions a couple of other options in their application to meet these water demands like; Fire pump required for all, large tank, pond (must also meet water demand in winter when surface is frozen), Roaring Fork River water or a combination of these options. If the connection to the City water supply is not made then all the other options shall be discussed with the Glenwood Springs Fire Department staff prior to the owners and their engineers design the system permanent fire flow water supply system. GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE The Denver Center 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone (970) 947-1936 Facsimile (970) 947-1937 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com September 5, 2014 VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL David Pesnichak, Senior Planner Garfield County Planning Division 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 dpesnichal garfield-county.com Re: FedEx Facility Dear David: EXHIBIT David McConaughy dmcconaughy@garfieldhecht.com Thank you for your detailed staff report and for meeting with us earlier this week regarding the upcoming hearing with the Board of County Commissioners. As we discussed, our client is generally okay with the proposed conditions of approval but would request that the Board consider the following changes. Several of these requests relate to timing issues and the fact that our client's real estate contract with the current owner is contingent upon issuance of the land use permit. As such, for example, our client cannot grant an easement until it holds title to the property, which will not happen until after issuance of the land use permit. Accordingly, we have proposed making some of these conditions triggered after the land use permit when our client will have ownership and control of the property. Condition 7. Please revise to clarify the proposal is for operations 7 days per week, 24 hours per day (not just Mon -Sat). Condition 16. Please consider making this a condition of building permit, not the land use permit. Condition 18. Please consider making this a condition of building permit. Condition 20. At the hearing, the applicant will address the issue of traffic impacts generally including the proposed payment amount, which we understand is not tied to any applicable fee of Garfield County itself. We are also uncertain whether the City would even accept a payment of traffic fees not tied to any contract or permit from the City. Additionally, we have some concern about constructing improvements to Airport Road that may be obliterated by the future construction of the South Bridge and could be a waste of money and effort. Our engineer will address this at the hearing. Aspen • Avon • Basalt • Glenwood Springs • Rifle ® Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C. David Pesnichek Garfield County Planning Division September 5, 2014 Page 2 of 3 Nevertheless, if the City is willing to commit to constructing and completing the improvements to Airport Road and Airport Center Road prior to the expected time that the project would be ready for issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, then the Applicant would agree to pay the requested traffic fee amount of $585,000 to the City. We propose revising the condition as follows: The Applicant shall either contribute $585,000 to the City of Glenwood Springs for road improvements or come to an agreement with the City for specific improvements to be made to Airport Road and Airport Center Road to address the anticipated traffic impacts of the project. If the Applicant and the City are unable to reach an agreement, then the Applicant shall submit proof that the $585,000 has been deposited into an escrow account, which shall be released to the City upon completion by the City of the proposed improvements to Airport Road and Airport Center Road as identified by the City in its written comment letter. If the City fails or refuses to complete such improvements prior to the time that the Applicant would otherwise be entitled to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy but for fulfillment of this condition, or by May 1, 2015, whichever first occurs, then the Applicant shall be entitled to complete the remaining improvements itself and apply the escrow funds towards such costs. If, as of March 15, 2015, the City has refused to accept the payment or to authorize or perform any construction work on Airport Road and Airport Center Road as provided herein, then the Applicant shall be relieved of this condition. Condition 21. The applicant is committed to facilitating construction of the South Bridge because it will benefit the project. However, there are challenges associated with the uncertain plans and location of the proposed bridge. Additionally, if this condition is to be included then we would like to see an alternative similar to the wording of Condition 20. As written in the initial staff report, the condition could be read to grant the City unilateral discretion to approve or not approve (or perhaps not even to consider) any agreement with the applicant. This would effectively cede the County's land use authority to the City by granting it a veto power on the project. At the hearing, the Applicant's engineer will present testimony and evidence to show that the $585,000 contribution referenced above (Condition 20) far exceeds the proportionate share of traffic impacts caused by the project to Airport Road and Airport Center Road. To offset that contribution, therefore, the Applicant requests reimbursement of the fair market value of the dedication parcel at such time as it may be needed for the bridge. We propose the following: The Applicant shall meet with the City to develop a plan to determine a specific location and amount of land to dedicate for the South Bridge landing, if any. This dedication plan and agreement shall he in place before issuance of any building permit. Should the City determine that a dedication is not necessary, a letter from the City stating such shall be provided to the County, and this condition shall not 1111145 ® Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. David Pesnichek Garfield County Planning Division September 5, 2014 Page 3 of 3 apply. If the City does not provide such a letter, and if the City and the Applicant do not reach a mutually -acceptable agreement by October 17, 2014, then the Applicant shall instead grant the County a 10 -year option to acquire the dedication parcel at a location to be determined on the southern tip of the parcel, with a right of way not to exceed 55 feet in width. The Applicant shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for the actual fair market value of the dedication parcel at the time of its conveyance to the County or the City, as applicable, which shall include the costs of relocating or replacing any utilities or other improvements that would interfere with the bridge project. If the parties cannot agree on the amount of compensation informally, then the procedures set forth in C.R.S. § 38-1-121 shall apply. The form of the option agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the County Attorney prior to issuance of building permit. Condition 23. Please revise the final sentence of this condition as follows: The easement document shall be prepared and submitted prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit for approval by the County Attorney and shall be recorded after transfer of the Property to KW Glenwood Springs, LLC and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. * * * We need to consult with the current landowner and may have additional suggestions or requests at the time of the hearing. If you have any questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Very truly yours, 1 -IT, P.C. cc: Kelly Cave, Fsq. (e-mail only kcaveazarfield-county.com) Frank Hutfless, Esq. (e-mail only fhutflessagarfield-county.com DHM/kjt 1111145 Printed on recycled paper ITEM 3 AGENDA CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2014 101 W. 8TH STREET 6:00 P.M. EXHIBIT 1 Lf Executive Session to Conduct a Conference with the City Manager and City Attorney for the Purpose of Determining Positions Relative to Matters That May be Subject to Negotiations, Developing Strategy for Negotiations, and Instructing Negotiators; and to Conduct a Conference with the City Attorney to Receive Legal Advice in Accordance with C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e). At 12:42 a.m.: PRESENT: Mayor Leo McKinney COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Stephen Bershenyi, Matthew Steckler, Todd Leahy, Ted Edmonds, Michael Gamba and Dave Sturges. ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Hecksel, City Manager and Jan Shute, City Attorney Mayor McKinney stated there would be an executive session to discuss RICD negotiations, RFTA access control plan and negotiations for development south of City limits. Councilor Sturges moved, seconded by Councilor Bershenyi, to go into executive session for the purpose of conducting a conference with the City Manager and City Attorney to discuss the City's purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real property; determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and instructing negotiators; and to conduct a conference with the City Attorney to receive legal advice in accordance with C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a), (b) and (e) to discuss The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. At 1:50 p.m., Mayor McKinney adjourned the executive session and announced: During the previous executive session no resolution, rules, regulation, ordinance or formal action was taken or made. The regular meeting of the City Council on this 16th day of October, 2014 is in recess until 6:00 p.m. At 6:00 p.m. ITEM 5 Roll Call PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Leo McKinney Stephen Bershenyi, Matthew Steckler, Todd Leahy, Ted Edmonds, Michael Gamba and Dave Sturges 1 Councilor Gamba moved, seconded by Councilor Sturges to approve design variance # 5 to allow a front yard setback greater than 60 feet. The motion passed unanimously. ❑ Design variance #6 from the requirement that buildings be oriented parallel to the public right of way, as much as practicable Councilor Gamba moved, seconded by Councilor Sturges to approve design variance # 6 from the requirement that buildings be oriented parallel to the public right of way, as much as practicable. The motion passed unanimously. ❑ Design variance #7 from the requirement that not more than 30% of the total number of parking spaces provided can be located between the building face and the front property line Councilor Gamba moved, seconded by Councilor Sturges to approve design variance # 7 from the requirement that not more than 30% of the total number of parking spaces provided can be located between the building face and the front property line ❑ Design variance #8 from the requirement to landscape 20% of the total lot area and to provide the required number of trees, shrubs and perennials Councilor Gamba moved, seconded by Councilor Sturges to approve Design variance # 8 from the requirement to landscape 20% of the total lot area and to provide the required number of trees, shrubs and perennials ❑ Consideration of a Major Development Permit for the construction of a hot springs resort. Councilor Gamba moved, seconded by Councilor Sturges to approve Consideration of a Major Development Permit for the construction of a hot springs resort with the following additions and changes: Adding 5d. Public access on this easement shall be conditioned upon the design, funding and construction of a trail extension to the west. In item 5g. Strike "but may not be exclusive of" and "as represented on the aerial plan that is included in this report" and on condition 10 change 3 yrs to 4 yrs. B. #37 — 14 Garfield County Referral of a Request to modify conditions of Approval for a Limited Impact Review Land Use Change Permit for a Fed Ex warehouse and Distribution Facility. Location: 1097 CR 116 Zone: Commercial General (C/G) Garfield County Andrew McGregor gave a brief history on the planning item 37-14 Garfield County Referral of an application for an amendment to the approved land use change permit for Fed Ex facility located adjacent to the City limits east of the City Airport on CR 160. The proposed amendment is only to review two conditions #20 and #21: • Condition #20 which requires the applicant to pay the City $585,000 for road improvements or come to a separate agreement with the city. • Condition #21 requires the applicant to develop a plan for land dedication for the South Bridge. Mayor McKinney asked staff to reiterate to the county that all seven council members were against this project and that has not changed due to the impact it would have on 25% of the people who live in that part of town. Councilor Gamba noted that while the City is Pro business and sensitive to the business needs of the city this is the wrong location and the road impact fees proposed would not cover all the road improvements. Councilor Leahy commented that Glenwood Springs would love to have Fed Ex in the City of Glenwood Springs but this location is not the right location. Councilor Sturges was disappointed with the decision that Garfield County made approving this development Councilor Edmonton noted that the impact of the traffic would continue to create congestion in the city Councilor Bershenyi was puzzled by the analysis that FedEx did when reviewing this property and is disappointed that Garfield County approved this project even though the city had expressed concern regarding the impact the extra traffic would have on the infrastructure. Councilor Steckler reiterated that all council members felt the same way and he was disappointed that the county ignored the council's comments and concerns and approved this development. Mayor McKinney stated that he would have liked the County Commissioners of Garfield County to have held the hearing in Glenwood Springs as opposed to Carbondale so that more of the community from the effected are could have attended the hearing. Mayor McKinney opened the public comment The following people made comment: ❑ Sharon Brady was against this project and was upset that the hearing was held in Carbondale which was not impacted by this decision. ❑ Lisa Langer noted that the noise impact is already a problem and would be greater also she was concerned in an emergency it would be difficult for everyone to get out. ❑ Steve Smith thanked council for what he though was an accurate assessment of the proposal due to the access problems and congestion and impact on the people that live in the area. ❑ Kevin Brady made note that Corporate Fed Ex may not know how much of an impact this will have on the town and suggested reaching out to Fed Ex corporate. Mayor McKinney closed the public comment. Councilor Bershenyi moved, seconded by Councilor Sturges to approve sending a request to the board of county commissioners to reconsider their approval of the Fed Ex facility and to deny the project. The motion passed unanimously. Councilor Bershenyi made a subsequent motion to write a letter to Corporate Fed Ex expressing sentiments voiced at this meeting with signatures from all council members, seconded by Councilor Edmonds. The motion passed unanimously. ITEM 11 Development Agreement Fed Ex Facility City Manager, Jeff Hecksel gave a brief update regarding the draft agreement on the conditions # 20 and #21 which were imposed by Garfield County, also regarding the Roaring Fork Easement. There was a redline draft agreement created by the city attorney and was presented to the applicant whom agreed with most of the terms. Councilor Gamba noted that if item 10 B, #37 — 14 Garfield County Referral of a Request to modify conditions of Approval for a Limited Impact Review Land Use Change Permit for a Fed Ex warehouse and Distribution Facility does not go away then he would like to accept the $585,000 for the road improvements. Councilor Steckler commented that the $585,000 would not be enough to cover the impact on the infrastructure or rebuilding roads. Councilor Edmonds supports Councilor Gamba's comments and feels this is a business decision to accept the payment of $585,000. Councilor Bershenyi commented that this would cause a major impact to the only route leading to the site along south Midland Avenue and cause the roads to depreciate faster. Mayor McKinney talked about agreement and the impact this will have on the South Glenwood neighborhoods. Councilor Gamba commented that 230 total vehicles trips a day will impact the roads and bridges but feels that the project has already been approved by the County and to accept the $585,000 would assist in upgrading the roads. Councilor Sturges stated that the increasing traffic will impact the roads and does not feel any amount of money will cover the impact of the additional vehicles on the road and would like to stand with the vote from the previous topic. Councilor Leahy also felt that to accept the $585,000 would be beneficial to the City. Mayor McKinney opened the public comment. ❑ David McConaughy, Garfield and Hecht representing the applicant said that the county had asked that they come back to council with the proposed changes. Ms. Shute, City Attorney made some changes that the applicant accepted. He added that he wanted to discuss the city sewer and septic services to the project. ❑ Heather McGregor was not in favor of the development agreement Mayor McKinney closed the public comment. Councilor Gamba does not support the motion due to impact on the infrastructure. Councilor Edmonds does not support the motion but does think it's a bad project but feels that to accept the money would be beneficial to the city. Councilor Bershenyi does support the motion. Mayor McKinney was at the hearing in Carbondale and he mentioned that the Commissioner Jankovsky got the conditions included in the agreement. Councilor Leahy does not support the motion. Councilor Steckler supported the motion. Councilor Sturges moved, seconded by Councilor Bershenyi to deny the redlined Road Improvement and Land Dedication agreement provided by the City Attorney. The motion passed with a 4-3 vote; yes- Bershenyi, Sturges, McKinney, Steckler No- Gamba, Edmonds, Leahy Item number 2 Councilor Sturges moved, seconded by Councilor Bershenyi to deny the request from the applicant for the cities commitment to provide utilities. The motion passed unanimously. ITEM 12 2015 Tourism Board Marketing Plan — Lisa Langer Lisa Langer, VP of Tourism Marketing gave a presentation on the 2015 proposed marketing budget and the 2015 proposed Tourism promotion marketing budget discussing the following: ❑ Advertising ❑ Public Relations ❑ Vacation Planner and Distribution ❑ Hosting website, Video, Domains, Book Direct ❑ Internet Management ❑ Direct mail and Fulfillment ❑ Trade Shows/ Conferences ❑ Group and International Marketing ❑ Consultants David Pesnichak From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:47 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: FW: FedEx Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Romeyn, Chris [mailto:chris.romeyn©urs.com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:06 AM To: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: FedEx EXHIBIT Commissioners, I'm writing you to express my opinion regarding the proposed FEDEX shipping center on Airport Rd. I'm a resident of Glenwood Springs, specifically Park East Subdivision. There are numerous reasons why I'm against the proposed facility. Admittedly some of those reasons would fall into the "Not in my back yard" category: my family enjoys walking the dog, going for runs, etc. along Airport Rd, which feels like our own private path. But I understand that these are not necessarily valid reasons to deny the development. But I feel that many of my reasons for opposing the development are valid and should be taken into consideration. The transportation issues surrounding this, or any other proposal for South Glenwood or Four Mile, are very concerning. These same issues have supported your denial of other development proposals in the area. Under existing conditions Midland Rd, and it's intersections with Three Mile, Mt. Sopris, and Four Mile Roads is inadequate and increased traffic poses a safety risk for motorists, as well as children walking to Sopris Elementary, including my 6 year old daughter. I'm particularly concerned that FEDEX trucks will start to see my narrow, residential street, as an alternate route. Many other people, including the City of Glenwood Council have expressed these same concerns. If the South Bridge project were in place, I would feel differently. But being a civil engineer, and having done some consulting work on the Grand Ave Bridge, I am of the opinion that the South Bridge Project will likely never happen because of funding. It's my understanding that the latest cost estimate is $39,000,000, and I suspect that to rise in the future. I just don't see that being funded in this economic climate. And even if funding becomes available, it will be decades before the bridge is a reality. I feel that approving the FEDEX facility based on the South Bridge project happening is short sighted, and I'm surprised that FED EX doesn't see it the same way. I know that there has been some history between the County and the City regarding regional transportation issues, including Midland Road. And I get the feeling that the City is overwhelmed with the scope of the necessary Midland Road improvements. The proposed FEDEX impact fee of —$500k is merely a drop in the bucket when it comes to addressing these transportation issues and I think that even that is inadequate to upgrade Airport Rd. over the full 0.9 miles required, let alone address the other issues along the corridor. I was surprised when the Commissioners approved the project in light of the City's concerns. I know that my comments are coming late in the game and it's likely impossible to reverse the previous approval. But now is not the time for bickering between the County and the City. From my perspective this project has very little benefit to the City of Glenwood Springs, yet the City will bear the brunt of the impacts. Let's be honest, even the recent asphalt patching that the City did is starting to fail with the recent weather, add 200+ more trips a day, with a few tandem semis and things will only get worse...which has a direct financial impact on me with increased car maintenance and depreciation. But I'll save my critique of the Road Maintenance for the City. Given that revocation of the prior approval is unlikely, I urge you to not waive the requirement for FEDEX to pay the transportation impact fee to the City. Further, I urge you to take a 1 more proactive role working with the City to resolve these transportation issues that clearly have impacts on both City and County residents. It would be great to see the County and the City come together and resolve these issues. Thank you for your time and service. Cheers, Chris Romeyn, PE, CFM Water Resources Engineer PLEASE NOTE NEW MAILING ADDRESS 804 Colorado Ave, Suite 201 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Office: (970) 384-4736 1 Cell: (970) 309-2951 chris.romeyn@urs.com This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient. you should not retain. distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. 2 David Pesnichak From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:56 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: FW: Website inquiry -BOCC Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Original Message From: Cathy korthals [mailto:eaglecatz@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:52 PM To: Tom Jankovsky Subject: Website inquiry -BOCC Cathy korthals has sent you a message: Fedex traffic on Sunlight Bridge EXHIBIT '7 - With a poor sufficiency rating how can this bridge be subjected to heavy truck traffic. It is not feasible to subject a bridge already compromised to be abused. For some reason not obvious to us, Fedex is insisting on this project. $1,000,000.00 would allow for some bridge reinforcements. However, the Cottonwood Landing townhomes will suffer from this increase in industrial traffic. Please talk to the other commissioners. We must safe guard our resources. Development with no common ground considerations is a crime. 1 David Pesnichak From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:58 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: FW: Website inquiry -BOCC Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Original Message From: Tim Burns and Jenny Lang[mailto:lang.jennifer@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 7:10 PM To: Tom Jankovsky Subject: Website inquiry -BOCC Tim Burns and Jenny Lang has sent you a message: Fed Ex 970 945 5607 Dear Tom, EXHIBIT We are reached out to John and Mike to encourage them to reconsider their position related to the Fed Ex facility location on Airport Road. South Midland Ave cannot support this additional commercial traffic volume. Given the current traffic issues of residential access, already existing high traffic volume, wildlife access (to Roaring Fork River) and poor existing condition of the roadway between 27th Street and 4 mile, this is a ridiculous use consideration. We pointed out, that by simply reviewing Map Quest, the route from Hwy 82 to the airport takes approximately 10 minutes. Therefore, if 230 trips are estimated per day that will require Fed Ex 76 hours of road time for every day (based on a 12 hour workday)! Now this number assumes that the "230 trips" represent 1 "round trip". If it only represent % of a "round trip" you can double this number again to 152 hours of road time for Fed Ex every day! How can they really support this? This location is a very poor location for a commercial mailing facility to be located in a mostly residential traffic zone that is too far away from a major highway. Perhaps this will give you some additional talking point to consider on Monday evening. Best, Tim and Jenny Lang Burns 0162 County Road 156 1 David Pesnichak From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 6:02 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: FW: Fed Ex facility Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Original Message From: Kurt Backofen [mailto:kbofen@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 2:14 PM To: Tom Jankovsky; Mike Samson; John Martin Subject: Fed Ex facility Dear Commissioners, Having spent 12 years in the Park West neighborhood of Glenwood Springs, I feel the need to voice my disapproval of the absurd location of the proposed Fed Ex distribution center. I have 2 children at Sopris Elementary School. Anyone in the area during rush hours (picks up & drops offs) knows this is a broken part of town (quite literally if you consider the condition of the 27th St. bridge). With the proposed developments up the 4 mile area and continuing traffic from Iron Bridge, this area is in deep need of a south bridge. Having observed the direction and leadership of the County in regards to the Grand Avenue bridge, sadly, I believe the South Bridge project will not happen in my lifetime. I struggle to find clear answers to why this project makes good sense to our community. It adds 230 heavy truck traffic daily past an elementary school over a structurally questionable bridge and would further congest a already challenged evacuation route. Financially this project is equally (if not more) difficult to grasp as well. A 27,000 square foot trucking facility with no infrastructure. $585,000 Impact money to pave an estimated $20 million dollar road, not to mention environmental impacts on the river corridor due to fuel and lack of a sewage system. How is it that a selected few have the power to negatively affect the quality of life and safety, upon another neighborhood? My deep concern here is that my local elected officials are more invested in the interest of a national business enterprise than in the best interest of the constituents who elected them. Please think critically on this issue, and take into account the impact on Garfield County Citizens. Kurt Backofen 1 October 29, 2014 Cardiff Glen Residences Homeowners Association P.O. Box 1204 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 City Council, City of Glenwood Springs 101 W 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Proposed Fed/Ex facility Dear Commissioners and Councilors: I represent the residents and homeowners of the Cardiff Glen Residences, as their homeowner Association Manager. Cardiff Glen is located at the intersection of Airport Road and Morgan Street. There are approximately 130 homes in this development. And, there are two additional lots, slated for multi family units. The Executive Board for the Cardiff Glen Residences has been reading the various newspaper articles and public hearing documentation pertaining to the proposed Fed/Ex facility location and have some concerns. How will Fed/Ex be expected to effectively mitigate the various impacts to roads and traffic patterns in the area that CURRENTLY EXIST while their truck traffic adds more impact. Is it enough that they will be required to contribute $585,000 toward the estimated $35 to $50 Million the City will need to rebuild the EXISTING roadways and bridges and provide emergency access for the residents of south Glenwood? How are these funds to be used? As stated in the County Resolution? Airport Road and Airport Center Road and the South Bridge landing? The Resolution is silent to any portion of the existing roadways and bridges they will be impacting. They have been asked to somehow contribute with the location needs for the South Bridge project by giving up some of their land. Would they not have to do that anyway? Just like the residents of Cottonwood Landing are expected to? The impact of truck traffic on the following roads are of great concern to those who use them every day. The 27th street bridge, Airport Road and Midland Avenue. Highway 82 at the 27th Street intersection. South Grand, South Glen and the 23rd Street intersection with Highway 82. Now couple the condition of these roads with additional truck traffic congestion approaching Highway 82 at the 23rd Street intersection, which is somewhat hard to maneuver and crosses a bike path. The congestion at the roundabout on Midland, the intersection at 27th street and Highway 82, the pedestrian traffic and school children. There is also skier traffic - all at peak driving times, all at the same time in the day. How can a financial contribution of 1% of the expected cost to simply rebuild existing roads that are but a small portion of the roads they intend to use, help to mitigate the additional truck traffic impacts? The Executive Board of Cardiff Glen Residences respectfully encourages both the County and the City to work together and closely analyze and address the IMMEDIATE impact to the area residents and the users of these roadways, as it may be years before the anticipated roadway and bridge improvements can be made. Thank you. Sincerely, kzoblic5adVIAL) Debbie Sanderson Association Manager Cardiff Glen Residences Homeowners Association GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE The Denver Center 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone (970) 947-1936 Facsimile (970) 947-1937 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com December 5, 2014 VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL David Pesnichak, Senior Planner Garfield County Planning Division 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 dpesnichak c ,garfield-county.com Re: FedEx Facility Dear David: EXHIBIT 1 a' David McConaughy dmcconaughv@,garfieldhecht.com We met with representatives of the City of Glenwood Springs this morning as encouraged by the County Commissioners. The persons in attendance were myself, Davis Farrar, and our client Kevin Kiernan. Mayor Leo McKinney attended for the City along with City Manager Jeff Hecksel and City Attorney Jan Shute. The City has not changed its position. The City would accept a traffic fee contribution of approximately $1,681,000 as presented at the last BOCC hearing. The representatives who met with us stated they had no authority to compromise that number. The City also has not changed its position about receiving the right-of-way for the South Bridge without any compensation to offset the conflict with the septic system. At the present time, the City remains unwilling to consider extension of sewer service to solve that conflict or to extend water service to reduce project costs. From the applicant's side, Mr. Kiernan told the City that FedEx intends to offer the $585,000 to the City regardless of whether the BOCC keeps that as a condition of approval or not. However, given the size of the project and the overall costs of construction and development, there is simply no room in the budget to increase that contribution without making the project economically unviable. In any event, it would appear that neither party is in a position to close the gap of more than $1 Million, and no compromise was reached. The City representatives expressed appreciation for my client's offer to pay the $585,000 voluntarily, but they had no authority to agree to any figure other than the $1.681 Million. Aspen • Avon • Basalt • Glenwood Springs • Rifle ® Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. David Pesnichek Garfield County Building & Planning December 5, 2014 Page 2 of 2 At this point, my client and the City appear to agree that the County needs to render its decision one way or the other. Regardless of what the County decides, we advised the City that we would remain open to working with them to mitigate the impacts of the project or to improve the design by, for example, extending sewer service at the applicant's expense to avoid the need to construct ISDS that may conflict with the South Bridge alignment. The City made no commitment that any future agreement could be reached, but they also said they would be open to further discussions after the County makes its decision on December 15. The meeting was cordial and professional. I believe everyone present agreed that it was a good use of time and that both the applicant and the City are proceeding in good faith based on the direction from the County Commissioners. Nevertheless, at this point we simply need a decision from the County. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you. Very truly yours, GA ECHT, P.C. David Mc onaugh cc: Jeff Hecksel (via e-mail only jeff.hecksel@cogs.us Jan Shute (via e-mail only jan.shute@cogs.us) 1145274 ® Printed on recycled paper