Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 County Attorney CorrespondenceMEMORANDUM TO: Deborah Quinn -fit ,Ay 13 MI) Assistant County Attorney FROM: Tom Veljic Senior Planner DATE: May 13, 2010 RE: LIPA 6339 Robinson - Limited Impact Review for Telecommunications Tower Attached is second submittal for the Limited Impact Review Application of Scott and Debra Robinson for a forty foot tall telecommunications tower. The revised documents were received on May 13, 2010. Please review and comment by May 27th, 2010. BLACK & VEATCH Building a vvorld of difference`: Ti 3 2010 YuNTY May 11, 2010 Via FedEx Mr. Tom Veljic Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: LIPA 6252 LIPA 6339 Robinson Limited Impact Review for a Telecomm Tower Dear Tom: Per your attached letter of April 15, 2010 we are forwarding three (3) copies of a Land Suitability Analysis, three (3) copies of a Garfield County Impact Analysis, three (3) revised table of contents and three (3) sets of new report tabs. With the submittal of these reports we feel our submittal is now complete. Please let us know what else needs to be done for us to go before the County Commissioners. We look forward to hearing from you and if you have any comments or questions contact me at 720-834-4349 or shererj@bv.com. erer M ager Site Acquisition & Zoning Telecommunications Made from Black & Veatch Corporation • Telecom • 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 300 • Centennial, CO 80111 USA • Telephone: 720.834.4200 • Fax: 720.834.4285 recycled material April 15, 2010 Jeff Sherer Black and Veatch 6300 South Syracuse Way, Ste 300 Centennial, CO 80111 BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: LIPA 6252 — LIPA 6339 Robinson - Limited Impact Review for Telecom Tower Dear Mr. Sherer: I am writing this letter regarding the Scott and Debra Robinson application for Limited Impact Review for the proposed Telecommunications Tower. I've reviewed the submittal documents, received on March 8, 2010, and at this time, the application does not include all required information per Garfield County Regulations. The application is therefore deemed Technically Incomplete and the Planning Department will not process this application any further until the following information, listed below, has been provided to the satisfaction of this office. Please address the following items and submit three copies of the modified information to this office so that we may continue the review of this application: Submittal Requirements (Section 4-502 (E), Limited Impact Review) The Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 lists the required submittal documents for a complete application and is noted below. E. Limited Impact Review. The Limited Impact Review Process is set forth in Section 4-105, Limited Impact Review Process and requires the following materials. 1. Application Form and Fees 2. Vicinity Map (4-502(C)(2) 3. Site Plan (4-502(C)(3)) 4. Land Suitability Analysis (4-502(D)) 5. Impact Analysis (4-502(E)) Application a Please include all mineral owners in your ownership list and identify them as mineral owners. 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 a Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 s (970) 285-7972 s Fax: (970) 384-3470 Suitability Analysis You have not prepared a Land Suitability Analysis as part of your application. While you may have provided most of the documentation required for this document it must be included in the format noted below. The requirements for a Suitability Analysis are listed in Section 4-502 D as shown below: Land Suitability Analysis. The Land Suitability Analysis shall include the following information, unless specifically waived by the Director. 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Idents access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. S. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and man made. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, paleontological and historic resource areas. Impact Analysis You have not prepared an Impact Analysis as part of your application. While you may have provided most of the documentation required for this document it must be included in the format noted below. The requirements for an Impact Analysis listed in Section 4- 502 E as shown below: Impact Analysis. -The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis. 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. 2 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ,ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. d Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(J). 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212. Sincerely, Thomas Veljic, AICP Senior Planner 970-945-8212 NOTE: The Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (UL UR) requires the Director to make a Determination of Completeness for Land Use Change Applications within thirty (30) working days of receipt of the application materials (10 working days for Administrative Review Permits). If an application is not complete, the Director shall inform the applicant of the deficiencies in writing and shall take no further action on the application until the deficiencies are remedied. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiencies within sixty (60) calendar days, the application shall be considered withdrawn. 4 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit A — Limited Impact Review Application Exhibit B — Payment Agreement Form Exhibit C — Proof of Ownership (Title Report) Exhibit D — Consents Exhibit E — Vicinity Map Exhibit F — Pre -Application Conference Summary Exhibit G — Project Overview Narrative Exhibit H — Section 7- 823 Telecommunication Standards • Exhibit I — Article VII- Development Standards Exhibit J — Site Plan Exhibit K — Survey Exhibit L — Photo -Simulations Exhibit M — Assessor Map & Adjacent Property Owners Exhibit N — Verizon Wireless Letter of Affirmation Exhibit O — Engineer Structural Letter Exhibit P — FAA Determination of No Hazard Exhibit Q — Land Suitability Analysis Exhibit R — Garfield County Impact Analysis • MAY 1 3 2010 : . c ..; NTY �'' '' PLANNNG • • • Land Suitability Analysis. Pursuant to the Garfield County Development Standards, the Land Suitability Analysis must include the following information: 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. The site is located on developed property at 31777 Highway 6 & 24, Silt Colorado. The parent parcel is Lot 1 of the Antonelli Subdivision Exemption. Access to the parent parcel and to the proposed telecommunication facility is over existing ROW and recorded access easements (see attached survey Exhibit K). The easement allows for access to and from approximately 5 rural residential properties. The recorded access has been in place since 1997. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. The proposed communication facility is unmanned and fully automated. Routine maintenance visits are usually once a month after the site goes operational. Access to the site is via a dedicated access easement, servicing 5 rural residential properties. The nearest public ROW is US Highway 6 & 24, approximately 1000' from the parent parcel. Site lines up and down the Highway at the access intersection don't appear to be problematic. Because the proposed facility is unmanned and visited infrequently, the number of generated additional trips is insignificant (.067 trips per day) with limited or no added impacts on the existing roadway system and intersection. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Existing easements are shown on the attached survey (Exhibit K) 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. The facility is located on a Mesa north of the Colorado River Flood plain, west of Silt and south of County Road 216. The site slopes gently to the south approximately 4' from north to south (as shown on the survey Exhibit K). The official Garfield County Slope Hazard map does not identify any slope hazards on the underlying parent parcel or in the general vicinity. • 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. • • As noted above, the proposed telecommunication facility will be placed on an existing rural residential property with home, horse barn, small out building, grazing pastures and hay and equipment storage area. The telecommunication facility will be sited on an approximate 1200 square foot lease parcel in the equipment storage area. The property is a relatively flat area on the edge of a mesa approximately 100' above the Colorado River flood plain, west of Silt and east of Rifle. Visual inspection does not indicate any significant natural features on the small telecommunication lease area or on the surrounding parent parcel. The Garfield County visual corridor map does not identify any visual corridors or natural features in the immediate vicinity of the property. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Natural drainage is from North to South across the site. There are no drainage impoundments natural or man made on the subject parcel. This proposed communication facility will include approximately 550 square feet of ground coverage. The additional runoff from this added ground coverage is insignificant. During construction the overall project area (1200 square feet) will be graded to reduce any minor drainage flows which might cause problems on site or down stream. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. As previously stated, the proposed communication facility is an unmanned fully automated facility that does not require water or sewer service. Accordingly, there is no impact to water supplies including irrigation and tail water issues. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. As shown in the Garfield County Flood Plain map the location of this proposed communication facility is located outside any known flood plain and is approximately 100' above the closest flood plain affected area. 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. The main soil type found on and around the proposed facility is the Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slope. This soil generally consists of redbed shale and sandstone. Permeability is moderate. The available water holding capacity is moderate to high.Water erosion and soil blowing am slight hazards. • 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. As evidenced on the Garfield County Soil Hazards, Slope Hazard and Surficial Geology maps, the proposed facility is outside any known hazards. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. The proposed telecommunication facility site was inspected for the presence of sensitive ecological areas by noting environmental indicators (e.g. wetlands vegetation, flood plains) located on or immediately adjoining the property. No sensitive ecologic areas were observed during visual inspections. The 1987 7.5 USGS Topographic Map, Silt, Colorado includes the subject and adjoining properties. Review of the map confirmed no creeks or delineated wetlands. Additionally, the Garfield County Wetland & Riparian Potential Conservation Map does not recognize any areas of interest or significance on the parent parcel or immediate area. 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, • palentological and historic resource areas. Based on a review of the project by the State Historic Preservation Office with the Colorado Historical Society, no cultural resources are located within the Area of Potential Effect. • • GARFIELD COUNTY IMPACT ANALYSIS • • Section 4-502 E states: The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis. 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. A list and map detailing adjacent property owners is included in Exhibit M of the application package. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. The area surrounding the proposed telecommunication facility consists mainly of residential, undeveloped and agricultural uses. On the far south side of the 1500' radius, across Highway 6 & 24, radius extends into the Colorado River flood plain. The immediate surrounding uses are as follows: North: Residential and grazing land East: Undeveloped and agricultural South: Residential and undeveloped West: Residential & grazing 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. This proposed communication facility is to be located in an approximate 1200 square foot lease area on the applicant' s 24 acre rural residential horse property west of Silt, approximately 100' above Highway 6 & 24 and outside the Colorado River flood plain (see Garfield County flood plain map). The property houses in addition to fenced pastures, a private residence, a large horse barn, an office/outbuilding and hay & equipment storage area. There are no significant natural features or identified surficial geologic, slope or wildfire hazards in the area. Vegetaton on the parent • • parcel is cultivated domestic (ornamental trees, shrubs and grasses) and irrigated hay and alfafa. The telecommunication facility will be located within the existing equipment storage area where vegetation is mainly weeds. No agricultural area will be removed from production for the construction of this facility. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. The main soil type found on and around the proposed facility is Potts- Ildefonso-Vale loam on a 3 to 6 percent slope. This soil generally consists of redbed shale and sandstone. Permeability is moderate. The available water holding capacity is moderate to high. Water erosion and soil blowing are slight hazards. Because of the relatively minor ground disturbance associated with this telecommunication facility no substantive impacts are expected. In association with any required building permits detailed structural and soils studies will be submitted to the County for review and approval. 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. As indicated by the Garfield County GIS maps, there are no geologic, flood plain or slope hazards in the vicinity of this application. Additionally, visual inspection does not show any potential man made hazards such as abandoned mines, neglected earthen dams or unlicensed dumps. Therefore, there are no identified natural or man made hazards identified on the proposed site and no mitigations or special designs are required. 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. The proposed communication facility is unmanned and visited once or twice a month for routine maintenance. The facility does not use any water and accordingly, will not impact current or future water supplies or water transport systems. No water supply impacts are anticipated from this project. • 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. • • • Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. The proposed communication facility will cover approximately 550 square feet of surface area in an existing storage area. It is unlikely that the removal of this small area from the property owner's total of 1,045,440 square feet will marginally impact any aquifer recharging in the area. Because the total area impacted by this facility is approximately 1200 square feet (lease area) and because the facility does not produce waste or pollutants, it is unlikely there will be any negative impacts to the soils, ground water or surface run-off of the area. Additionally, as noted, there are no slope hazards or other geologic concerns in the area. Therefore, this proposed facility will, because of its proposed location and small footprint, have insignificant impacts on the ground water and aquifer recharging areas of Garfield County and no mitigations are required. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. After the short construction period (60 days) there will be little orno negative impacts from this small 1200 square feet lease area. The facility once constructed will be unmanned and will not generate additional foot traffic that could disturb the local fauna. Additionally, the facility is within a developed portion of the fenced parent parcel and is not on any recognized migratory routes, wetlands or conservation areas. The effects to fauna both long and short term are minimal. The existing flora, in the equipment and hay storage area is sparse and mainly weeds. The addition of 550 square feet of covered surface to this storage area will not likely have short or long term impact on the flora of the site or surrounding area. b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, palentologicai, historic resources. As stated in a letter received from the State of Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,there are no known cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect. Therefore no impacts are • expected. • • c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. The site is to be located in existing equipment and hay storage area within a rural residential horse property. All the adjacent properties north of Highway 6 & 24 are privately held and are either agricultural, rural residential or undeveloped. There are no identified wildlife areas in the area nor are there any identified potential conservation areas. Accordingly, this facility, to be constructed in a developed operational rural residential horse property, will not negatively impact any known environmental resources. No additional mitigations are required. (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. The proposed facility will be constructed in an existing storage area on a rural residential horse property adjacent to a barn and outbuilding. The area is fenced and has been in use for a number of years. The proposed communication facility is fully contained in an equipment builcing and faux silo. The facility is fully automated and visited infrequently for routine maintenance. There is little foot or vehicle traffic associated with the operation of the facility. It is unlikely the placement of the facility in the storage area will disrupt any known migratory routes or create hazardous attraction. Therefore, impacts to domestic animals and wildlife from the construction of this facility are minimal and do not require mitigation. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. Garfield County is located in a Zone 1, according to the EPA Radon Zone Map. Zone 1 has predicted average screening concentrations of greater than 4 picoCuries of radon per liter of air (pCi1L). Review of data for sites tested within the parent parcel zip code have had gas concentrations above the 4.0 pCi/L, the EPA action level. However, there are no proposed occupied facilities associated with this prcposed facility and accordingly, this finding has no impact on this unmanned fully automated facility. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. This proposed communication facility does not produce pollutants and • accordingly this concern and any counter measures are not applicable. • • 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(J). Section 4-502(J) of the Garfield County Land Use Regulation requires traffic studies be submitted with Major Impact Reviews, Subdivision Reviews, Rural Land Development Exemptions Reviews, Rezoning and PUDs. This application is for a Limited Impact Review and is not specifically subject to the Traffic Study requirement. With respect to traffic generation, this proposed telecommunication facility will have little or no impact on the County road system and will require no mitigating actions. As noted above, the facility is unmanned, visited once or twice a month for routine maintenance by a technician in a small truck or van and is accessed via an existing easement drive from Highway 6 & 24. No improvements to the current private drive and intersection are needed or proposed. The construction phase of this project is approximately 60 days in duration. Within the 60 days it can be expected most of the traffic will occur during a two week period and the heaviest traffic will occur during a 3 or 4 days period when equipment and materials will be transported to and from the site. Typically, materials include no more than two loads each of lumber, steel and concrete. These are not multiple trips but singular visits to and from the site. Onsite work crews usually don't exceed 15 workers at any one time and normally there are 3 or 4 personal vehicles at the site. After the initial construction period the number of workers usually drops off and no more than 2 personal vehicles are needed for transport. After construction and within the 60 days, there will be a 3 or 4 day period when up to 4 technicians will be on site tuning the equipment. This usually occurs during off hours when the telecommunication network is least being accessed. 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. This telecommunication facility is an unstaffed facility wholly contained within the 1200 square foot lease parcel. Maintenance visits will occur approximately once a month and accordingly, the vehicle traffic will produce little noise and air pollution. Utilities needed for this facility are telephone and electricity, both of which will be provided by the facility provider. The only noise generated by this facility will be that of standard HVAC units. The facility will not generate any vibrations, smoke, or particulate matter, toxic or noxious matter, odorous matter, fire or explosive hazards, glare, heat, liquid or solid waste or radioactive materials. Therefore, no nuisances will be generated by the facility and no • mitigations are required. 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212. As noted above, the proposed communication facility will be constructed within the approximate 1200 square foot lease area. The lease area is within an equipment and hay storage area on the Applicant's 24 acre rural residential property. Verizon Wireless, the lessee, will after construction reseed the disturbed area, remove all debris and if necessary grade the site. If required, a statement detailing these actions will be added to the construction drawings submitted for the Building Permit. Conclusion This proposed telecommunication facility because of its size, location and unmanned, fully automated design, will have little or no impacts to the environment or infrastructure of Garfield Country and no additional mitigating actions are required. • • 303-988-2583 Bureau Veritas 12:44:55 p.m. 03-05-2010 1 /1 BUREAU VERITAS March 5, 2010 Garfield County Building and Planning Department Glenwood Springs Office 108 8`h Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Project No. 10010-010001.00 Subject: Proposed Verizon Wireless CO3 Silt Alt. 2 Communications Site, 31677 Highway 6 & 24, Silt, Garfield County, Colorado To Whom It May Concern: Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. (Bureau Veritas) is submitting this notice on behalf of Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless is proposing to build a 40 -foot tall silo and a 14 -foot by 28 -foot equipment shelter at the above address. Pursuant to the FCC rules regarding review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are contacting you in regard to potential impacts to historic properties or cultural resources. Per FCC requirements, Bureau Veritas is also contacting applicable agencies and Native American groups, and has run an advertisement in local newspapers as a public notification effort. This letter is only to notify your office of the proposed project and to request any information you may have regarding impacts to historical properties or cultural resources. A formal submission and application will be made by others at a later date for zoning approval of the project. Information or comments you may have regarding this project's potential impact to historic properties or cultural resources can be made by contacting me at 303.988.2585 or by email at diana.carr@us.bureauveritas.com. Thank you very much. If this memo has been sent to the wrong person/department, please forward it to the correct location. Sincerely, Diana L. Carr Staff Consultant Rocky Mountain Region Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. I leattli Safrf7'. and Emionrdnf,,/.9('!77(3 165 South lJnion Bird.. Suite 3111 Lakewood, CO 80228 Main: (303) 988-2585 Fax: (303) 988-2583 www.us.burcauveritax.com Deborah Quinn From: Deborah Quinn Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 1:11 PM To: Tom Veljic Subject: RE: churning out applications No discussion of mineral owners for notice purposes. Deborah Quinn Assistant Garfield County Attorney 108 8th Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 Fax (970) 384-5005 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or other use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete the email without further disclosure. From: Tom Veljic Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 10:42 AM To: Deborah Quinn Subject: RE: churning out applications I'm done reviewing the Robinson Tele Tower. I'm being pushy. No Suitability or Impact Analysis so NTC but can't send out till you are done. Overall, Jeff did a good job with what he turned in other than (insert your comments here). Tom Veljic From: Deborah Quinn Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:32 PM To: Tom Veljic Subject: RE: churning out applications I appreciate the reminder, thanks. Deborah Quinn Assistant Garfield County Attorney 108 8th Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 Fax (970) 384-5005 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or other use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete the email without further disclosure. 1 From: Tom Veljic Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 3:16 PM To: Deborah Quinn Subject: churning out applications Robinson is due on 4/19 and Valley View final plat on 4/21. I'm into robinson right now.