Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3.0 BOCC Staff Report 07.20.2015
Board of County Commissioners — July 20, 2015 Public Hearing Exhibits Federal Express — Warehouse and Distribution Facility Major Impact Review (File MIPA-8260) Applicant - Eastbank, LLC 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 the Colorado Department of Transportation (Dated April 29, 2015) Memo from Gale Carmoney of the Garfield County Community Development Department (Dated. June 25, 2013) 11 12 Memo from Gale Carmoney of the Garfield County Community Development Department (Dated November 20, 2013) 13 Referral Comments from Garfield County Road and Bridge (Dated May 19, 2015) 14 Referral Comments from Mountain Cross Engineering (Dated May 19, 2015) 15 Referral Comments from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (Dated May 19, 2015) 16 Referral Comments from CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division (Dated May 5, 2015) 17 Referral Comments from Glenwood Springs Fire Department (Dated May 11,2015) 18 Referral Comments from the Roaring Fork School District (Dated May 15, 2015) 19 Referral Comments from the Garfield County Emergency Management (Dated May 19, 2015) 20 Referral Comments from the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (Dated May 19, 2015) 21 Referral Comments from Garfield County Vegetation Management (Dated May 20, 2015) 22 23 Referral Comments for the Eastbank LLC Minor Subdivision from the Colorado Geological Survey (Dated May 19, 2015) Letter from Resource Engineering (dated May 26, 2015) 24 Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering (dated June 29, 2015) 25 26 Letter from Glenwood Springs Fire Department (dated June 30, 2015) Email from the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (dated June 29, 2015) BOCC 7/20/2015 File No. MI PA -8260 DP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT — PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSOR'S PARCEL it PROPERTY SIZE LOCATION ACCESS EXISTING ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION Land Use Change Permit - Major Impact Review for a Warehouse and Distribution Center. Eastbank, LLC (Federal Express) 2185-353-04-001 Eastbank parcel - 38.2 acres (38.26 acres after Boundary Line Adjustment) & Lot 1 — 4.38 acres (Original application - 3.68 acres) Quarter: SW Section: 35 Township: 6 Range: 89 Subdivision: Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split Parcel 2A. Plat Rec#813402 (Lot 1 of the Eastbank Minor Subdivision — pending approval) The facility is accessed by County Road 154 The property is zoned Rural Approval with Conditions I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant is requesting a Major Impact Review for a 27,000 square foot Warehouse and Distribution Center on a 38.2 acre parcel (4.38 acres after approval of Eastbank Minor Subdivision) 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. It is not intended to serve the general public, is requested to operate 7 days per week and be fully fenced and gated. It is anticipated to employ 14.5 FTE workers (9 full-time and 9.5 part -tame) and is expected to generate 230 single trips per day at full build out. All access is to be off County Road 154. The facility will be located directly west of the Highway 82/CR 154 intersection and the RFTA Rio Grande Trail. The property is adjacent to light industrial uses to the south and agricultural uses to the north and west. Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling as well as 1 Gould Construction are currently located on proposed Lot 2 of the Eastbank Minor Subdivision directly to the south of the proposed FedEx facility. Water is to be available to the site from a new well. In order to accommodate the necessary fire flows and irrigation requirements, a 200,000 gallon water storage tank is to be located on the east side corner of the property along CR 154 and the Rio Grande Trail. Wastewater is to be handled by a new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS). This application was originally submitted with a slightly altered site plan and property boundaries. The purpose for these modifications is to provide the RE-1 School District with a 68 ft. access corridor for their property to the north. As a result of providing this corridor to the School District. the FedEx facility will need to be moved into area owned by the District. As a result, a boundary line adjustment needs to be completed before the Minor Subdivision can be approved. In addition, the Minor Subdivision must be approved before the Land Use Permit can be issued for this Major Impact Review. This Major Impact Review application is being processed concurrently with a Minor Subdivision application (MISA-8259) which was originally scheduled for a Directors Determination on May 29, 2015. The Directors Determination for the Minor Subdivision has been extended to July 29, 2015 at the request of the Applicant. Pending approval and final recording of this 3 lot subdivision, this proposed FedEx Warehouse and Distribution Center would be within the 4.38 acre Lot 1 of the Eastbank Minor Subdivision. Because this project is inextricably linked to the site plan on the specific property, approval of this Warehouse and Distribution Center is contingent on approval and final recording of the Eastbank Minor Subdivision which would create Lot 1. The property is zoned Rural within the County but is also within the southernmost portion of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for the City of Glenwood Springs. Even so, municipal water and sewer services are over a mile from the property. The Application was heard by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2015. At this noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the BOCC approve the application with conditions. As a result of the changes that were made to the site plan late in the review process prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the Application was rerouted to obtain updated comments from referral agencies. These comments have been incorporated into this Staff Report. 2 16 RE1 School Dist Parcel (As exist May 2015) \\\ a, FedEx Parcel (As exist May 2015) Vicinity Map 3 Original Eastbank Parcel Proposed Lot 3 Aerial View of Proposed Eastbank Minor Subdivision (Lot lines are approximate) 4 RE1 School District Parcel Original Eastbank Parcel Lot 1 — FedEx Parcel Gould Site — Approx. 2.44 Aerial View of Proposed Eastbank Minor Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 — Inter - Mountain Waste and Recycling and Gould Construction Areas (lines are approximate) 5 Proposed Eastbank Minor Subdivision (Following Boundary Line Adjustment between Eastbank Parcel and RE -1 School District Parcel) 4.1,111013314,4110011 101.110.11•401 APPOOOPoo O... 'DM 'ONP !JNJON3 AtuAnoo MOIR ■I rectus 101,4111.1. 11kX WO/rtt Nolvu /: • 8 original Proposed FedEx Parcel FedEx Parcel Envisioned School District Access Corridor / Realigned CR 154 Proposed New Eastbank Minor Subdivision Parcels RE -1 School District Parcel 6 Proposed Site Plan 1.11.1 59 VIBill.10 5.155In ITS aYf'WU •7tiaHa i AIHl03 14991 n1/141 urairs113111V14 IIOap1MYtl 0011114 NWSLSra Envisioned School District Access / Realigned CR 154 / CR 154 Lot 2 Access Easement 200,000 Water Storage Tank 27,000 Sq. Ft. Warehouse and Distribution Center Well and Access/Utility Easement for Lot 1 7 Building Elevations View of Subject Parcel and Proposed Access Location off CR 154 Looking North View of Proposed Access to the Subject Parcel off CR 154 Looking South 9 View of Subject Parcel Looking North RE -1 School District Parcel orrison Distributing Proposed School Access Road Corridor RFTA -- Rio Grande Trail CR 154 Subject Parcel • • s a II. LOCATION - SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed 4.39 acre Lot 1 which is to house the FedEx facility is currently in agricultural production as a hay field. The subject parcel is a part of the larger 38.2 acre proposed 3 lot Eastbank Minor Subdivision. The larger 38.2 acre property is currently developed with an Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling facility and a Gould Construction facility as documented in a letter from Gale Carmoney, former Garfield County Code Enforcement Officer, dated November 20, 2013 (See Exhibit 12). The property sits generally between the RFTA Rio Grande trail, County Road 154 and the Roaring Fork River. In addition, the property was formerly used as a gravel pit, which has since been reclaimed. The Applicant describes the property as follows: 10 The property is dominated by a series of relatively flat terraces situated at a prominent bend in the Roaring Fork River on the site of an old gravel pit. Each terrace is separated by a small, relatively steep slope that is characteristic of such river terraces in the Roaring Fork watershed. A dirt driveway passes through the property providing access from Old Highway. The upper terrace (on the east side of the property) is dominated by a flood irrigated hay field on the north with commercial development and the remnants of the old gravel operation. Another dirt driveway passes through this portion of the property paralleling the river to the west of the developed area. Outside of the hayfield and the developed areas, the vegetation is disturbed and quite sparse with large areas of bare soil. The slopes between the terraces are the most intact and the native plant communities that persist on those sites are likely remnants of the vegetation that once dominated the property. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REFFEF{AL AGENCY COMMENTS Public Notice was provided for the public hearing in accordance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. Staff has received one phone call from Mark Gould of Gould Construction regarding the proposed facility. as outlined below. 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 Exhibit 14) • Noted that the water quality reports for the new wells did not have results for Coliform. • Noted that the existing driveway access to Lot 2 and Lot 3 does not meet County standards. Suggested that the Applicant provide an alternative design that meets County standards. • Noted that there are ditches on the site and suggested that the Applicant address what is to be done with these ditches and the irrigation water. • Noted the Applicant will need to obtain a Driveway permit from Garfield County. • Suggested the Applicant revise the design of the FedEx driveway intersection with CR154 to meet Garfield County driveway permit requirements of 3% for 30'. The driveway is currently identified as 7.91%. • Noted that the grates for some of the area inlets are below the proposed weir spillway elevation which could cause the piping and inlets to surcharge and create areas of ponding within the site. Suggests that the Applicant verify the 11 detention pond elevations with the proposed inlet elevations and revise as necessary. • Noted that while the traffic study shows only small impacts to the existing road queuing and overall level of service impacts from the proposed FedEx facility, the circumstances could be different should the Roaring Fork School District construct schools on the adjacent parcel which would access CR154 through Lot 2. As a result, it is suggested that "provisions should be made to allow the proposed access to be combined to a future access to the south that would likely provide better sight distance. allow more room for turn lanes, and provide longer queue lengths." 2. Garfield County Consulting Engineer (Updated Comments), Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering: (See Exhibit 24) • Noted that the RFSD site is proposed to access CR154 somewhere between the existing Lot 2/Lot 3 access and the proposed FedEx Access. It is understood that some negotiations have already begun for providing an easement for this access. The Traffic Study for this application shows only small impacts to the existing road queueing and levels of service from the Fed Ex facility. This is likely not the case with a third access for a large traffic generator, such as a proposed school. Provisions should be made to allow the proposed access to be combined to a future access to the south that would likely provide better sight distance, allow more room for turn lanes, and provide longer queue lengths. • Noted that the existing well is located within the access of Lot 3. In the event that Lot 3 is required to use this location as their access, the Applicant should address what would be the alternative location for the water supply well. • Noted that it appears that the drainage swales, irrigation lines. and detention pond might be within the setbacks of the OWTS. The Applicant should address if these are in fact encroachments and if liners are appropriate. Extents and details for lining should be shown on the plans. 3. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: (See Exhibit 13) • Noted that at peak traffic volumes, vehicles could back up across the RFTA trail. • Indicated that provided the uncertainty surrounding future development in the area, it is suggested that the driveways remain as proposed. • Noted that a Driveway Permit would need to be obtained through Road and Bridge. 12 4. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: (See Exhibit 21) • Requests that the Applicant manage the County listed noxious weeds identified on the property including Scotch Thistle and Russian -Olive by October 31, 2015. 5. Glenwood Springs Fire Department: (See Exhibit 17) • Noted that the Department will require, through the International Fire Code, that the Applicant hire a Fire Protection Engineer (SFPE) to review the proposed fire protection plans. • Suggests that the Applicant work with surrounding property owners to develop a shared fire protection system. 6. Glenwood Springs Fire Department (Updated Comments): (See Exhibit 25) • Requests that the landscaping use wildfire resistant plants and grasses as identified in the Colorado State Forest Service, Fire Resistant Vegetation (6.305), Grass Seed Mixes (6.306). Fire Resistant Landscaping (6.303). 7. Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR): (See Exhibit 15) Noted that as long as the wells are used in accordance with their permits and proposed uses, the wells will not cause material injury and supply should be adequate. 8. Garfield County Emergency Management: (See Exhibit 19) • Noted that there are no concerns with the proposed development. 9. Colorado Department of Transportation: (See Exhibit 10) • Project has indirect access to Highway 82 via County Road 154. • Current Access Permit is for Rose Ranch which allows for 360 peak hour trips. • Existing Traffic on CR 154 is 241 Peak hour trips. • The proposed FedEx facility is projected to have 47 peak hour trips at full build out. • The proposed FedEx facility is projected to increase peak hour traffic at the intersection of Highway 82 and CR 154 by 13%, which is below the 20% threshold required in the Access Code. • The proposed FedEx facility does not require a CDOT access permit. 13 • Suggest that the access point for the proposed FedEx facility be relocated as far from the RFTA Rio Grande Trail as possible to prevent queuing over the trail. • Suggest reviewing the geometry of CR 154 as the slope could be an issue on snowy days. 10. RE -1 School District: (See Exhibit 18) • Noted that the District owns an approximately 35 acre parcel to the north and west of the site under review. The District is in the early stages of planning for two possible schools which could be located on the site. The District is working with appropriate engineers to determine the traffic impacts from the development and ascertain the necessary requirements for safe access to the school facility. • Suggests increasing the size of the access easement which is to provide access to the District parcel to 60 feet, 11. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority: (See Exhibit 20) • Noted that RFTA "does not see any major issues with either project (Minor Subdivision or Major Impact Review), with regard to public transit or the Rio Grande Trail". 12. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (Updated Comments): (See Exhibit 26) • Noted that the proposed FedEx -School District consolidated access at the northernmost driveway will greatly increase traffic levels with FedEx delivery trucks, school delivery trucks, school buses, parents etc. • Noted that the stacking distance from the CR 154 Corridor crossing to the proposed consolidated access point appears to be insufficient (less than 200'). • Noted that if additional traffic adversely impacts safety for Corridor users at this location. it may be advisable to install stop signs along CR 154 to stop cars when trail users are present. This would be inverse of the current usage, where trail users must yield to road users • Noted that the traffic study where the existing CR 154 annual average daily traffic (AADT) data was not found. We see a projection of an additional 240 AADT. Baseline traffic data would help RFTA better understand the extent of the proposed increase in traffic crossing the Rio Grande right-of-way • Noted that Per RFTA's Corridor trail counters from May 2014 to May 2015, approximately 41,517 users crossed near the CMC turnoff(approximately 1.5 miles to the south of the project site); and approximately 45,340 users crossed near Holy Cross Energy (approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the project 14 site). This data is provided to show that there is already a very high level of users in the project site vicinity. • Noted that RFTA would value Corridor bikelped usage data that is incorporated into future traffic studies as yet another adjacent road/trail segment to be measured. • Noted that RFTA would most likely engage its rail engineers in a review of proposed crossings of the Corridor. • Noted that if there is an attempt to consolidate the FedEx and School District projects into one, RFTA would appreciate the opportunity to revisit the these comments as there may be some new mutually beneficial infrastructure solutions that would result from project consolidation. • Noted that the District may need 50-70' of cutlfill access for the southernmost drive to satisfy County infrastructure standards. RFTA believes that this could overlap into RFTA's 200' wide federal land grant section of the Rio Grande Corridor. 13. CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division: (See Exhibit 16) • Noted that the project may need a permit. The Applicant should comply with all necessary air pollution permit requirements. 14. Public Comments: • Staff received a phone call from Mark Gould of Gould Construction indicating that he is generally in support of the project. However, he is concerned that the lighting is no downcast and shielded, which will result in significant light trespass. Other referral agencies that did not provide comments are Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Town of Carbondale, the City of Glenwood Springs, Garfield County Environmental Health and the Garfield County Sheriff's Office. 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. 15 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 Rural 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 7s", 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. County staff referred the application to the City, however no comments have been received. As the subject property is within the City of Glenwood Springs Urban Growth Area, the County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 defers to the Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 for guidance. 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: 16 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. 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 17 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, current land uses. topographic constraints. existing and future utility connections. and existing road networks. 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. 18 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 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 19 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. 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. 20 . ..° C411 leMiii Corr, IN 1.1555 C[�1,, Dir.; •.. 05555G i C nrnran YC. in Pint OF 4P55 Le. 055d Pry. 0 "°r LOT!, $yrs. tlmrr $1,14lcrlsa cera C,,,, *wan r /Aaed famr, $41.3eria Frmrrr Stall, A.y le L2i..4..,t 0040.10. drrrwvwA.ass B Sar I. I . car...c.. 145.55Psr55. - row, a e,_,,.,e P.MTan , 1. • w. The FaAO ,ot. Ehe 1169 hero rna pearl wJKi n eaxa On trait* loal prod real *Ain .155. mem 115 dril5riv r.trrt5et5ar Woos ate aesrrra:•d n Mt Etna ek/ arwrapan M ma Ci, a ✓ _ Cr1R MW Planed UMM perta'rer,1 fX oche amara ,esa}. 4 855,5+5S1 Subject Parcel .1-:Ul13.., Pan City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 7-103 Compatibility The Applicant has 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, residential and agricultural as well as many of the City's stated policies, strategies and actions in regard to promoting economic development. To the east of the subject parcel is the RFTA Rio Grande Trail, County Road 154 and State Highway 82. The RE -1 School District owns a 35.1 acre parcel (35.035 acres after Boundary Line Adjustment) directly north of this subject parcel. While the current use of this parcel is agriculture, Staff understands that the District has intentions to utilize the parcel for schools at some point in the future. While the exact location for the access to the District parcel has yet to be determined the proposed 68 foot access corridor between the RFTA Trail and the FedEx Facility which connects to CR 154 provides access adequate to meet the standards of the LUDC. The uses on Parcel 2 include Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling as well as Gould Construction. Both of these uses are industrial in nature. 21 Residential development exists across the Roaring Fork River to the south of the subject parcel. The Applicant has provided the following map identifying the surrounding uses. Surrounding Land Use and Aerial Map 7-104: Source of Water The application indicates that proposed Lot 1 is to be served by an individual well. Currently, proposed Lot 1 has an existing Monitoring Well Permit (Permit No. 296873). The Application indicates that a request for a Basalt Water Conservancy District augmentation plan and well permit from the Division of Water Resources has been submitted, but not yet issued. In addition, due to the modifications to the property boundaries, the monitoring well that has been tested for quantity and quality is now located within the RE -1 School District parcel access corridor. As a result, the Applicant is proposing to establish an easement for the well which would be able to be terminated should the school district desire to use the corridor as an access point to the schools. 22 Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant either relocate the well onto the subject parcel or create a draft easement document to be reviewed and approved by County Staff before being recorded. Further, as is noted by the County contract engineer, the Applicant has not represented a location for the new well should the Applicant choose to relocate it or it become necessary due to School District development of the parcel. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant represent the location of the new well should it become necessary. The new location should be reviewed by the County Engineer. For the monitoring well for Lot 1 (Permit No. 296873), the Applicant has provided a 4 - hour pump test conducted on March 3, 2015. The results of the pump test show a pump rate of 12.2 gallons per minute. Water from this well was originally proposed to be used to fill a 200,000 gallon water storage tank. The application materials state that the "wager from this tank will be used for domestic, landscape irrigation, and fire protection." An analysis from Michael Erion of Resource Engineering dated March 10, 2015 states that "the results from the pumping test...indicate that the well has an adequate yield to serve the proposed KW Glenwood Springs, LLC (FedEx) facility..." The Application was referred to the Division of Water Resources for review (See Exhibit 15). The Division noted the following: It is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights so long as the Applicant obtains (or maintains) well permits issued pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) and the plan for augmentation operated by Basalt Water Conservancy District, for all wells in the subdivision and operates the wells in accordance with the terms and conditions of any future well permits. Provided the sustained well yield of each of the proposed wells is similar to Permit No. 296873 and 50236-F, the proposed water supply is expected to be physically adequate. The water system has been described by the Applicant's engineer as follows: The newly drilled well on Lot 1 that produces 12 gpm will be able to meet daily demands as well as provide storage for fire flows. This well flow will be pumped to the pump house treated with chlorine injection and pumped into a 120 gallon pressure tank for chlorine contact before entering the potable system. Lot 1 will include 6 -inch and 10- inch diameter PVC C900 Class 250 pipe a 120 gallon small pressure tank a chlorine injection pump, a 200,000 gallon fire storage tank and a diesel fire pump. Lot 1 Fire demands according to the 2009 International Fire Code (IFC), the indicate proposed Fedex structure which will be a Type IIB building that is 26,795 square feet requires a fire flow of 3,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours, that can be reduced per the code up to 75% if the building is provided 23 with an internal sprinkler system. which is proposed. With a 75% reduction the minimum flow would be 875 gpm. The sprinkler system demand which is attached indicates that 867.4 gpm in the most remote zone which would be required for 90 minutes. We have assumed for storage purposes 2 zones for 90 minutes plus a 500 gpm hose flow. This yields a flow of 867.4 gpm (lst zone). 755.8 gpm (2nd zone), and 500 gpm hose flow or 2123.2 gpm for 90 minutes. This totals 191,088 gallons. We are proposing a 200,000 gallon tank with a 2500 gpm diesel fire pump at 100psi. Code indicates that for up to 2250 gpm two hydrants should be provided with a maximum distance of 225 feet from point on street to hydrant. In addition, the Applicant submitted a water quality test conducted from a sample collected at the time of the pump test. Resource Engineering evaluated the water quality results for Lot 1 with the following conclusion: The laboratory results for the water quality analysis indicate that the water meets all primary and secondary drinking water standards, except gross alpha. RESOURCE recommends retesting the well water to determine the sources of alpha activity and if the elevated level of gross alpha was an outlier. If necessary, appropriate treatment technology will be recommended based an the new test. The parameters related to taste and aesthetics, hardness and iron bacteria, can be addressed with standard water softening equipment to treat the hard water and the disinfection of the well to treat the iron bacteria. The water quality is suitable for domestic uses provided that appropriate treatment is provided for removal of gross alpha emitting particles, if necessary. Should the Applicant choose to use this weld as the permanent well for the FedEx facility, the well will need to be tested again for gross alpha in accordance with the Applicant's engineer's recommendation. Should the well test positive for gross alpha again, the Applicant will need to demonstrate how the water can be treated to bring the water into compliance with EPA standards. This additional test and potential treatment should be a condition of approval. A review by the Garfield County Contract Engineer (See Exhibit 14) noted that "the water quality reports for the existing and the new wells did not have results for coliform." The Applicant has since submitted a letter from Resource Engineering (See Exhibit 23) indicating that the results from this well tested negative for coliform. 7-105: Waste Water Systems The Applicant is proposing to serve Lot 1 with an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS). The Applicant's engineer has indicated that the nearest sanitary sewer connections are to the City of Glenwood Springs (7200 ft. away) and Iran Bridge (6000 ft. away) and has provided the following explanation of the proposed OWTS. 24 The geotechnical Engineer has indicated that the soils are sandy clays and the percolation tests indicate a typical system will be acceptable for typical onsite sewage flows. The existing and proposed development has and will have minimal system flows. Lot 1 3.848 will have a Fedex transport facility which will have 58 fixture units or an estimated 54 GPM peak flow and 650 gpd use. With these design parameters the system will require a 1500 gallon septic tank and 105 Quick 4 infiltrators in a trench configuration. The site has sufficient area for this system. An updated engineering report for managing the OWTS on the site was submitted and reviewed by the County Engineer. 7-106: Public Utilities Due to the distance from public water and sewer service, the Applicant is proposing to serve all lots with individual wells and OWTS. See the above analysis regarding water and wastewater. The Applicant states that the property is able to be served with electricity. Any future extensions need to be in compliance with State requirements and inspected by the State Electrical Inspector. The Applicant's engineer has stated the following: There is a three-phase overhead electrical feeder that is currently on lot 2 and is available to service the site. The feeder is located on the existing site as an overhead feed and currently feeds lot 2. We are proposing a new 3- phase overhead line to cross CR 154 to the proposed lot 1 that will serve the new Fedex facility. This line will come onto the property overhead and then run underground to the Fedex building. Lot 3 will be served off of an underground line located northwest of the northern corner of the lot and will be connected with a 30' utility easement. No gas service is currently adjacent to this property and no gas service is currently proposed. Any gas needs will be provided via propane tanks to be located on each lot if required. It is Staff's opinion that adequate facilities are available to the site. 7-107: Access & Roadways a. On May 29, 2015, Staff received a new site plan for the FedEx facility that is within a newly configured Lot 1 of the proposed Eastbank Minor Subdivision. The purpose for this reconfiguration is to provide access to the RE -1 School 25 District parcel to the north. 1n order to provide the 68' corridor along the west side of the RFTA Trail for the benefit of the School parcel. the FedEx facility on Lot 1 needs to be shifted to the west. While the roadway to the District parcel is riot to be developed with the FedEx facility, the intent is to provide the District access to the possible school(s) on the site, potentially a reconstructed intersection to Highway 82, possible extension to the Orrison Distributing site and a grade separated crossing over the RFTA Trail. The vision on the part of the Applicant is that this roadway would become the new, realigned CR 154. While the access corridor has been negotiated with the District, no funding for these improvements are proposed as part of this development. b. The original and revised application was referred to the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department (see attached Exhibit 13). Road and Bridge noted that ''at peak traffic volumes traffic could be backed up across the RFTA Trail...In reviewing the traffic volumes, turning templates, and the uncertainty of future development, I would propose the driveway stay where proposed." The Applicant would need to obtain all necessary driveway permits from Road and Bridge prior to construction. c. The Applicant's engineer has provided the following explanation of access to the proposed original subdivision. The proposed subdivision includes three lots. Lots 1 and 2 both have access to County Road 154 ROW, which is an existing county minor collector (based on traffic counts). Lots 1 and 2 will share an improved existing access that is currently located on lot 2. A 40' access easement has been identified that will provide access to the proposed FedEx facility and will remain utilized by lot 2. In addition, the Garfield County Contract Engineer noted that "the proposed FedEx driveway intersection with CR 154 is listed as 7.91%. Garfield County driveway permits required 3% for 30'. The Applicant should revise the design to comply with County standards." The driveway has since been redesigned and has been reviewed by the Garfield County Engineer and Road and Bridge Department. The Applicant has noted that the "The FedEx driveway has been revised to meet the County Driveway standards." As a part of the redesigned parcel and site plan, an access easement for Lot 1 (FedEx) is no longer necessary. An access easement is proposed for Lot 2 at the FedEx access point to CR 154 which will allow Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling admittance to this driveway. 26 inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling. Access onto CR 154 to Lot 1, FedEx Facility and Location of Envisioned Realigned CR154 d. The Garfield County Contract Engineer provided the following comments on the access: The RFSD site is proposed to access CR154 somewhere between the existing Lot 2/Lot 3 access and the proposed FedEx Access. It is understood that some negotiations have already begun for providing an easement for this access. The Traffic Study for this application shows only small impacts to the existing road queueing and levels of service from the Fed Ex facility. This is likely not the case with a third access for a large traffic generator, such as a proposed school. Provisions should be made to allow the proposed access to be combined to a future access to the south that would likely provide better sight distance, allow more room for turn lanes, and provide longer queue lengths. RFSD has indicated the following: The District owns approximately 35 acres at Eastbank. Our property borders the north and west sides for the site under review. We are 27 currently in the early stages of planning for the first of two possible schools to be located at Eastbank. We are working with Yancy Nichol (Sopris Engineering) and FHU out of Denver to evaluate access from SH82, CR 154, and the ability of roads/intersections to accommodate both current and projected future land use in the vicinity, as well as safe and efficient access to the school site. As we await the results of the traffic study and engineering analysis, we are concerned that the proposed configuration of the FedEx site may limit options to address recommendations. As a result. we are requesting that a 60 -foot right of way be preserved on the east side of the FedEx site. The District is willing to work with the developer to complete a lot line adjustment that would extend the lot line on the north side of the FedEx site into district property, and would add the 60 foot corridor currently on the east side of the Fed Ex site to what is now the District's parcel. In addition, the application was reviewed by the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) (See Exhibit 10). This project doesn't have direct access to highway. It has indirect access to the highway from CR 154 (Old State Highway 82). CDOT does have an access permit for this road. The access permit was for (Rose Ranch development). The permit is for 360 peak hour traffic. It is my understanding Rose Ranch development hasn't fully built out. The existing traffic on County Road is 241 in the peak hour. However, 1 have used the 360 peak hour and 47 peak hour (FEX traffic) because Rose Ranch development hasn't fully developed. The development impacts the intersection by 13% doesn't exceed the 20% threshold of the Access Code, Therefore, no access permit required for the development. However, I would suggest to County that access would be moved as far from the intersection as practical and really look at the queues (back up from the signal and it doesn't impact the trail. I recognize the engineer look at this, but this is very critical information and did he look at it in a 20 year horizon? The other thing I would recommend is to look at the geometry and the slope of the county road how it connects to the highway. 11 is very awkward. It could be an issue on snowy days. These are county issues and will need to be reviewed by the County. The application was reviewed with general uncertainty as to where the District would have access to their property. It is understood, however, that the District's first choice for access is via an access easement through proposed Lot 2 and 28 enters CR 154 between the Gould Construction and Inter -Mountain facilities. Other options for access to the District's parcel is via a realigned access point from CR 154 to Highway 82 and through the proposed access corridor between the FedEx facility and the RFTA trail. It is worth noting, that if the District and FedEx facility share an access point onto CR 154 (should funding not materialize to realign the intersection of CR154 and Hwy82, for instance), the impacts of this much traffic at this location needs to be specifically reviewed. RFTA has requested that should a shared access be proposed or if a realignment of the CR 1541 Highway 82 intersection be considered. that RFTA be consulted early in the design process. As a result of the uncertainty of School District access in the future, Staff concurs with the County Engineer that the Applicant should propose provisions (e.g. access easements) which could allow a potential combined FedExlSchool District access point onto CR 154 to be moved farther to the south, should a combined access be necessary in the future. The provisions should be adequate to increase vehicular site distance, allow room for turn lanes and increase queue lengths which conform to Garfield County Road and Bridge standards and standard engineering practices, remain outside the RFTA right-of- way and maintain a safe distance from the trail crossing. As a part of the Subdivision, Staff understands that the District will need a 50' to 70' access easement through Lot 2 in order to meet County road standards. As a part of the Subdivision review, Staff will be considering the District's comments and need for a larger easement for this access driveway. 29 Proposed/Envisioned Access Roads H6,'9Hl aM'MNM 1.6.• IN 173 •14.1.1.10004APIM `iNl `9NIM33HIlJN7 Ai1,1Nf1O? H'71H f t HOIS/O HVI4 ]A -I' iWX)llA}011[IfYH werY un 1 M1.111111.t- RFTA Trai CR 154 - Existing Proposed Lot 2 Possible District Access Points CR 154 - Envisioned RE -1 School District Parcel 30' Proposed Access Easement to RE -1 Parcel and Proposed Lot 3 of Eastbank Subdivision Proposed Lot 3 30 7-108: Natural Hazards The Application provides information on natural hazards including information an soils, geology, and slopes associated with the site as identified through Garfield County GIS. 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. The Eastbank Minor Subdivision application was reviewed by the CGS (See Exhibit 21). CGS noted that following: CGS agrees that the site does not appear to contain or be exposed to any geologic hazards that would preclude the proposed uses and density. HP's report contains a good description of subsurface conditions and soil engineering properties based on the results of 14 borings and lab testing, and makes appropriate recommendations regarding foundations, floor slabs, subsurface drainage, retaining walls, pavements, grading and surface drainage. Subsidence hazard. The property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite, and numerous sinkholes and soil -collapse occurrences have been identified within several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, and ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporite bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored. As a result of the subsidence hazard in the area, Staff has recommends a plat note on the Eastbank Minor Subdivision stating that this is a hazard in the area. 7-109: Fire Protection As described in Section 7-104, above, a 200,000 gallon water storage tank is proposed to serve the FedEx facility on Lot 1. The Application was referred to the Glenwood Springs Fire Department (Exhibit 17). The Department had the following comments. Because of the challenges this site presents (no municipal water supply) and uses of the proposed building (multiple vehicle and package storage for distribution) we require the design team include, at the Applicants expense a Fire Protection Engineer (SFPE). Section 104.7.2, Technical Assistance, of the 2009 International Fire Code (IFC) gives us the authority 31 to require an SFPE be added. The function of the fire protection engineer is to determine the site and building fire flow water demands, the building's fire protection system needs tike fire pump or pumps, automatic fire suppression. fire alarm, smoke evacuation and possible gas detection systems designs. The design of the automatic fire suppression system in and of itself is not a straight forward design because of the commodities the building will house. History has proven that an improperly designed privately owned and maintained remote standalone fire flow water supply system has hampered firefighting efforts resulting in complete structure fosses. To this end, Staff suggests a condition of approval that the Applicant consult with a Fire Protection Engineer to review the proposed facility. 7-201: Agricultural Lands Staff understands that proposed Lot 1 is currently in agricultural production. The development of proposed Lot 1 would result in the loss of approximately 3 acres of agricultural Land. The Applicant has also represented that agricultural land lies to the north and west of the proposed subdivision. Due to the confined nature of the proposed FedEx development, no impacts to adjacent agricultural operations are anticipated. 7-202: Wildlife Habitat Areas The Applicant submitted an Ecological Assessment conducted by Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC. The Assessment is dated February 18, 2015. The study describes the property as follows: The property is dominated by a series of relatively flat terraces situated at a prominent bend in the Roaring Fork River (Figure 1) approximately 5 miles south-southwest of downtown Glenwood Springs, CO on the site of an old gravel pit. Each terrace is separated by a small. relatively steep slope that is characteristic of such river terraces in the Roaring Fork watershed (Photo 1). A dirt driveway (Photo 2) passes through the property providing access from Old Highway 82 to Parcel 2B of the Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split. The upper terrace (on the east side of the property) is dominated by a flood irrigated hay field on the north with commercial development and the remnants of the old gravel operation. Another dirt driveway passes through this portion of the property paralleling the river to the west of the developed area. This driveway also leads to Parcel 2B of the Lot Split (Photo 3). 32 Outside of the hayfield and the developed areas, the vegetation is disturbed and quite sparse with large areas of bare soil. The slopes between the terraces are the most intact and the native plant communities that persist on those sites are likely remnants of the vegetation that once dominated the property — Big Sagebrush Shrubland (Photo 4). This association occurs on moderate slopes between 4,500-6,900 feet. Big sagebrush is the dominant shrub with antelope bitterbrush, mountain -mahogany. and rabbitbrush occurring as well. Grasses such as needleandthread, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and prairie junegrass are expected to occur within the sagebrush shrubland at this elevation but understory plants on the property are largely absent (Photo 5). Given the degree of disturbance on the site, the seral stage varies from patches of late successional versions of the big sagebrush plant community with nearly pure stands of sagebrush to larger areas where rabbitbrush is co -dominant or dominant (Photo 6). Although a thorough weed assessment has not been conducted, it is clear that there are serious weed infestations on the property. Again, this is largely due to past land uses on the property. Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium; Photo 7), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinals) are among the more common Garfield County listed Noxious Weeds observed on the property. Numerous other non - natives and invasive species occur. While the study acknowledges that direct and indirect loss of habitat will occur should the development move forward, the study concludes that "Although the proposal will result in the direct loss of vegetation and habitat, given the surroundings and indirect impacts of the existing development and the disturbed nature of the vegetation. this Toss will be negligible." The Application was referred to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, however no comments were received. Staff does recommend a condition of approval that all refuse containers be bear proof. 7-203: Protection of Water Bodies Proposed Lot 1 is located over 35 feet from the Roaring Fork River. No other water bodies have been identified in or near the proposed parcel. 7-204: Drainage and Erosion (Stormwater) The application included a Drainage Report conducted by High Country Engineering and dated March 1, 2015. The Report states that while the whole parcel as it exists today is 38.2 acres, the examined area is the 3.681 acre proposed FedEx facility on Lot 1. The report states that "each of the three lots will handle their own detention and storm water management.,, 33 For the proposed FedEx facility on Lot 1, the Report states the following: The design of Eastbank Major Development was created to provide safe routing of offsite and onsite storm water through proposed lot and to the detention pond with drywell. The storm water facility design will reduce the offsite impacts from the runoff from the site by over detaining storm water from onsite as well as offsite basins. The amount of runoff that will flow downstream of the site will be reduced, thus reducing negative impacts on downstream land owners and storm water facilities. The large detention pond will also allow for storm water runoff cleansing. which will reduce pollutant transport downstream. The County Engineer also noted that "there appears to be existing irrigation ditches on site. The Applicant should address what is to be done with these ditches and the irrigation water." Since the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant has indicated that "No raw water irrigation is proposed for this subdivision. The domestic well for Lot 1 is approved for 15,450 sf of irrigation rights that is available for outside irrigation use... This development and subdivision does not impact any active irrigation conveyances." in addition, the County Engineer noted that "It appears that the drainage swales, irrigation lines and detention pond might be within the setbacks of the OWTS. The Applicant should address if these are in fact encroachments and if liners are appropriate. Extents and details for lining should be shown on the plans." Staff suggests a condition of approval to address this concern. 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 Control Division (APCD) and Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) for their review. While no response was received from WQCD, APCD indicated that there may be an applicable review and permit for the facility. It is the Applicant's responsibility to ensure that all necessary APCD permits are obtained. 7-206: Wildfire Hazards The subject property is identified as High and Not Rated according to Map 7. Wildland Fire Susceptibility Index of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) while County GIS 30 meter accuracy wildfire mapping show this property in a low to moderate wildfire hazard area. In addition, no slopes over 30% have been identified and no fire chimneys are known to exist on the property. To this end, as no new development is proposed within the area designated as Very High, it is Staff's opinion that the proposed development area is within a manageable wildfire hazard area. 34 The Application was referred to the Glenwood Springs Fire Department (Exhibit 25) for updated comments following revisions to the site plan. As a result, the Department has requested that "To limit increasing wildfire hazard fuel and grasses on the site", the site should be landscaped with plants and grasses from the following Colorado State Forest Service publications: Fire Resistant Vegetation 6,305, Grass Seed Mixes 6.306, and Fire Resistant Landscaping 6.303. Staff suggests that a condition of approval be added requiring that the Applicant utilize the plants and methods identified in these publications when landscaping the facility. CWPP -- Map 7 Wildfire Susceptibility Index 7-207: Natural and Geologic Hazards As noted in Section 7-108 of this Staff Report, the natural and geologic hazards identified on the subject property are within a manageable range, 7-208: Reclamation The Applicant has included a landscaping plan that addresses re -vegetation and reclamation. Limited disturbance is expected outside of areas which are to be used for the long-term functioning of the site and are proposed to take place on Lot 1. Total disturbance which is not part of the long-term functioning of the site is less than 1 acre. 35 The application was referred to the Garfield County Vegetation Manager (See Exhibit 21) who stated that "Staff requests that the applicant manage the County listed noxious weeds mentioned in the Wildlife and Ecological Assessment including Scotch thistle (page 22) and Russian -Olive (page 24). Please provide treatment records to the Vegetation. Management Department by October 31, 2015." Staff suggests a condition of approval for the Minor Subdivision that the Applicant comply with the comments from Vegetation Management. 7-301: Compatible Design The proposed use is generally compatible with surrounding light industrial and agricultural land uses. 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 and agricultural 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. No connections to the Rio Grande Trail are proposed. 7-301: Parking and Loading The 72 proposed car parking spaces and 14 truck 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 72 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. 7-303: Landscaping As an industrial use, landscaping submittals and standards are not applicable to the proposal. However, as landscaping is proposed for this facility, the landscaping plan is considered a part of the reclamation and revegetation plan. See Section 7-206, above and Exhibit 25 on recommended plants and grasses to be used in order to limit wildfire hazards. 36 7-304: Lighting The application proposes cutoff lighting with minimal light protrusion outside the development area. It appears that the proposed lighting meets the County's lighting standards. In order to address public comments concerning lighting, Staff recommends a condition of approval that all lighting comply with County downcast and shielding standards. 7-305 Snow Storage The site plan identifies areas to be used for snow storage. Because of the large number of parking spaces proposed along with the identified snow storage area, it is Staff's opinion that adequate areas are provided 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 proposed to be within a platted subdivision should the Eastbank Minor Subdivision be approved. This subdivision, however, would contain already existing industrial uses and no existing residential uses. 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 use is approximately 950 feet from the nearest adjacent residential property line located to the south across the Roaring Fork River. 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 adequate provisions, based on location and topography, to conceal and screen the facility and/or operations from adjacent property(s)" (Section 7-1001(C)). 37 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 the hours of operation outlined in the LUDC (7AM to 7PM Monday through Saturday). The Applicant would like to operate the facility 24 hours per day, 7 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 Staff met with the Applicant on May 27 to discuss proposed alterations to the site plan as a result of negotiations between the property owner and the RE -1 School District regarding access to the District's property to the north. Staff understands that negotiations have led to an agreement to provide the District with a 68' access corridor between the RFTA Rio Grande Trail and proposed Lot 1 (FedEx facility), which would necessitate amending property lines as well as modifications to the FedEx site plan. On May 29, Staff received the new proposed site plan as shown in this Staff Report. While 38 Community Development Staff had the opportunity to review the new proposed site plan, the new plan was not able to be sent to referral agencies for comments before the Planning Commission hearing. Following the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant submitted updated technical reports and plans which were routed to applicable referral agencies and departments for additional comments. The comments received from these departments and agencies have been incorporated into this Staff Report. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval with conditions for the proposed Major Impact Review. The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2015 in a public hearing. The Planning Commission also recommends approval with conditions. Staff, therefore, recommends the following conditions of approval for the Eastbank FedEx development should the BOCC wish to approve the application. 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 Major Impact Review Land Use Change Permit for Eastbank, LLC (Eastbank 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. 39 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following recommended conditions of approval are provided for the Board of County Commissioners consideration. Conditions Prior to Hearing with the BOCC or Issuance of Permit The Applicant shall have the fire protection system reviewed by a Fire Protection Engineer (SPFE) prior to issuance of the Permit. The conclusion and recommendations by this Engineer shall be reviewed by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department. Once the Fire Department is satisfied with the design. the Department shall notify the Community Development Department in writing. The final design of the fire protection system shall be submitted to the Garfield County Community Development Department and County Engineer. 2. Prior to issuance of the Permit. the Applicant shall address whether the drainage swales, irrigation lines, and detention pond are within the setbacks of the OWTS. The Applicant shall also address if these are in fact encroachments and if liners are appropriate. The updated materials shall include extents and details for lining on the plans. This updated materials shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department and the County Contract Engineer. l ,i,4;c, pot co;:v,A (coo 0 44,4„ 4. Prior to issuance of the Permit, the plicant shall propose provisions (e.g. access easements) which could allow a tential combined FedExlSchool District access point onto CR 154 to be mow farther to the south, should the need arise in the future. The provisions shat e adequate to increase vehicular site distance, allow room for turn lanes and crease queue lengths which conform to Garfield County Road and Bridge an standard engineering practices, remain outside the RFTA right-of-way and m ntain a safe distance from the trail crossing. Such provisions shall be review and accepted by the Community Development Department, County Contr Engineer and County Attorney's Office. Prior to issuance of the Permit, the Applicant shall provide a new well permit and valid augmentation plan for the well to be drilled on the subject parcel. In addition, the water quality and quantity of the well shall be tested in accordance with the LUDC. The well permit and augmentation plan shall be accepted by the Division of Water Resources. The accepted documents and results of the water quality and quantity tests shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Community Development Department and County Contract Engineer. As an alternative, the Applicant may provide an easement from the RE -1 School district in effect until the School property develops, if ever, for the well which is to serve the facility (Lot 1). The Applicant shall also show where the new well would be drilled on the subject property should School District parcel develop. In addition, the existing well shall be tested for the presence of gross alpha. Should gross alpha 40 be present. the Applicant shall propose a method for complying with drinking water standards. This updated documentation shall be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Department, the County Attorney's Office and the County Contract Engineer. 5. Prior to issuance of the Permit, the proposed Eastbank Minor Subdivision plat shall be signed by the BOCC and recorded. Other Conditions of Approval 6. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application shall be conditions of approval„ unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 7. That the operation of the Eastbank LLC FedEx Warehouse and Distribution Center shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State. and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 8. The Applicant shall control fugitive dust during the construction and operation of the site. The facility shall maintain compliance with Section 7-304 Lighting, with all lighting to be directed inward and doward toward the interior of the site. r_ !i / --61-1,(rl3_ F ( C' j,' � t 10. Facilities and storage tanks�S�vshall be painted a non -glare neutral color to lessen any visual impacts. 11. The Applicant shall control all County listed noxious weeds during construction and operation of the site. 12. All onsite landscaping shall be comprised of fire hazard reducing plants from the following Colorado State Forest Service publications: Fire Resistant Vegetation 6.305, Grass Seed Mixes 6.306, and Fire Resistant Landscaping 6.303. 13. As a result of bear activity in the area, all outdoor refuse containers must be certified bear -proof. 14. Operation of the site as proposed is permitted 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 15), A r ' ; ,: e - - •. water storage tank shall be provided onsite and as demonstrated in the proposed site plans for use in firefighting and operating the fire sprinklers. Sl 1.d --cid firr reteetFeer-vo ter-exceod-a-traial of 200,000 -the tank shallbe--€44449434-49-meet the requirements as recommended or necessitated by the International Building Code, the International Fire Code, the fire 41 protection district, the Garfield County Building Department or the project engineer. This tank shall be painted a non -reflective neutral earth tone color. 16. The proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) shall obtain all necessary County permits. 17. No hazardous waste shall be stored at this facility. 42 Ga rf1L'Id Co u ii ty 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 owner owners. IVlailed notice was completed on the 151n _ day of June nd mineral 2015. All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the clerk and R eorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. CkkCT" V41+•Lc7;C61Cif I -IC1f5 All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means jlistj Research records of the Garfield County Clerk 8. Recorder • Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. My application required Published notice. Notice was published an the 18th day of June Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. E -Sty application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the 15t11 day of June , 2015. , 2015. 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 we Farrar - Western Scope Coisulling. LLC Signature NA_ Date: June 18, 2015 Ad Name: 11277061A Customer: Western Slope Consulting Your account number is: 1023467 PROOF OF PUBLICATION THE RIFLE. CITIZEN TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD 1. Michael Bennett, do solemnly swear that. I am Publisher of The Rifle 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 ofevery number of said weekly newspaper for the period of consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 6/18/2015 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 6/18/2015 the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, 1 have here unto set my hand this 06/22/2015. Michael Bennett, Publisher Publisher Subscribed and swom to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 06122/2„015. 9 My Commission Expires 1110112015 Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1,2015 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Easlbank. LLC and Elizabeth Matgregor, has applied t0 the Beard oI County Commissioners, Garfield County, Slate of Colo- rado, to request approval for a Land Use Change Permll on a property situated In the County of Gar- field, State or Colorado; to -wit: Legal DesC,p9On Quener SW Section 35 Town- ship: fi Range: 89 Subdivision EASTBANtt PAR- CEL 2 LOT SPLIT PARCEL 2A. PLAT REC4813402 etarajLactsramtio,: A 38.2 acre property located approximately 2 miles south al the City of Glen. wood Springs ott County Read 154 and known as Parcel Number 2185-353.04.001. Protect Description: This .s a Major Impact Review Land Use Change Permit Tor a Warehouse and Distribution Censer. The overall property Is ap- prdximately 33.2 acres. The Properly Is Toned Rural. M persons affected by the proposed pian are enn1- e0 10 appear an0 state their views. prbtest or Sup- pPort, it you cannot appear personalty at such hearing Men you are urged to stale your views by letter. as the Board 0f County Commissioners will gree COrtsideratioa to the comments of surrounding prOpely Owne1s, and others aftecled, m deciding whether to grant 01 deny the request. The applrc- eon may he revlewad of a.f • PnenUAaealln•r•� r •fr;i. , Or in per- son al the ce Old* fanning Department locat- ed at 108 81h Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza $adding- Glenwood Springs, Colorado be- tween the hours of 8.30 a,m. and 5:00 p.m„ Mon- day mrough Friday. A public hearing on the apptieallon has been scheduled for Monday, duly 20.2095811:00 P.M, in the County Commrs*Oners Meeting Room. Gar. field County Administration Building. 108 81h Street. Glenwood Spnrrgs. Colorado. Planning Depanment Garlield County Published in the Citizen Telegram ,lune 18, 2015. {11277081) EXHIBIT pr. tft ifl u - r 0 r0 -1.t 0 1 0 rl z if 0019 11 14. p 1:1 0 S. 4-4 7 r : 121 Ctz 1= D -C EJ P.E4' 1-40111 1111111111110 VW 1131i11H33 7a3,4 21eD • CERTIFIED MAIL° RECE Dcantesfla Mail Only For &Ovary InfoeruitIon, visit out resbilla et hal CO 131650 PoVuou Caddied F-.0 Return Fianna Floe lEralmoninl Roeporudi Fledrklal CoUiro Fwa tEralcturnimi Rotorua Thud Poomoo It F... Sam 10 ROSE, 1AM Pfkifi. i�ijWl PC) BOX 432 41I8*4*M4 Cy '1 1 444 R11 Ci?* .E. CO 81651)-(143' PS Form 3000. J EXHIBIT 0538 Pectrmtv, Hero 06/15/2015 U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT DOrnastle Mall Only Fix delivery information, visit our wee,p1 istetWingiteXerre. ckareGE ciari PiralMr: Cvrtno‘t Poo Prilkit:141moire -droPer*I*4 P,.4ft4J1 Total Poraiwn ) \RIM R*6I.?4URCIIASE TRUST ij c u LCMGFE.1 1.0V6 MANAGEMENT XX,C4 WS: co Po AxNo PO BOX 3801 99 City 51...v ?W... 0538 07 Ptyr-srart o -.aro 06/15/2015 PS Pam 3300. CAM13R11)61-.. MA 2238 U.S. Postal Service - CERTIFIED MAIL? RECEIPT Domestk Mall Only Fat delivery Information, visit out wvbsite et wwetuaps.roor 1. FOLDER CD 00 PC ktajo Certirrerd POO Sedum Roan Fon fErodaran.wrs Roguiretli Phrtr-riLled Dellwry lEndrinefrwri fincr, re,rh 0.00 0538 07 Pc:tomtit* i turn 06/15/2015 "41P"4" BISII0P..1141)iM & TAKEMOTO )SAN & I IX1 tMANN. ROBERT Strito 41.1.1.i".' 626 CASC AIM- AVE c, Po Bag iva 1::fix Z4P444 Mk LIN R. CO 80302 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE' ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC ■ Complete oases 1, 2, end . Alsc ru Item 4 t1 Restricted Delivery Is de Ea a Print your name and address on tr so that we can return the card to ■ Attach this card to the back of tr r or on the front If space permits. r- 1. Arncie Atlarrs sed to. fU IAMMARO!. KE-.N.NI 114 V. 8 O 3913 HWY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 8 ti r'* U.S. Postal Service'" CERTIFIED MAID RECEIPT DomastIc Mali Only rawer smicz c 81601_ Poempe GnrAerd Few Return Recmpe Fee 1Endanamo r Rog weevil R evoid's' DuDr ery Fele tCncr rsemKn Raguired) ru rl Tv1111 Peretape a Free JAMMARO;V :NNETH V. & KAREN 2. Anicie Nurrner (Trart;ter from ernce wag 13.45 1Z. 14.00 WA 0538 07 Pamela,' MWD 06/15/2015 Sfrerf 1 ap A. o, P.° sur Ata ;1913 I 1 W Y 82 r, Starr GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81601 'S Fonts 3811. July 2013 ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE 1 Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Aisc Item 4 if Restricted Det,vwy is di • Print your name and address an so that we can return the card tc • Attach this card to the pack of It or on tate from if space permits. Article Addrewod to:. ACKSON, CARTER 1. & 1 01 'U BOX 27 1LENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81 ' Article Number (Transfer from 5ervrce woeO ml rl Cr" crt a- r- m ru D Q Q D ru r-4 ru r'3 D Domestic Return Receipt U.S. Postal Service" CERTIFIED MAID RECEIPT Domestic Mali Only GLENV0 ' 5P>fr11IG5 C0 81 Postkujo CeNitted F Return Racwp Fee Endorsors"' it Argued) Recerzed Devoe/ Fos LflJ t enwre Re luevil 3 x3.45 Tetra foulage a ra... '= JACKSON. tpjiitTER T. & LOUISE VAN &MU ro K. 07 Pcetrrum Moro. 06/15/2015 Saeenawt N.i:' PO BOX '7 RIA Ct SU" 2P" GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81602-0027 'S Form 3811, July 2013 l"Iturieslic Return Receipt rA Complete items 1, 2. and 3. Ats Ilam 4 If Restricted Delivery is d ■ Print your name and address or so that we can return the card t ■ Attach this card to the back of or an the front if space permits. 1. Article Addres3e0 to. COLORADO DEPARTMEN r NATUR.tI . RESOURCES FOl OF PARK AM) Vv lLI)1_IFI . PARKS AND 11.131 1I.I-. Co IVB'► 13 fer+M�ACS S 5Qa o 2 Arucb Number (Tramter (ram serace tT' ru LT - E D 0 N ru D D ru ru Q N U.S. Postal Service- CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mali Only DENVER CO ONO Cerwlen Foe Rerun, Reterpt Fee I[r'dbnerhenl f%equJntJe Reeyn_W Dein cry Frye � E vionernerd Reyueedt Tiny Nonage c'-- sont 1a COLORAI 3? 1'AR I :MMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOB DIVISION glrff far- • OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE AND 0` ' "° PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION Grey age `ro<+ s3.45 10.00 N/A 07 Past -reel. time 06/15/2015 P5 Farm 3600, 1313 SHI kMAN STREET lilies00.4-' 1 PS Form 3811. July 2013 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Aisc 3 - item 4 if Restncted Delivery is du cclir 1■ Print your name and address an so that we can velum the card tt rn It Attach this card to the back of tl or on the front if space permits. ; 1. Article Addressed to: NI !LEY. RICHARD Y JR MANISCALCHI. MARIA E 6800 HWY 8' USI I- 1 ru Q D D C1 ru ru GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81( d- r - 2. r- 2. Article Nurn er (Tr.urstur from semcc rated Domestic Return Receipt U.S. Postal Service'!' CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Men Only Far dativery Inlcrmatlan. visit our webatte It r►rrr,tup..c Gwootti I4 3S -.CD 1116111 Peztuau 6 $3,45 82.80 GarlM ett fee Rause prep Fac I Endlewnere ROW -POW neritled Deb+ary Fee f Enooecament Ra,2uu m ra 10.00 N/A 0538 07 F'' rma Nov 06/1512015 Tow %capeaF-^- NEILEY. RI611MRD Y JR & Sant To - MANISCALCIII. MARIA E *1-." Apt -Aia' rsa.tpt-Aia' 6800 HWY 82 UNIT 1 esPt7�n1a c"+` S1416. ' GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81601 PS Form 3811, Juty 2013 Cvmustac Return Racdelpt SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEP SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Comp[etn items 1, 2, and 3. Also `O Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is de term • Print your name and address on t . so shot we can return the card to a Attach this card to the buck of th or an the front If space permits. r- 1. Article Addressed io: 131 l f- IILRON PROPERTII s 1 007 W' I . STBAN K ROAD U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL., RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only,, No insurance Coverage Provided) For dell Information elan our wsbalts ae www.usps,eomo SRB 5 CO 41601 Cmruw.1 Fco D D t?ti•Nen Wwmtlft Fur C7 'FMw.an QeluH Si GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COco tr et D f` I latmaive tial+rwryp Fi• I:nclar.rtnent Rsratufeo. $3..45 12.00 �$0.0ry��0 $0�r .00 11/p N/A Mill P.:slang&a e BLUE HER;WOPER'TILS LLC 0538 07 rrnuuM •lCte $0.49 06/15/2015 3,alrr ra 1007 WESTBANK ROAD Slieii 1lyy�` �k: •. aw 6t1 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 8160 I 2 Article Number r (Transfer from ssrvic* MOW) PS Form 3811, July 21113 ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete Refits 1, 2, and 3. Also ru Item 4 if Resinctud Delivery Is de S I Print your name and address on so that we can return the card tc 2 Attach this card to the back of 1t or on the front if space permttS. 1. Article Adare�.sed to: ROARING FORK RE -I SCIIU DIST RJCT 1521 GRAM) AVE (i1.f_NWOOD SPRINGS„ CO cr N Clomestic Return Receipt U.S. Postal Service, CERTIFIED MAIL -,n, RECEIPT (Domestic Age Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery, Information slid ow website at www.uepa.corn. Posta;,t C Mk Fee D r3 netum %cat,/ Fee D EmUraanyrnl Regiontel 2. Ankle Number (Transfer from servrce estet1 .+eilI0.'J Drflh y, fee 1End,: Sa!Tgfld RC JMMI} 07 POslrtort Ham total Patage 8' • 06/15/2015 ROARING tow. RE -I SCHOOL Soar To DISIRICT ,a► rl t l4L'fwd:" 1521 GRAND AVE 44—* -4 "- 4 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Ps Form 30K a. =S Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Rattan Receipt ■ Complete items t, 2, and 3. A1$ -fl Item 411 Restricted Delivery is di Q� ■ Print your name and address on so that we can returtt the card to dl • Attach this card to the back of ti 0 or an the front if space permits. r 1. Amos Addressed to: ru D EASTRANK LLC c o MACGR FLORA IRREVOCABLE TRLr` 2 710 F DURANT AVE STE W6 IV ASPEN. CO81611 2. Arucie Ntzltrer (Trmufer fret,,, service Abe() rR n U.S. Postal ServIci- CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mall Only, For dell Intormallort, vise our we68116si www.uspw.com". Ate! CO 61611 Carried Fna nanrm Floome l Fee lErdaisrne lRegVoodl paw clod neavery rra lErdasernen] Raquned) •I A s $3.45 32.80 10.00 $0.00 WA Tatal Pfelswe a Fres S E.ASTBAN 44.W c o MACG R I t (.IR_ FLORA IRREVOCABLE TRI ST 0530 07 Ft/CU./Ur/ HR•n 06/15/201.3 crive 710 E D1:RANT AVE STE W6 zr:: ASPEN. CO 31611 PS Form 3811, July 21113 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Ala tLrm stem •I it Restricted Delivery is di u1 • Print your name and address on so lhat we can return the card tt • Attacn this card to the back of 0 z^ or on the front if space permits. F- - Article Addressed to: Gt:JLI.1J. MARK C & MARY .-1 200 OAK LANE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO SI L Mkde Number (Trar4for from service label D D D D D ri tt r- Darnesuc Return Rece pt U.S. Postal Servicp.,, CERTIFIED MAIL,..: RECEIPT (Domestic Atilt Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For dsllvery Intortnu'tion visit our wobelte at www.uaps.corn,; %MOM SPIU Pestagt CorlINel fol Flown Fteaece ref Endrsoment A44quoldj F ,. 0538 07 ' 06/1S(2015 Sere rd G01.1.0, iVAl C & MARY A 200 OAK LANE xBoat,r,a/nir44'(M1) SPRINGS.. CO 81601 P5 Form 3811, Jury 2013 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE• ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE ■ Complete Items 1, 2. and 3. Alsrrll Item 4 if Restricted Delivery !s d. Q- ■ Print your name and address on Q' so that we can return the card 1i ■ Attach this card to the back al t or on the front if space permits. Art,ce Addressect 10: -IANL & BRUCE'S LTD. LLA 85 COUNTY ROAD 154 Err 0 Iti a] ru ru ✓ u LENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 8 s r - Article Number (Transfer from serynce label) U.S, Postal Servic " CERTIFIED MAID' RECEIPT Domestic Mall Only Poltava Celt ad Fra (Wien Heeapl Feel lEndorsenuml Required; fiesm+raw Dewey rue iErW.xeamwru Rwlurtia) CO 8110.1 • $345 12.80 10.00 N/A 10.44 - 1 46/15/2015 Total Puptaae ''••._ C SHANC&.118d,, IE'SL1D LIAB1I.1T`t CO :""if Wi745. 4185 COUNTY ROAD 154 ar PO &r lio Gty,staralakr:.+ GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81601 0538 07 Pi ',Unit!.II lav 5 Form 3811. July 2013 ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC ru ■ Complete Items 1.2. and 3. Also item 4 d Restricted Delivery Is de o- ■ Print your name and address an so that we can return the card to co ■ Attach this card to the back of tt N or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: rt} O LA/Y 11 51.4511 !.LEVEE LLt C3 ru ru I'() BOX 27 G 1.1-.N WOOD SPRINGS. CO 8 r1 0 P- 2. 2. Anise Ntsnber (Tsar ter from sen' Ce sae;!) Domestic Return Reclaim U.S. Postal Servile.' CERTIFIED MAILS RECEIPT Domestic Marl Only For deIIvery Inlennsttof4 visa our wsbetlei et www.usipa cornu saggip SPRINGS CO 81602 Berretta Carulted Fie Return Reccer.s Fen I Encia, semern RequrWi nnsrncred Drevwy Fen ic+Mlu,swPwnl Ratu��hA N/A Totul Puslade & Fun> $ LAZY H SL#(a 071 H LVL-NLLC PO BOX 27 air er a ilii---; or PO ile GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 8160241027eatK 11.2rw 08 07 Paetmeri, VI we 50.49 06/15/2015 n PS Form 3811. July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt ■ Complete Items 1.2, and 3. Alsr Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is d, tr- ■ Print your name and address on 12 - so that we can return the card ti • Attach this card to the back of 11 D - or on the front tf space permits. p- a] I. Article Address .od to: SHANE & I3RLCE'S LLC 4185 COLJN I Y ROAD 1.54 ru C3 ru GLE-NWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81( r'u 1-1 rL a Article Number (rr rr;ler Irvin same label} U.S. Postal Service" CERTIFIED MAIL'S RECEIPT Dorrlesrlc Mall Only For delivery Intorrrlatlon, visit ow weevileat www.uurps"cam'. Tate) Porrlaan SHANE & GL:.ar, an, Hera 06/15/2015 LC'S LLC sox to 4185 COUNTY ROAD 154 sWe'ifOf PO ar,a GLEN% OOD SPRINGS. CO 81601 Cry: Slald, ITP... P3 Fdrrn 3800.. PS Form 3811, July 2013 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE rn • Complete items 1. 2, and 3. Alsi item 4 If Restricted Delivery is d, ■ Print your name and address on so that we can return the card ti i ■ Attach this card to the back of 1l [r or on the front If space permits. 1. Ankh; Addressed to. I IETIK.L PROPER"! Y LLQ. LINNMEC KF 215 SMONARCH 4101 ASPEN. CO 81611 2 Article Number (Twofer born service labs() PS Form 3811, July 2013 Dornusuc Return Receipt U.S. Postal Servicer" CERTIFIED MAIL' RECEIPT Domestic Mall Only 1 8&,611 Grunge Fee Return ;crewel re* 4Enar_nnartrt Requdedl neutocled D•llvWy FOIE tEnaen.cment Rwetulredi rural P ee.le & r Q IIENKI. PK(1b17RTY LLC c o CARL 13 ,nr LINNIECKL erPotri'al,; 215 S MONARCH 4101 `'step.,' ASPEN. CO 81611 Keenear% Hee Oo/15/2+015 P5 ;01711.31300. J Demsoic Return Receipt ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete rtems 1, 2. and 3. Also item.1 d Restncted Delivery is de • Pnnt your name and address on so that we can return the card tc ■ Attach this card to the back of tr or on the front 0 space permits. 1. Article klar ssed Lc. 13H LLC .02 DORCI IES CI R DR KI_AIIOMA CITY. OK 73120 L Article Number (Trams* from service tabu) Lri rr U.S. Postal Servicer" _ CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT DanwrstIc WI Only For delivery Information, vett as *obatle et nww.oepe.aam'. ° AHI:IIIN CITY tw,tizo Hie.a�ti ; $3.45 12.80 $0.00 A .49 Certified For Ration Reoslra Fes ,E,nicsaarnent Aagwnas Rum:le:led delivery Fee 11.,,nnnenntel RuquIi ds Irked ltslays 8 F--' IiI3H LLC 16.74 s..9. re 1.502 DORCHLSTF.R DR #ue«r i i1 •i tiro- o'r<t1B4,ft OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 7 I 2 City. SIAM, i:1ft..l 07 PG6.0...,e0. rle+n 06/15/2015 es Fenn 3800. 'S Form 3811. July 2013 ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE s Complete Items t. 2, and 3. Alst stem 4 if Restricted Delivery is di ret ■ Print your name and address on a' so that we can return the card tt • Attach this card to the back of ti or on the front if space permits. r- rR 1 Arida AgdreS3ed IDC VAREUOLSE INV' ..I IF..1 '2 ARTN ERSII1P 1 1 1 IN -INN AVENUE 111 1'I -:NNE.. WY 82001 a' - to tr- Article Number 7 fTrrlrll/af from serwlce U.S. Postal Service. CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT (Domestic Mei Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) I]E'fE18E IrY EL7001 in r-ne 3.45 Roam Recelpr Foe t rekewe&t R.epar.al Weanicrvit7vav n few .1..nm•iessmN Re eerildr Total P ffiraa)rs a rARGI IOUig;$ji°I V I -:S I-MENT TO PARTNERSHIP i,-e'cCAlc:rla; 1111 DUNN AVENUL wS c+y+§ii-7101:: Ci ILYI:NNE. WY 82001 0538 07 R,;ifrnere Sent 06/15/2015 'S Form 3811. July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE • Complete items 1, 2. ant 3. Asst item 411 Restricted Qelly try Is dr • Prim your name and address on so that we can return me card tc ■ Attach this card to the back of li or on the front If space permits. t Articia Aduressed lc U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT Domestic Mall Only JAMMAROIN, GLEN L. & ru ru GLI NWOOD SPKING°:,..0 SI z- » N 4ti09 HIGHWAY 82 2. Article Number (Transfer from Serwce law) +'el.it(lI0* S DSS CO 131601 $3.45 $2.80 Posta Cemllad Fe. Ream aenrot re.. Lndar-tel¢ Reaorsdl $0.00 ne..i n:rr.1 Delivery Fen is n.1r scnf:ent RequI*.d1 Tata Postage a JAMMAROti _GN L. & LYNNE N/A 07 rower;" 06/15/2015 Sere t° 440'I HIGHWAY II2 Strews .4,006L,. orPose. eve GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81601 Coy: sib Z1F:-r PS Foran 3811, July 2013 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also item 4 if Restricted Delivery is de i.n ■ Pnnt your name and address on S so that we can return the card to • Attach this card to the back of th S or on the front if space permits. IL ri 1. Article.Arcaressed to: 0 GJ 1. & Y JAMMARON FAMILY a -1415 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 8 tr D C3 2 Article Nun1I& (Transfer druid amerce rebel} — PS Form 3811, July 2013 U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL— RECEIPT (Dome9ffc Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provldedi For delivery intenna1IOri visit au emboli, et Warr. aDhi0OD SPRINGS Iii 81601 r acrkae C,nillnd res Ream Fiecna1 Fee Endorsement Nneer al l'+;or2tvU Whore Fre naur 'neve Bemoan $2.80 A. ,r $0.00 WA TCrtal PosteOr Fwdw tL' L & Y JAMIWKION FAMILY 1.1,1.P see:7o 441 1 1IIGI!WAY 122 0538 07 06/15/2015 04 Mao C6i; tiii,ntp;4- i1.ENWOOI)SPRINGS_Ct:)81t101-%22 Domestic Rettrn Receipt ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE ■ Complete Items 1, 2. and 3. Alsc Item 4 11 Restrcted Delivery is di ■ Pnnt your name and address an so that we can return the carr) tc • Attach this card to the back of 11 or on the front it apace permits. I . Article Addresrw.l M. ACGREGOR. ROBERT DtiN 10 1' ASI DURANT A4'ENLE SPEN. CO .8 1611 =f Mender iiom service woo DS Form 3811, July 2013 0000 1748 4579 D m ...[l rotary ••_ , c... U.S. Postal Serino^ CERTIFIED MAIL ' RECEIPT (Domestic A/all Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery Informs visit our wabslle et oaf et1`81611' Fu5lacir regltied r e Penni newel -0 Lew 1Eroarsent.r 1 flu.rtyll ,ietio,ted De coo,e isee E,;,inreemeem Drawee' Wet 10.44 r /15/2D15 0538 07 Pnuenare Ihlrnx MACGREGOR. RO :1tIT DUNCAN ,Fermi , p 7101 LAS -1 DURANT AVLN1 1 1 NI I W.6 ASPEN, CO 8161 1 ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC N • Complete Items 1. 2, anti 3. Also PI Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is de Zr.. 11 Print your name and address on so that we can return the card to co ■ Attach this card to the back of th Cr or on the front if space permits. 1 Article Addressed to: ru WES`1T(ANK RANCH HOME. a ASSGCIATIC)N d PO BOX 2703 ru r -1 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO ? n" ri P- Article Numbs!' (Transfer from service We) Moment Ronan Receipt U.S. Postal Servir. — CERTIFIED MAIL' RECEIPT Domestic. Mali Only For delivery information, visit our MINIM 6602— - Ceetil ed Fes flee,'Decreed rev IEnea i& nml rr .Le,nh Rngn oea Delivery Fee IEt.6;nomenl Fle:DerwN 111.012,15 toe P,TeAue S Fees S WESTBANB/ANC1-I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SirLirwltiSaw,l cA4 Nb:' 1'()130X _2703 tali*ii'; ir)C4 GLENWOOD SPRIINGS. CO 81601 'S Form 3811. July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete Items T. 2, and 3. Also itern 4 if Restricted Delivery Is de ut • Print your name and address on so that we cart return the card to La ■ Attach this card to the pack of th S at an the front if space permits, lti r-� 1. Arl ie le Addressed to: 1' ROARING FORK I 'h\I) NO t, NORM SiN1 ORD 333 SL MD AVE =4-100 MIAMI. N. 33131 2. Antis Number (Transfer from service label) P5 Form 3811. Juty 2013 U.S. Postal Service, CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domesrlc Mali Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For deflvery Intormtltlon visit GIFT webs/to at vrw .uap._com,5 MIMI FL 33131 C..11111,1 rue O n..ynt-. 11csrW r.r, 1=1 lEra,Po-nM'H ri411.DWI Ie a m -13 0 PAIrxdrp:7 rirr vey r.,, tlEnbyyemer% Tmar P'emarro a Favre Ian f $3.45 0538 07-�r,,.. 06/15/2015 regi: b ? iaft) / P P5 Farm 3005, August !Mee see Pirrone ler tealrociiorre SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC ■ Complete Items 1, 2. and 3. Also o0 item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is de Lrl ■ Pnnt your hams and address on -1- SO that we can return the card to 43 i Attach this card to the back of th or on the front If space permits. 1. Article At dressed t4; ROA Cs FORK TRA \ SP( )1, 2 ruJTI 11'1' 5.310 I WIN STREET ASPENC() 81611 2. Anrcie Number (Trurxsfor lion sem'ce r•4 D Mesttc Return Receipt U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT (Domr eelic Marl Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For daitvary tnFormellon visit ow weasel PEED CO 81811 $3.45 $0.00 NIA 4538 07 %% mark fwe PO st1. 06/15/2015 _nfoi Pos a M d Fav S - ROARING, Ma: FRA \S1'()R FATIOt' Q ( pima Ta Al ""I I- ORITY 2s r+ £ Ai>e xi �' r coPOtL°" 530 L MIN STR1 f' 1 /%74.- .4rx.7 Iii'. s ANN-N.CO81611 PS Form Me, Al PS Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Reran Rscatpt SENDER: COMPLETE rH/S SEC • Compete Items 1, 2. and 3. Atsc t� item 4 If Restricted Delivery is de • Print your name and address on so that we can return the card tc ra ■ Attach this card to the back of tt Or On the front If space permits. t Article Adaressed trr: ROARING FORK LAND NO 4 NORMAN J L3ENFORD 533 AVI NUE OF TI IE .1t11:1(I SI I I 1 44(10 h11AL41 FI 11111 2. Article Number (Transfer tram service labra ru 0 ru n -I D U.S. Postal Servicee' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Dorrrratic Mall Only t1IMI Ft 33131 Po. Certified Fri. Bowe, Reci.pt rim I_,Acnrnnant Requryrry Rrevk:rd DN!WV Fri. (Ennorwrnanl R.gi.di j 0538 Postmariw Hoe Total 'Prrslago 6. c.,... C 06/15/2015 ROARING KOK LAND) NO 4. LLC crta sem ro NORMAN 1 RFNF(1RI) opoe ..44, .333 AVENUE: O1 T I11 AMIsRIC'AS. i..Pta,�,. r� city 3'mtrY; ;zr ::r SI l 111' 4-100 PS Fort 3600,1 MIAMI. II 33131 PS Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt EXHIBIT David Pesnichak EXHIBIT I� From: Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <danieiroussin@state.co.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:46 AM To: Tamra Allen; David Pesnichak Cc: Carol Storey - CDOT Subject: Fwd: Referral Application: MIPA-8260 - Warehouse and Distribution Facility-Eastbank, LLC Federal Express Ground Attachments: MIPA-8260 Major Impact Review - Cover Page.pdf; MIPA-8260 Major Impact Review Referral Request Form.pdf Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Tamra and David - Thank you for the opportunity to review the Federal Express Ground (FEX) application. This project doesn't have direct access to highway. It has indirect access to the highway from CR 154 (Old State Highway 82). CDOT does have an access permit for this road. The access permit was for (Rose Ranch development). The permit is for 360 peak hour traffic. It is my understanding Rose Ranch development hasn't fully built out. The existing traffic on County Road is 241 in the peak hour. However, I have used the 360 peak hour and 47 peak hour (FEX traffic) because Rose Ranch development hasn't fully developed. The development impacts the intersection by 13% doesn't exceed the 20% threshold of the Access Code. Therefore, no access permit required for the development. However, I would suggest to County that access would be moved as far from the intersection as practical and really look at the queues (back up from the signal and it doesn't impact the trail. I recognize the engineer look at this, but this is very critical information and did he look at it in a 20 year horizon? The other thing I would recommend is to look at the geometry and the slope of the county road how it connects to the highway. It is very awkward. I could be an issue on snowy days. These are county issues and will need to reviewed by the County. If you have any questions, please let me know. thanks Dan Roussin Permit Unit Manager Traffic and Safety P 970.683.6284 1 F 970.683.6290 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501 daniel.rouss n@state.co.us J www.cotoradodot.info www.cotrip.©rg �_xl.x1 June 25, 2013 Garfield Coun Balcomb and Green P.C. c/o Chad J. Lee and Thomas J. Hartert P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL and USPS RE: Inter -Mountain Operations on Eastbank LLC Property (Parcel # 2185-353-04-001) Dear Mr. Lee and Mr. Hartert: County Staff has reviewed the documentation provided in your April 11, 2013 letter addressing current and historical uses on the Eastbank LLC property. Based on that correspondence as well as the file documents for the Special Use Permit issued to Joe Jammaron, located in the Community Development Department, the County believes the existing inter -Mountain operation, as defined below, is a legal nonconforming use on the Eastbank LLC property. The documents that support this determination are Resolution 97-92, and correspondence between Planning Director Mark Bean and Joe Jammaron (Exhibits A-E). The intent of this letter is threefold: (I) to memorialize the history of the uses on this property, (2) to point out how changes to the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended ("ULUR") affect what is considered to be a legal nonconforming use; and (3) to clearly identify those uses that will be allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses. Late 1960s -1970s, According to documents in the above referenced file, in the late 1960 and early 1970s this site was owned by Joe and Geraldine Jammaron. The site contained a mineral (gravel/concrete) extraction operation which included a concrete batch plant with numerous cement mixers, cement transports, gravel hauling equipment, concrete pumping units and support vehicles on the property, During this same time period, the property also had on-site facilities that were used for kchicle and equipment repairs related to the mineral extraction operation. The presence of a repair shop and vehicle storage was documented in correspondence between the County Planning Department, Mr. Jammaron and K. R. Weatherly, manager of the mineral extraction operation. These historical commercial uses and operations on the property were in existence prior to the County enacting land use regulations and therefore were legal uses at the time. 1994-1997. In letters from Planning Director Mark Bean, the County acknowledged certain legal nonconforming uses on this property as being "an equal or lesser degree of non -conformity that the previous use." In addition, Condition #5 in Resolution 97-92 (Exhibit A) issued for the Contractor Yard on this parcel, refers to those nonconforming uses agreed to by the County Planning Department and the property owner, Joe Jammaron. In 1997, a Special Use Permit was issued to Joe and Geraldine Rae Jammaron and Mark Gould to allow storage of construction related vehicles on a portion of the subject property. The Page 1 of 3 remaining portion of the property was recognized as legally nonconforming. The entire property was zoned Ail, Agricultural/Industrial at that time. August 5, 2005. As described in a letter dated August 5, 2005, from the Ralconib and Green law firm (Exhibit F) there was a meeting between representatives of the firm and the County's planning department that resulted in a mutual agreement that Rocky Mountain Disposal's operations, that were on-site at this time, were substantially similar to and less intense than historical uses of the property which therefore classified the Rocky Mountain Disposal (RMD) operation as a legal nonconforming use. As part of this document, a limit was placed on the operation to permit no more than thirty (30) commercial vehicles and those uses attendant to the operations of RMD. As described in an April 11, 2013 letter from Chad Lee of Ralcomb and Green, the operations under the current lease holder, Inter -Mountain Waste (IMW) and Recycling, are substantially similar to those associated to the RMD operation. In fact, the letter stated that lM W current operations are less intense than the previous leaseholder because IMW has fewer loaded containers on-site and no longer allows public drop off of recyclable materials. The County supports this finding. October 13, 2008. Prior to the County's adoption on October 13, 2008, the County's land use code allowed for non- conforming uses to be changed so long as the change in use was "an equal or lesser degree of non- conformity" than the previous use. Upon the adoption of the ULUR in 2008, however, the requirements for legal nonconforming uses changed. Sections 10-102 and 10-103 of the 2008 ULUR state that a non -conforming use may be continued and normal or routine maintenance of the structure containing a nonconforming use shall be permitted so long as the use is not enlarged, expanded, extended or altered as defined in Article 10 (Exhibit G). Present. Given the historical use of the Eastbank LLC property, (f.k.a. Jammaron property or a.k.a. Western Mobile site), the County's previous recognition of the uses on-site as legal non -conforming and the use being substantially similar but less intense in use than those prior to 2005, Garfield County recognizes an 3.9 acres site (as shown in the Exhibit N) to contain the following legal non -conforming uses: • Overnight storage of covered waste containers staged for transport to local landfills the next day. • "Transloading" recyclable materials (transfer of recyclable commodities) from one container to a larger container and staged for shipment to a recycling/processing facility. • Storage of no more than thirty (30) commercial vehicles associated with Inter -Mountain's operations. • Outside storage of containers and equipment associated with. Inter -Mountain's Operations is limited to 100 commercial dumpsters, roll off, compactor or recycle container units and 100 residential trash or recycle containers. • There will be nb waste (putrescible materials) stored or transloaded at this site. • There will be no public access for disposal of recyclable commodities and trash or processing of recyclable materials. • Storage of recreational vehicles (including boats, travel trailers) or temporary structures used as living quarters are not permitted. • Any uses or storage of items not listed will not be permitted. Page2of3 Current and future uses shall be contained within the area designated on the site map as shown in Exhibit H. Any change in use will be subject to the land use code in effect at tate time of the change and may require a Land Use Change Permit. Pursuant to Section 10-106.A.1 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, any legal nonconforming use that is discontinued for a period of six (6) months or more as a result of causes within the control of the property owner or their agent shall be interpreted as abandonment of the use and will immediately terminate the right to continue these nonconfonning uses. Expansion, enlargement or change in uses will also tenninate the right to continue the nonconforming uses. Failure by the County to provide notification of a determination of abandonment or termination shall in no way entitle the property owner to continue or resume a nonconforming use determined to be abandoned or terminated under provisions of the adopted land use code. R s=eetfully, caw Gale D. Cartnoney Code Enforcement Of cc: Fred Jarman, Community Development Director (email) Andy Schrvaller, Building Official (email) Carey Gagnon, Assistant County Attorney (email) Robert Macgregor, Dunrene Group file:T:ICode EnforcementiConiplaints-Site Visits\20131Eastbank LLC 3927 CR 154\6-25-13 final ltr RE Eastbank non -conforming status.docx Exhibits: A.) Resolution 97-92 B.) November 2, 1994 letter from Mark Bean to Joe Jammaron C.) November 21, 1994 letter from Joe Jammaron to Mark Bean D.) November 15, 1994 letter from K. R. Weatherly to Joe Jammaron E.) December 1, 1994 letter from Mark Bean to Joe Jammaron F.) August 5, 2005 Letter from Balcomb and Green to Mark Bean G.) Article I 0 of 2008 Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended H.) Site Map Page 3 of 3 1,1111.11,111/1)1111.11,1),11.11111,11,11i1,1,11111111111111 2 1 .r 3 R d.0tt tl 0.00 N 0.00 GaRFIE1.A cu tx STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) M a regular hearing of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Roorrti Garfield County Courthouse, In Glenwood Springs on M,smtiy , the =. & of O toba A-0. 19e17_, these were present Marian 1 Smith Commissioner Chairrnan John Martin Commissioner Lame McCovas , Commissioner Don DeFotd_ County Attorney Mildred Alsdorf Clerk of the Board Chuds De as , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO 9 7 -9 2 A RESOLUTION CONCF_RNED WTTII THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR JOE & GERAL.DINE RAE JANIMARON AND MARX GOULD WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from Joe and Geraldine Rte Jammaron and Mark. Gould to allow for the storage of construction related vehicles on the following described tract of land See Attached: Exhibit A (in the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield), and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the 2nd day of lune, 1997, upon the question of whether the above-described Special Use Permit should be granted or dented, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact: 1 That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioner •i EXHIBIT 11� likt.11,111,1111.1),11.11!Iltiltill111.11111111,1111 1! 1111111111111 P362 447 2 ar 3 R 6.68 D 6.63 N 8.82 GttRFTDO e1F7t# 2. Thad the hearing before the Boud of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were sdbrrdrted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3 That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1478, as amended 4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, commieyce,order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens ofGarfie]d Crutnty. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Special Use Permit be and hereby is authorized pesrnit^�ing the use of the above described tract of land for the storage of construction related vehicles, upon the following specific conditions 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval tends stunted otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. That the applicant be required to participate on a proportionate impact basis in the improvement of the State Highway 82/CR 154 intersection, if the County establishes an improveromit program during the term of any lease on the associated property that is not tied to a nonconforming use. 3. That all vehicles accessing Highway 82 from the site will only use the CR 154/Hwy 82 intersection north of the site, except for velvculu safety purposes. Generally, vehicles will use the CR s 54,'CR 1 l4Mwy 82 ktmection for access to the site, except for safety purposes due to the length of the vehicles. 4. That any office structures meet the 1994 Uniform Buridirg Code requirements for the type of occupancy proposed That the Commercial Part Special Use Permit is approved only for the storage of heavy equipment and noncortfomting uses agreed to in letters to Joe 3ammaron dated November 2, 1994 and December 1, 1994, from the Garfield County Planning Department. Any modification to the Cbmrrttrcial Park designation, will require the rnodification oldie Special Use Percent, through the applicable process in existence at the time of any proposed modification I NIIII 'S1R78EI10I1i Il032p IS0I I112I1l3 1114 7y 1111111 3 of 3 ft Lee Q e.00 f{ 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK Datcdthis 7th dayof October A.D.19 J7 . G,4RFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMhflSSIONERS, GAR1'IELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST' 'hr_4Q Cie a£ the Board Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN MARIAN I. SMITE! AYE co1r1ISSrahER 1Ct1N P, MARTIN AYE COMHISSIOER LARRY L. MCCOHN , AYE =sIaIr 'A• All Grantor's interest in Lot 21. all that part of Lots 7, 0, 22. 79 and 29 Easterly and Northerly of the Roaring Fork River, all Lh.t part of Lot 11 SPutheriy of the Southerly right-of-way line of Colorado State Highway 42, and all that part of Lots 24 and 25 Southerly and Westerly of the Southwesterly right-of-way line of said Colorado State Highway 82, all in Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M., EXCEPT for any part of the above- described lands within the right -of -ray of said Highway 92; Together vita all water ri9bta used upon, or in connec- tion with any of said lands above-deecrIbcd and particularly 15 shares of the capital stock of the Glenwood Irrigation Corpany and the water end ditch rights evidenced thereby; and including Grantor's interest In and to ail oil, gar., sand, gravel and all other minerals and mineral rights on all of tha above-described Lands, A parcel of land situated in Lat 27, Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 09 Hest of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado; said parcel being more particularly described as. follows: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of said Lot 27, a rebar and cap in ptacet thence S. 46.20'06" W along the North llna of said Lot 27, 261.03 feet to the True Point of Baglaaingi thsnca leaving said North lime S. 29.29'00• N. 197..43 feet to a point on the centerline of the Rearing Fork River,. thence N. 75'39'12- W. along said centerline 242.78 feet; thence N. 12'99'22• W. along said centerline 237.65 feet; thence leaving said centerline N. 99'01'90' W. 43.07 fest to a point on the North 11ne of said Lot 27; thence N. 46"20'14' Z. along said North line -569.12 feet to the True Point of Beginning; contal pEtg4 1.24 acres, more or less; Subject to easements, encumbrances, terns and con- ditiona of lease and liens of record, and together with Grantor's rights and obligations under 1 for gravel and other minerals and bualness uses of portions of the property conveyed heroin. • GARFIELD COUNTY • BUILDING AND PLANNING November 2, 1994 Joe Jammaron P.O. Box I631 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Mr. Jammaron: Alter reviewing your October 28, 1994 letter with the County Attorney, we both agree that the proposed "truck repair and maintenance" facility with offices could be considered a use that. "exhibits an equal or lesser degree of nonconformity" than the previous nonconforming use. Our determination is based on some limitations your future renter needs to consider before renting the property. Western Mobile's business offices and repair facility had a limited amount of outside storage of vehicles. As a repair facility, we assume that there will be a need to store vehicles that the company is repairing. Based on my memory, there did not ever appear to be more than ten (10) trucks parked outside of the facility. Unless someone can demonstrate that there were more than then (10) vehicles stored on the property, that number will be used as maximum for the proposed new use. Additionally, your new client will need to besure that all Lighting is directed into the property and that sounds do not emanate beyond the property boundary. As you are aware, the Westbank homeowners had some problems with the Western Mobile operation, until they started operating under similar parameters. 1f your new client can operate within these parameters, we feel that they would be within the provisions fora change in a nonconforming use. If you have any question, please feel free to call or write to this office. Mark L. Bean, Director Building and Planning M LBIsa 109 8TH STREET SUITE 303 945-82111025-55711285-7912 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, %A+c.i *w Com' ,doe 3ammaron PO Box 1 631 r . ,.. .. s. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 21 November% 1994 Mark Bean Dir. Garfield Co Building & Planning 109 Gth' St. Glenwood Springs% CO 81601 Dear Mr. Baan: After reading your letter of z Nov., 1994, I felt that your estimate of ten (10) trucks parked at 3927 134 Road to be extremely low. I wrote a letter to P.R. Weatherly, Western Mobile's Vice President and area manager (copy inclosed) asking for information on their operation. As you can see by his response (copy enclosed), they at times had around eighty trucks there. I do not feel that any new business would need this amount and would like to suggest a maximum of thirty (3G) vehicles be allowed. Fhank you frac your condi dera t ion on this mik t t+rr . Sincerely, Joe .ram,aron • November 15, 1994 Joe Jammaron P.O. Box 1631 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602 Dear Mr, Jammaron; 1.Y.7 LIT"r ,Ea GrroM oe Spys. CaerjJa 816 34391.5.86]2 Fa. 303.945 746.7 In response to your request for information on the ,,umber of trucks and other equipment that we stored al 3927 County Road 154,1 hope the folloyling information will be of help. During the 1970s and 1980s we had a total of 50 mixer trucks, l8 cement transports, 8 gravel hauling units, 6 concrete pumping units and numerous support vehicles. Normally during the winter months most of these vehicles were parked at this location. During the summer months they would be in and out and moved to other company locations as needed. During the 1990s we have reduced our fleet by approximately 20 percent. If you need any more information please do not hesitate to call. KRWljb Respectfully, K.R. Weatherly Arca Manager Wesrem Motile is as Equal Opponunrly Employer EXHIBIT GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING December 1, 1994 Joe Jarnmaro,n PO Box 1631 Glenwood Springs, CO 8!602 Bear Mr. Jantmaron: Based on your 11/21/94 letter and the attached letter from K.R. Weatherly, Western Mobile, 1 concurr that u maximum of thirty (30) vehicles stored outside oi' the main building is a reasonable limit for a nonconforming use on your property. This does not prevent someone from requesting a rezoning or landuse permit, that may allow for an increase in this maximum. If you have any further questions about this issue, feel free to call or write to this office. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean, Diret;tor Building and Planning Department M LB/rnb 409 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 94S-82121$25-5671/285.7972 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, EXHIBIT r � EowARo MuLNALL, JR. SCOTT BALCONIS LAWRENCE R. GREEN TwoT>`rr A. TMULSON DAraa C HALLPORo C-(RISTOPHER L. CoTLE THOMAS J 1iARTERT CHRISTOPHER L. OMER ANNE MARIE MCPHEE SARA M. DUNN DANIEL C WCNNooar BALC0ME & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE; GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: 970.94 5.854 8 FACSIMILE: 970.945.8902 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mark Bean Director of Community Development Garfield County 108 Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado www.ba lcombgreen.com August 5, 2005 Or COUNSEL: KENNETH BALCOMA JOHM A. TXuLsom sPrC1A1 COUNSEL: WALTER I7_ LOWRY RE: Eastbank, LLC/Cozy Point, LP (a/k/a " jammaron Parcel") -- Special Use Permit Issues, Meeting, Understandings and Confirmation (Rocky Mountain Disposal/Ryder-Budget) Dear Mark: This letter shall describe and confirm, based on our discussions of last week, our respective mutual understandings of the status and required actions with respect to the above -referenced parcel. Let me begin by expressing my client's appreciation of the Planning Department's cooperation with these matters; in particular, the willingness of you, Steve Hackett and Ron Van Meter to spend time to cooperate with the property owner and resolve issues. Rocky Mountain Disposal ("RMD") has, since assuming the leasehold interest in the historically "commercial" upper area adjacent to County Road 154 from the prior tenant, Hanson Equipment (i) had the APS portable toilets user removed from the site, and (ii) substantially improved the overall function and appearance of the site. As we agreed at our recent meeting after a review of the site's background, file, correspondence and Special Use Permit, RMD's current use is substantially similar to the historical non -conforming uses at the property and, therefore, will not require additional processes. A maximum of thirty (30) commercial vehicles and uses attendant to the operations of RMD will be maintained. BALcoMB & GREEN, F.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P A O as 2 However, the sub -let tenant user, Ryder -Budget Rentals, has been determined to exceed the parameters of the permissible uses. I have made multiple inquiries of my client, prior tenants, RMD and others in an attempt to understand how and when Ryder -Budget. came to operate at this location. Apparently, Hanson Equipment agreed in December 2002 to such a sub -let. An initial "term" (although I am unable to locate any legitimate sub -lease agreement) of six months was established, with a "...90 day written notice to terminate...". My client has no privity of contract with Ryder -Budget. Any claim of sub -let inherently is a claim through and under the primary lease which was Hanson's and now belongs to RMD. The RMD lease provides that subsequent zoning determinations are a basis for leasehold termination. I have attempted to contact Ryder -Budget with notice to vacate the premises. It appears I will need to serve such notice physically at the site to be certain we have commenced appropriate ejectment processes. I will complete this no later than next week, if that is acceptable to you. At a minimum, I will demand that Ryder -Budget cease its "leasing" activities at the site within the next 30 days. In the event Ryder -Budget is unable to entirely relocate its equipment and materials within that same time frame, I will keep your office (or Mr. Van Meter, if you prefer) apprised as to exactly when the user has vacated. Please contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing. In the event I have not clearly confirmed the status and understandings discussed herein, I request that you inform me at your earliest convenience. rJH:5k1 Pc: Robert Macgregor Mike Maple Ron Van Meter (Garfield County Zoning Compliance) Rocky Mountain Disposal (ATIN: David Sanders) Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GRE N C. By: % b�r•+r .09", Thom . J. Hartert Atto ey for Eastbank, LLC and Property Manager for Dunrene Management, Inc. ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE TABLE OF CONI E NTS SECTION 10-101 APPLICABILITY. 1 SECTION 10-102 CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING LAND USE 1 A. Nonconforming Structure. 1 B. Nonconforming Use 1 SECTION 10-103 ENLARGEMENT OR ALTERATION OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE A. Enlargement or Alteration of Nonconforming Land Use Prohibited.1 B. Permissible Alterations of Nonconforming Land Use 2 SECTION 10-104 CHANGE OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE. 3 SECTION 10-105 DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING A NONCONFORMING USE 3 A. Structure Deemed Destroyed 3 B, Structure Intentionally Damaged or Destroyed. 3 C. Permit Review Required 3 D. Restoration of Structure. 3 SECTION 10-106 ABANDONMENT OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE. 4 A. Determination of Abandonment. 4 SECTION 10-107 NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND RIGHT TO BRING ENFORCEMENT ACTION 4 A. Written Notification. 4 B. Right to Bring Enforcement Action. 5 GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10-1 (This Page Left Blank Intentionally) GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10 -ii ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING ''LAND USE 10-101 APPLICABILITY SECTION 10-101 APPLICABILITY. The regulatory provisions of this Article shall apply to all permitted land use, including divisions of land and signs, that do not conform to the applicable use regulations of this Code as a result of either the adoption or amendment of this Code, or a final administrative or judicial decision precluding the County from enforcing this Code specific to a use on the basis of estoppels, laches, or waiver. SECTION 10-102 CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING LAND USE. A nonconforming land use may be continued, and normal or routine maintenance shall be permitted, in compliance with the regulatory provisions of this Article. A. Nonconforming Structure. Unless otherwise prohibited by the provisions of this Article, a nonconforming structure may continue to be occupied. B. Nonconforming Use. Unless otherwise prohibited by provisions of this Article, a nonconforming use may be continued and normal or routine maintenance of the structure containing a nonconforming use shall be permitted. Normal or routine maintenance shall include any maintenance or repair which does not impermissibly enlarge or alter the structure containing a nonconforming use, in compliance with the provisions of Section 10-103, Enlargement or Alteration of a Nonconforming Land Use. SECTION 10-103 ENLARGEMENT OR ALTERATION OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE. A. Enlargement or Alteration of Nonconforming Land Use Prohibited. The right to continue a nonconforming land use terminates immediately when the nonconforming land use is enlarged, expanded, extended, or altered in any of the following ways, and the property owner does not successfully pursue any of the options specified in these regulations at Section 10-107, Notice of Termination and Right to Bring Enforcement Action. Enlargement or Alteration of Nonconforming Structures. Unless otherwise allowed by provisions of Section 10-103(B) below, the alteration, repair or enlargement of a nonconforming structure in any which would increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to the floor area, setback or height regulations of this Code. 2, Addition of New Structure. The addition of a new structure containing, or accessory to, the nonconforming land use. Enlargement and Alteration of Conforming Structure. Unless otherwise allowed by provisions of Section 10-103(B), the enlargement and alteration of a conforming structure containing, or accessory to, a nonconforming land use, including an increase in floor area, an increase in height, or any other alteration or improvement in excess of normal or routine maintenance of the structure that increases the nonconformity of the use and which violates the requirements this Code, GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10-1 ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE 10-1 D3 ENLARGEMENT OR ALTERATION OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE 4. Enlargement and Alteration of Land Area. Enlargement and -alteration in the land area occupied by the nonconforming land use, unless the basic nature of the use, at the time it became nonconforming, clearly indicated or contemplated such an increase or alteration. 5. Enlargement and Alteration Creating a Hazard or Nuisance. Any enlargement and/or alteration of the nonconforming land use which has the effect or threatened effect of creating a hazard or nuisance on or off the property, of adversely affecting the character of the neighborhood, or of intensifying the use of the land cr its need for services. B. Permissible Alterations of Nonconforming Land Use. The following shall not be considered prohibited enlargement or alteration of a nonconforming land use. 1. Change in Ownership. A change in ownership of the property upon which the nonconforming land use is located. 2. Alteration Required for Public Health and Safety. An alteration or expansion which the Chief Building Official determines to be necessary to rectify a hazardous health or safety situation, or to comply with the public health or safety requirements of another governmental entity having lawful jurisdiction over the structure. 3. Alteration Required by ADA. An alteration or expansion necessary to comply with applicable accessibility Codes andfor Statutes (Resolution 201 0-26). Extension of Nonconforming Use Within the Structure. An extension of the nonconforming use within the structure containing the use, provided that such extension is not accompanied by structural alteration identified in Section 10-103(A)(3). 5. Addition of Solar Energy Device. The addition of a solar energy device to a nonconforming structure or a structure containing a nonconforming use. 6. Routine Maintenance. Any replacement or upgrading of outmoded or worn equipment or supplies provided such activity does not create a hazard or nuisance as identified in Section 10-103(A)(5), above. Structures Associated With Nonconforming Agricultural Use. Owners of legal building lots containing agricultural uses which have become nonconforming as a result of adoption or amendment of this Code may restore, modify and maintain existing conforming structures, and may construct new conforming structures, provided such structures are directly related to the agricultural use, and provided the nonconforming use is not enlarged or altered in any other way which violates the Code. GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10.2 ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE 10-103 ENLARGEMENT OR ALTERATION OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE Replacement of Mobile Home A mobile home which is a nonconforming use, or which is authorized by these regulations, may be replaced by another mobile home on the same lot provided that the replacement mobile home conforms to the requirements of the Building Code Resolution of the County, and to the performance requirements of this Resolution. A mobile home may be replaced by a permanent conventional single family dwelling provided it meets all other site requirements of this land use code. Building on Nonconforming Lot. A lot legally created prior to this land use code may be built upon, provided any structure build is in conformity with all of the other provisions of this code. SECTION 10-104 CHANGE OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE. A nonconforming land use shall only be changed to a land use which is conforming in the zoning district in which the use is located. Any change of a nonconforming land use to another use shall immediately terminate the right to continue the nonconforming land use, and thereafter the property shall only be used in conformity with the use provisions of its zoning district. SECTION 10-105 DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING A NONCONFORMING USE. A. Structure Deemed Destroyed. A nonconforming structure or structure containing a nonconforming use shall be deemed destroyed when either greater than fifty (50) percent of its floor area, or greater than fifty (50) percent of its actual value (as determined by the Garfield County Assessor) is destroyed. B. Structure Intentionally Damaged or Destroyed. The right to continue a nonconforming land use terminates immediately when the structure containing that land use is damaged or destroyed by an intentional act of the property or structure owner or their agent. C. Permit Review Required. Restoration or reconstruction allowed by the provisions of this Article shall be subject to the permit requirements of this Code and the appropriate permit review process as set forth in Article IV, Application and Review Procedures of this Code. D. Restoration of Structure. When a nonconforming structure or structure containing a nonconforming use is damaged or destroyed by causes outside the control of the owner or their agent, the structure may be restored and the nonconforming use may be reestablished. Restoration of the structure must be commenced within six (6) months after the date on which the structure was damaged or destroyed and completed within one year after the date on which the restoration was commenced. Upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners at a GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10-3 ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE 10-105 DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING A NONCONFORMING USE public hearing, these times may be extended for a reasonable period upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances by the property owner or the owner's agent. 2. A nonconforming structure which has been destroyed may be restored to its original location, floor area, and height provided that such restoration complies with the current provisions of the Building Code_ Reconstruction or restoration of a structure located in the Floodplain Overlay District shall comply with applicable design and construction requirements for land use in a Floodplain Overlay District, set forth in Section 3-401 of Article III, Zoning. SECTION 10-106 ABANDONMENT OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE. The right to continue a nonconforming land use shall terminate if the land use is determined to be abandoned. A. Determination of Abandonment. A nonconforming land use shall be determined abandoned if the use is discontinued for an uninterrupted period of six (6) months or more, as a result of causes within the control of the property owner or their agent, unless the use is governed by Section 10-105 (D)(1). 2 A nonconforming land use may be determined abandoned if the use is discontinued for an uninterrupted period of Tess than six (6) months if the property owner expressly states an intent to abandon the land use, or engages in action which unambiguously expresses an intent to abandon. SECTION 10-107 NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND RIGHT TO BRING ENFORCEMENT ACTION A. Written Notification. In the event that the Director receives information that the right to continue a nonconforming land use has been or may have been terminated, the Director shall provide a written notification of this determination by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the property owner, and to the parcel address, ail as shown on the records of the County Assessor. The property owner shall have thirty (30) calendar days after the date of the notification within which to provide evidence satisfactory to the Director to show that the determination is in error, to abate the illegal enlargement or alteration, or to file an appeal of the Director's determination to the Board of County Commissioners. In any appeal, the property owner shall have the burden to show that the right to continue the nonconforming use was not terminated according to the applicable provisions of this Article, when judged in light of the history and nature of the use and the circumstances of the alleged termination. GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10-4 ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE 10-107 NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND RIGHT TO BRING ENFORCEMENT ACTION B. Right to Bring Enforcement Action. Nothing in these regulations shall alter or diminish the County's right to take enforcement action against the unlawful continuation of a nonconforming land use. 1. Enforcement shall be pursuant to the provisions of Article XII, Enforcement. 2. Except in the case of an illegal enlargement or alteration for which the owner is provided with a thirty (30) day opportunity to abate, any failure by the Director to provide notification of a determination of termination shall in no way entitle the property owner to continue or resume a nonconforming use terminated under provisions of these regulations. GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10.5 (This Page Lett Blank Intentionally) GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10-6 3.9 Acres / Area of Non -Conforming Activities Parcel 2185-353-04-001 Address 3927 CR 154 R: 11 4 302843.729 437310638 Meters T:\Code Enforcement\Compiaints-Site Visits\2013\Eastbank LLC 3927 CR 154\Site Plan for Non -conforming Uses - June 2013.docx November 20, 2013 Steven M. Beattie Beattie, Chadwick & Houpt, LLP Attorneys and Counselors at Law 932 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Community Development IUS Mb Stied. Suite 401. Glenwood Springs, CO X1601 I Office: 970-945-8212 Fax: 970.384-34711 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL and USPS RE: Gould/Jammaron Commercial Park - Special Use Permit Resolution 97-92 Parcel # 2185-353-04-001 Dear Mr. Beattie: I would like to thank both you and Mr. Mark Gould for finding time in your schedules to accommodate a meeting with County staff on October 31, 2013, and discuss the operations at 4067 County Road 154, also referred to as the Eastbank LLC property. The purpose of our meeting was to determine lithe current activities in the area leased by Gould Construction and designated by the Special Use Permit (SUP), issued in 1997 to Joe Jammaron (property owner at that time) and. Mark Gould, were consistent with the conditions of Resolution 97-92. The meeting highlighted that it is important to clarify that there are two types of uses presently occurring on the property: (1) those which were approved by Resolution; and (2) those which are "legal non -conforming uses" not conducted pursuant to a permit. Resolution No. 97-92 approved a Special. Use Permit "only for the storage of heavy equipment and nonconforming uses agreed to in letters to Joe Jammaron dated November 2, 1994, and December 1, 1994, from the Garfield County Planning Department. Any modification to the Commercial Park designation will require the modification of the Special Use Permit though the applicable process in existence at the time of any proposed modification." See Resolution at j 5 (emphasis added). The November 2, 1994 letter focuses solely on the "truck repair and maintenance facility," and the allowance for outside storage of vehicles which the company is repairing. The December 1, 1994 letter states that "a maximum of thirty (30) vehicles stored outside of the main building is a reasonable limit." Neither these letters, nor the conditions in Resolution No. 97-92 addresses the storage and processing of materials which have been the subject of our conversations. Even if the intent was to include in the SUP an expansion of pre- existing, non -conforming materials storage or processing, the plain language of the Resolution does not address these uses and cannot be read to include uses not specifically enumerated. Therefore, the SUP only permits storage of heavy equipment on the southern 2.44 acres of Parcel 2A (Plat record #813402) and a truck repair, maintenance facility with outside storage of a maximum of 30 vehicles on approximately 3.9 acres on the remainder of Parcel 2A. Please refer to the attached map. This means that other land uses presently occurring on the property must fall into the second category of "legal non -conforming uses" in order to be allowed to continue without violating the Land Use and Development Code. The information and historical background that you both provided at that meeting was very useful in forming our opinion about Mr. Goulds current use on the Eastbank LLC property. Staff has concluded that the current storage and processing of materials arc a continuation of past legal non -conforming mineral extraction uses. It is important to document the existing uses on the site because the provision of the currently adopted Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) now disallow the enlargement, expansion, extension, or alteration of a pre-existing non -conforming land use. The intent of this letter is threefold: (l) to memorialize the history of the uses on this property; (2) to explain how revisions to land use regulations over time have changed how a legal nonconforming use may continue; and (3) to clearly identify those uses that will he allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses on the Gould Construction site. History of Uses on the Eastbank LLC Property During our meeting Mr. Gould referred to the "proposed use" and history of the site as outlined in the Land Use Change application submitted for the SUP in 1997. As stated in the application, the proposed use was ...."to extend a pre-existing non -conforming use". Under the section labeled Industrial Operations, there were various references to other industrial uses on adjacent properties and to a company called Grand River. Paragraph II of Industrial Operations states "... that adjacent land will be no more affected by the above (i.e. impact from vapor, dust, smoke, etc) than by the former tenants, which used the land in the same manner as proposed herein." Based on references within the application it seems the former tenant was Grand River. Mr. Gould explained that Grand River was a road construction company that processed materials and used an asphalt batch plant in its operations. It was Mr. Goulds contention that his operations currently are and have always been very similar to those of Grand River without the batch plant, therefore a continuation of a previous non -conforming uses and with less impact. Changes to Nonconforming Uses from 1978 to Present Under Section 7.07 of the 1978 Zoning Resolution, changing from one nonconforming use to another was permitted so long as the new use was "...considered to exhibit an dual or lesser degree of nonconformity than the existing use..." If the nonconforming use was discontinued for 6 months, future uses must be in conformity with the zoning resolution. The Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR), did not treat changes to a nonconformity the same. Under Section 10-103.A of the ULUR, any change including enlargement, expansion, extension or alteration, of a nonconforming use to another would immediately terminate any right to continue a nonconforming use. If a nonconforming use or structure was abandoned or discontinued for 6 months all rights to continue the non -conforming use would be void. The most recent revisions to nonconforming uses are addressed in Article 10, Section 103.A. of the Land Use Development Code (LUDC) adopted on July 15, 2013. Under this code, a nonconforming use terminates if the landowner expressly states in writing to the Community Development Director, if it is abandoned or discontinued for 2 years or if the use is enlarged, expanded, extended or altered. These revisions to Garfield County's land use regulations are significant to Gould Construction operations on the Eastbank LLC property. When Gould Construction received a Special Use Permit (SUP) in 1997, the company was operating under the 1978 Zoning Resolution which allowed a change in nonconforming uses so long as it exhibited an equal or lesser degree of nonconformity than previous uses. There is no record whether the nonconforming uses at the Gould site had ever been abandoned or discontinued. Mr. Gould states his operation has not changed and has been in continuous use since 1997. Therefore, current uses will be considered a legal nonconforming use under previous and present land use regulations. Current Uses and Conditions Based on the representation made by Mr. Gould, County Staff has concluded that storage and handling of materials (soils and gravel, sorting and cleaning) are legal non -conforming uses that have been in place since Gould Construction occupied the site in 1997, These operations will be allowed in addition to the uses permitted specifically by Resolution 97-92 (attached) as discussed above. In order to memorialize the parameters of operation for the aforementioned legal non- conforming status please provide the following information. These documents and this letter will become part of the Jammaron/Gould Special Use File to ensure that this operation can continue to operate as a legal nonconforming use, 1. Detailed description of existing uses. 2. A sealed survey of the 2.44 acre site used for this commercial operation. 3. A site plan indicating location of various operations and storage of materials or equipment. 4. Sealed engineered plan addressing Best Management Practices for stormwater control and details relating to erosion control devices, spill containment and river protection methods. The legal non -conforming uses shall be contained within the area designated on the site plan provided by Gould Construction. Any change including the , expansion, enlargement, extension or alteration of the uses will also terminate the right to continue the nonconforming uses. Pursuant to Section 10-104.A.1 of the Land Use and Development Code (effective July 15, 2013), a nonconforming use shall be determined abandoned if the use is discontinued for an uninterrupted period of two (2) years or more as a result of causes within the control of the property owner or their agent, unless the use is governed by section 10-102.D.2. Section 10- 102.D.2 addresses reconstruction of damaged or destroyed structures. Failure by the County to provide notification of a determination ofabandontnent or termination shall in no way entitle the property owncr to continue or resume a nonconforming use determined to be abandoned or terminated under provisions of the adopted land use code Resp, ctfully, le D. Carmoney Code Enforcement Of leer Community Development Garfield County Administration Building 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 cc: Andy Schwaller, Chief Building Official (via Email) Tamra Allen, Planning Manager (via Email) fileT:Code EnforcementtComplaints-Site Visitsl2O13\Gould Construction SUPCR154\11-20-13 Staff Postion On Gould SUP -F nal.Docx Attachments: Resolution 97-92 Map of Parcel 2A lINIIIVIIItl11j!Liiii 11.111•11111 lii til alibi Illtat Illiii! 5341M 1B( 7/1R/7 d3:2tlt P1d37 P3I 447 1 of 3 A OW ©OW i! 0AO 011itrIELD CLERK STATE OF COLORADO ) Yss County of Garfield ) Ata _____L -guar hearing of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Cnutleld County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday the Eth of October A.D 1997 , there were present Marian 1 SmithCommissioner Chairman John Martin Commissioner Larry McCown. Commissioner Lion DeF©rd County Attorney Clerk of the Board Chuck Desdi a County Administrator when the following proceedir.gs. aro-mg others were had and done, to-wir: RESOLUTION NO 47-92 A RESOLUTION CONCPANED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMrr FOR JOE & GERALDtNE RAE JA1vLtw1ARON AND MARK GOIJI D SEAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from Joe and Geraldine Rte Jatnrnaron and. Mark Gould to allow for the storage of construction related vehicles on the following described tract of land See Attached: Exhibit A (tn the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield), and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the 2nd day ofJune, 1997 upon the question of whether the above-described Special Use Permit should be. granted or denied, at which hearing the public and rmerested persons were given the opportunity to repress their opinions regarding the isstarice of said Special Use Permit, and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact: I That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. r 1111111 I I 11111111!1111 Ili 11 til 1111111 E 11111 II11111 esl47ae ia�e7I1997 e3 21P P1a31 P3 2 447 2 3 et e. ea a e.9, N Leeman= = CLOW 2. Thu the hearing before the Fiord of County Commissioners was ettersive and complete, that all pertinent fats matters and issues were subnritied and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing.. 3 That the application is m compliance with the Garfield County Toning Resolution of 1978, as amended 4 For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, Way. morals, converse ce, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. NOW, 11FEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado. that the Special Use Permit he and hereby is authorised permitting the use of the above described tract of land for the storage of construction related vehicles, upon the following apecifuc conditions. 1 That all proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Board of -County Commissioners, 2 That the applicant be required to participate on a proportionate impact basis in the improvement of the State Highway 82./CR 154 intersection, if the County establishes an improvement program during the term of any lease on the associated property that is not tied to a nonconforming use. 3. That all vehicles accessing Highway 82 from the site will only use the CR I54fHwy 82 intersection north of the ate, except for sehicrlar safety purposes Generally, vehicles va use the CR 154/CR I t4111wy 82 intersection for axes, to the site, except for safety purposes due to the length of the %elides 4. That any office structures meet the 1994 Uniform Building Code requirements for the type of occupancy proposed 5 That the Commercial Part Special Use Perrnit is approved only for the storage of heavy equipment and no'nconofurning uses agreed to in letters to Joe 1ammaron dated November 2, 1994 and December I, 1994, from the Garfield County Planning Department. Any modikation to the Comtmertzaf Perk designation, will require the modification of the Special Use Permit, though the applicable process in existence at the time of any proposed mod theist ion ih1II hall1111 1!p �f.1437 P343 11111IILIJl) 3 sr 3 R e.ee o e.en ri 4.40 GARFIELD CLERK Dated this 7th dayof October AD. 19 97 ATTEST GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COl1SCISSION RS, (3ARFTF r JO COUNTY, COLORADO ..z ., Chairman Upon motion duly n deai7d seconded the foregoing Resolution ma adopted by the following vote. COMMISEIDNER CHAIRHAN MARIAN I. S`1ITH AYE CGMHTSSIOMER JCNN 1'. MARTIN COMMISSIDER LARRY L. MCCOWN Ail Grantor's interest in Lot 21, all that part of Lata T. 9. 22, 28 and 29 Reiterly and Northerly of the Roaring Pork River, all that part of Lot lar Southerly of the Southerly right-of-way Sins of Colorado State highway 12, and all that part at Lots 24 end 35 Southerly and keaterIy of the 6ovth++aatarly right-of-way line of acid Colorado State Righway 12,, all In Section 73, Township 6 South, Range 19 Nest of the 6th P.H., =MT for ■ny part of the above- described kende within the rtght-of-way of slid nighwa. 62, Together with all rater right." Mead upon, or in connec- tion with any of said land. above-deecribe4 and particularly 83 shares of the capital stock Of the Glenwood Irrigation Corpeey and the water end ditch rights evidenced ther.byt and Including Grantor's interest In and to ail oil, gas, sand, gravel and all other *literal@ and ninerel right' on ell of the abate -described lands. Township s 6c nt of l South. Range 19and a haat i of the 2Sixth cPrincipal Meiiadian, County of Garfield, state of Colorado; said parcel g r4 particularly described as follows, Comaencing ■t the Northeast Corner of said Lot 27, a rtbar and cap in place, thence S. 66'25406' w,. .inng the Horth line of said Lot 2T, 261.13 feet to the True Point of Beginning, thence leaving said North lien S. 21'29'00' h. 107.61 feet to a point on the centerline of the Roaring York River; thence R. 7!.)9'l1' W. along said centerline 242.71 feat; thence N. 62.09.22• M. along @aid centerline 237.65 fest; thenen leaving geld centerline N. 00'06'00' N. 4),177 feat t.o a point on the North tine of said Lot 27, thence N 66'20'06' L. slang said North line 560,17 feetto the True Point of 6p inning! containing 1.24 arras, more er 15111 Subject to easements, encumbrances, terns and con- ditions of Inane and liens of record, and together with Grantor's rights and obligations under leesea for gravel and other mineral, and business use' tj! portions of the property conveyed herein, AIE AYE Area of Non -Conforming Activities Parcel 2185-353-04-001 Address 3927 & 4067 CR 154 302843.729 437310638 Meters T:\Code Enfarcement\Cornplaints-Site Visits\2013\Gould Construction SUP CR154\Site Plan for Non -conforming Uses -June 2013.docx David Pesnichak From: Michael Prehm Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 3:39 PM To: David Pesnichak Cc: Rayjean Kramer Subject: Major Impact Review Fed -Ex David, EXHIBIT I3 Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. This facility does access onto County Road 154 directly. There are several things to the West of the proposed driveway that are important to this project. The RAFTA Trail, the Glenwood Ditch, and County Road 154 being fairly steep leading up to the Traffic light, with a curve at the top. At peak traffic volumes traffic could be backed up across the RAFTA Trail. To the East, there is a grade change on County Road 154, steeper drop off for driveway access. In reviewing the Traffic volumes, Turning Templates, and the uncertainly of future development, I would propose the driveway stay were proposed. A Driveway Permit would need to be obtained from Road & Bridge. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman / Glenwood District (970) 945-1223 Office (970) 945-1318 Fax. (970) 618-7109 Cell May 19, 2015 Mr. David Pesnichak Garfield County Planning 108 8111 Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environtnictll.il Consulting and Resign RE: Review of Minor Subdivision & \iajor Impact Applications: MISA 8259 & M1PA 8260 Dear David: EXHIBIT 1 Lf This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Minor Subdivision Application and the Major Impact Application for Easlbank LLC and Federal Express. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: Comments specific to the Minor Subdivision application, MISA-8259: 1. The water quality reports for the existing and the new wells did not have results for coliform. The Applicant should provide these result. The proposed Lot 3 well has not been constructed or tested. The Applicant should provide results of the pump and water quality tests. 3. The Traffic Study that was provided addresses the impacts from the Federal Express facility. Traffic from the proposed single-family house was not included. The Applicant should address if the increased traffic from this additional use would adversely change the results of the Traffic Study. 4. The application materials only address detention for the FedEx facility. The Applicant should discuss what is proposed for detention for the other Lots of the proposed subdivision. 5. The existing driveway access for Lot 2 is proposed to be used for Lot 3. This access does not meet County standards and has grades of 13.28% at the intersection. The Applicant should provide alternative design to comply with County Road Standards. 6. There appears to be existing irrigation ditches on site. The Applicant should address what is to be done with these ditches and the irrigation water. Comments specific to the Major Impact application, MIPA-8260: 7. The Applicant will need to provide a Driveway permit from Garfield County. 8. The proposed FedEx driveway intersection with CR 154 is listed as 7.91%. Garfield County driveway permits required 3% for 30'. The Applicant should revise the design to comply with County standards. 9. The grates for some of the area inlets are below the proposed weir spillway elevation. This will create a situation where the piping and inlets will surcharge and create areas of ponding within the proposed site. The Applicant should verify the detention pond elevations with the proposed inlet elevations and revise as necessary. 826Grand Avenue, Glenwood Spring, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mounlaincross-eng.com Eastbank, LLC Page 2 of 2 May, 2015 10. The RFSD site is proposed to access CR154 somewhere between the existing Lot /Tot 3 access and the proposed FedEx Access. It is understood that some negotiations have already begun for providing an easement for this access. The Traffic Study for this application shows only small impacts to the existing road queueing and levels of service from the Fed Ex facility. This is likely not the case with a third access for a large traffic generator. such as a proposed school. Provisions should be made to allow the proposed access to be combined to a future access to the south that would likely provide better sight distance, allow more room for turn lanes, and provide longer queue lengths. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, l Mountain Cross Engineefing,,,Inc. C'briSliale, PE Mountain Cross Engineering. Inc. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Di sign 826'.x: Grand Avenue, Glenwood Spring, CO 81601 P: 970.945.55444 F: 974.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng,cam May 19, 2015 COLORADO Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street. Room 8821 Denver, CO &02013 David Pesnichak Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8`ui Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 84601 Re: Eastbank Minor Subdivision Section 35, T6S, R89W, 6th PM Water Division 5, Water District 38 Dear Mr. Pesnichak. 1 is EXHIBIT We have reviewed the above -referenced plan to subdivide a parcel of approximately 38+1 acres into three lots Lot 1 would be approximately 3.6 acres; Lot 2 would be approximately 17.6 acres and Lot 3 would be approximately 16.9 acres. The properties current address is 3925 County Road 154 in Glenwood Springs The applicant indicates that they intend on providing water to all three lots through individual on -lot wells. The parcel currently has two existing wells that are intended to be utilized in the proposed subdivision. The applicant intends to treat wastewater through individual on-site septic systems for each lot. The information provided indicates that water use on each lot will include commercial, domestic, and landscape irrigation with no mention of animal watering The first well, which would be located on Lot 1, has Permit No. 296873. The permit was issued on February 12, 2015 pursuant to CRS 37-90-602(3)(b)(t) for uses as described in CRS 37-92-602(1)(f). The wells use is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling No other use of this welt is permitted without a new permit from this office The second well, which would be located on Lot 2, has Permit No. 50236-F. The permit was issued for an existing well on July 8, 1998 pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2). Use of the water from the well is limited to drinking and sanitary purposes inside a 4,000 square foot office/repair shop building, occasional truck washing and floor washing, and not more than 1,000 square feet of landscaping irrigation. The well shall be operated only when a Basalt Water Conservancy District water allotment contract between the well owner and the district is in effect (BWCD contract #312). Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(III), C.R.S , requires that the cumulative effect of all wells in a subdivision be considered when evaluating material injury to decreed water rights. The source of the proposed water supply would be from, or tributary to the Colorado River. This area of the Colorado River Is over -appropriated; therefore. an augmentation plan is required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of any wells. The applicant has indicated that they intend to 1313 Sherman Street, Ruom 821, Denver, CO 8020i P 101866.3581 F 303.866.2223 wWw.wate;.state.ca.us r ism • David Pesnichak Eastbank Minor Subdivision May 19. 2015 Page utilize both existing wells in the new subdivision along with a proposed third well Therefore, a new well permit issued pursuant to a decreed plan for augmentation will be required for the proposed well and the well with Permit No 296873 If the applicant intends to expand tete use of Permit No 50236-F beyond those uses currently permitted, a new well permit issued pursuant to a plan for augmentation will be required as well A 4 -hour pump test was conducted for both wells by Resource Engineering and Ray's Well Done Pump Service on March 3. 2015 The well with Permit No 296873 was shown to produce 10 gallons per minute and the well with Permit No 50236-F produced 20 gallons per minute The uses on Lot 1 are estimated to average a daily demand of 0 75 gpm over the course of the year The water supplies should be physically adequate to supply water to each lot Please note that the long term adequacy of any ground water source may be subject to fluctuation due to hydrological and climatic trends Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), that the proposed water supply can be provided without causing material injury to decreed water rights so long as the applicant obtains (or maintains) well permits issued pursuant to C R S 37-90- 137(2) and the plan for augmentation operated by Basalt Water Conservancy District, for all wells in the subdivision and operates the wells in accordance with the terms and conditions of any future well permits Provided the sustained well yield of each of the proposed wells is similar to Permit No 296873 and 50236-F, the proposed water supply is expected to be physically adequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter. please contact Ivan Franco in this office for assistance Sincerely. Megan Sullivan, P E Water Resource Engineer HIF: Eastbank Minor Subdivision.docx cc Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Water Commissioner, District 38 1 ;1; yri rrn,v. ;t , i, Ruortl 821, DerwC1, Co 8020.3 P 303.06. 3581 F 303.866.7223 v.'P1w %o w til 't rri.u� May 5. 2015 COLORADO Department of Public Health & Environment EXHIBIT 1 142 Detttcated to protecting and imr;ruLeng and environment of the people ur C:�riarNclt, David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8'" St.. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81 601 RE: Garfield Count% Federal Express Facility Referral Dear Mr. Pesnichak: On May 5, 2015. the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) receive(' a request for an air quality determination concerning Garfield Count. Federal Express Facility Referral. 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 and oil and gas projects that will produce air emissions in Colorado are required to obtain a construction or oil and gas permit. The first step to obtain a permit is to determine whether your project will need an Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APEN). Information on APENs and air permits is found at www.colorado.ov/pacific/AP1N . This site explains the process to obtain an APEN and an air quality construction or oil and gas permit. as requires under the Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 3, Part A. Also. the site explains the process to determine whether or not your project is exempt from the regulation's requirements. if your project is located within the Denver Metropolitan Area Ozone Marginal Non-attaintnent Area. you must obtain a permit. Visit +.w . N.'2o\ ,air tltralitti/t;reenl,o(fk; hnniapa.html (select Colorado) to view a map of the Denver non -attainment arca. Once it has been determined that an APEN is required. the next phase involves submission of an Application for Construction Permit (permit) for each facility and one APEN for each emission point at each source. A source can be an individual emission point or group of similar emission points (see Regulation No. 3. Part A, 11.B.4). Both 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 5.. Denver, CO 80246 1530 P 303-692-2000 vwvw.catorado.govicdphe John W. Hickentooper, Governor tarry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chef Medical Officer •+'87ii• AREA UNCONTROLLED ACTUAL EMISSIONS Attainment Area 2 tons per year _ Non -attainment Area Pollutants 1 ton per year All Areas _ Lead emissions: 100 pounds per !,ear All sources of non -criteria reportable pollutants have a 250 pounds or more per year reporting threshold on an uncontrolled basis. You may wish to review Regulation No. 3, Part A, Appendices A and B on the reporting thresholds. However, none of the exemptions from an APEN filing requirement shall apply if a source Viuuld 01hcrrvise 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 vaIid for live years. The live 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 303-692-3 i 48 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 tiN .colorado.gov/pacific/APENtirms for information on specialty forms. Click on Land Development. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call the phone numbers listed above, or call or e-mail me directly. Thank you for contacting the Air Division about requirements for your project. Sincerely, ames A. DiLeo NEPA/EIS Coordinator Planning and Policy Program Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 303-692-3127 / jim.dileo@.state.co.us 4300 Cherry Creek Drive 5., Denver. CO 80246-1530 P 303.692.2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Governor p Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer ccs 1 ,vNYNOOa SA914i .10? .° °EPARI 1 EXHIBIT May 11, 2015 To: David Pesnichak, Garfield County Planner From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, RE: file number MIPA-8260, project name major impact review -warehouse and distribution Facility Eastbank LLC/Federal Express grounds, applicant Eastbank .LLC and Elizabeth Macgregor (Federal Express -Operator Comments Because of the challenges this site presents (no municipal water supply) and uses of the proposed building (multiple vehicle and package storage for distribution) we require the design team include, at the applicants expense a Fire Protection Engineer (SFPE). Section 104.7.2, Technical Assistance, of the 2009 internationai Fire Code (iFC) gives us the authority to require an SFPE be added. The function of the fire protection engineer is to determine the site and building fire flow water demands, the building's fire protection system needs like fire pump or pumps, automatic fire suppression, fire alarm, smoke evacuation and possible gas detection systems designs. The design of the automatic fire suppression system in and of itself is not a straight forward design because of the commodities the building will house History has proven that an improperly designed privately owned and maintained remote standalone fire flow water supply system has hampered firefighting efforts resulting in complete structure losses. The Fire Protection Engineer we recommend be consulted with on this project is; David Tomecek Jensen Hughes 8461 Turnpike Drive Westminster, CO 80031 303-439-0485 ext. 14012 office If the applicant chases to use another SFPE to work with them. They shall submit that SFPE's credentials and references to us for aur review and approval. Additional idea for the County Staff to look at Because there is not a reliable firefighting water supply in the area of this site. We suggest that the Garfield County Staff recommend/require if they can, that the applicants work with the adjoining land owners to establish a shared fire flow water system. If a shared system is developed all present and future building/property owners will benefit from it. Working together now to design one adequate system that future developers can tap into will save money by eliminating the duplication of efforts and may reduce insurance costs. 1 1.'1.1 11 11'('°1' O.J'T 1 (•'1't) T•T'T r'1 1-r1,111 rr\(lr'- CTT T8Jf r• r'•r"11 r- r1 A 1'lfl r11 rr\1 n^1r. In 1 r •nr1 F'4 {/ rl'1 n 1F r1 r•rlr Roaring Fork School District 1405 Grand Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970.384.6000 Fax: 970,384.6005 viww.rfsd.k12.co.us May 15, 2015 David Pesnichak, Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT Dr. Diana Sirko, Superintendent Shannon Pelland, Chief Financial Officer Dr. Rob Stein, Chief Academic Officer Dear Mr. Pesnichak- Thank you for the opportunity to comment on referral applications MISA 8259 and MIPA 8260. The District owns approximately 35 acres at East Bank. Our property borders the north and west sides of the site under review. We are currently in the early stages of planning for the first of two possible schools to be located at Eastbank. We are working with Yancy Nichol (Sopris Engineering) and FHU out of Denver to evaluate access from SH82, CR1 54, and the ability of roads/intersections to accommodate both current and projected future land use in the vicinity, as well as safe and efficient access to the school site. As we await the results of the traffic study and engineering analysis, we are concerned that the proposed configuration of the Fed Ex site may limit options to address recommendations. As a result, we are requesting that a 60 -foot right-of-way be preserved on the east side of the Fed Ex site. The District is willing to work with the developer to complete a lot line adjustment that would extend the lot line on the north side of the Fed Ex site into District property, and would add the 60 foot corridor currently on the east side of the Fed Ex site to what is now the District's parcel. We met with the developer yesterday, and he has agreed to investigate this option further. We are requesting that the lot line adjustment to establish this 60 -foot corridor in exchange for District property be a condition of approval. We appreciate the developer's willingness to work with us in preserving our ability to ensure that traffic flow is as safe and efficient as possible for not only our school site but the surrounding residential neighborhoods and light industrial uses. We do not want to delay this process in any way, and will work with the County and the developer to expedite the lot line adjustment process. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, 604-#074 annon Pelland Assistant Superintendent/CFO David Pesnichak From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Krol EXHIBIT LI Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:06 AM David Pesnichak FW: Referral Application: MIPA-8260 - Warehouse and Distribution Facility-Eastbank, LLC Federal Express Ground Here is Chris Bornholdt's response. From: Chris Bornhoidt[mailto:cbornholdt©garcosheriff.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:04 AM To: Lindsay Krol Subject: RE: Referral Application: MIPA-8260 - Warehouse and Distribution Facility-Eastbank, LLC Federal Express Ground No concerns. Garfield County Emergency Manager 107 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1-970-945-0453 x 1012 cbornholdt@garcosheriff.com From: Lindsay Krol [ma``alto:lkrol+garfield-countv.comj Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:18 PM To: Michael Prehm; Kelly Cave; Jim Sears; Steve Anthony; Morgan Hill; chris©mountaincross-enq.corn; Chris Bornholdt; Megan.sullivan@state.co.us; daniel.roussin§ state.co.us; jim.dileoC@sdphe.state.co.us; bret.icenogle state.co.us; scott.hoyer@state.co.us; rbiggerst@ci.glenwood-springs.co.us; pellandrfschools.corn; jwhite©rfta.com; ibuckacarbondaieco.net; andrew.mcgregor@cogs.us Cc: David Pesnichak Subject: RE: Referral Application: MIPA-8260 - Warehouse and Distribution Facility-Eastbank, LLC Federal Express Ground Hello, The Garfield County Community Development Department has received an application for a land use change permit for the MIPA-8260 - Warehouse and Distribution Facility-Eastbank, LLC Federal Express Ground. Attached, are the Referral Form and Cover Page documents regarding this application. Your comments are an important part of the evaluation process. in order to review all appropriate agency comments and incorporate them into the staff report, we request your response by Tuesday, May 19, 2015. Thank You! Community Development 108 8°h Street David Pesnichak From: Jason White <jwhite@rfta.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:12 PM To: Lindsay Krol; David Pesnichak Subject: RFTA referral comments on MISA 8259 and MISA 8260 Attachments: Service Standards August 2014 update.pdf Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Lindsay and David, RFTA received referral application requests for two projects on the proposed 38 -acre Fed -Ex property along CR 154. Comments below are in response to both referral applications: • MISA-8259 - Minor Subdivision-Eastbank, LLC http://www.garfield-countv.com/community- development/documents/proiect-information/MISA-8259-Minor-Subdivision-Eastbank,LLCMdf • MIPA-8260 - Warehouse and Distribution Facility-Eastbank, LLC Federal Express Ground, Major Impact Review http://www,Earfield-county.com/community-develotament/documents/protect-information/M IPA-825(?- Warehouse-and-Distribution-Facility-Fastbank,LLC-Federal-Express-Ground pdf RFTA does not see any major issues with either project application, with regard to public transit or the Rio Grande Trail. Staff does have some minor comments about the site access. The traffic impact assessments project 230 additional ADT to/from the new shipping facility, which is approximately an 87% increase over current traffic access. The Rio Grande Trail crossing of CR 154 is less than X mile to the northwest from the proposed facility entrance. Although the trail is well -signed in both directions for both motorists and trail users, the trail geometry is not perpendicular to CR 154 and the site lines have led to some close calls. Although motorists are only required to yield to trail users at this crossing, Staff would like delivery drivers to be cautious of bikers that may neglect to follow the stop signs on the trail. Please let us know if there any additional questions. We appreciate your Staff efforts to enhance and expand public transit and trails connections during land use development project negotiations. Thank you once again for allowing RFTA to be a referral agency for land use projects with regional significance. Jasosn W"kite RFTA Assistant Planner 970-384-4968 Leave the car, ride your bike, grab a bus..... From: Lindsay Kral jmailto:lkrol agarfield-county com) Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:03 PM To: Michael Prehm; Kelly Cave; isears@garcosheriff.com; Steve Anthony; Morgan Hill; chris gmountaincross-eng.com; Chris Bornholdt; Megan,sullivan@state.co.us; kaberrv@rnines.edu; daniel.roussin©state.co.us; bret.icenogle@state.co.us; scott.hoyer@state.co.us; rbiggers@ci.gler�wood-springs.co.us; soelland@rfschools.com; Jason White; ibuck@carbondaleco.net; andrew.rncgregor@cogs.us 1 May 20 2015 EXHIBIT Garfield Coun David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development Department RE Eastbank Fed Ex MIPA-8260 and MISA-8259 Dear Dave, l'c't=eia io►r A1rr►rr:.L e1?rent Thank you for the opportunity to comment on both permits, as they both use the same Wildlife and Ecological Assessment, my comments shall apply for both permits Noxious Weeds Staff requests that the applicant manage the County listed noxious weeds mentioned in the Wildlife andEcological Assessment including Scotch thistle (page 22) and Russian -Olive (page 24) Please provide treatment records to the Vegetation Management Department by October 31. 2015 Sincerely, Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager u 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970.625.5939 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1801 1917' Street Golden, Colorado 80401 303-384-2655 May 19, 2015 EXHIBIT c- David Pesnichak Location: Garfield County Community Development S`/s Section 35, 108 8th Street, Suite 401 T6S, R89W of the 61I` P.M. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 39.4834, -107.2938 Subject: Eastbank, LLC — Minor Subdivision — Administrative Review Fite Number MISA-8259; Garfield County, CO; CGS Unique No. GA -15-0006 Dear Mr. Pesnichak: Karen Berry State Geologist Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the above -referenced minor subdivision referral. I understand the applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 38.2 -acre parcel into three parcels. Proposed Parcel 1, 3.7 acres, will contain a proposed FedEx warehouse and distribution facility. Parcel 2, 17.6 acres, will contain the existing InterMountain Environmental Services and Gould Construction facilities. Parcel 3, 16.9 acres, is currently undeveloped. With this referral, I received a FedEx Ground — Eastbank Site Minor Subdivision Application (Western Slope Consulting, April 23, 2015), including a Geotechnical Engineering Study by HP Geotech (February 27, 2015). CGS agrees that the site does not appear to contain or be exposed to any geologic hazards that would preclude the proposed uses and density. HP's report contains a good description of subsurface conditions and soil engineering properties based on the results of 14 borings and lab testing, and makes appropriate recommendations regarding foundations, floor slabs, subsurface drainage, retaining wails, pavements, grading and surface drainage. However: Subsidence hazard. The property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite, and numerous sinkholes and soil - collapse occurrences have been identified within several thousand feet of the site. Sinkholes, subsidence and ground deformation due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are a serious concern in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process in the Roaring Fork Valley, and ground subsidence related to the dissolution of evaporite bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored. If conditions indicative of subsidence or sinkhole formation are encountered during construction, an alternative building site should be considered or the feasibility of mitigation should be evaluated. The applicant and tenants should be advised of the sinkhole potential, since early detection of building distress and timely remedial actions are important factors in reducing the cost of building repairs should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole after construction. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need further review, please call me at (303) 384-2643, or email carlson@mines.edu. Sincerely, Jill l arlson, C.E.G.. Engineering Geologist GA -t5-000(1 1 1•:asfhenk LLC Minor Subdivisiondocx 3:42 PM, 05/I9R015 OMNI ESDU RCE ■ i 111 MOM ■ 1f11 ■ 01111 E N G I N E E Fi I r G l r. C Memorandum To: Nicole Ganimone Campagna, Esq. From: Michael J, Enon, P.E. CC: File: 1325-17.1 Date: May 26, 2015 Re: KW Glenwood Springs, LLC. Coliform Bacteria Testing EXHIBIT Resource Engineering, Inc. 909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)-945-6777 Voice (974)-945-1137 Facsimile This memorandum addresses the coliform bacteria test for the new well drilled for the proposed KW Glenwood Springs, LLC project. The water sample taken March 3, 2015 tested negative for the presence of coliform bacteria. However. the sample did not get delivered overnight due to a snow storm. Therefore. the sample was analyzed outside the 30 hour hold time prescribed by the EPA testing protocol. The sample was maintained at a temperature below 10° C (50° F), which inhibits changes in the density of bacteria. The literature related to development of the testing protocol indicates that samples held longer than 30 hours could experience changes in density of bacteria (both increases and decreases), if bacteria is present. A negative result is not likely to occur if coliform bacteria is present, but is possible. In any event, the coliform bacteria test is most useful after the permanent well pump and pipeline has been installed and disinfected by a licensed well pump installer. If coliform bacteria is subsequently determined to be present in the water source, disinfection treatment such as chlorine or tJV would be incorporated into the potable water system. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. From the Desk of Michael J. Erion, P.E. Page 7 of 1 June 29, 2015 Mr. David Pesnichak Garfield County PIanning 108 8`h Street. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design RE: Review of Updated Major Impact Applications: MIPA 8260 Dear David: EXHIBIT 1 Z. This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Updated Major Impact. Application for Eastbank LLC and Federal Express. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: 1. The RFSD site is proposed to access CR 154 somewhere between the existing Lot 2/Lot 3 access and the proposed FedEx Access. It is understood that some negotiations have already begun for providing an easement for this access. The Traffic Study for this application shows only small impacts to the existing road queueing and levels of service from the Fed Ex facility. This is likely not the case with a third access for a large traffic generator. such as a proposed school. Provisions should be made to allow the proposed access to be combined to a future access to the south that would likely provide better sight distance, allow more room for turn lanes, and provide longer queue lengths. The existing well is located within the access of Lot 3. In the event that Lot 3 is required to use this location as their access. the Applicant should address what would be the alternative location for the water supply well. 3. It appear dial the drainage swa1cs. iiiigatiun lilita, &lid detention pond might be wiihiii the setbacks of the OWTS. The Applicant should address if these are in fact encroachments and if liners are appropriate. Extents and details for lining should be shown on the plans. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mount.; n Cross Engine ng, Inc. 1 -tale, PE 8261/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945,5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com 0.1110, D DEAAR-v t'r'IG EXHIBIT ?S - May 11, 2015 To: David Pesnichak, Garfield County Planner From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, RE: frle number MIPA-8260, project name major impact review -warehouse and distribution Facility Eastbank LLC/Federal Express grounds, applicant Eastbank LLC and Elizabeth Macgregor Federal Express -Operator Comments Because of the challenges this site presents (no municipal water supply) and uses of the proposed building (multiple vehicle and package storage for distribution) we require the design team include, at the applicants expense a Fire Protection Engineer (SFPE). Section 104.7.2, Technical Assistance, of the 2009 International Fire Code (IFC) gives us the authority to require an SFPE be added. The function of the fire protection engineer is to determine the site and building fire flow water demands, the building's fire protection system needs like fire pump or pumps, automatic fire suppression, fire alarm, smoke evacuation and possible gas det systems designs. The design of the automatic fire suppression system in and of itself is not a straight forward design because of the commodities the building will house History has proven that an improperly designed privately owned and maintained remote standalone fire flow water supply system has hampered firefighting efforts resulting in complete structure Fosses. The Fire Protection Engineer we recommend be consulted with on this prosect is; David Tomecek. Jensen Hughes 8461 Turnpike Drive Westminster, CO 80031 303-439-0485 ext. 14012 office If the applicant choses to use another SFPE to work with them. They shall submit that SFPE's credentials and references to us for our review and approval. Addltional idea for the CountY3taff to look at Because there is not a reliable firefighting water supply in the area of this site. We suggest that the Garfield County Staff recommend/require if they can, that the applicants work with the adjoining land owners to establish a shared fire flow water system. If a shared system is developed all present and future building/property owners will benefit from it. Working together now to design one adequate system that future developers can tap into will save money by eliminating the duplication of efforts and may reduce insurance costs. Add' ' n"mrtnms June 30. 2015 To mu t increasing wildfire hazard fuel and grasses on the site it shall be revegetated with plants/grasses from the following Colorado State Forrest Service publications: Fire Resistant Vegetation 6.305 Grass Seed Mixes 6.306 Fire resistant landscaping 6.303 We are still waiting on the review from a fire protection engineer that covers the following: • endorses or requires changes/additions to the proposed site fire protection water supply • number of fire hydrant needed and placement • building automatic fire protection and fire alarm needs • fire department access • Another site/building fire protection needs Roger Neal, High Country Engineering said they plan on hiring Dave Tonrecck front Jensen Hughes to do this review. 101 WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970-384-6480 FAX 970-945-8506 ion David Pesnichak From: Jason White <jwhite@rfta.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:31 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: RFTA comments on MIPA-8260 Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged David, Please accept these as RFTA's final comments on the major impact review for MIPA-8260, or the FedEx Facility on the Eastbank property. We realize this project has some consolidated impacts with the potential School District project on the adjacent properly. RFTA's primary concern is that the existing Rio Grande Corridor at -grade crossing of CR 154 is already problematic in terms of potential conflicts between motorists and trail users because it does not have perpendicular geometry and the sight lines are sub -standard. With the proposed additional traffic at the primary FedEx access point, less than 200' south of our crossing, we are concerned that the increased traffic flow will increase the potential for conflicts between trail users and vehicles. The safety of trail users at this location is RFTA's primary concern. Please consider these additional comments: • The proposed FedEx -School District consolidated access at the northernmost driveway will greatly increase traffic levels with FedEx delivery trucks, school delivery trucks, school buses, parents etc. • The stacking distance from our CR 154 Corridor crossing to the proposed consolidated access point appears to be insufficient Mess than 200') • If additional traffic adversely impacts safety for Corridor users at this location, it may be advisable to install stop signs along CR 154 to stop cars when trail users are present. This would be inverse of the current usage, where trail users must yield to road users • We do not see in the traffic study where the existing CR 154 annual average daily traffic (AADT) data exists. We see a projection of an additional 240 AADT. Baseline traffic data would help RFTA better understand the extent of the proposed increase in traffic crossing the Rio Grande right-of-way • Per RFTA's Corridor trail counters from May 2014 to May 2015, approximately 41,517 users crossed near the CMC turnoff(approximately 1.5 miles to the south of the project site); and approximately 45,340 users crossed near Holy Cross Energy (approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the project site). This data is provided to show that there is already a very high level of users in the project site vicinity. • We would appreciate it if RFTA's Corridor bike/ped usage data could be incorporated into future traffic studies as yet another adjacent road/trail segment to be measured. The projected impact would likely change significantly • RFTA would most likely engage its rail engineers in a review of proposed crossings of the Corridor • If there is an attempt to consolidate the FedEx and School District projects into one referral, RFTA would appreciate the opportunity to revisit our FedEx comments. There may be some new mutually beneficial infrastructure solutions that would result from project consolidation. • We saw in a School District email that the District may need 50-70' of cut/fill access for the southernmost drive to satisfy County infrastructure standards. RFTA believes that this could overlap into RFTA's 200' wide federal land grant section of the Rio Grande Corridor. RFTA is happy to provide a map showing our Corridor boundaries if the County GIS does not already have this data. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regional development project. JasoA Winite RFTA Assistant Planner 970-384-4968 Leave the car, ride your bike, grab a bus The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication andior work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. 2 Roaring Fork School District 1405 Grand Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970.384.6000 Fax: 970 384.6005 www.rfsd.k12.co.us July 17, 2015 David Pesnichak, Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Pesnichak- EXHIBIT Dr. Diana Sirko, Superintendent Shannon Pe[land, Chief Financial Officer Dr. Rob Stein, Chief Academic Officer This letter serves as a status update regarding our work with the owners of the Eastbank property and the future owners of the Fed Ex property regarding access and the boundary line adjustment. The Roaring Fork School District (RFSD) Board for Education has scheduled a special meeting Monday, July 20 to approve the following: • The final boundary line adjustment maps • An easement agreement between RFSD, the owners of the Eastbank property and the future owners of the proposed Fed Ex site that addresses the well, electric, and temporary constructions easements that will be granted by RFSD for the benefit of the Fed Ex parcel. The agreement also calls for an access easement across the Fed Ex parcel should County Road 154 be extended at some time in the future. • A Memorandum of Understanding between RFSD and the owners of the Eastbank property relocating interim access to a point further south on CR 154 on an existing road, providing for the general location and description of permanent access at a point further south on CR 154, and providing for the parties to establish agreements related to other utility easements as may be necessary to serve the school parcel. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Asst. Superintendent/CFO