Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 06.10.2015Planning Commission - June 10, 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)_ 11 - Memo from Gale Carmoney of the Garfield County Community Development Department (Dated June 25, 2013) 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, 2013) 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) Referral Comments from the Roaring Fork School District (Dated May 15, 2015) 18 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 22 23 (Dated May 20, 2015) 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 REQUEST PC 6/10/2015 File No. MIPA-8260 DP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Land Use Change Permit - Major Impact Review for a Warehouse and Distribution Center. APPLICANT — PROPERTY OWNER Eastbank, LLC (Federal Express) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 2185-353-04-001 PROPERTY SIZE Eastbank parcel - 38.2 acres (38.26 acres after Boundary Line Adjustment) & Lot 1 — 4.38 acres (Original application - 3.68 acres) LOCATION 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) ACCESS The facility is accessed by County Road 154 EXISTING ZONING The property is zoned Rural 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-time) 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 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 1 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 then what was reviewed by the referral agencies for this Staff Report. 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 June 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 (originally 3.681 acres) 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 (UCCA) for the City of Glenwood Springs. Even so, municipal water and sewer services are over a mile from the property. 2 RE1 School Dist Parcel (As exist May 2015) _4 DC: Ct. FedEx Parcel (As exist May 2015) Hwy 82 w• Vicinity Map 3 Original Eastbank Parcel Proposed Lot 1— FedEx Parcel Aerial View of Proposed' Eastbank Minor Subdivision (Lot lines are approximate) 4 RE1 School District Parcel Original Eastbank Parcel Lot 1 — FedEx Parcel Inter -Mountain Site Approx. 3.9 acres Gould Site — Approx. 2.44 acres Aerial View of Proposed Eastbank Minor Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 — Inter - Mountain Waste and Recycling and Gould Construction Areas (lines are approximate) Proposed Eastbank Minor Subdivision (Following Boundary Line Adjustment between Eastbank Parcel and RE -1 School District Parcel) .01 NA llmt".111.1 "?INI' VNIM33NION3 A2LLNIlOD HDIN . r,.O(..a ✓ te» iror.ru-waa wrVII wn.V„ IC..., rA up, e I CR 154 origina! Proposed FedEx Parcel FedEx Parcel "...I • Proposed New Eastbank Minor Subdivision Parcels RE -1 School District Parcel 6 � Proposed Site Plan ~3..~~ormr. *w^HLN nera"*M II I .401.140 11,11,6111.66 1100W6.011112 110,14 INCIALLSII Proposed Lot 2 Parcel Boundary Proposed Area to be Dedicated Right -of -Way School District Parcel Boundary 200,000 Water Storage Tank 27,000 Sq. Ft. Warehouse and Distribution Center Envisioned School District Access Realigned CR 154 New Proposed Lot 1 (FedEx) Original Proposed Lot 1 (FedEx) 7 Building Elevations [wsWEST ELEVATION M+.Ca 4VCg11 ■ bamel.•4,C1% .! w,W MAp+2 W.i.4 b OtmodA 0 Pa ..O. maw Imam. o.As C.M•I I a ..C1+Al+1.1 w C[ Cfre.A. N FbMRw' CO►3fi9etAW.. AA 9LA/t HL1.f.yy li+ fi.Cyif At.** IB .Arts •-•:: W Is, ._ I..el. • .wwn n •••••••i` rlila •••••••••••w�,....., SOUTH ELEVATION .rls EAST ELEVATION 11.1.1.•f.•.,f d W ,Irl. .Ia 1 r.,....... ,.•.w *CC* val AVIA f0/0•] ?IP [IA NORTH ELEVATION .K TK RKL PANEL 8 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 Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling View of Subject Parcel Looking North 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. 111. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Public Notice was provided for the public hearing in accordance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. No public comments have been received at this time. Comments from referral agencies and County Departments are summarized below and attached as Exhibits, 1. Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering: (See 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 detention pond elevations with the proposed inlet elevations and revise as necessary. 11 • 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 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Garfield County Emergency Management: (See Exhibit 19) • Noted that there are no concerns with the proposed development. 12 7. 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°k, which is below the 20°i° threshold required in the Access Code. • The proposed FedEx facility does not require a CDOT access permit. • 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. 8. 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. 9. 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", 19. 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. 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. 13 IV. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS In accordance with the Land Use and Development Code, the Applicant has provided detailed responses to the Submittal Requirements and applicable sections of Article 7. Divisions 1, 2, and 3, including Section 7-1001 Industrial Use Standards. The Application materials include an impact Analysis and related consultant reports. technical studies, and plans. 7-101: Zone District Regulations The proposed use demonstrates general conformance with applicable Zone District provisions contained in the Land Use and Development Code and in particular Article 3 standards for the 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 7th, 2001 (Reception number 580572). This IGA designates this development as a "Major Development Application" as it is would create a commercial building over 20,000 sq. ft. 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: 1. Each municipality's plan for its UGA is incorporated into the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. 14 ii. Urban developments in the UGAs are encouraged to annex into the respective municipality. iii. If there is a public benefit to allowing development within a UGA prior to annexation, the County and municipality will cooperatively endeavor to facilitate such development through such means as: 1. County zoning in the UGAs adjusted to a close approximation of the municipality's plans. 2. Development in the UGA is required to obtain a local review with comment (not approval) before submitting for county review. 3. A procedure for municipal/county review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners will be developed in an IGA with each community. 4. Each community is expected to extend services and infrastructure to development in the UGA that substantially complies with their plan for the UGA (landowners and the respective municipality are strongly encouraged to enter into pre -annexation agreements that provide commitments with respect to extensions of services and infrastructure, densities, etc.). Section 1 - Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination Garfield County has worked with municipalities to direct development to UGAs where public services and infrastructure are provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Intergovernmental cooperation between municipalities and other public agencies has demonstrated successful collaboration and has resulted in the creation of new partnerships and collaborative efforts on behalf of the residents of the county. Policies: 1. Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies. 2. Projects proposed adjacent to local municipalities requiring urban services will be encouraged to annex into the affected jurisdiction if contiguity exists. 3. Development in an UGA will have land use and street patterns that are compatible with the affected municipality. 4. Within a focally 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. 15 City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) The Urban Growth Boundary represents an area that can support urban -level development. Urban development is characterized by densities typical of urbanized areas and by the types of services required to support that development such as water wastewater. roads. police and emergency services, and other similar services. It also represents an area of future annexation. Although this area lies outside of the city and is subject to Garfield County land use requirements, according to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, development and land use within the Urban Growth Boundary should be consistent with the future land use objectives of the municipality. Both the Garfield County and Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plans recommend entering into Intergovernmental Agreements to assure mutually acceptable land use and development within the Urban Growth Boundary and to determine a process by which land use proposals will be evaluated by both jurisdictions. The Urban Growth Boundary has been determined using the following criteria: • Ability of the City to provide adequate infrastructure. particularly water service, to new development without placing undue burdens on the City s ability to meet current municipal demands while maintaining adequate levels of service. - Areas where there would be a public benefit for the City to manage growth, giving consideration to visual impacts, economic impacts and benefits, open space and environmental benefits, and impacts on schools and other public facilities. • Areas which, if annexed to the City, would simplify the city limits and provide unity of services. • Location of existing topographical features which serve as opportunities or constraints to development. Low Density Residential Low Density Residential is a designation for land that is outside of the city limits but within the urban growth area. This designation consists of single-family residential development that is intended to maintain a rural character. Appropriate development densities will be determined by, among other things, current land uses, topographic constraints, existing and future utility connections, and existing road networks. 16 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. 11 is intended that these properties within the Urban Growth Boundary be annexed into the city at some point in the future. Among other things, these future land use designations take into account current uses, topographic constraints, existing/future utility connections, existing road networks, and land uses on adjacent properties. Values and Vision for Economic Development Despite a decent level of diversification in the Glenwood economy. the region surrounding the city is greatly influenced by the mining, oil and gas, and construction -related industries. The influence that these industries have on the region makes Glenwood Springs susceptible to the associated boom and bust economic cycles that are typical of western Colorado. Therefore, the City must work to further diversify its economy in order to minimize the impacts of boom and bust cycles. While taking steps to continue diversifying the economy. the City should focus efforts on attracting high -paying jobs to help offset the abundance of low-paying jobs associated with the robust tourism and service industry. Community Goals Supported by Economic Development • Maintain Glenwood's role as a regional center Policies to Enhance Economic Development The City should encourage the development of a well-trained workforce. • The City should continue to make improvements that enhance the community's quality of life and that make Glenwood Springs a place that is attractive for new businesses and their employees. • The City should actively pursue businesses and industries whose operations and products are compatible with the Glenwood Springs vision. Strategies and Actions to Promote Economic Development Attract Diverse Businesses and Industries - The City should diversify the economy in at least three major ways: creating a community where employers/employees want to live, creating opportunity for new and expanding local businesses. and actively seeking targeted businesses. 17 Ensure an Attractive Community - Good jobs are provided by good employers. Good employers will locate in communities where they and their employees will want to and can afford to live. Allocate Adequate Land - Adequate land for new industries and businesses is limited within city limits. However, what is available will need to be zoned to allow a business easy development. The City should consider revising the zoning code to allow for more flexibility of uses for a structure or site in order to better respond to the industrial and commercial real estate market. An adequate supply of attractive and accessible office space for professionals is also important. The City should consider adaptive reuse of structures and land availability prior to contacting targeted businesses. For new office and retail opportunities. the City should help facilitate redevelopment of existing retail buildings in order to meet evolving retail markets and community needs. To better understand the types of commercial office space needed in the community. the City should conduct an analysis on the amount of space currently existing. Options immediately adjacent to the city limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary should also be examined for the ability to accommodate business and industry. An example site is the parcel north of the Glenwood Springs Mall in West Glenwood where the City could assist in preparing it to become a mixed-use office area or business park. The City should also consider partnering with governments or organizations to plan and possibly develop an industrial park in the immediate area. In accordance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Policies, "Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies." To this end, the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan defers to the land use goals and policies of the local municipalities for land within the UGA. The City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as Low Density Residential. 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. 18 e C4, Imo. — Urban G wm 110Mwt 0 00 Ve aw,e *40 area i CodaaImam be el.,m 0e .ee Aatwe, 9amry i Cax~nw Ho 10dg 0.000.00n i wVuxlnat at raps :e P.oxrpnv — Pr awls s~ nMaa era wP«r*oel td9OSIrdaro0 wren -- Cla she Ciys 844.6i ss worlds woks kd raver peee,aq 6 000 w,.t., elevwnn naSeaO1 karst a,.nan and * Ier..fl 0 based on parce� ane.. aixl rrrrl wner sery,oe rea. ie0, avnsey iewadaaI uses ale r` deapnalad WI Mis area W inn.. 2600 ID 00 Ca, a IH,Ar(.bte end Plattner ] I 1 Orrekor000 o Peer deveiOpnanl rV.fn 3 &WPM,/ Subject Parcel City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan of 2011 7-103 Compatibility The Applicant has also provided information describing the character of the area and adjacent land uses. The request demonstrates general compatibility with adjoining uses that are primarily light industrial, 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. Access to the District parcel would be via a 68 foot corridor between the RFTA Trail and the FedEx Facility which connects to CR 154. The uses on Parcel 2 include Inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling as well as Gould Construction. Both of these uses are industrial in nature. Residential development exists across the Roaring Fork River to the south of the subject parcel. 19 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 well will need to be relocated onto the proposed parcel. Staff recommends a condition of approval that a new well be permitted and drilled within the boundaries of the new proposed Lot 1. Further, this new well location will need to be tested for both quantity and quality. 20 Provided the results from the quantity and quality tests on the existing monitoring well, Staff does not foresee any issues with the quantity or quality of the new well location. For the monitoring well located on the original 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 "water 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 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 gprn (1st zone), 755.8 gpm (2nd zone), and 500 gpm hose flow or 2123.2 gpm 21 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 on 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. 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." Staff suggested a condition of approval as a part of the Minor Subdivision application requiring the Applicant to test the well on Lot 1 for coliform as required by the LUDC. 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 Iron Bridge (6000 ft. away) and has provided the following explanation of the proposed OWTS. 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. 22 Due to the proposed changes in the FedEx property (Proposed Lot 1), an updated engineering report for managing the OWTS on the site will be necessary. This report will also need to be reviewed by the County Contract Engineer. Staff suggests a condition of approval addressing this review. 7-106: Public Utilities Due to the distance from public water and sewer service, the Applicant is proposing to serve all Tots 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 was to provide access to the RE -1 School District parcel to the north. In 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 would need to be shifted to the west. While the roadway to the District parcel is not 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. 23 As this site plan and amended accesses arrived at the Community Development Department on May 29, the new proposed modifications have not been referred to the relevant agencies and departments. It is recommended as a condition of approval that the proposed site plan along with road profiles be routed to the Road and Bridge Department, School District and County Engineer and County Contract Engineer prior to the hearing with the BOCC. b. The original 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 CR154 is listed as 7.91%. Garfield County driveway permits required 3% for 30'. The Applicant should revise the design to comply with County standards.'" Provided the proposed modifications to the application which was reviewed by the Road and Bridge Department and County Engineer, Staff will need to obtain road profiles for the new design. This new design will need to be reviewed by the appropriate referral agencies before a conclusion can be reach on conformance with Section 7-107 of the LUDC and driveway standards. d. The new application is proposing an approximately 775 square foot area at the end of the FedEx driveway be accepted as County road right-of-way. While this would be beneficial if the vision of a realigned CR 154 occurs, there is a chance that the plans could still change. As a result, Staff recommends that this area be set aside as an access easement instead of County right-of-way. If this area is dedicated as County right-of-way but plans change in the future, it is possible this area would then need to be vacated — which requires a lengthy 24 process. Should the vision of a realigned CR 154 become a reality in the future, this area can be dedicated at that time along with the rest of the roadway. inter -Mountain Waste and Recycling Access onto CR 154 to Lot 1, FedEx Facility and Location of Envisioned Realigned CR154 The Garfield County Contract Engineer provided the following comments on the original 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. 25 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 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 original application was reviewed by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) (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 aut. 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, 1 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. l 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. It could be an issue on snowy days. These are county issues and will need to be reviewed by the County. 26 The original application was reviewed with general uncertainty as to where the District would have access to their property. Provided the new alignment, referral agencies may be able to provide more nuanced comments. In addition, if the District and FedEx facility indeed 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. As this school access point would be much closer to the RFTA Trail crossing, this new location should be reviewed by RFTA as well as County Road and Bridge, CDOT and Contract Engineer. 27 PIN Proposed Lot 2 RE -1 School District Parcel 30' Proposed Access Easement to RE -1 Parcel and Proposed Lot 3 of Eastbank Subdivision Proposed Lot 3 Proposed/Envisioned Access Roads 28 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. NP'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 evaporate bedrock is an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored. As a result of the subsidence hazard in the area, Staff has recommended 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 29 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 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. 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 26 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 28 of the Lot Split (Photo 3). 30 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 sera! 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 officinale) 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 loss 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 original 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.' 31 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." Staff suggested a condition of approval as a part of the Minor Subdivision that the Applicant address what, if anything, is to be done with the ditches and irrigation water Lot 3 and on Lot 1 parallel to CR 154. In addition, the County Engineer noted that "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." Staff suggests a condition of approval to address this concern. While Staff supports including the above mentioned issues as conditions of approval. the Applicant will also need to provide a new drainage and grading plan for the newly designed Lot 1, This new plan will need to be reviewed by the Garfield County Engineer prior to the BOCC hearing. 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 Wafer 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, Wiidland 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 32 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. 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. 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 suggested a condition 33 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. 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. 7-305 Snow Storage While the original site plan does not identify specific snow storage areas the new proposed site plan does identify a snow storage area. Because of the large number of 34 parking spaces proposed along with the new identified snow storage area, it is Staff's opinion that these parking areas will provide adequate areas 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)). D. Storing The materials to be at the site will be concealed within a building and will not be transferred oft 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. 35 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 Community Development Staff have 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. In addition, none of the technical reports have been updated to reflect the proposed changes. Staff has suggested several conditions of approval which need to be met prior to the hearing with the BOCC in order to obtain referral comments on the proposed changes before a final decision is made on the application. 36 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the late submittal of the revised site plan and that the affected technical documents have not been reviewed by the necessary referral agencies, the Planning Commission generally has two options. The options are outlined below. 1. Continue the Public Hearing The Planning Commission may continue the public hearing to a date certain that would allow the documents affected by the proposed modification to be reviewed by the appropriate referral agencies and by County Staff. Staff expects to receive the updated documents no later than June 12. Staff needs updated referral comments from the following agencies and departments prior to a hearing with the BOCC: County Road and Bridge, County Contract Engineer, Division of Water Resources, CDOT, Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District, RE -1 School District and RFTA. Since the referral agencies have already reviewed the original application, it is expected that a quicker turn around then the required 21 days may be possible. To this end, a continuation to the July 8 Planning Commission meeting may provide referral agencies and Staff appropriate time to review the documents should they be received by Staff in a timely fashion. 2. Recommend Approval with Conditions to the BOCC Staff has provided a set of findings and conditions which attempt to capture the additional referral reviews necessary provided the modifications to the site plan. It is Staffs opinion that with or without the modifications, the proposed Major Impact Review Land Use Change is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of 2030. Staff, therefore, recommends the following conditions of approval for the Eastbank FedEx development should the Planning Commission wish to move this application to the BOCC. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. The hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit for 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. 37 5. That with the adoption of the Conditions of Approval the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following recommended conditions of approval are provided for the Planning Commission consideration. Conditions Prior to Hearing with the BOCC or Issuance of Permit 1. 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 possible issues with the detention pond elevations. Specifically. 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 shall verify the detention pond elevations with the proposed inlet elevations and revise as necessary. All materials shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Contract Engineer and the Community Development Department. 3. Prior to Issuance of the Permit, the Applicant shall address what, if any, alterations are to be made to the ditch on the east side of Lot 1 along CR 154. This explanation shall be reviewed by the County Contract Engineer. 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 En ineer. Prior to issuance of the Permit, the astbank Minor Subdivision plat shall be signed by the BOCC and recorded. J etc ..�ri .Sc ,,c a1 oif' �� CA's 6--66/' C 27 7 c �'rc Ce C c S -` '-+ 38 c; 6. The Applicant shall provide an updated grading and drainage plan reflecting the proposed changes to the site plan and property boundaries. This plan shall be reviewed by the County Engineer prior to the hearing with the BOCC. 7. The Applicant shall provide an updated access plan and site plan along with updates to all impacted technical studies (including the landscaping plan, impact analysis, water supply plan, wastewater management plan, etc.) reflecting the changes to the site plan and property boundaries. These plans shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department, Contract Engineer, County Road and Bridge, Vegetation Management, RFTA. CDOT and RE -1 School District prior to the hearing with the BOCC. 8. The Applicant shall provide a demonstration of compliance with Section 7-107, Roadway Standards, and Road and Bridge driveway standards for the new proposed roads and driveways. This demonstration shall be reviewed by the County Contract Engineer and Road and Bridge Department prior to the hearing with the BOCC. Other Conditions of Approval 9. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 10. 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. 11. The Applicant shall control fugitive dust during the construction and operation of the site. 12. The facility shall maintain compliance with Section 7-306 Lighting, with all lighting to be directed inward and doward toward the interior of the site. 13. Facilities and storage tanks shall be painted a non -glare neutral color to lessen any visual impacts. 14. The Applicant shall control all County listed noxious weeds during construction and operation of the site. 15. As a result of bear activity in the area, all outdoor refuse containers must be certified bear -proof. 16. Operation of the site as proposed is permitted 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 39 17. A minimum of a 200,000 gallon water storage tank shall be provided onsite and as demonstrated in the proposed site plans for use in firefighting and operating the fire sprinklers. Should demand for fire protection water exceed a total of 200,000 gallons, the tank shall be enlarged to meet the requirements as recommended or necessitated by the International Building Code, the International Fire Code, the fire protection district. the Garfield County Building Department or the project engineer. This tank shall be painted a non -reflective neutral earth tone color. 18, The proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) shall obtain all necessary County permits. 19. No hazardous waste shall be stored at this facility. Garfield County PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION EXHIBIT _ I Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. (-X Mailed notice was completed on the . day of pri r x)) rj All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list' • Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. My application required Published notice. Notice was published on the 'fh day of 1-l) ,24314. -Z015 ■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. IV' y application required Posting of Notice. ✓� Notice was posted on the >`14... of Apr; , 21344 Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. 1 testify that the above information is Itrue and accurate. Nance: ji itisfyro ' \QO-tfel Slepe CanSot1-1 1 ,.LC Signature. (ttii �J 'j/ -2Z42. C 15 Date: Ad Name: 11159178A Customer: Western Slope Consulting Your account number is: 1023467 PROOF OF PUBLICATION THE RIFLE CMZEN STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD 1, Michael Bennett, do solemnly swear that 1 am Publisher of The Rile 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 arnendments 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 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 5/7/2015 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 5/7/2015 the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, l have here unto set my hand this 05/08/2015. Michael Bennett, Publisher Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me. a notary public in and for the County of Garfield. State of Colorado this 05/08/2015. c247144 - My Commission Expires t11 112015 Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Easloank, LLC and Elita6eth Macgregor, has applied to the Planning Commie - 'ton. Garf eld County. State el Coiorado.10 re- quest a recommendation of approval for a Land use Change Permit on a property sawed in Ina COunty df Garfield. Stale al Colmar). l0 -ret Leos1_Descrialiofl- Quarter SW Secton. 35 Township S Range 09 Subdrv.Sron EASTBANK PARCEL 2 LOT SPLIT PARCEL 28. PLAT RECsgi3402 practical Description: A 30 2 eve prppedy locat- ed apprnnumataly 2 moles south OP Me City 01 Glen. wood Spnngs oil County Road 154 and known es Parcel Number 2165.353.41.001. Project Description: Thos r0 a Malot Impact Re- view Land Use Change Permit !ora Warehouse and Dislnbulron Center, The overall property os ap- proximately 382 acres, The Property is one Ru- ral. All persons affected by the 010005ed plan aro invit- ed to appear and slate their views, protest or sup- port. II you cannot appear personally at such near- ing, Then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Planning Commrssron wdl give con- siderallon to the comments e1 surrounding proper- ly owners. and others aliecled. in deolding wheth- er to recommend that the Board at County Commisslonera grant or deny the request. The ap- plication may be reviewed al Me Oita of the Plan- ning Oepertment iOefded at 108 Bch Street. Suite Garfield County Plaza Building. Glenwood Springs, Coloredo between the hour$ of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled tar Wednesday. June 10, 2015 e1 6:30 P,M. In the County Commissioners Meet- ing Room. Garfield County Admrnisiretron Balding. 108 $ih Street, Glenwood Springs. Colorado. Planning Deportment Gari old County Published in the Crtrzen Telegram May 7, 2015. 111150178} EXHIBIT Davos Farrar Western Slope Cor,euu,ng U;B5 Basalt Mt Dove Carbondale. CO.d1823 rr � <3)4 'N Claws Farrar Western Stove Cansutung 6165 trial! Mt Onve rartondaIe CO 51023 r:j J • 1 ,!1 filIi t1»i!1 �r;u 1 11 7009 160 0000 1748 0 a. ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATIOr 2 AUTHORITY - ROARING 10 530 E MAIN STREET A#JTHORI f Y 0 0 CERTIFIED MAIL REC4iP f akepant mallow No insurance Coverage TProvaledf a.+rwryr linter Jon wrstt our memo a me,. ASPEN CO 81611. CERTIFIED MAIL 1 11 1 1 11 7009 1680 0000 1708 K TRANSPORTATION 53O E MAIN STRUT ASPEN, CO 81611 U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT" Aiat AR* Coarr ger NOW ls0 PorileMorylraingeMon visitor mamas ailmov slliprimmas ry 1' omd, t�V - r14 ?t1+if3fN %C}I K TRANSPORTATI. AUTHORITY L3O E MAIN STREET ASPEN. CO 81611 ,.a }-"Mr,--mat,.Ar_LJ tt.1.1••.• ROAR r RK IRAN POHTATION AGTHOR11 Y r; w,•- 530 1 MAIN STREET ASPEN. CO 81611 m D CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only: No insurance Coverage Provided) FIN ninninry iniewrmalion wan oerr ww4.n o ne arwrr uapa.cam is 0 1.4:ry,r.. 0 O .n rt•{ r 411Fifte e4ifaao 1+^t r-±4 4 WESALIJrr4tANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 2703 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO aloe!. U.S. Postal Service . y CERTIFIED MAIL:.. RECEIPT iumriffscow Only; No insurence CovsrmlYo Pnovld.d) *tin our 1ea0.11e nt www.uapscoma. I N r- O 0 ,1.ffum CI rFrvfeyiRnrr © f,110.re4191 C� 7009 1680 ra Yn;.ar 44c3m4r, em ll. 1'• �rr.n7 LE.Y,,.FIC-'IARD Y JR & MANISCALCHI. MARIA E 6800 HWY 82 UNIT 1 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 8160.1 US, Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Doal,alk Nail Only; No insurance CaverlQ, Plodded) For eeirery tn+omnrlon vlalt aur maw* at www.usp. oaenc O ...r.f.••:rrrrr i.. 6, O 5 -Jr r1'1' "V,Al 0 JAMM N. KENNETH V & KAREN A 4913 HWY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Ire farnf Me. 7009 1680 0000 1748 0 rtf CERTIFIED MAIL- RECEIPT (Domestic mtl Only: No insurance Cowper Provided) Far &tFwry Iritcwrnsinnn rt.H our wwhene ae Orl.re.uapa Cant WESTBANK RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOC, ATION PO BOX 2703 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO B160iwl,. U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL.. RECEIPT t'DePmeatic AMII OnAr, No Insurance Governor Provtdrd) Fer dal ineA.4e et wenagye visoceno fi NFILEY, RICHARD Y IR & MANISCALCHI, MARIA E 6800 HWY 82 UNIT 1 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 4JU.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT 1tbrrreal>Ic Mill °r y: No thaunmei Cownege Provided) L. ima . 1 ,ql yip:-a.n.ePl .v 1 C r.v41+144nlµrf...3' N. Q' JAMMARON KENNETH V & KARLN A Aki 4913 HWY 82 r _ r. i; fY;+ Mu GLENWOOD SPICINGS, CO 81601 SENDER: COMPLETE TH/S SECTION m Comprote Items 1, 2,, and 3. Also cornple item 4 if Restricted Defivery Is desInki. • Print your narne and address an the rev so that we can return the cant to you. • Attach this card to the back of the fTiallpt or on the front It spaCe permits. 1, Article Act0iesseci 10: ROARING FORK LAND NO 4, LLC c/ NORMAN J BENFOI3D 333 AVENLif OF THE AMERICAS. S 4400 Mirkei FL 33,13J • Artide Numbbr (Transfer ?men werrece lithan P5 Form 3811, February 2004 SENDER: COMPLETE T1S SECTION m complete Items 1. 2, and 3. Also complet item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. 1.1 Print your name and address on the rev° so that we can return the card to you II Attach this card to the back of the malipi Of on the front if space permits. Amide Addressed to ROARING FORK LAND NO ti LLE cif NORM BENFORD 333 SE 2ND AVE 14400 MIAMI, FL 33131 2 Art10116 Norther frrattest from trrvitx)Jabe PS Form 3811. February 2004 Do elJUi JJMOU UtILIU .I',0 z 0 1 44 ✓ 7009 1680 0000 1748 4463. 001/41 lAV ON? 15 f E E A11:11-11,1 1-11JUU -... ' Y.,... ,r; • it '•"4 i -f ."7 : • './., TU "UL -1.11J 0 0 u., 7009 1680 0000 1748 4487 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2. end 3. Also comp item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print your mune and Address on the rev so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the malpi or on the trans If space permits Antcla Addressers to: EASTBANK LLC c/o MACGRECOR, FLORA IRREVOCABLE TRUST 710 E DURANT AVE STE W6 ASPEN. CO 81611 2 Arise* (Tieresfer rrvm service rater) PS Fant! 3611. February 2004 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC le Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also n Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is de rm • Pint your name and address on s so that we can return the card to • Attach this caret to the pack of tit or un the front II spare permits. T 1 Anicie Aidre+_<i'ierl to 0 EASTBANK LLL c/c Mf.LGRf FLORA IRREVOCABLE TRUST 710 L DURANT AVE STE W6 ri ASPEN, CO 51611 2 Article Nunter (Transfer tram aewxs rebs!! In m m tri 7009 1680 0000 1,.48 4256, r-- 0 IA C 0 4- c 0 rti m 0 min m n m d g t7 rs Rt1 o 0 earn 55 a U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (DomesticMall Only: vita insurance Coverage Pried efl) �teary,rflbrmat-rl Watt otic • IllerMallaiNaratt 1.1 . a,oun, a.n4Ki tu•aww.rm 4,4 5h•t1a!1 -+Ne'erT .11r5 4e74roie +a. s:a1. a rags EASTBANK LLC C/o MACGREGOR. FLORA IRREVOCABLE TRUST 710 E DURANT AVE STE W6 ASPEN, CO 81611 PS Form 3811. February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE THS SECTION • Compteme Items 1.2, and 3. Also comp ham 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print your name and address on the rev so that we can return the card to you, • Attach this card to the back of the mpltpl or on the front if space pemilts, 1 Article Addressed le AliING FORK LAND NO 6 LLC NORM BENFORD 333 SE. 2ND AVE X14400 MIAMI FL 33131 2 Article Humber (Transfer from service rade? P5 Form 3811, February 2004 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also 2 item 4 If Restnctad Delivery is dor til • Print your name and address on I sn that we can return the card to cc • Attach this card to the back of th or on the front If space permits. r - TETEE i +Wvil'u O0pbt1 3AV OW 35 FEE u u a 441:11:11U L U U U L r ti r3 a►lCre-f r - 01:10-.1N39 IN iC}N U.S. Postal Service. CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT mats Moll envy: No knurl!~ coronae Arvid* Po! da Ivory Informellon vs tlrf our mannaN rlrealapaeorn4, 1 Article Addressed lo'. r ROARING FORK LAND NO d. 2 NORMAN 1 BENFORD 333 AVENUE OF THE AMERlt co 1400 FL 33 � ROARING FORK LAND NO 4. LLL c/o rr NORMAN J BENFORD 333 AVENUE CA THE AMERICAS. SUITE 4400 ihI 4 1 -i. 2 Article Nurnber (17errs►ar rrom seev;ce taw vs cora Mau + frrlomr,i L A,3J3A i023B6432.1.41540 P5 Form 3811. February 2004 Domestic nem Race o 10•CYA616. SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC a complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Alsc Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is de IN Print your name and address on so that we can return the card lc • Attach this card to the track of tt or on the front If apace permits. 1 Mrie Adttreaaed to: KBH LLC 1502 DORCHESTER DR OKLAHOMA CITY !".rK 73121 2 Anode Number (rtansfar From sown !thee 0 0000 1748 D 1?' r` U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL.. RECEIPT (Dominic Mal! Only: NA Insurance Covwape Provided) Par Watery Mdormatlart visa our wsb.tta a1 rerttr.urw.acon.,. KBH LLC 1502 DORCHESTER DR OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73120 +1etu PS Forrn 3811, February 2004 SENDER: COMPL€T THIS SEC ■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is dei • Print your name and address on so that we can mturn the card to • Attach this card to the hack of 1h or an the. trona 11 space permits. 1. Ando Adnrussed re IAMMARCJN, GLLN L & L r r. 4909 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 1 2. Article Neater (Frenslrlr' from mrvres !aben 3 r;} r-4 ! D O Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE nos SEC rt, U Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Alsc C3 Item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is di r le Print your name and address on so that we can rearm the card tc ■ Attach this card to the back of tt or on the pont If space permits. I"i 1 Anises Addressed to: MACt3t E'GOR. ROBERT DUN /111 LAST DURANT AVENUf ASPEN, CO 31611 2. Article Number tTrarrarer (Torr service /abed} U.S. Postal Service. CERTIFIED MAIL,,. RECEIPT (Oom*stic Mali Only: No Insurence Cameo Protekla dl Far Asllvwy mtonrtedatt vtltsur w.Ml` ei r aroursps acro, "owl lip. , TV.' .nn,m7 e•rrb t �� n MAC ERT DUNCAN Ps Form .3aeO. 710 EAST DURAN7 AVENUE UNIT krrv6 s ASPEN. CO 81611 111,?5as4174A-154u PS Fort 3811. February 2004 Demesne Return R.1,ct U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL„) RECEIPT (,}tic Mall Only: No Insurance ComriQe Provleedj For aw+ooly Information visa out wslaite s www.uepe,00me. Pi Penn mica a 1w JAMMARON, GLEN L & LYNNE 4909 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 4 FIS Form 3811. February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt r SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also cornple Item 4 if Restricted Cielivery Is desired. a Print your name and address on the rev so that we can retum the cert] to you. Iii Attach this card to the back of the mnllpl or on the front 0 space permits. 1 Article Addressed to MALGP.EGOR. ROBERT :'UNC411I 710 EAST DUI ANI AVFNUE uNi1 . ..;PEN. CO 81611 2 Arecae Naanuer (Transfer MVP m eserines 1, lanuatork•ISQ PS Forrn 3811, February 2004 P009 1680 0000 1748 LI06 119180) 4NikiSv 9 M 1INn 3nN3AV LNVafO isv. ,11 {y� 1;. SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete llama 1, 2• and 3. Also `4.1 Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is de 3- 111 Print your name and nddreae on . so that we can return the card to • Attach this card to the back of th or on the front it space permits. N t AttiCie Ad4refset1 to, JAMMARCN. GLEN L. & LYNr 4909 HIGHWAY 82 D GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81 2 Alters Number (Transfer Aron smis'o MbeO U.S. Postai Service CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT (D'arn itis MpII Only; No kI tic Coverage Pro For drivery enro►rrrapn WMt out vomits at www.ua0/.00eer PS Form 31100. Yr••5rr�,.. JAMMARON, GLEN L. & LYNNE 4909 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 31501 PS Form 3811. February 2004 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete Items 1. 2, and 3 Also r_0a.l Item 4 If Restncted Deatvery is dr m • Print your name and Address on SO thatwe can return the card tc • Attach this cavi to the back of ft m. or on the front If apace permits, t Article Addreteeid to. Q c, ROARING FORK PURCHASE TI t LONGFELLOW MANAGEMEN .�J PO BOX 380194 CAMBRIDGE, MAZat 2. Areas Number (!enterer horn service fabbn7 D 1=J Darnels/re Return ReCeipt SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. A1su item 4 If Restricted Delivery is de • Print your name and address on 2 - so so that we can return the card is • Attach this card to the back at It zr or an the front if space permits. N 1 Article Addressed to - ROARING FORK PURCHASE tit LONGFELLObv MANAGEML D PO BOX 380199 CAMBRIDGE, MA 2 Anidu Number (Trent* From ssrvaee ranee U.S. Postai Service,. CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Daimstlr mad Only; No insurance Caverspo Provided) for aeatvery Irdortnetlon Pion our woesile Irl www:eupa.com. When, r,nnlMed 14.111.O. 1 ..vt •,i111t4Oangnt I eel �wtJrr-+rnJ ilw,lw v rano opotolfti1/4a14. 0Y rye wn.�►.a = --- ROARING FORK PURCHASE TRUST L/O LONGFEL'LOW MANAGEMENT Pe Form SsaR PO BOX 380199 CAMBRIDGE. MA 00250e4¢4t rsW PS Form 3811. February 2004 U.S. Postal Service..) CERTIFIED-MAILIMRECEIPT Panic YN! Onry,' No 1nrurirnce Coverage Pravhted) to silvery'h liermettan visit out weil.fa W www.ui 1 IL r m:._a�ernr Ott. ROARING RK PURCHASE TRUST c/o LOW MANAGEMENT PO BOX 380199 CAMBRIDGE, MA 2 - SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC M Complete items 1, 2. and 3. Alsc Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is do Tom` • Print your name and address on 20 that we can return the cart! k • Attach this card to the back of tr +t7 or on the front if space permits, rI tisrliHOP. JOHN r.w I AKE M G SUSAN is. HAUMANN Rom 1. Article Addressed 1G: :2 Ct'+CARE AVE BOULDER. CO 80302 2. Article Number dlhtnSrnr mom OerVICe liber. ID cit a - ID la Domestic Actium Receipt t4.11•13 U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL., RECEIPT (Oonteatdc Mat) Only; No Insurance Comm, Provdrdl For del Wary retormetton Weill Ola' leeaelle Id I-- l•tt. h.• , yair ra L -Y IBJ SISI -814-1+ 11(M & TAKEMOTOT. SUSAN & HAUMANN, ROFIERT 626 CASCADE AVE BOULDER, CO 80302 PS Form 3811. February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt it m•i ie PS Form 3E311, Februen , 2004 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC U' • Complete Items 1, 2. and 3. Also Item 4 it Rostrictnd Delivery IS de • Print your name and address on so that we':an return the Card 10 e ■ Attach this card to the back of th or on the front d1 space permits. 1 Amckr Addressed 14 a BISHOP, JOHN M u TAKEMI SUSAN & HAUMANN. ROBE 626 CASCADE AVE BOULDER, CO 80302 2_ AdiCe Number (irartSler awn wic's lab. ) D U.S. Postal Service.. CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT (Dlolnel rdc Hell Only, No lnsurince cover•pre Pmvlded) For deawry rrtFtx^mltllon alit bur xrr#Ssrlte rl Seemosos_com,. L s - Cr mM,+t "'room r*r;Msl Clew reellrrir.! DeOrery vert..mem weave o,e„erf 4. Fea '5 • - BISHO M & TAKE MOTO'T, SUSAN & h AUMANN, ROBERT Psran n tr„.5 .. pc. /rw he r— :Sara. .4 626 CASCADE AVF BOULDER, CO 80302 PS Form 3811. February 2004 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also Item 4 K Restricted Delivery le de ■ Print your name and address on so trial we can relurn the card lC rso I ■ Attach this card to the back of tf or on the front if space parrntts. r` Dorms& Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Alsc Item 4 It Reanrted Delivery hi dr • Print your name and address on so Shut we can return the card tc • Attach this card to the back of 11 or on the front i1 space permits. 1 Article Addressed AS, lig ru a - T N r -i COLORADO DEPARTMEN' C. 0 RESOURCES FOB DIVISION C AND WL1ILIFE AND PARKS; WILDLIFE COMMISSION T )313 SHERMAF2 STREET tbrtr ova r Co ' C'Z63 2. Artkde We reber fareevre, from sarvks label D r - 11`12m542244-154° PS Form 3811, February 2004 U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAID;. RECEIPT (Domestic mall Only; No Insxnance Coverage 0 (Peril 1. Ander Addresaod to _AZY Ft AASH ELEVEN LCC PO 8Ox 27 C;LENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 2. Arlo Number (Transfer fixe Device Ienel) D l=] D Horan onmemerot =r.:an. Gar -n mews Ruersye & rrc - -8 o - e ±c�:r t;. PO BOX 27 0, f 1br Ain `;-6,;C74r'-• GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-0027 s.,__ LAZY H SLASH ELEVEN LLC Pllr1n Ye► slack DS Foran 3811, February 2004 C1a(nrsstic Hi/turn Receipt 1 O'tl95.O2 m 1544 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also rrn5 Item 4 It Restncted Delivery Is de ru • Print your name and address on Jr so that we a Ori return the card tc • Attach this card to the back of tr - or on the front if space permits. r'- 1 .artkia Addressed 10' KOH LLC 1502 DORCHESTER DR r1 D D 401 U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MA1Lle RECEIPT (Damesfkc Mali Only: No Maurine, COMensge Provided) For delivery inionnetion wart our t 1iU$ MMn1r41rps.tleslt ll.r rr r Voted '.rmHrer Ir CV Pearl, C101.11.111 F ,, , Gal 1 r,i. pita • COLORADO DE.FARTMENT 0- NATURAL RESOURL"EVII513 DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIrr AND PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION 1313 SiREPMAiv sr rE ' :•,rye•-• CO 16243 [s+k POUR MO& lhefue 30Cl i bore llama m ear losrrrrast. Dorneatic Return Recap: 1 t251isC •M-11. U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT (DatnesetA11•l Onrly:,Nies Inruurtsfae Commor Prrrv(ded) OKLAHOMA CIT'1, OK 7312( a tr • , D 2. Article Numbs' (Transfer ham service Welt . \ .r KIBH LLC 1502 DORCHESTER DR OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73120 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt lrr�sss-ru�ss SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC ■ Complete Mems 1, 2, and 3. Alsc irn Item 4 11 Restncted Delivery Is di ;JR IN Print your name and address on - so that wu can return the card tc ■ Attach this card to !ha back of U nr an the front It space permits. rt r -i 1 Article And'essee tC Q 0 & Y JAMMARON FAMILY I. In 4.115 HIGHWAY 82 D LINWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 rr r- 2 MiciA Number (Transfer Orel service &Abell Ps Form 3811. February 2004 U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mari Only; No Insurance Coverage Provtded) For delivery mformetlart rt•n our eyeball• a1 wrrr.uf R.rli L & Y JAMMARON FAMILY LLLF 4915 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-9672 MMS Fane 7MI4. A SENDER: COMPLETE THS SE • Complete Rems 1, 2, and 3„ Alec tr Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is di • Print your name and nddress on -r so that we can retum the card tt • Attach this card to the back of tl ca or on The front 11 space permits. s t~ 1. Artie.* ACQre sed to SHANE & BRUCE'S LLC 4185 COUNTY ROAD 1ra4 n GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 7-124 ra G"1 a~t t7I o - =a r- 2. Anuria Numbest (Transfer from service Meer borne nc Return Receipt rt iie•Cr2 1 }Me U.S. Postal Service ,r CERTIFIED MAIL u RECEIPT (Dorno st c MiJI Only; Pio Nrsursnea Coverage Provided) SHAF S gLICUS LLC 4185 COUNF' ROAD 154 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 142535 -*M-150) SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC rn I. Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also t= Rem 4 it Restricted Delivery 1s de fL ■ Print your name and address on S so that wo can return the card to (0 ■ Attach this card to the back of th �• or an this front It space permits, r• 1. Mlcle A eresfled ie. D Q ROARING PORK RE 1 SCHOOL 1521 GRAND AVE GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81 "-1 a - o D 2. Article Number (Treader from service taoef) U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL., RECEIPT (Dpmpfio MO Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) *ter Cleaver,/ inn:wrestler' rout el 1aww.uspS roTn Lor :IM,14 a.wrn s Dewey roe -mar 6•„e,rgr S ROARING FORK Rt • 1 SCHOOL DISTRIC1 !ROM r, iN rr r.- 1521 GRAND AVE r^u ri<. aur GLLNWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 PS Fenn PS Form 3811. February 2004 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC r- ■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also it Item 4 It Restricted Delivery is de • Print your name and address on so that we can ream the card to 43 ■ Attach this card to the back of th or on the front if space permits. 1 Ankle Artortryed JACKSON, CARTER T & LOU' PQ BOX 27 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 0 r� N 7 &1Icle Number (Transfer from service {theft PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Iteuspt trx�.ra,M•IS U.S. Postal_Service ry CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT Moms* Mill MIN; NO k,m,Mnclr Commas Pit dl Por uelWy Y cern don Olt our MOWN Si WIMILrapl_c lliu 7 JACKSON, CARTER T & LOUISE VAN K POBOX 27 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81602-U027 Domestic Return Remo! 14^b 02-u c.. SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. A)sc Item 4 I1 R shictod Delivery tat dr ■ Print your name and address on so that we can return the card tc • Attach this card to the back of tI or on the front If space permits. ti 1. Article' AddnnSted 10' Ct0ULD MARK C & MARY 200 OAK LANE Calf N'WOOD SPRINGS. CO 2 Article Number (Transfer from serv/re labs 4 D --13 a- 0 0 U.S. Postal Service." CERTIFIED MAIL:. RECEIPT (Domestic m.11 Only; No Int1(lterrp. Cover>!pe Provided/ For sk etrery Information vial[ our wewh M www.wpa.00rn. ./) r r 1 CO, 1N►-] r.ps (town F • "nrrArnen 1 ,00 /.. =hely .•• 00t.x+T.feA Cl0,1 r.+11f x�'n'MS} 8 FT�•1 S GOULLt'$, MARY A 200 OAK LANE GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81601 PS Form MOO PS Form 3811. February 2004 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC ■ Complete Items 1, 2. and 3. Also `a Item 4 If Restricted D•orlvory Is do 0 ■ Pnnl your name and address 0n so that we can return the card to ■ Attach this card to the back of th or on the front 1 space ixumlts f` - t Article Ai -Itemized to: NARE HOUSE 1NvF5TMµ ,IAR1 NERSHIP 1 1 1 1 DUNN AVC NUE YLNNL. WV 82001 2 Arttrie Nrmfiet frratirxhar from memo teem ,-9 70019 1680 ©DDD Return pt tti7$a5.c244-15e0 U.S. Postal Service., CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic (Mall Only: No hrawance COvoiwcp, Provldod) For oeuvery tntorinaliorr rasa cur wetting at Www.uspLcuntt • VS Perm R WAREHOUSE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP 1111 DLJNN AVENUE CHEYENNE. WV 82001 PS Furth 381 1, February 2004 Domestic Return Reca pt tc sSo2 t51p SENDER: COMPLETE This sEc 11.1 ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3, Aiso a - Item 4 If Restricted Delivery • der ■ Print your name and address on t S I so that we can return the card to co I L ft : ' 1`..`t • Attach this card to the back of Ihr a- __ ` N- _ U.S. Postal Service. CERTIFIED MAIL ,, RECEIPT (Rgmee& kiall Only; tdo insurance Corrraige Pr■vttded) or on the front if space permits. N 1 Article Addressed to, D II b-! .:SSKiQ • ,f.r1,11 }'r�l� ,r.e LiLU[ HERONPROPER 7IEStL1:3 .r•.,u.::...,, .' 1007 WESTBANK ROAD 42 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81 IT 2 Arttcb Number Menem from service label) 1 'BLUE HEROIN PROPERTIES LLC 1007 WEST BANK ROAD r' C1ENWOODSPRINGS, CO S,601 P5 Font 71(117. PS Form 3811, February 2004 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC is Complete hems 1, 2. and 3. Also Item 4 11 Restricted Delivery is de ■ Print your name and address on so that we can return the carr] to • Attach this card t0 the back of th or on the front If space permits. 1, Article Addressed to SHANE & BRUCE _, : _;AB. 4185 COuN1 r ROAD 154 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 0 r- 2 Artkde Number (Transfer mom serece caber/ Dronesttc Return Receipt U.S. Postal Service— CERTIFIED ervice—CERTIFIED MAIL.. RECEIPT Manse* Iia Only; No Inawusrtcf. Corr ser Prurlded) For *Mowry IrllomesUOn von Blur' eleostie at www.] lL'Ytm. SHANE t L3RU�,.Cr'S LTD LiARILITY CO 4185 COUNTY ROAD 154 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 PS Fn.", MG PS Form 3811, February 2004 Oornestic Retire Fhacetpt tams -o24.445. SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also Item 4 II Restricted Delivery Is de • Print your name nrld address an so that we can return the card to • Attach this card to thn back of th or on the front If space permits. 1 Article Addressed to' LACY H SLASH ELEVEN LLC POBOX 27 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 5. *,.r+r:. ,,.a:'1;2441_5 c LASH ELEVEN LLC U.S. Postal Service - - CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Moil Only. No insurance Covtrrve Provided) 2. Arm. Nlanttm alveolar hour Ferran w e11 tr Pe .__. GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81602.0027 r• Fermat 3100. PS Fvrm 3811. February 2004 SENDER. COMPLETE THIS SEC • Complete {tame t, 2, and 3. Also tr Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is dE • Print your name and address on se that we Can return the carr! to • Attach this card to the back of tri 'a or on the front If space permits N t. Mice Adi]reemod to ROARING FORK RE•1 SCHOC 1521 GRAND AVE cal .f• l 0 D r- GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 8 2. MOB Number (Owls*r from sew to tebert Domestic Rum Receen 102S054244. t U.S. Postal Service `CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT (Dorsi is Ala/) Only: No insurance Covereue Pna+ridrd) :'.t•rdri Ft, Retnn nmcuulo+ Frlr Er tar ,l4 rleu.gre ,. ;mating.* PeNte/v rot. tt .V r.»trn1 ir4i Pnslrep• ROARING FORK RE -1 SCHOOL DISiRIC1 ,,151111 1521 GRAND AVE i, •*ec. Teti 7;4: GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81601 ar Mirf eeWO. PS Form 3811, February 2004 Do nrnlIC Return Receipt tOZI0}02M-1540 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE• • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. A15l Item 4 11 Restricted Delivery is di n - MI Print your name and address on Q so That we can return the card tr a • Attach this card to the hack of 11 co or on the front if space permits. 7 1 Article Areiresee to: HLNKE PRLWLRT LINNIECKE 215 S MONARCH ::101 ASPEN, CO 81611 2. Article Number fTransrer reran service ) I a Form 3811. February 2004 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT (Donwfic Mail Only: No townie= Covesege F?ovGdlsd) Par dIaawry information vied out +i.tialle Ora +rww.e y.trried D Cl 14.1wir Peeve r rawstetrm i*tet •r t: ri L r- • Complete nems 1, 2, and 3. Also =- item 4 it Restricted Delivery is de J- IM ■ Print your nam© and address on itt so That we can return The card to • Attach !his card to the back of It r'- 01 en the front It space permits- +-1 1 Micro r1cfdrt ..dx1 to D COLORADO DEPARTMENT C oD RESOURCES EOE DIVISION L AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS; WILDLIFE LOMMISSION )333 SrIERMAN STREET i-`]. t.►be f' CO s 0 a.03 2- Article Nurtbet (Penske- Rom serce tafx.11 a•.n• tiMd ewe i'an +>.c.utr1+ star, oaten .Ary . C HENKE PROPER LLT. c./o CARL 6 LINNIECKE 2 15 S MONARCH 4101 ASPEN. CO 811.611 Domestic Return Receipt - U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL- RECEIPT (Domestic MINI Onty: No Insurance Comae, Armor:WO F0r deihrary nlbrurllrron vert) atr erste ele al M,tiar r S,r. o 144.01 .tit -,art +,tlwr/1 r. '' 1:�- .,. • ii�.1•'irA, 'CC114.013ADODEPARTIVIENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR DIVISION OF PARKS ANL) WILDLIFE AND PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION ' 14, ••'-Yi1®YrM PS Form 3811, February 2004 Dnmeatic Return Receipt 107595-r'- SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC U.S. Postal Service.,. CERTIFIED MAIL:., • Complete name 1, 2. and 3. Also (Donwerfic Mui Only; No Ms Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is de rn fest dN • Print your name end address an t =- so so that we can rearm the card to t Attach This card to the back of the ar on the front It space pem+its. 1.:'testa t . Article Addressed to 0 D SHANE & BRUCE'S LLC ct 4185 COUNTY ROAD 1)3 r GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 0 r - z Aticl. Number Merxshr from service Ebel RECEIPT nae Cawnos Proved d) Ff & 8 ZE 5 LLC 4185 COUNTY ROAD 154 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 PS F0117131311. February 20004 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE 14 Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Aisc +~o Item 4 i1 Restricted Delivery is ch a II Print your name and address an so Mat we r:an return the card to ea ■ AltaCh this Card 10 the back of tl or on the from i1 space permits. 1. Articla Aciaeeaxd to Dorrttisnc Return Receipt 1oMOS.o2_µr540 U.S. Postai Servicer. -- CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT (DG asifc Wit OnSy, No insurance Compile Pruvfded) Ceara F 0 t Cl ttWurct :wcwplFb 0 .,- 4totet,dtlN.g.$6..1 BLUE HERON PROPER "IES 1 L m 1007 WEST BANK ROAD _a info Ptw.ea:41F.!5 GLENVVOOD SPRINGS, CO 8' �� &LCJE HERDN PR(7t�ERTIEs LLC t3 .,.;-4-Ar;.--K;. 100i'W1 E5TI3ANK ROAD IT o ,.r,tfire/No <``n':ii ::fit+.: GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 aettr_Jert tJMeW,ir Fe y t, ■ r'rare u. 2. MSc* Number f nuorror hart serve. filbert PS Farm 3811, Februarys 2004 Domeattc Return RaoeIpt Kr:u -err 1 mu SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also rU Item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is de rri • Print your name and address on S so Inst we can return the uttd VO • Attach this card to the back o1 th or on the front if space permits. t. Article Addressed to Ct tel JACKSON, CARTER T. & LOUISE o PO BOX 27 U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL.,, RECEIPT fdeelr (Domestic Mil 0nfy: No tnsursoce GC'vinv cO GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO E10 13 JACKSON. CARTER T tr r~, 2. Article Wenner i riarroter room service fabe1 PO BOX 27 & LOUISE VAN K. GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81602-0027 PS Form 3811, February 2004 D Return [receipt SENDER: COMPLETE TH1S SEC • Complete items 1.2, and 3. Also item 4 If Restricted Delivery is de - ■ Print your name and address on s so that we can return the card to • Attach this card to Me back at th Of on the front it space permits, r r1 to L & Y JAMMARON FAMILY LI 2 4915 HIGHWAY 82 Gi FNWOOD SPRINGS. CO 8: 1. Antero Addressed ro 2 AntcJe Number (Trareer from sonnei ta5eft PS Form 3811, February 2004 10259542-W15 7 U.S. Paste Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domeafic Mall Only: No insurance Coverage Pravidbdl Ft. salivary 1 n'X.taip• 11.44119 .4 H•t,M t.j .- .' w't r vHIt our t..p.lte.t ars rmy t cont. F * t it int, run.eM for 1 rue[ r+cwer w S �''}fN41MA N FAMILY LLLP 4915 HIGHWAY 82 ® tihM •,�!r ru V LtltAtM to- r - 174, 51,A; `• . , GI.FNWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81601-%22 DarnestIC Return Rncvtpt 1 .I1 95W4F IS SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SE• SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC • Gamplete Items 1. 2, and 3 Also m Item 4 i1 Restricted Delivery is de r'r, 11 Print your name and address an so that we can return the card lc 43 ■ Attach this cans to the back of It or an the front If space permits r- - r7 1 Article Mt1,e re d WAREHOUSE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP 1111 DLUNN AVENUE ENNE, WY 82001 2 Article 'Singer Chamfer Rem service reGen 7009 1680 0000 U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverl.pe Prvvtded) 1- ft.• - 1 i A-REHO 5E INVESTMENT PA ERSHIP er.r.an our. 1111 DUNN AVENUE CHEYENNE. WY 82001 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC i. ■ Complete trams 1, 2, and 3. Also .11 item 4 If Restricted Delivery is de M • Print your name and address on sn that we can return the card to =p Is Attach this card to the back of th or on the front if space permits. r` 1 Article Addressed le t71 SHANE & BRUCE S LTD LAB' 4185 COUNTY ROAD 154 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 2 Article Nunmer (Transfer kern sesvice label) 41 r-1 tr c� U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Omna itic Mall Only, No dnatirenca Covrv■pe Prov/ded) Far d.dtvery Infnrmwwn vt t our *owns et www.0 cam, t i 1'• 1 •n• SI -LANE & BRUCE'S LID JAB1LITY CO 4185 COUNTY ROAD 154 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601. PS Form 3811. February 2004 • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Ate m Item 4 if Restricted Delivery to d uta ■ Print your name and address or s so that we can return the card t ■ Attacn tare card to the back of r T. or on the front 11 space permits r- 1, r1 1. Article Addressed to' HENKF PROPERTY LLC c/o ( d LINNIECKE ro 215 5 MONARCH 0101 "na ASPEN, CO 81611 a Arracd. Nlrnbee ,Transfer Ram srvrlce LINO Domesljc Return Receipt tW.,45-02A11-1540 PS Form 3811. February 2004 U.S. Postal Service,.., CERTIFIED MAIL:. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Prov ,0tnr Pte$,rp.. 11 HENKE PROPERTY LLC c/o CARL B a """R LINNIECKE C] �%'ate ids ,..ielaww 215 S MONARCH x1101 ASPEN, CO 81611 tmNe SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SEC ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also un Item 4 tf Restricted Delivery is der rn ■ Print your name and address on so that we can return the card to co ■ Attach this card to the back of th or on the front if space permits. r 1 AnftIe Addressed 10: 1=1 COULD. MARL( C & MARY A E 200 OAK LANE) ra GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 a 2 Article humour (Trans.* Roar ewlce leb■ry a- 0 CD r - Domestic Return Racelpt 1C?41s0244.15. U.S. Postai Service,, CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT - (Domestic Melt OW; No ineurenoe anterllp+ Amide* /Skein MOO. Ci4.LIED,MARK C L MARY A 200 OAC VE GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81601 PS Form 3811. February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt io sssr>;r.M.rsw P5 Forte 3811. February 2004 Domestic Return Recelnl td25B6024.1.141! Dan. Farrar Western Slaps Cramming 0165 Beaell AA! Orm Carbondale. CO. 81623 tJ rt, + "1h, +J1'r, .• i11, 1r.., Days Farrar Orasrnrn Suape Cans+rilrng 11165 Bdarll MI Deva Carve -ads*. CO 01523 '*1 ;1'i 111=.1. P14;11121 111M1191111IM 11 11 111111 11111 7009 1680 0000 1748 4371 WESTBANK RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 2703 GLENWOOD SPRSNC _ .•"' . t • CERTIFIED MAIL 1 10 7009 1680 0000 1748 4135 WESTBANK RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 2703 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. Ul 1Ant as O o c —G r .. = i T y ` -n g r9 N P - 0 Gang Firma WuI. [ II SLRfn CumUWnQ 016.5 Basalt Mt Onvi rad:QHCalf. CO .157-3 4.;at 4 � i Dar.' Farrar Waslarn Soo Consulting 0165 Sauaal MI Orr., Caraarxta+s. CO a162Z 1 1 N 11 7009 3180 0000 1748 448 ROSE. JAMES L PO BOX 432 RIFLE, CO 81650-0432 I MAILr. 1 1 11 111 1 11 1 7009 1680 0000 1748 4241 ROSE, JAMES L PO Box 432 RIFLE, CO 81650-0432 t. ■ 1 whour 111, -ii&dt.labisit east 'agteifi • wit David Pesnichak EXHIBIT From: Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:46 AM To: Tamra Allen; David Pesnichak Cc: Carol Storey - CDOT Subject: Fwd: Referral Application: MITA-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 970.68.3.6290 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501 daniet raussinCstate.co.us 1 www.coloradodot.info 1 www.catrip.org DAD I-xU t June 25, 2013 Garfield Coun E3alcomb and Green P.C. c/o Chad J. Lee and Thomas J. Hartert P.Q. 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: (1) 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 ("UL[JR") 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 vehicle 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 inc 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 A/I, Agricultural/Industrial at that time. August 5, 2005. As described in a letter dated August 5, 2005, from the Balcornb 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 Balcomb 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 IMW 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 Tess intense in use than those prior to 2005, Garfield County recognizes an 3.9 acres site (as shown in the Exhibit H) 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. Page 2 of 3 Current and future uses shall be contained within the area designated an the site map as shown in Exhibit H. Any change in use will be subject to the land use code in effect at the 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 begat 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 nonconforming uses. Expansion, enlargement or change in uses ‘Ni 1I also terminate 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 f ectfully, Gale D. Carrnoney Code Enforcement Of cc: Fred Jarman, Community Development Director (email) Andy Schwaller, Building Official (email) Carey Gagnon, Assistant County Attorney (entail) Robert Macgregor, Dunrene Group file:T:\Code Enforcement\Complaints-Site Visits120131Eastbank LLC 3927 CR 154\6-25-13 final Itr RF 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 10 of 2008 Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended H.) Site Map Page 3 of 3 1 Ill9!l 11111 lllill llI I lllll ll1 lillli 111 Hill 111! Ill 514714 1CIf1f14 7 d1r2U ttt437 P31iY 447 t ar 3 R e.ee o e.Ee x q#.0i t;ARFIEt.D cx+Jtu STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Crisfield At a regular hearing of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, In Glenwood Springs on Mojtday the. rsth of_Osi_ A 19_27_, there were present Marian 1 Smith , Commissioner Chairman John Martin _ Commissioner Larry j1cCown Commissioner Don DeFord County Attorney Mildrffi.,Alsdorf , Ctc c of the Board Chuck Deschesus , County Administrator when the followi g proceedings, among others were had and done, Io -wit: RESOLUTION NO 97-92 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR JOE & GERALDLNE RAE JAMMARON AND MARK GOULD WHEREAS, lbe Board of Courcy Contrnasionen of Garfield County, Colorado, has received appbcaraon from toe and Geraldine Rae Jammaron and Mark Gould to allow for the storage of construction related vehicles an the following described tract of land See Attached: Exhibit A (m the Stale of Colorado and the County of Garfield), and WHEREAS, the Board held a public having on the 2nd day of June, 1997, upon the question of whether the above-desoribed Special Use Permit should be ,granted or denied, as which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issiancr of said Special Use Permit, and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has trade 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 Commissioners. EXHIBIT 1 11111 11111 1111111 111111 1 1111 1111 t H 511788 10/87/1;27 83:28P 61837 P382 447 2 or 3 R e.ee o a.ea k t].ea ccArz'ao renew That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was exterLivc and complete, that all pertincit facts, matters and issxs were submitted AM that 811 interer.ed parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended 4 For the above stated and other maims, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, cortverias e, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield Cntenty. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Boud of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Special Use Permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above described tract of land for the storage of construction related vehicles, upon the following specific conditions That all proposals of the applicant shah be considered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Board of County Comtrissioners. That the applicant be required to participate on a proportionate impact basis in the improvement of the State Hghway 82/CR 154 intersection, if the County establishes as in rovesner11 program durng the term of any lease on the associated property that is not tied to a nonconforming use 3 That all vehicks accessing Highway 82 from the site will only use the CR 154/Hwy 82 intersection north of the site, except for vehicular safety purposes, Generally, vehicles wi11 use the CR 1541CR 114IZ-iwy 82 intersection for access to the site, except for safety purposes due to the length of the ve}ticles 4, That any office structures rseeet the 1994 Uniform Building Code rec{uiremerxs for the type of occupancy proposed That the Commercial Part Special Use Permit is approved only for the storage of heavy equipment and noncordforrninng uses agreed to in letters to Joe Juunaron dated November 2, 1994 and December 1, 1994, from the Garfield County Planning Department. Any modifier -ion to the Contmetcis! Park designation, will require the modification of the Special Use Permit, through the applicable process in existence al the time of any proposed modification 11111111111f 11111 IIli I1111WEB ill 11111ill U 5177e6 1a/07✓1297 i'i3:26P 81837 P383 447 3cI3R0.00DC.00N0eeGARFIELD CLfRX Dated thiis17th day of ootober "A.D ID 97 . ATTEST: Cle of the Board GARFIELI) COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO F7'/,'",;-4,erz Chafm:an Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN MARIAN I. SMITH COh1HISSIO8E8 JC{tN F. MARTIN COHMISSIOER LARRY L. MCCOWN EXHIBIT 'A' All Grantor's interest In Lot 21, all Chit part of Lots 7, a, 22. 21 and 29 Easterly end Northerly of the Roaring Fork River, all that part of Lot 11 Southerly of the Southerly right-of-way line of Colorado State Nlghwey 12, and ell that part of Lots 25 and 25 Southerly end I.teeterly of the Southwesterly right-of-way line of aeld Colorado State Highway 12, all In Section 35, Townahip 6 South, Ra1790 13 west of the 6th P.M., EXCEPT for say part of the above- desarlbed lands within the right-of-way of said Highway 421 Together with all water rights used upon, or In connec- tion with any of said lands above-described and particularly 15 shares of the capital stock of the Glenwood Irrigation Company and the water and ditch rights evidenced thereby; and fecludin9 Grantor's interest In and to all oil, 1101, gravel and all other minerals and eineral ri9htsson all of the above-described Londe. A parcel of land situated In Lot 21, Section 3$, Township, 6 Scuth, of 09 Wast of the Sixth Principal County Garfield, State of Colorado; being more particularly described as follows; said parcel Commencing at the Northeast Corner of said tat 27, e rebar and cap in place, thence 5. 16.23,06. N. along the North line of 'old Lot 27, 251.01 feet to the True Paint of Beglnnfn9; thence leaving said North lire S. 25.29'09• W. 197.63 feet to is point en the centerline of the Roaring lork River; thence N. 75`31.12' N. along said centerline 242.71 feet; thence N. 02.09'22. W. along paid centerline 237,65 feet; thence leaving aald centerline N. 00'5 '36' W. 43.07 feet to a paint on the North line of laid Lot 271 thence N. 16'20'06' E. along said Horth lne-5691 feet to the True Point ar Beginning; contaip.l 1.21 acres wore or leas; Subject to easements, encumbrances, terms and con- ditions of lease end liens of record, and together with Grantor'' rights and obligations under 1 other elnerals end business uses of portions of othecprol and conveyed herein, property AYE ,AYE AYE GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING November 2, 1994 Joe Jarnmaron P.O. Box 1631 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Mr. lammaron:. After 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 (1 0) 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 a maximum for the proposed new use. Additionally, your new client will need to be sure 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. If your newclient can operate within these parameters, we feel that they would be within the provisions fora change in a nonconforming use. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or write to this office. Mark L. Bean, Director Building and Planning M L%3lsa 1095TH STREET, SUITE 303 945-8212/625-5571/285.1912 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, troictit LD COWRY Joe lammeron PO Dox 1631 ,. . , a. .. - -,,,_ •_.. Gtenwcicd Springs, CO 81602 21 November. 1994 Mari; Baan Dir. Garfield Co Building & Planning 109 8th` St . Glenwood Spr l ngs. CO 61601 Dear- Mr. Bean: After reading your letter of a Nov., 19944 1 felt that your estimate of ten ( 10) truckls parked at 3927 154 Road to be extremely low. I wrote at letter to K.R. Weatherly, Western Mobile's Vice President and area manager (copy enclosed) asking for - information on their operation. As you can sue by his response (copy enclosed) . they at times had around eighty trucks there. I do not fetid that any new busi nusa would need this amount and would like to suggest a maximum of thirty (30) vehicles be allowed. fh oiI: y4.0 roe your consideration oar this mcc t tetr . Sincerely, 3oe amrr+aaron rre Western gla, Mobile • November 15, 1994 Joe Jammaron P.O. Box 1631 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602 Dear Mr. lannrnaron; Or.w,i°r ,AY Glenwood Spgs. Cavrdda 814 3113 90-11672 Fa= 30.3445 761 In response to your request for information on he number of tracks and other equipment. that we stored at 3927 County Road 154, 1 hope the following information will be of help. During the 1970s and 1980s we had a total of 50 mixer trucks, 18 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. KltWijb Respectfully, K.R. Weatherly Area Manager Western Mobile is en Equal Opportunity Employer EXHIBIT D GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANIIIING December 1. 1994 Joe Jammaron PO Box 163J Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Deur Mr. Jammaron: Based on your 11/21/94 letter and the attached letter from K.R. Weatherly. Western Mobile, 1 concurr that a maximum of thirty (30) vehicle stored outside of the main building is a reasonable limit for a nonconforming use on your properly. This does not prevent someone from requesting a rezoning or landuse permit, that may allow for an increase in this maximum, 1f you have any further questions about this issue, feel free to call or write to this office. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean, Director Building and Planning Department M LB/mb 109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 I48-82121625-5571/285-7872 OL NWOOD SPRINGS, EXHIBIT ES7woRo Muw,au., JR SCVTr BALC©M6 LAWRENCE R. GREES Tmorray A, THULLON DAVID C. HAuroRo CHRisraFH[R L. COYLE THOMAS J HASTERT CHFOSTOPHER L. DEICER ANNE MARIE MCPHEE SARA M. DUNN DANTEL C. WetesioOLE BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.D. DRAWER 700 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81002 TELEPHONE: 870.945.6346 FACSIMILE: 970.943.8902 www.balcombgreen.com August 5, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mark Bean Director of Community Development Garfield County 108 Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado OF COUNSEL• ME-YN GTH Mascara JoHH A.T,uLsOH SP,CUL CoUNSCL: WALTER 0. LOWRT RE: Eastbank, LLC/Cozy Point, LP (a/k/a "Jammaran 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 ("RMI?") 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 vehides and uses attendant to the operations of RMD will be maintained. BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C7. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAox 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 carne 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 ciainn 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, 1 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, 1 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. 1'1H:ski Pc: Robert Macgregor Mike Maple Ron Van Meter (Garfield County Zoning Compliance) Rocky Mountain Disposal (ATTN: David Sanders) Very truly yours, BALC©MB & GRE N C. By: Thom • J. Hartert Atto ey for Eastbank, LLC and. Property Manager for Dunrene Management, Inc. ARTICLE X NONCONFORMING LAND USE TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 1 A. Enlargement or Alteration of Nonconforming Land Use Frohibited1 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 IISE4 A. Determination of Abandonment. 4 SECTION 10-107 NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND RIGHT TO BRING ENFORCEMENT ACTION 4 A Written Notification. 4 €3. Right to Bring Enforcement Action 5 GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 10-i (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 (he 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. 6. 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. 1. 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. Addition of New Structure. The addition of a new structure containing, or accessory to, the nonconforming land use. 3. Enlargement and Alteration of Conforming Structure. Unless otherwise allowed by provisions of Section 10-103(8), 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 NONCONFORMfNG LAND USE 10-103 ENLARGEMENT OR AL TERATION OF A NONCONFORMING LAND USE 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. 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 or 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. Change in Ownership. A change in ownership of the property upon which the nonconforming land use is located. 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 and/or 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. 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. 7. 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 ART[CLE 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 sane 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 shaft 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. 6. 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. 1. 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 owners 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. 3 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 less 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, all as shown on the records of the County Assessor, The property owner shalt 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 Directors 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 10-1O7 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 Left Blank Intentionally) GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION OF 2008, AS AMENDED 1 0-6 3.9 Acres / Area of Non --Conforming Activities Parcel 2185-353-04-001 Address 3927 CR 154 30284333 437310638 Meters T:1Code Enforcement\Complaints-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 Garfield County Cotntt�unit� Uecelopment 102 8th Street. Suite 40 1. Glenwood Springs. CO 2I601 Office: 970.945.8212 Far 970.3843470 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL and USPS RE: Could/Jamnearon 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 if the 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 115 (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. Gould's current use on the Eastbank LLC property. Staff has concluded that the current storage and processing of materials are 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 ofa pre-existing non -conforming land use. The intent of this letter is threefold: (1) 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 identity those uses that will be 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 Industria! Operations, there were various references to other industrial uses on adjacent properties and to a company called Grand River. Paragraph B 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. Gould's contention that his operations currently are and have always been very similar to those of Grand River without the batch plant, therefore a continuation ofa 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 equal 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 10-103.1E 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 rnost 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 pari 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.l 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 10-102.112. Section 10- 102.D.2 addresses reconstruction of damaged or destroyed structures. 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 Resp ctfully, ale D. Cartnoncy 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 Entail) Tamra Allen, Planning Manager (via Email) file Mode Enforcement1Complaints-Site Visits120131Gould Construction SUP CR154111-20-13 Staff Postion On Gould SUP-Final_Docx Attachments: Resolution 97-92 Map of Parcel 2A J IWMI iilll ihlli Illfll Iltii !li illitl 111 iilil ISI 1111 91a7aa lB/ 711tt7 63 21P ilts37 P3a1 {47 STATE OF COLORADO ) )55 County ofCrarfield ) At a regular hearing of the Board of County Commissioners for Gan5eld County, Co:orado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield Coterty Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday the Fth of Ilctrdan_,,, AD 1742_, there were present Marian 1 Smith , Commissioner Chairman John Martin Commissioner Larry McCowen , Commissioner ,ion Data County Attorney MtiQ[m.Alsde ' Clerk of the Board Chuck Deschenes County Administrator when the following ptoceedirgs, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO 97-92 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITi-i THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL. USE PERMIT FOR JOE & GERALDINE RAE JAMMARQN AND MARK GOL1.O WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has teethed application rzuor Joe and Geraldine Rae Jamm u:on and Mark Gould to allow for the storage of catutr ction 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 hed a public hearing an the 2nd day of June, 1997, upon the question of Whether the above-dcsctiiled Special Use Permit should be granted or denied, u which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issrarrcc of said Special arse Permit, and. WitEREAS, 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. 11111111111111111 111111IIID111IIIIII111IW1111! Ill) 014784 18/87/1997 83:24P 81837 P382 447 2 or 3 R 4.$8 D 8.88 si 8.e0 GARFIELD MOM That the hearing before the Boars! of Caunty Commassiorxrs was cdersive and complete, that all pertinent acts, maters and issues were subttdtted and that all interested parties wcre heard at that hearing. 3 That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Reso ut:on of 1978, as amended 4 For the above stated and ether reasons, the proposed use ii in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, code- prosperity std wdfue of the citizens ofCru1.rld Cnunty. NOW, DEERE -FORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Cousity Corarniscioners of Ciarfidd County, Colorado, that the Special Use Permit be and hereby is authorized permitting 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 exinsidered conditions of approval unless stated otherwise by the Hord of County Com;rissioners. 2 That the applicant be rewired to participate on a proportionate impact basis in the improvement of the State Highway 82/CR 154 intersection, if the County establishes an improtie:nem 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 imersect:on north of the tate, except for vehicular safety purposes Generally, vehides will tae the CR 154:CR 114Hwy 82 irtersedion far axeas so the site, except for safety purposes due to the ler•.gth of the vehicles 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 Permit is approved only for the storage of heavy equipment and nonconforming uses agreed to in letters to Joe /a ninaron dated November 2, 1994 and December 1, 1994, from the Grarlfeld. County Plannittg Department. Any moacation to the Corrcrreroisl•PBric designation., will require the modtficatiar of the Special Use Permit, though the applicable process in existence at the time of any proposed modification Dated this 7th day of ATTEST 1!JI111111lU 1111II1111LU11It1I1111 UUIJ)JD1 3 e1 3 R e. 0 e.oo e_e craw l[1 p mow Oct her AD 19. 97 Cie R of the Board GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COM NfISSrONERS, OARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Chairman Upon mason duly trade and seconded the foregoing Res}ration was adopted by the foliowicg vote. CC.'+.HISSIOYER CHAIRMAN MARIAN I. 5Y:7H ATE Ce1HHISSICNER JINN F. MARTIN ,ATE CCHHISSTOER LARRY L. MCCOWN AYE FESTAL! 'A' All Grentar.e interest in Lot 23, all that part of Lots 7. e, 22, 11 end 29 asa'lerly and Northerly of tuna Ron:inq nark River, all that part of Lot 11. Southerly of the Southerly right-of-way line of Colorado State highway 12, and all that part of Lots 24 and 25 Southerly and Westerly of the Southwesterly right-of-way line of said Colorado State Highway 12,. ALL la Section 75, Township 1 South„ Range 09 Wast of the 4th ;v,N., LACES'S for ■ray pert of the above- deerrlbed lends within the right-of-way of acid Highway 42r Together with all water righter used upon, Or in connec- tion with any of avid lands above-dseetlbed. and Particularly 15 shares of the capitol stock of the Glenwood 2rtigetlon Company and the water end ditch rights evidenced therehyr end Incladloq Grantor's interest in and to all oil, gem, mend, gravel end •11 other xlnerele and nloerel right, on all of the abase-dencrtbed lands. A parcel of :Lod ■ltheted In 'ler 27, Section 35, Tovhship 6 South, Range 19 weer of the Sixth lrinclpal Neridien, County of Garfield, state of Colorado: maid parcel being more particularly described as tallows: &oe,aenelnl it the Rorthealt Corner of said lot 27, a rebar and cop In placer thence S. 11'20'06• w. along the Borth line of said tot 27, 241,01 feetto the True Point of 1e21anln3' thence lereing mend Forth lire 5. 29'29'0d' W. 153.£1 feat to a point on the clntertlna of two Roaring Port Rive:; thence N. 75'59'12' N. along said centerline 247.11 feet; lienee H. 17'09.22' W. along said centerline 757.65 Cert; thence leaving maid centerline H. 00'09'70' W. 47.07 feet to a point on the Horth Una of said. Lot 72, thence H. 16'70'06' 5. along timid North line 519,17 feet to the True Point of Beginning' contslning 1,24 acres, more or lees' Subject to eaaenentm, encumbrances. teres and con- ditions of lease and liens of record. end together with Grantor's eights end obligations older 1 other ainermie and business oats lar grovel sty conveyed herein, pIII`' Do-tfana p., the property . Area of Non -Conforming Activities Parcel 2185-353-04-001 Address 3927 & 4067 CR 154 ROW Inter -Mountain site d1 Approx 3.9 acres rt R Y Gould Site Approx 2.44 acres ]Q a u• 302843.729 437310538 Meters TACode Enforce rent\Complaints-Site Visitsy2O13\Gouid Construction SUP CR154\Site Plan for Non -conforming Uses - June 2O13.docx tomas (lea David Pesnichak EXHIBIT I ? ; From: Michael Prehm Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 3:39 PM To: David Pesnichak Cc: Rayjean Kramer Subject: Major Impact Review Fed -Ex David, 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 voiumes 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) 9454223 Office (970) 945-1318 Fax. (970) 618-7109 Cell MOUNTAIN CROSS / ENGINEERING, INC, Civil and Environment i Consulting and Design May 19. 2015 Mr. David Pesnichak Garfield County Planning 108 8'i' Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Review of Minor Subdivision & Major Impact Applications: MISA 8259 & MIPA 8260 Dear David: EXHIBIT 1 I This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Minor Subdivision Application and the 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: Comments specific to the Minor Subdivision application. Nt1SA-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. 2. 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 he 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 hat is to be done with these ditches and the irrigation water. Comments specific to the Major Impact application, M1PA-8260: 7. The Applicant will need to provide a Driveway permit fron7 Garfield County. 8. The proposed FedEx driveway intersection with CR154 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 verily the detention pond elevations with the proposed inlet elevations and revise as necessary. 826 1, Grand Avenue, Ginnwuod Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.coni Eastbank, LLC Page 2 of 2 May, 2015 10. 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 nol 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, Miountoin Cross Enginee ing,, Inc. t t , Chris I late, PE Mountain Cross Engineering. Inc, Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5556 www.eriountnincross-eng.com May 19, 2015 COLORADO Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street. Rooni 821 Denver, (0 80203 David Pesnictiak Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8'1 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: EXHIBIT We have reviewed the above -referenced plan to subdivide a parcel of approximately 38+/ - 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)(I) 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 well is permitted without a new permit from this office. The second well, which would be located an 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 1313Sherman Street, ROOM 821, Denvc•i, 008020 P 303 866.3581 F 303.866-2223 wvra.water.state.co.us c* Col.( • •. • 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 the use of Permit No 50236-F beyond those uses currently permitteda 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 Rays 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 Subd€vis€on.docx cc Alan Martellaro. Division Engineer Water Commissioner, District 38 1313 SI't'rrr.an Street. Room 821. Dower. CO 15C2O3 P lila 86S 3561 F 303.866.2:23 www witc'i stare ro.uti • • May 5. 2015 COLORADO Department of Public Health fr Environment EXHIBIT Dedicated to prorectir of the people 01 Colorado David Pesnicllak Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th St.. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 RE: Garfield County Federal Express Facility Referral Dear Mr. Pesniehak: On May 5.2015, the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) received 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. An sources of potential construction and oil and las 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 ,rllclo.trovipacifielA1'l:N . 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 -attainment Area, you must obtain a permit. Visit www.epa.eov/air qualitviereenbooiJlutn apa.html (select Colorado) to view a map of the Deliver non -attainment area. 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, 11.8.4). 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 S., Denver, CO 80246.1530 P 303-692-2000 www.cotorado.govicdpne John W. Hickentooper, Governor Larry Wolk, ND. MSPH. Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 1&7a AREA, UNCONTROLLED ACTUAL EMISSIONS Attainment Area _ 2 tons per Fear Non -attainment Area Pollutants I ton per Near All Areas Lead emissions: 100 pounds per year 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 would otherwise be subject to any specific federal or state applicable requirement. Information concerning submittal of revised APEN is also given in Regulation No.. 3, Part A. An APEN is valid for five years. The five year period recommences ► hen a revised APEN k received by the Division. IL you have any questions regarding your reporting or permitting obligations, please contact the Small Business Assistance Program at 303-692-3148 or 3175. Land development construction activities (earth moving) that are greater than 25 acres or more than six months in duration ‘‘ ill 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 .eolorado.uov/pacific/APEN tb Is 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, arises 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:cr',state.co.us 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246.1530 P 303.692-2000 www.colorado.govlcdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Governor Larry Wok, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer 1 1 EXHIBIT May 11, 2015 To: ©avid Pesnichak, Garfield County Planner From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, RE: file number MINA -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 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 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. 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. irl4 {tir. '-r" or11 c"r17 r`C'r /'`r rmr{l!R'lfi%rl C" ru- 1A.t !'C' i'f 1 r'n A i- r+s Cit rnt rv-sn r-snnA ra nn rA I! n^vn n.tc rsrnr Roaring Fork School District 1405 Grand Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970.384.6000 Fax: 970.384.6005 vomv.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 1.9 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, CR154, 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, a/f/tHilq annon Pelland Assistant Superintendent/CFO David Pesnichak EXHIBIT ( Cl From: Lindsay Krol Sent: Tuesday, May 19. 2015 10:06 AM To: David Pesnichak Subject: FW: Referral Application: MIPA-8260 Warehouse and Distribution Facility-Eastbank, LLC Federal Express Ground Here is Chris Bornholdt's response. From: Chris Bornholdt [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@earcosheriff.corn From: Lindsay Krol [mailto:lkrol@garfield-county.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:18 PM To: Michael Prehm; Kelly Cave; Jim Sears; Steve Anthony; Morgan Hill; christernountaincross-eng.com; Chris Bornholdt; Megan.suliivana)state.co.us; daniel.roussinCostate.co.us; jim.dilea.a dphe.state.co.us; bret.icenogle •@state.co.us; scott,hoyerestate.co.us; rbiggersC ci.glenwood-springs.co.us; pelland(arfschools.com; jwhitefarfta.corn; jbuckC carbondalecosnet; 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! rltlis'ag7 n l 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, EXHIBIT 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:j/tiw:vw.garfield-county.comkomnwn,ty• d ;=:loornentldocuments/project-informat+on/MISA•r, ! ± ,n-Eastbank,LiC.pdf • MIPA-8260 - Warehouse and Distribution Facility-Eastbank, LLC Federal Express Ground, Major Impact Review http:Jfwww.garfietd-county.cornia >>unity-development/drocurnents/prolect-inforrnatlon/M1PA-8260 ,;. riistrlbtlton•Facility-Eastbank,LLC-Federal-Express-t round 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 1/4 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. J&sari V./kite RFTA Assistant Planner 970-384-4968 Leave the car, ride your bike. grab a bus From: Lindsay Krol[mailto:Ikroltkgarfield-countv.corn] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:03 PM To: Michael Prehm; Kelly Cave; jsears@garcosheriff.corn; Steve Anthony; Morgan Hill; chrisi4mountaincross-eng.com; Chris Bornholdt; Megan.sullivanlbstate.co.us kaberry+amines.edu; danieLroussin+ci state.co.us; bret.icenogleCa7state.co.us; scott.ho era,state.co.us; rbig_gersci.cilenwood-springs.co.us; spelland+arfschools.com; Jason White; jbuck@acarbondaleco.net; andrew.mcgregor@cogs.us May 20, 2015 EXHIBIT Garfield Coun David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development Department RE Eastbank Fed Ex MIPA-8260 and MISA-8259 Dear Dave, IVe!c1atio►r 11'IanaEe,,,e,,t 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 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 Sincerely, Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1801 13' Street Golden, Colorado 80401 303-384-2655 May 19, 2015 David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 EXHIBIT Location: S'Y Section 35, T6S, R89W of the 6'1' P.M. 39.4834, -107.2938 Subject: Eastbank, LLC —Minor Subdivision — Administrative Review File 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 lnterMountain Environmental Services and Gould Construction facilities. Parcel 3, 16.9 acres, is currently undeveloped. With this referral, 1 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 walls, 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 G:k-15-ROO6_ 1 Easgb nk LLC Sebdivisiosr.docz 3:42 PS4. 05019 2015 ":"RESOURCE 11111 1111 ■ 11111E N G I N E E R I P G INC Memorandum To: Nicole Garrimone Campagna. Esq From: Michael J. Erion, 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 $1601 (970)-945-6777 Voice (970)-945.11.37 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 cotiforrn 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 UV 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 1 of 1