Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24. Garfield County Building and Planning ResubmissionEdward B. Olszewski Melody D. Massih Amanda N. Maurer OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 916 214 — 8TH STREET, SUITE 210 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 TELEPHONE: 970.928.9100 FACSIMILE: 970.928.9600 July 19, 2012 Fred Jarman, Director Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 VIA HAND DELIVERY Website: www.ommpc.com RE: Major Impact Review for Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, BNS Services, LLC Contractor's Yard- Resubmission of Submittal Requirements Dear Fred and Molly: This correspondence comes to address issues cited in your correspondence dated May 23, 2012 and our subsequent follow-up meeting. I will follow the Sections cited in your ULUR 4- 502 Description of Submittal Requirements (for Major Impact Review) for ease: ARTICLE IV APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES Section 4-502 (D) Land Suitability Analysis 11. Natural Habitat. The 5 acre site where the Contractor's Yard is going to be is a previously disturbed area which has been used as a gravel storage area. The only existing plants remaining on the site are scant sage brush, juniper and native buffalo grasses over a negligible portion (less than 1 acre) of the total 5 acre Contractor's Yard. No wetlands exist on the Property, as can be seen from the revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan submitted herewith. There is an irrigation ditch running through the Property. As it runs through the Property, this ditch runs for 3-4 weeks per year on a typical year to 2 months per year in a very wet year. Since it is dry the majority of the year, the ditch has no known flora or fauna habitats, and is a rocky bottom ditch. The Applicants do not have any water rights on this ditch and the Contractor's Yard site has been adjusted to comply with the county setbacks. As can be seen from the revised Site Plan submitted herewith, the site is located over 35 feet from the ditch. There will be no disturbance to the ditch as a result of this Contractor's Yard. We are also submitting a revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, Reclamation Plan and Landscaping Plan showing the proper setbacks from the ditch. Please replace the previous maps submitted with these revised maps. OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review July 19, 2012 Page 2 of 3 As far as migration corridors for wildlife on the Property, I have included Colorado Department of Natural Resources maps for the most common species in the area, which are mule deer and elk, and also a map with regard to the endangered kit fox. The location of the Property is delineated on these maps. As can be seen from the attached maps, it does not appear that the Property is a migration corridor for any of these species. Kit fox have not been confirmed as being in the area at all. Deer and elk do utilize this geographical area, albeit not as migration corridors, but given the fact that the 5 acre Contractor's Yard site has already been disturbed and is mostly gravel, the physical yard itself will have a relatively small physical impact on these species. Also, this Contractor's Yard will receive far less traffic and human activity levels than most other commercial developments, and it is unlikely its presence will diminish deer and elk use of the Property significantly. 12. Resource Areas. As discussed in our meeting, the ground underlying the Contractor's Yard site has already been disturbed, so any spoilage of resources as defined in this section have already taken place. However, as requested, I contacted the Colorado Historical Society-OAHP for a record search. Robert Cronk, a Cultural Resource Information/GIS Specialist was able to provide me with information on the sites and surveys in the Colorado Historical Society's files with regard to the Property. This information is attached hereto in letter and table format. Mr. Cronk explained that there are no known archaeological sites on the Property, and that there have been two surveys that have been undertaken with regard to cultural resources showing no sites. Mr. Cronk stated that the fact that there were two surveys which included the Property and no prehistoric or historic sites were found was better proof than is typically found, because in most areas of Colorado, these surveys have not even been conducted. Thus, there are no protected or registered resource areas on the Property. Section 4-502 (E) Impact Analysis 8. Environmental Effects. Section 4-502(E)(8)(a)- Determination of long and short term effect on flora and fauna: As stated above, the site has already been disturbed and most of it is gravel, which has eliminated most plant life on the site. The remaining vegetation is limited to sparse juniper, sage brush and native buffalo grasses, and will remain largely undisturbed as the majority of construction will take place on the graveled areas. As such, both the long and short term effects of this small Contractor's Yard on the existing flora and fauna on the site will be minimal. In addition, Applicants will be installing further landscaping as is set forth in the Landscaping Plan submitted with our April 11, 2012 Application and supplemental materials. The remaining vegetation on the larger 35 acres of Property owned by the Applicants will be undisturbed. Section 4-502(E)(8)(c)- Determination of effect on critical wildlife habitat: As stated above, the maps provided show that this Property is not a migration corridor for any of the key species as identified. As also stated above, the site has already been disturbed and so any further development on the site itself will have little physical impact on the animals. The remainder of the larger part of the Property will be left as open space and as undisturbed for the wildlife. E:\L04. Garfield County Building and Planning Resubmission.20120720.doc OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review July 19, 2012 Page 3 of 3 ARTICLE VII STANDARDS Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water A (3) Quality of Water Source. A sample from the Applicant's well was analyzed by Grand Junction Laboratories and the laboratory results were reviewed in conjunction with State standards by High Country Engineering. Tom Scott's Memorandum stating that these sample results are within normal ranges is attached hereto. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation A revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is attached hereto. This Plan shows the total acreage to be disturbed on the Property as 1.7 acres. The Plan was also revised to show the setbacks from the ditch, as set forth above. Section 7-206 Drainage Attached hereto is the High Country Engineering Memorandum discussing this section as requested in your correspondence and discussed at our meeting with regard to the drainage on the site. If required, and as is further set forth in my April 11, 2012 correspondence, we will provide a full drainage report as a condition of final approval for this Contractor's Yard. Section 7-207 Stormwater Run-off Attached hereto is the High Country Engineering Memorandum discussing this section as requested in your correspondence and discussed at our meeting with regard to the drainage on the site. As to your further questions, I believe we answered those in our meeting. To reiterate, with regard to the Improvements Agreement, we are stating that an Improvements Agreement is not applicable to this Application, and thus this requirement should be waived. The drainage on the site was discussed at our meeting and the Memorandum referenced above is attached hereto for further clarification. Thank you for your time and consideration. We have now addressed all of the issues articulated by the Building and Planning Department and this should render the Application complete. Please contact me with any further questions or concerns. Very truly yours, OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. By: Melody D. Massih MDM:mkd cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer E:\L04. Garfield County Building and Planning Resubmission.20120720.doc