Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout28. BOCC Staff Report 12.17.2012Exhibits — Major Impact Review — Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, MIPA 7214 BOCC Public Hearing (12/17/2012) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Proof of Publication, Posting, and Mailings B Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 D Application E Staff Memorandum F Staff Powerpoint G Emails from Melody Massih, dated September 27 and 28, 2012 H Email from Garfield County Road and Bridge, dated September 6, 2012 I Letter from Garfield County Vegetation Manager, dated September 11, 2012 J Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering, dated September 10, 2012 K Email from Colorado Department of Transportation, dated August 23, 2012 L Email from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, dated September 10, 2012 M Email from the Town of Parachute, dated August 23, 2012 N Emails from Grand Valley Fire Protection District, dated August 22, 2012 and September 18, 2012 Letter with attachments from Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. dated October 12, 2012 P Email from Mountain Cross Engineering, dated October 15, 2012 Q Letter from Garfield County Vegetation Manager, dated October 16, 2012 R Letter from Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. dated November 14, 2012 S Geology and Geologic Hazard Evaluation Letter from CTL Thompson, dated November 8, 2012 T Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan from HCSI, dated November 5, 2012 Revised Traffic Analysis Report from High Country Engineering, dated November 14, 2012 V Revised Site Plan, revision date: November 16, 2012 W Revised Erosion and Sedimentation Plan, revision date: November 16, 2012 X Revised Reclamation Plan, revision date: November 16, 2012 Y Emails from Mountain Cross Engineering, dated November 16, 2012. Z Letter from Melody Massih, dated November 27, 2012 AA Email from Melody Massih, dated December 3, 2012 - l—t-fesr tYl;vvt kflc,c(1 Nisicsii,l cAcA,t I'D -c,. 17 2uI2_- i 1 Board of County Commission 12/17/12 MOL PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Major Impact Review — Contractor's Yard PROPERTY OWNER Nathan and Becky Schaeffer REPRESENTATIVE Melody Massih, Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. LOCATION 2456 County Road 301 (CR 301) ACCESS County Road 301 ZONING Rural I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Nathan and Becky Schaeffer (Applicant) seek approval of a Major Impact Review Permit for a Contractor's Yard on their property located at 2456 CR 301. The subject property is 37.7 acres in size of which five acres will be used for the proposed land use. The Applicant presently owns a company (BNS Services) that supplies equipment to the oil and gas industry in the area. BNS Services is located in Traveler's Highlands but wishes to build a shop and store equipment and materials for the company on the subject site. Presently, there are two non -office employees who report directly to the job site and will visit the proposed Contractor's Yard to pick up and drop off equipment and materials. C_OUNTYROAD NO.301 1.•,i`. - expanded to the north. The subject site will consist of a 50' x 100' shop and two graveled storage areas. The shop will contain a sink and toilet. No office is proposed in the shop at this time. Water will be provided by an existing commercial well (Permit No. 287650) and a proposed Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) will serve the wastewater on-site. The shop and storage yard are also to provide locations to conduct repairs on equipment and vehicles. Access to the parcel is from CR 301 by an existing gravel road which bisects the five acre subject site. On either side of this road are the storage areas. A portion of the storage area west of the access road already exists and is to be The east storage yard also exists and was recently installed without a 1 County grading permit. The Site Plan in the application depicts the shop to be situated at the south end of the east storage area and this storage area to be set back a distance of 35 feet from the Helwitt and Milburn Ditch, a water body. However, a site visit on October 11, 2012 by County staff revealed this setback to be 10 feet or less for this water body. The application also states that the site will store approximately four pieces of large equipment such as a trackhoe, skidsteer, backhoe, etc. The staff's site visit also found the parcel to contain an assortment of machinery, tanks, a trailer, generators, large equipment, and materials in both existing storage areas. The subject site is presently being used as a "Storage Yard" which has not been reviewed or approved by the County. On August 13, 2012 County staff met with the Applicant's representatives to discuss the application. At this meeting County staff identified the existing ditch on-site as a water body and indicated that all applicable sections of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR) concerning water bodies would need to be addressed (i.e., Section 7-203, Section 7- 207, etc.) by the Applicant. The County also discussed Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water and Section 7-106 Adequate Central Water Distribution and Wastewater System and reviewed what information is required as per the ULUR. The request of submitting drainage calculations/report with the building permit was also discussed. The County's consulting engineer indicated that drainage calculations couldn't be delayed and needed to determine if the application complied with the ULUR. Waivers for Sections 4-502 (D)(12) Resource Areas and 4-502 (E)(8)(b) was also reviewed. Information was provided by the County regarding record searches conducted by the Colorado Historical Society and that a request for a waiver may not be necessary for this section of the land use code. After further review of Section 7-104, the Applicant's representative requests a waiver of Section 7-104 (B)(2)(a) to reduce the 24 hour pump test to 4 hours (Exhibit G). The justification for this waiver is that this requirement is excessive and costly for a five acre project that will house a storage building with no employees working on-site. Many of the Sections of the ULUR discussed above with the Applicant weren't addressed or sufficiently addressed leading to a recommendation of "denial" in the October 24, 2012 Staff Report. In order to provide County staff with information to address the deficiencies in their application, two continuances were requested at the October 24th and November 14th Planning Commission public hearings. The Applicant provided staff with this material on November 14, and 16th 2012 (Exhibits R, S, T, U, V, W, and X). This staff report summarizes all the material provided to date. II. LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION This property is located off of CR 301, east of the Town of Parachute. The subject parcel is bowled shaped with the terrain sloping downward into the site from the east and south. These slopes transition into an open area that drains to the northwest. The Helwitt and Milburn Ditch bisects the property in a south to north direction and skirt the slope along the eastern portion of the property. This ditch transports water from Battlement Creek to irrigate properties to the north of the subject parcel. The south and east portions of the site are covered in a juniper tree canopy with the remaining portion of the property vegetated mainly in grasses, sagebrush, and rabbitbrush. Along portions of the ditch, more water loving tree species can be found. 2 III. ZONING AND ADJACENT USES The subject property is zoned Rural and the adjacent parcels are zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Rural (kitty corner). The land uses of the surrounding properties consist of undeveloped ground with the exception of some oil and gas development situated to the north of the subject property. IV. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Staff referred the application to the following State agencies, applicable town and fire district, and County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are noted below and incorporated within the appropriate section of this memorandum. Comment letters are attached and labeled as noted. Garfield County Road and Bridge (Exhibit H) Garfield County Vegetation Manager (Exhibits I and Q) County Consulting Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering (Exhibits J, P, and Y) Colorado Department of Transportation (Exhibit K) Colorado Parks and Wildlife (Exhibit L) Town of Parachute (Exhibit M) Grand Valley Fire Protection District (Exhibit N) V. REVIEW STANDARDS & STAFF COMMENTS Major Impact Review for a Contractor's Yard is required to adequately address topics in the listed submittal requirements of Section 4-501 (F) Major Impact Review which includes: Land Suitability Analysis (Section 4-502(D)), Impact Analysis (Section 4-502(E)), Erosion and Sediment Control (Section 4-502 (C) (4)), the General Development Standards found in Article VII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR). Pursuant to Divisions 1-3 of Article VII all applications for land use change shall conform to the listed standards. Divisions 1-3 discuss General Approval Standards, Resource Protection, and Site Planning and Development. The Applicant has addressed all of the requirements of the ULUR that apply to this Major Impact Review and Section 7-810, Additional Standards Applicable to Industrial Use. The following provides a review of specific standards that are of interest when considering the impacts caused by a Contractor's Yard followed by a staff comment: Section 4-502 (D) Land Suitability Analysis The Land Suitability Analysis shall include the following information, unless specifically waived by the Director. 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. Staff Comment: Public access will be from CR 301. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. Staff Comment: There is an existing gravel road from CR 301 to the subject site. The Applicant indicates that there are no sight distance or intersection constraints. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. 3 Staff Comment: The Improvement Topographic Survey plan shows two 30 foot wide overhead electric easements on the north portion of the subject property. No "Will Serve" letter from the electric company was provided in the application. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that this letter be provided prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Comment: The Improvement and Topographic Survey shows the subject property to slope from the southeast to the northwest at a 10-12% slope with steeper slopes to the east and adjacent to the ditch on the property. The revised Site Plan (Exhibit V) shows the proposed equipment storage areas and access road at a 10% grade. The shop area is proposed at a 2% grade and south of the shop at 5:1 slope. From a site visit conducted by County staff it didn't appear that the storage areas or the road were as steep as 10%. Exhibit 0 also indicates that the proposed Contractor's Yard is to be at a 2 to 3% grade. 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. Staff Comment: The property maintains a tree canopy and an open area consisting of grasses and shrubs. The ditch that bisects the property supports riparian plant species. Battlement Creek lies approximately 1/4 mile to the east of the parcel. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Comment: The memorandum dated October 11, 2012 from the Applicant's engineer indicates the ditch transports water for two months during the irrigation season and is dry the reminder of the year (Exhibit 0). 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. Staff Comment: The property is served by an existing commercial water well (Well Permit No. 287650). The well is limited to drinking and sanitary facilities as described in CRS 37- 92-602(1)(c) for a commercial business. Water from this well shall not be used for lawn or landscape irrigation or any other purpose outside the business building structure (shop). Since there are no employees working on-site, the County supports the Applicant in demonstrating adequate, reliable, physical, long term, and legal water supply with another land use change application. In a letter from Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. dated October 12, 2012 (Exhibit 0) states that the six pine trees will be installed north of the subject site and areas to be reclaimed will be irrigated by a water tank on the property. This water will need to be hauled to the site since the commercial well specifies its' water can't be use for irrigating the landscape. The Applicant also proposes to use this water to irrigate reclaimed disturbed areas and suppress dust during construction. This water tank is shown on the revised Site Plan (Exhibit V). The Applicant requests to modify Section 7-104 (B)(2)(a) by reducing the 24 hour pump test performed on the well to be used on-site to a 4 hour pump test. The Applicant's justification for this modification is that this standard is excessive and expensive. The present ULUR only requires a 4 hour pump test to establish sufficient quantity. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Comment: The application states the property is not within a floodplain or flood fringe which is supported by the Garfield County's ArcGIS mapping. 4 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Comment: The Site Plan identifies the property contains two soils types: Lidefonso Stony Loam, 6 to 25 percent slope; and, Potts-Lidefonso Complex, 12 to 25 percent slopes. Both soils are deep and well drained with a moderate permeability and erosion hazard. The soil is defined as being in hydrologic group "B". The letter from CTL Thompson dated November 8, 2012, further states that the soils on-site are non -expansive and not known to be collapse prone (Exhibit S). The Applicant's engineer anticipates these soils will perform adequately for the future ISDS (Exhibit 0). The Applicant wishes to address the implementation of an ISDS with the shop's building permit. If the Applicant wishes to have employees on-site, a land use change application will need to be submitted and reviewed by the County. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Comment: Under Tab 12 of the original submittal indicates that there are no geologic hazards within the property or adjacent to the parcel but no documentation was provided to substantiate this claim. The Applicant has since provided a letter from CTL Thompson dated November 8, 2012 stating that no geologic hazards preclude development within the subject parcel (Exhibit S). The County's ArcGIS shows the property as having a low fire hazard. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. Staff Comment: The subject property contains predominantly grass, sagebrush, and rabbitbrush in the open areas and a juniper tree canopy on the eastern and south portions of the parcel. Riparian tree species can also be found along the existing ditch that bisects the property. Under Tab 13 of the application the Applicant's engineer states that the subject site contains native grasses and shrubs. The existing west storage area is void of vegetation and is covered in gravel. The proposed expansion to the north of this area is covered in grasses, sagebrush, and rabbitbrush. The east storage area has been disturbed and vegetation removed by recent grading activities. A juniper tree canopy can be found along the east, south, and western edges of the subject site. A letter from Olszewski, Massih & Maurer dated July 19, 2012 states that no wetlands are present on-site. Narrative under Tab 13 also indicates that the subject site is range for elk, mule deer, and bear, data which was obtained from the Garfield County Habitat Profile (maps). These maps are from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife and used as a general guide for determining where species may exist in Garfield County. Colorado Department Natural Resource mapping is provided under Tab 21 in the application and illustrates that no elk and mule deer migration routes are located on the property. Again, this mapping is used as a general guide. Colorado Parks and Wildlife reviewed the application and in an email (Exhibit L) state that they don't anticipate any significant impacts to wildlife in the area. 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, paleontological and historic resource areas. Staff Comment: The Colorado Historical Society conducted a research of the Colorado Inventory of Cultural Resources (OAHP) which showed no sites and two surveys in the 5 designated area (SE SW of Section 9, T7S, R95W), see Tab 22 of the application. The Applicant's representative had further discussions with OAHP who indicated that no known prehistoric, archaeological or cultural sites are located on the property. Section 4-502 (E) Impact Analysis The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the Applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis. 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Comment: The Applicant provided an address list for property owners within 200 feet of the parcel for public notice. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. Staff Comment: The site is located in an area containing an oil and gas facility, rural residential and undeveloped land. The application states that there are other Contractor's Yards in the area but no specific locations were given. Research conducted by County staff found two contractor yards in the Morrisania Ranch Subdivision and one at 0998 County Road 309. These Contractor's Yards are approximately one mile away from the subject property. 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comment: This is addressed in I. General Project Description. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(9). 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: The letter from CTL Thompson dated November 8, 2012 states that the site soils are non -expansive and not collapse -prone. No Quaternary faults are mapped within 30 miles of the site and liquefaction potential is nil for the site soils. The letter also indicated that a site visit found no evidence of unstable slopes, debris flow, and natural -occurring radioactive materials. This letter concludes that there are no geologic hazards on this parcel that will preclude development (Exhibit S). 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(7). 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to 6 adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. Staff Comment: See 4-502 (D)(9) regarding an ISDS on the property. The revised Erosion and Sedimentation Plan (Exhibit W) indicates that there will be .93 acres of disturbance with this proposed land use and .43 acres will be reclaimed. The areas to be reclaimed include a 35 foot wide strip of the east storage area along the Helwitt and Milburn Ditch and slopes adjacent to the proposed shop. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(11). b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(12). c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Staff Comment: There is no livestock on-site and as per the revised Site Plan (Exhibit V), the property is fenced. The existing fence viewed on a site visit by County staff will not impede wildlife movement. No wildlife migration routes exist on the subject property. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. Staff Comment: The letter from CTL Thompson, dated November 8, 2012 indicates that there are no naturally -occurring radiation hazards on-site (Exhibit S). e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. Staff Comment: The original application didn't address this section of the ULUR. However, Applicant has since provided a letter from HCSI dated November 5, 2012 addressing Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures Plan (SPCC). This letter states that federal regulations require a SPCC for facilities that store 1,320 gallons or more of petroleum products (Exhibit T). The land use proposed will store 100 gallons of diesel on-site. The location for fuel storage and secondary containment is located west of the proposed shop and shown on the revised Erosion Control Pian (Exhibit W). Also, any oil generated from oil changes will be stored in metal drums or other suitable containers within adequately sized secondary containment. Exhibit T also includes a Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan that addresses on-site storage, secondary containment, and spill mitigation for the site. 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(J). Staff Comment: The Contractor's Yard has access off of CR 301. Road and Bridge Department indicates that a driveway permit needs to be obtained for the existing access and improvements done on the entrance to the access road in order to meet Road and 7 Bridge standards (Exhibit H). The Applicant is willing to make these improvements which could be implemented in 2013. Tab 11 of the original application contains a traffic study prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc. dated April 11, 2012. The County's consulting engineer indicates that "The traffic report uses traffic counts from 2002 as the background traffic (Exhibit J). No factor was applied to the 2002 counts to estimate growth over the last 10 years. Also, this traffic report does not evaluate the overall performance of the adjacent roadway. The traffic report needs to evaluate the current condition and also evaluate how the anticipated traffic will impact the performance." The revised Traffic Analysis Report prepared by High Country Engineering (Exhibit U) was submitted and reviewed by the County's consulting engineer who found it to sufficiently address all his concerns (Exhibit Y). 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comment: The Applicant anticipates that there won't be any long term or lasting additional nuisances in the form of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare of vibration of other emanations will be generated with the change of land use. 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212 (B). Staff Comment: The Reclamation Plan provided in the original application didn't sufficiently address Section 7-212 since it didn't describe or show what areas are to be reclaimed or quantify the surface area around the site that is to be revegetated (Exhibit P). The Applicant has provided a revised Reclamation Plan (Exhibit X) which adequately addresses this Section of the ULUR. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions Staff Comment: The Applicant's property is in the Rural Zoning District and a Contractor's Yard is considered a permitted land use subject to Major Impact Review. In the original application all development standards were met with the exception of the height of the proposed building. In Exhibit R, the height of the shop is indicated as 30 feet, satisfying this Section of the ULUR. 2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements Staff Comment: The property is located in Medium High Residential (2 to <6 AC/DU) of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030. This application is generally in conformance with the comprehensive plan however, it does not reflect the specific land use designation as provided in the Future Land Use Map. There are no known Intergovernmental Agreements that affect this parcel. 3. Section 7-103 Compatibility Staff Comment: Presently, the majority of the land surrounding the site is undeveloped and the property's existing topography and vegetation will screen most of the proposed shop and storage areas. The views of the development will be visible from a portion CR 301. The proposed trees may assist in blocking and/or softening this view from the road. 8 4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(7). 5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(7). 6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems Staff Comment: No wastewater system will be installed at this time. No employees will be allowed to work on-site until an ISDS and potable water system are installed. Staff recommends that this be made a condition of approval. 7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities Staff Comment: The Applicant proposes to extend overhead electric power from an existing line along CR 301. No "Will Serve" letter was provided in the application stating that this provider will serve the property. Staff suggests as a condition of approval, the Applicant provide the County with a "Will Serve" letter prior to the issuance of Land Use Change Permit. 8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (E)(9). 9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(10). Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands Staff Comment: The Garfield County GIS does not identify the subject property as important farmland. 2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Staff Comment: Removal of noxious weeds is addressed under this section of the ULUR. The County Vegetation Manager requests that a weed inventory and map be developed for diffused knapweed which is known to be in the area (Exhibit I). If this knap weed is found on-site then the Applicant will need to submit a Weed Management Plan that addresses the treatment of this weed. Staff recommends that this be made a condition of approval. As per Exhibit Q, the County Vegetation Manager wishes the Applicant to clarify the quantity of surface area to be disturbed by the berm around the site. The revised plans (Exhibits V, W, and X) no longer show this berm therefore staff will not require the Applicant to address this request of the Vegetation Manager. 3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies Staff Comment: The application states that the subject site isn't within a wetland. Wetlands weren't evident within the subject site during a site visit by County staff. The revised plans (Exhibits V, W, and X) show the existing east storage area setback 35 foot setback from the Helwitt and Milburn Ditch which is considered a water body. 9 Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants Staff Comment: In a letter from Olszewski, Massih & Maurer dated October 12, 2012 (Exhibit 0) states that BNS Services will store a maximum of 100 gallons of diesel fuel in a tank on-site and no oil or other fluid storage is anticipated. This tank is shown on the revised Site Plan (Exhibit V) and is 100' from the existing water body on-site. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Pian is also provided in Exhibit T. Exhibit 0 also indicates BNS Services may do routine maintenance of its vehicles involving the changing of oils and other fluids. These waste products will either be disposed of in an oil burner or hauled off-site. 4. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation Staff Comment: The County's consulting engineer indicates that the revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (Exhibit W) provided satisfies this Section of the ULUR. 5. Section 7-206 Drainage & Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off Staff Comment: Under Tab 19 the application discusses how the subject site will drain and is illustrated on the revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (Exhibit W). Positive drainage is proposed for the site through the installation of swales and sheet drainage. As per Exhibit W, there is now no new development within 100 feet of a water body and the proposed land use has less than 10,000 square feet of imperious surface therefore this Section of the ULUR is not applicable. 6. Section 7-208 Air Quality Staff Comment: This land use is not anticipated to reduce the air quality below the acceptable levels of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Dust mitigation measures such as watering during construction will be implemented to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. 7. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards Staff Comment: Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(10). 8. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(10). 9. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(12). 10. Section 7-212 Reclamation Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 4-502 (E)(11). Section 7-300 SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Section 7-301 Compatible Design Staff Comment: The majority of the views of the proposed shop and storage areas will be screened by the existing vegetation. The Contractor's Yard will be visible from a portion of CR 301 but the Applicant proposes to plant trees to block these views. 2. Section 7-302 Building Design Staff Comment: Not applicable. 10 3. Section 7-303 Design and Scale of Development Staff Comment: The amount of site disturbance appears minimal. 4. Section 7-304 Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards Staff Comment: Not applicable. 5. Section 7-305 Landscape and Lighting Standards Staff Comment: Landscaping is addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(11). The Applicant doesn't anticipate installing outdoor lighting but if lighting is provided it will adhere to the County's lighting standards. 6. Section 7-306 Snow Storage Standards Staff Comment: Snow storage is provided north and adjacent to the proposed west storage area. 7. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards Staff Comment: This application uses existing roads. 8. Section 7-308 Trail and Walkway Standards Staff Comment: Not applicable. 9. Section 7-309 Utility Standards Staff Comment: Not applicable. Section 7-810 Additional Standards Applicable to Industrial Use A. Enclosed Building. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. Staff Comment: The repair of equipment may occur on-site either within the proposed shop or outside this building by employees. Repairs conducted outside shall be obscured by the existing and proposed vegetation on-site. B. Loading and Unloading. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right- of-way. Staff Comment: This requirement shall be met. C. Outdoor Storage Facilities. All outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property. 1. All outside storage abutting or facing a lot in a residential or commercial zone shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a site -obscuring fence to obstruct the storage area from view. The fence shall be of material and design that will not detract from adjacent residences. Staff Comment: Screening equipment and materials on-site will not be a problem due to the existing vegetation and topography and proposed vegetation. D. industrial Waste. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. Staff Comment: This is addressed under Section 7-204. 11 E. Sound. The volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Staff Comment: The activities associated with this application are not expected to exceed County or State noise standards. F. Ground Vibration. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property. Staff Comment: Ground vibration beyond the site boundary is not anticipated. G. Interference, Nuisance or Hazard. Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. Staff Comment: The activities associated with this application will not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which would substantially interfere with existing uses or adjacent property owners. VI. CONCERNS AND ISSUES The Applicant indicates that they will have employees on-site but to date have not demonstrated adequate water (quantity and quality) and wastewater for those employees. The Applicant has a well permit which allows for drinking and sanitary facilities for a commercial business, and a maximum of 15 GPM and 108,600 gallons per year. However, no information was provided regarding the maximum number of employees who will be on-site in the future and how much water is needed to provide drinking and sanitary facilities for the maximum number of employees. Since Sections 7-104 and 7-106 have not been addressed and no employees will initially be working on-site, staff proposed to the Planning Commission a condition of approval that allows the Applicant to receive a Land Use Change Permit (LUCP) provided no employees work on- site with the exception of dropping off and picking up of materials and equipment. This condition also states that once there is a need for employees to work on the property, the existing LUCP would need to be amended and adequate water and wastewater demonstrated at this time. Staff's recommended condition is as follows: 8. Since the Applicant has not demonstrated adequate legal and physical water and wastewater service to support the this use as presently proposed, no employees, other than the property owner/Applicant shall work at the Contractor's Yard; however, pickup and delivery of materials to and from the site are permitted. In the future, if the owner/Applicant wishes to expand the use to include employees on-site, an amendment to the Land Use Change Permit application shall be required to be submitted to the County for review and approval. This revised application shall address the provision of adequate legal and physical water service as well as an appropriate method of wastewater disposal (ISDS). In 2011, a similar condition of approval was set by the BOCC for the Tompkin's Contractors Yard. This application also didn't demonstrate adequate water and wastewater for the application but the Applicant wanted the ability for his employees to visit the site for picking up 12 and dropping off supplies and equipment. To resolve this issue, the following condition was proposed and memorialized in Resolution 2011-74. This condition reads: 8. No employees shall work at the Contractor's Yard full-time but pickup and delivery of materials are permitted. However, in the future, when employees are needed, the Applicant will need to amend the Land Use Change Permit to allow employees to work on-site and address the associated impacts of having these employees such as providing sufficient legal and physical water, and wastewater system (Individual Septic Disposal System), traffic, etc. The Applicant is willing to demonstrate adequate water and wastewater but wishes to address these items at the time of the issuance of the shop's building permit. They also oppose the recommended Condition 8 by staff because they don't want to go through the time and expense of another County review process. The Planning Commission agreed with the Applicant and amended staff's condition so that the proof of adequate water and wastewater would be demonstrated prior to issuance of any building permit on the property. The Planning Commission's amendment to Condition 8 reads as follows: 8. The Applicant shall provide adequate legal and physical water and wastewater service prior to the issuance of any building permit. Staff has concerns regarding the Planning Commission's amendment to this condition. As their condition is written, a LUCP can be issued even if adequate water and wastewater hasn't been demonstrated since it doesn't specify when the Applicant has to obtain a building permit. To ensure that water and wastewater are provided for employees working on-site and to be consistent with past approvals, staff recommends upholding the original staff recommendation for Condition 8. VII. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That the proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at those meetings. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit for a Contractor's Yard 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. 5. That with the adoption of conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as the same had been amended at the time the application was deemed by the Building and Planning Department to be technically complete. 6. The requested modification of reducing the minimum 24 hour pump test performed on a water well to 4 hours is in conformance with the purpose of Section 7-104 (B)(2)(a). 13 VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The operation of the facility shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 3. Site operations shall not emit heat, glare, radiation, dust or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. 4. Volume and sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised State Statute 25-12-103. 5. Storage of flammable material shall be conducted so as to meet all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and utilize the practices identified in the Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan. 6. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall submit the following information to the Building and Planning Department for review. a. A map identifying the locations of diffused knapweed on the subject property and a Weed Management Plan developed by a qualified professional. If no diffused weed is found on-site then a letter from a qualified professional stating that this weed is not present shall be submitted. b. A "Can and Will Serve" letter from Holy Cross Energy to supply electricity to the site. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall: a. Reclaim the 35 foot wide area west and adjacent to the Helwitt and Milburn Ditch and once completed, schedule a site visit with County staff to verify that this reclamation has occurred. b. Obtain a Driveway Permit from the County Road and Bridge Department. c. Upgrade the entrance to the property to comply with Garfield County driveway standards by: • Re -grading the driveway to remove the hump adjacent to the existing apron; • Installing a new asphalt or concrete apron (v -pan highly recommended) to match the width of the existing corrugated metal pipe and a minimum 10 feet in length; • Installing 3/4" thick layer of compacted road base the width of the driveway and a minimum of 20 feet back from the driveway's apron; and, 14 • Installing an apron so that no surface water or run-off from the site or driveway flows onto County Road 301. owner/Applicant wiehes to expand the use to include employees on site, an ._-- _ The Applicant shall provide adequate legal and physical water and wastewater service prior to the issuance of any building permit. 9. To assist in the protection of the water quality of the Helwitt and Milburn Ditch, the Applicant shall use the eastern storage yard for "dry" storage only. 10. All lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 8. Since the Applicant has not demonstrated adequate legal and physical water and wastewater service to support the this use as presently proposed, no employees, other than the property owner/Applicant shall work at the Contractor's Yard; however, pickup and delivery of materials to and from the site are permitted. In the future, if the owner/Applicant wishes to expand the use to include employees on-site, an amendment to the Land Use Change Permit application shall be required to be submitted to the County for review and approval. This revised application shall address the provision of adequate legal and physical water service as well as an appropriate method of wastewater disposal (ISDS). X. RECOMMENDED MOTION I move to approve a Land Use Change Permit through the Major Impact Review for a Contractor's Yard on five acres, on property owned by Nathan and Becky Schaeffer with the Staff recommended findings and conditions. 15 M Orkild-Larson From: Melody Massih [melody@ommpc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:48 AM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Cc: Fred Jarman; Nate and Becky Schaeffer; 'Tom Scott' Subject: RE: Send data from MFP07305528 09/18/2012 09:11 Molly- I have reviewed these comments and we are planning to address the necessary areas. I have a few questions: I. As to Chris Hale's letter, he states in paragraph 2 that we need to provide a pump test for the well. I spoke with Chris regarding the length of the test, as the Code that we filed under appears to require a 24 hour pump test. This seems excessive given the density of this project. Chris said we would have to request a variance if we wanted to provide a 4 hour test as is required under the current code (Section 4-203(M)(2)(f)), but that he was not opposed to a 4 hour test given the circumstances. Given the fact that this is a small yard (5 acres or under), will only house a storage building, and no employees will be working on site, a 4 hour test seems sufficient. Please let me know if a 4 hour test is acceptable and we can make arrangements to have this test done. As to the water tests required and referenced in paragraph 3 of Chris' letter, I would again request that the tests as set forth in the first sentence of in paragraph 4-203(M)(f)(2) be the required tests, and the "recommended" tests in this paragraph be waived as this is not an office building or situation where there will be residents/employees drinking the water. 2. As to the comments from Rob Ferguson, Deputy Fire Chief, I am not sure where to go with these comments. We have given a statement of applicants' use of the Contractor's Yard in the application, and the building information will be subject to the building permit process. Please let me know if you have any other requirements or thoughts with regard to these comments. Thanks for your assistance. Sincerely, Melody D. Massih Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. M Orkild-Larson From: Ray Sword Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:52 PM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: MIPA 7214 Molly, EXHIBIT H I applogize for not getting this to you sooner, but I've been out ill for several days. This email was authored from my mobile phone, so please forgive any errors. This email is in response to the land use request from Nathan and Becky Schaeffer; for a Contractor's Yard at 2456 CR301, Parachute CO. I recently visited the site, and have a minor concern with the entrance to the property off of the County road. The driveway surface appears to be a combination of 3/4", 1 1/2", and 3" gravel. The grade of the driveway rises from CR301 up to the site, and has a conciderable hump just past an inadequate asphalt apron. The hump in the grade of the driveway causes entering vehicles to spin their tires, and throw driveway gravel (some fairly large rocks) out in to the path of traffic on CR301 that could potentially be a safety issue. There is an existing CMP installed under the apron of the driveway that will be adequate for runoff in the area. In order to be compliant with the current Road & Bridge driveway standards, the applicant will need to re -grade and remove the hump in the driveway, install a new asphalt or concrete apron to match the width of the existing CMP, and increase the depth to no less than ten feet. The apron should be installed so that none of the surface water or runoff from the driveway flows onto the County road. A "V -Pan" style apron is highly recommend in this case. The driveway should have a layer of 3/4" compacted road base no less than 20 back from the apron, and be the same width. The applicant will need to apply for a driveway permit through the Road & Bridge Department prior to performing any work in the Count ROW. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ray Ray Sword District 3 Foreman Garfield County Road & Bridge Mobile 970-987-2702 rswordCa�garfield-county.com 1 EXHIBIT i Garfield County Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building & Planning Department Vejietatio,t Management September 11, 2012 RE: MIPA 7214 Dear Molly, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the permit. Staff requests that the applicant submit a weed inventory and map for the Garfield County Listed Noxious weed; diffuse knapweed. Earlier this year staff found about 1 acre of diffuse knapweed along County Road 310 and on the adjacent private land to that county road. Attached is an information sheet on diffuse knapweed that may help the applicant identify the plant. If diffuse knapweed is found on site, staff requests that the applicant please submit a management plan that addresses the treatment of diffuse knapweed. Sincerely, Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0298 County Road 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970625.8601 Fax: 970.625.8627 r List B Species Colorado Dept. of Agriculture Conservation Services Division 700 Kipling Street Suite 4000 Lakewood, CO 80215 303-239-4100 Updated on: 08/08 Key ID Points 1. Floral bracts have yellow spines with teeth appearing as a cornb and a distrinct terminal spinte. 2. Flowers are white or lavender. 3. Seedlings have finely divided leaves Rangeland, pasture, and riparian site recommendations Diffuse knapweed Identification and Management on dry sites and rapidly invades and dominates disturbed areas. Once established, diffuse knapweed outcompetes and reduces the quantity of desirable native species such as perennial grasses. As a result, biodiversity and land values are reduced, and soil erosion is increased. Identification and Impacts Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea dffusa) is a non-native biennial forb that reproduces solely by seed. A biennial is a plant that completes its lifecycle within two years. During the first year of growth, diffuse knapweed appears as a rosette in spring or fall. During the second year in mid to late spring — the stem bolts, flowers, secs seed, and the plant dies. Once the plant dries up, it breaks off at ground level and becomes a tumbleweed which disperses the still viable seeds over long distances. A prolific seed producer, diffuse knapweed can produce up to 18,000 seeds per plant. Therefore, the key to managing this plant is to prevent seed production. Diffuse knapweed can grow 1 to 3 feet tall, and is diffusely branched above ground. This gives the plant a ball - shaped appearance and tumble -weed mobility when broken off. Leaves are small, and are reduced in size near th, flowering heads. Flowers are mostly white, sometimes purple, urn -shaped, and are located on each branch tip. Bracts that enclose the flowerheads are divided like the teeth of a comb, and are tipped with a distinct slender spine. Upon drying, the bracts become rough, rendering them injurious to the touch. Flowers bloom July through August. Seed set usually occurs by mid-August. Deffuse knapweed tends to invade disturbed, overgrazed areas. Other habitats may also include rangeland, roadsides, riparian areas, and trails. It is a tough competitor The key to effective control of Diffuse knapweed is to prevent the plant from flowering and going to seed. An integrated weed management approach dealing with Diffuse knapweed is highly recommended. There are many options of mechanical, chemical, and biological controls, available. Details on the back of this sheet can help to create a management plan compatible with your site ecology. Diffuse knapweed is designated as a "List II" species on the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. Ir is required to be either eradicated, contained, or suppressed depending on the local infestations. For more information, visit www.colorado. gov/ag/csd and click on the Noxious Weed Program link or call the State Weed Coordinator at the Colorado Department of Agriculture, Conservation Services Division at 303-239-4100. Diffuse knapweed ». n: 138µI. 4sr. obirbeimuopot r.».wrr.at*....+b.111.*..a•N+.rtw.4 en+.r41...w... "I+. .w...� Plant photo, top © Kelly Uhing. Infestation map above, Crystal Andrews. Flower photo © Cindy Roche. Rosette and leaf photos © Dale Swenarton. 1 BIOLOGICAL he seedhead weevil (Lar/nus m/nutus) and the root weevil fly (Cyphoc/eons achates) provide fair to good control when used in combination with each other. Expect to wait at least 3 to 5 years or the insects to establish and achieve optimum results. This is an option for large infestations. To obtain the insects, contact the Colorado Department of Agriculture, 970-464-7916. 2 Management Recomendations ' ttp: TrnIv. •I• •.._.T a 5 Integrated Weed Management recommendations tJLTURAL Establishment of selected grasses can be an effective cultural control of diffuse knapweed. Contact your local Natural Resources Conservation Service for seed mix recommendations. Maintain healthy pastures and prevent bare spots caused by overgrazing. Bareground is prime habitat for weed invasions. MECHANICAL Any mechanical or physical method that severs the root below the soil surface will kill diffuse knapweed. Mowing or chopping is most effective when diffuse knapweed plants are at full -bloom. Be sure to properly dispose of the flowering cut plants, since seeds can mature and become viable after the plant has been cut down. List B Species Integrated Weed Management: Diffuse knapweed is best controlled in the rosette stage. It is imperative to prevent seed production. Do not allow di/Tuse knapweed flowers to appear. Management must be persistent in order to deplete the seed bank in the soil. HERBICIDES : The following are recommendations for herbicides that can be applied to range and pasturelands. Always read, understand, and follow the label directions. Rates are approximate and based on equipment with an output of 30 gal/acre. Please read label for exact rates. The herbicide label is the LAW! HERBICIDE RATE APPLICATION TIMING Aminopyralicl (Milestone) 5-7 ounces/acre or 1 teaspsoon/gal water Spring at rosette to early bolt stage and/or in the fall to rosettes. Add non-ionic surfactant @ 0.32oz/gal water or 1 qt/ 100 gal water. 2,4-D Amine 1 qt./acre or 1 oz/gal water Apply to spring/fall rosettes - before flowering stalk lengthens. DO NOT apply when outside temperatures will exceed 85 degrees. Add non-ionic surfactant (.� 0.32oz/gal water or iqt/100 gal water. Clopyralid + Triclopyr (Redeem R&P) 1.5-2 pints/acre or 0.75 oz/gal water Apply from rosette to early bolt stage of growth and/or in the fall to rosettes. Add non-ionic surfactant @ 0.32oz/gal water or lqt/100 gal water. Picloram (Tordon 22K *this is a Restricted Use Pesticide") 1-2 pts/acre or 0.75 oz/gal water Apply to spring rosettes through mid -bolt and in fall to rosettes. DO NOT apply near trees/ shrubs/high water table. Weevil photo ©J. Johnson, Univ. Idaho, bugwood.org. All other photos © Kelly Uhing. �C (1) C1-4 cutt (L) L4-4"0 DEPARTMENT OF ARRICULTURE September 10, 2012 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building & Planning 0375 County Road 352, Building 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 RE: Schaeffer Contractor Yard: MIPA 7214 Dear Molly: MOUNT/ IN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design EXHIBIT This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Major Impact Review Application of the Schaeffer Contractor Yard. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following questions, concerns, and comments: 1. The Applicant states that they are 100' away from a water body and therefore a drainage report is unnecessary per the ULUR. However, there is a ditch/water conveyance within 35' of the proposed equipment storage area that appears to meet the definition of a water body. The Applicant should address why this does not meet the definition or provide a drainage report to meet the requirements of the ULUR. 2. The ULUR requires a pump test to show the anticipated yield of the well. The Applicant should provide the results of a pump test of the well. 3. The Applicant provides some of the water quality tests but not all that are required. The Applicant will should provide the results of the remainder of the water quality analysis. 4. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan has many items that are "To be Determined" including the drainage and hydraulic calculations. These items should be completed. These may be necessary depending on the outcome of Comment #1 above. 5. The application materials do not provide any evaluation of the site soils for acceptability of a septic system to treat the proposed waste water. 6. The traffic report uses traffic counts from 2002 as the background traffic. No factor was applied to the 2002 counts to estimate growth over the last 10 years. Also the traffic report does not evaluate the overall performance of the adjacent roadway. The traffic report needs to evaluate the current condition and also evaluate how the anticipated traffic will impact the performance. 7. It appears that the proposed shop will have electric service. No will serve letter was provided by the Applicant. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mounta. Cross Engi Bring, Inc. t� l2 Chris Hale, PE 826 '/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com MoIIy Orkild-Larson From: Roussin, Daniel [Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:57 PM To: MoIIy Orkild-Larson Subject: Schaeffers' Contractors' Yard Molly — I have no comments. thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6291 Fax http://www.coloradodot.info/business/permits/accesspermits 1 EXHIBIT M Orkild-Larson From: Komatinsky, Jim [Jim.Komatinsky@state.co.us] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 2:35 PM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Cc: JT.Romatzke@state.co.us; Levi.Atwater@state.co.us; Dean.Riggs@state.co.us Subject: Schaeffer's Contractor's Yard Dear Molly: Colorado Parks and Wildlife has reviewed the Major Development Review application for the Schaeffer's Construction Yard project to be located at 2456 CR 301 roughly 3 miles east of the Town of Parachute. It is our understanding that this project will disturb less than 5 acres in area. Based on the submitted application materials, we do not anticipate any significant impacts to wildlife. Colorado Parks and Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to work with Garfield County for the benefit of wildlife. Sincerely, Jim Komatinsky Jim Komatinsky Land Use Specialist Colorado Parks and Wildlife 970-255-6104 jim.komatinskv@state.co.us 1 M Orkild-Larson From: Robert Knight [ParaTA@parachutecolorado.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:58 PM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: MIPA 7214 Parachute has no objection to this project. 1 EXHIBIT Molly Orkild-Larson From: Rob Ferguson [opschief@gvfpd.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:59 PM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: RE: Questions No. Not that I saw. I didn't find any info except building size and that was it. I would think it may be a small office type building since its attached to a contractor yard. Thanks From: Molly Orkild-Larson fmailto:morkild-Iarson@garfield-county.coml Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:27 AM To: Rob Ferguson Subject RE: Questions So you don't have any concerns with the application? Ely Orkild-Larson From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Molly, Rob Ferguson [opschief@gvfpd.org] Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:42 PM Molly Orkild-Larson Questions I am going over the Schaeffer's Contractor's Yard Major Impact review File # MIPA 7214. the 5000 sqft building on the site plan. Is the County not asking for any that information can I ask why? I don't see any problems with the review except the building information. happening in the building? Welding vehicle repair I have no idea unless I am overlooking the information. Rob Ferguson Deputy Fire Chief - Operations Grand Valley Fire Protection District Office: (970) 285-9119 Fax: (970) 285-9748 NEW email: opschief@gvfpd.org as of May 10, 2012 1 EXHIBIT 1 N I don't see any information on from the applicant on this. If not Also what kind of work is the info somewhere. Thanks for Edward B. Olszewski Melody D. Massih Amanda N. Maurer OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. A'1"I'ORNLI'S A'1LAW P.O. Box 916 214-8"' STREET, SUITE 210 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 TELEPHONE: 970.928.9100 FACSIMILE: 970.928.9600 October 12, 2012 "or Website: www.ommpc.com Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL TO: morkild-larson(& garfield-county.com RE: Major Impact Review for Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, BNS Services, LLC Contractor's Yard Dear Molly: This correspondence comes in response to your e-mail dated October 9, 2012. My answers to your questions are as follows: 1. What type of equipment is being stored on-site and is it hazardous to wildlife (can they get tangled, drown, etc) ? As discussed in the April 11, 2012 narrative submitted with the application, BNS proposed storing approximately four (4) pieces of large equipment, such as a trackhoe, skidsteer and backhoe. This equipment poses no hazard to wildlife. 2. The application states that "All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statues and requirements of CDPHE." What industrial wastes is the Contractor's Yard producing and how are you proposing to dispose of this waste? From time to time, BNS may do routine maintenance of its vehicles. Any oil or fluids from this maintenance will be disposed of in an oil burner or hauled off of the site to be disposed of properly. No other wastes are anticipated. 3. Where on-site and how much of the anticipated fuels and lubricants will there be? A maximum of one hundred gallons of diesel fuel will be stored in a containment tank on-site. No oil or other fluids will be stored on-site. 4. How are you addressing any spills that may occur on-site? OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review October 12, 2012 Page 2 of 4 The only storage will be of the diesel fuel tank as set forth above. In the unlikely event of a spill, Applicant would use "speedy dry" to clean up the spills and dispose of any spillage properly. 5. Where will the spill containments be located on-site? Any necessary spill containment receptacle would be located under the diesel fuel tank near the shop building. 6. The application states that "the volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the CRS." What sounds are the Contractor's Yard producing? As stated in the April 11, 2012 narrative, there will be no noise -creating operations being run on the Property, and all sound volumes will comply with standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. 7. What vibrations will the Contractor's Yard create? There are no vibration causing activities anticipated on the site. 8. Page 2 of the April 11, 2012 letter states that the site is being served by a commercial well, but on the Site Plan refers to another well permit number. Which well is being used on the site? As part of the Application process, Applicants applied for and were granted a Commercial Well Permit - No. 287650, which was included with the submittal materials as item number 15. The predecessor to this Well Permit (which indeed describes the exact same well), as referenced in line 8 on the Conditions of Approval is Well Permit No. 276168, which was inadvertently referenced on the Site Plan. 9. How will you irrigate the proposed trees and reclaimed areas? Applicant plans to install a water storage tank on the Property. This tank will supply the necessary water for outside uses. 10. How will you fight wildfire, where's the water coming from? As stated above, a water storage tank will supply the necessary water for outside uses, including fire protection. In addition, there is a fire hydrant located within 1/4 mile of the Property. 11. What native seed mix are you using to reclaim the disturbed areas and what species are within this mix? Applicant will use dryland grass mix for any reclamation. RM(elady\SC11AEFFERSConuacroes YardVAR. Garfield CounIy.20121010dnc OISZEWSKI, MASSIR & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review October 12, 2012 Page 3 of 4 12. What species of pine tree are you proposing? How are these trees being maintained after installation? Applicant will plant spruce and blue spruce pines which will be sprinkled with water from the water storage tank stored on the Property as needed. 13. Why is the earthen berm proposed? There is an earthen berm that is an existing feature of the Property. This berm provides additional screening for the Contractor's Yard and protection for the ditch on the property. 14. Isn't 10% grade steep for a storage yard? The grade within the area proposed for the Contractor's Yard is 2% to 3%. The area where the building will be located will be leveled prior to any construction. 15. How is the height of the shop? The shop will be built per County Building (;ode standards and specifics will be addressed when Applicant applies for a building permit. 16. When will the office be moved to the site and how many employees will there be? As discussed in the narrative submitted on April 11, 2012, BNS has two non -office employees who will be visiting the Contractor's Yard from time to time, and these employees would generally be located at the various job sites. The main office for BNS is in Parachute and will continue to be off-site after the Contractor's Yard is completed. 17. How are you mitigating dust during construction? Any dust will be mitigated utilizing water from an on-site water storage tank. Additionally, I would like to address items set forth in the correspondence from other County agencies attached to your September 18, 2012 e-mail as follows: 1. Mr. Sword from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department set forth a minor concern regarding the entrance to the property off of the County Road. This concern will be addressed as part of the building process, which is likely to occur in the Spring of 2013, pending approval by BOCC of this Application. 2. Garfield County Vegetation Management responded to the Application by inquiring if there was any incidence of diffuse knapweed on the subject property. Applicant does not have any knowledge of this noxious weed on his property, but will spray for weeds of all types prior to beginning any construction in the Spring of 2013, pending approval by BOCC of this Application. R:1MelodylSCUTAEFIq?R\C onuaaor's Y .dllNI Garfield Cnonly.20121010.doe OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review October 12, 2012 Page 4 of 4 3. Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. had seven separate concerns listecl in response to the Application: a. As to item #1 regarding the drainage report, please see the attached memorandum from Tom Scott, Applicant's engineer. The owner of the ditch in question, Savage Limited Partnership, has no objection to this Application as per the attached e-mail. b. As to item #2 regarding the required pump test, due to the time and financial constraints of the Applicant, as I have stated in our previous telephone conversation, the Applicant will supply this test prior to any construction on the building. This could be a condition of final approval for this Contractor's Yard. c. As to item #3 regarding water quality tests, as discussed, the testing will be done prior to any construction and could be a condition of final approval for this Contractor's Yard. d. As to item #4 regarding the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, please see the attached memorandum from Tom Scott, Applicant's engineer. e. As to item #5 regarding the soils acceptable to a septic system, please see the attached memorandum from Tom Scott, Applicant's engineer. f. As to item #6 regarding the Traffic Report, please see the attached memorandum from Tom Scott, Applicant's engineer. g. As to item #7 regarding the "will serve" letter from the Applicant's electrical provider, I enclose an e-mail from Holy Cross Electric Service indicating that they do provide service for County Road 301, which is the location of this property. Please contact me with any further questions or concerns. Very truly yours, OLSZEWSKI, M • $SIH & MAURER, P.C. \BY: / MDM:mkd Enclosures cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer ItIMclody\SCIIAGI•TERIConiractor i Yud(.AS. Garfield ('o. nIy.2 )I21010.doc od D. Massih Melody Massih From: John Savage [savagejw@msn.coml Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:40 AM To: Melody Massih Subject: FW: Nate Schaeffer Ditch Attachments: Decree No 46. pdf; Map 2 pdf Melody: Feel free to advise planning department and BOCC what Savage Limited Partnership I have no objections to this application. Our only concern would be that our ditch not be interfered with. John Savage Savage Land Company, Inc. 201 Railroad Ave/PO Box 1926 Rifle, CO 81650-1926 970-625-1470/fax: 625-0803 Cell: 970-379 6745; savagejw@msn.com From: John Savage [mailto:savagejwOmsn.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:23 AM To: 'JOHN SAVAGE' Subject: RE: Nate Schaeffer Ditch Melody: Finally got back to office and had some time to check on this matter. I thought we were talking about Nate's house lot off of CR 338, didn't realize he bought 40 acres on CR 301 The ditch which crosses the property is our M!Inut & Hewitt Ditch and carries water from Battlement Creek to our farm north of CR 301. Let me know if you need additional info. John Savage Savage Land Company, Inc. 201 Railroad Ave/PO Box 1926 Rifle, CO 81650-1926 970-625-1470/fax: 625-0803 Cell: 970-379-6745; savagejw@msn.com From: JOHN SAVAGE Lmailto:savagejwOmsn.coal Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:44 PM To: Melody Massih Subject: Re: Ditch Melody: The only ditch we own in the area is the Hewitt and Milburn, which flows to our ranch in sec 4 west of battlement creek. This ditch head gate is located above Colin Clem property on the west bank of battlement creek. 1 don't think this is on schaeffer property. If ditch is on east side of battlement creek, it's not ours. I thought the only ditch on east side was morisania ditch, if something else I don't know what it is. I'm out of town I until 7/31, will provide more info then if needed. Jws Sent from my iPad On Jul 18, 2012, at 12:23 PM, "Melody Massih" <melody@ommpc.com> wrote: Hi John- I just had a question for you with regard to a ditch that runs on the Schaeffer's property located at 2456 CR 301 in Parachute. It is my understanding that this ditch serves property owned by you or your family, and that as it runs through Schaeffer's property it runs 3 weeks to 2 months maximum per year and Schaeffers do not take water from this ditch (but I have little other information about this ditch) Schaeffers are applying for a contractor's yard on their property and since this ditch shows up on the maps, the County is asking for information with regard to the ditch. The contractor's yard will not affect the ditch at all, as the ditch is outside of the 5 acre area of the yard. Can you tell me if this ditch adjudicated, if it has a name and who it serves? Thanks so much for your assistance! Sincerely, Melody D. Massih Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. 214 8th Street, Suite 210 P O Box 916 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 (970) 928-9100 (telephone) (970) 928-9600 (facsimile) melody(c�ommpc.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this electronic mail transmission was sent as indicated above If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete this transmission. Thank you. 2 CIVIL ENGINEERING An Employee -Owned Company LAND SURVEYING MEMORANDUM To: Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. From: Tom Scott Revised: October 11, 2012 Project: BNS Services, LLC Subject: Mountain Cross Engineering Inc. review comments dated September 10, 2012 Per your request, we have reviewed the review comments by Mountain Cross Engineering Inc. dated September 10, 2012. You have requested us to respond to comments I, 4, 5 and 3. The italicized portions are the Mountain Cross Engineering Inc. review comments, followed in bold by are our responses: I . The applicant states that they are 100' away from a water body and therefore a drainage report is unnecessary per the ULUR. However there is a ditch / water conveyance within 35 ' of the proposed equipment storage are that appears to meet the definition of a water body. The Applicant should address why this does not meet the definition or provide a drainage report to meet the requirements of the URUR. The "ditch / water conveyance" mentioned in comment #1 is the Hewitt and Millburn Ditch. This is an adjudicated seasonal ditch, which is controlled by a head gate at Battlement Creek. This seasonal irrigation ditch is reportedly active approximately 2 months per year during the irrigation season. The ditch is dry the remainder of the year. The ditch is owned and operated by Mr. John Savage, who has written his stated support of the project. The applicants have reportedly graded an earthen berm alongside the ditch for added protection. "Water body" as defined in article XVI Section 16-101 of the Unified Land Use Resolution (ULUR), includes eleven (11) synonyms, but the term "irritation ditch" is conspicuously absent. This leads us believe County staff, elected representatives, hired consultants and planning commission members purposely omitted its inclusion within the definition. Further, the ULUR includes a separate definition titled "Irrigation Ditch" and is defined as simply as "A man-made channel and designed to transport water." This definition bolsters our opinion that the authors of the ULUR were thoughtful and took great effort to place Irrigation Ditches in a unique category separate from the term "water body." Therefore, based on the t: i,t.ilt we continue to assert that the 100' separation is achieved. 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 974945-8676 • PHONE 970-945-2555 • FAX W W W. HCENG.COM 4. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan has many items that are "To Be Determined" including the drainage and hydraulic calculations. These items should be completed. These may be necessary depending on the outcome of Comment #1 above. As a reminder, erosion and sedimentation control measures are also independently reviewed by County staff, through a redundant process at the time a grading permit is sought. The site is currently stable, and there are there are no erosive activities occurring on the site. The proposed erosion and sedimentation control devices shown on the land use application documents are only intended to demonstrate the site can comply with applicable construction standards in the future. The noted items categorized as "To Be Determined" are specific to future design, review and approval of future building permit documents. The applicants prefer to focus their efforts solely on the land use phase of the project at this time. The applicants fully intends to comply with all applicable erosion and sedimentation control requirements in the future, at the building permit phase of the project. 5. The application materials do not provide any evaluation of the site soils or acceptability of a septic system to treat the proposed waste water. The soil in the area of the proposed septic system has been identified by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station, as soil number 58, Potts-Lidefonso complex. The Soil Conservation Service describes the soil as deep and well drained with moderately rapid permeability, and high available water capacity. The soil is defined as being in hydrologic group `B'. We anticipate the native soil to perform adequately for the future individual sewage disposal system (ISDS). As a reminder, suitability of soil is also independently verified by the County Health Department, through a redundant process at the time an actual ISDS permit is sought. 6. The traffic report uses traffic counts from 2002 as the back ground traffic. No factor was applied to the 2002 counts to estimate grow over the last 10 years. Also, the traffic report does not evaluate the overall performance of the adjacent roadway. The traffic report needs to evaluate the current condition and also evaluate how the anticipated traffic will impact the performance. The noted back ground traffic counts were obtained from "2002 Average Daily Traffic County Road System Transportation Study, Garfield County Colorado." This study contains the most recent data available from the County Road and Bridge Department. 1 517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 601 970-945-8676 • PHONE 970-945-2555 • FAX WWW. HCENG.COM Comment #6 alludes to a "factor" to estimate "growth", yet no numeric value was cited. We are unaware of the alluded growth along this segment of County Road 301 that would merit an increase. None the less, we will gladly incorporate an appropriate factor of growth into the calculations, if the County provides satisfactory data justifying the increase. However, realize that in doing so, a positive grown rate would only serve to inflate the already relatively high background traffic rates, which would further diminish the already negligible anticipated traffic effects of the project. We have reviewed the requirements for a Basic Traffic Analysis as set forth in Article IV, Section 4-502 (J) (3) of the ULUR. We were unable to identify any requirements to "evaluate the overall performance of the adjacent roadway" nor any requirements to "evaluate the current condition and also evaluate how the anticipated traffic will impact the performance." Please cite the sections of the ULUR containing these requirements, so that we can precisely met the published standards. 1 517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 601 970-945-8676 • PHONE 970-945-2555 • FAX WWW. H CE NG.COM Melody Massih From: Customer Care [customercare@holycross.com) Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:18 PM To: 'melody@ommpc.com' Subject: holy cross electric service Holy Cross Energy does service the electric service for County Road 301. Sharon W Consumer Rep Holy Cross Energy 970-945-5491, ext 5506 fax 970-947-5465 customercare@holycross.com 11±31.1, Orkild-Larson From: Chris Hale [chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:44 AM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: RE: Schaeffer Contractor's Yard Questions EXHIBIT Molly. I reviewed the attached response and have a few additional comments to the memo from Mr Scott Concerning Items #1 and #4 In the meeting, the definitions were read and it was determined that the ditch met the requirements of a water body so that a simple drainage plan with calculations will be necessary. Item #5 is sufficient. Concerning Item #6: The Applicant should review Article 4 of the ULUR for guidelines in preparing the basic traffic analysis The Engineer may apply what growth rate is reasonable to outdated traffic counts. Sincerely. Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P E 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970 945.5544 Fx 970.945.5558 From: Molly Orkild-Larson f mailto:morkild-IarsonCalgarfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:50 AM To: Chris Hale Subject: FW: Schaeffer Contractor's Yard Questions Please read and call me to discuss. From: Melody Massih f mailto:melody@ommoc.coml Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:33 AM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer; 'Tom Scott' Subject: RE: Schaeffer Contractor's Yard Questions Molly- attached is correspondence with my responses to the questions below Also included in the attached letter are responses to the questions posed in Chris Hale's letter and other comments from County agencies. We are planning to attend the October 24 P&Z meeting as planned Please let me know if you need anything else Thanks - Sincerely, Melody D Massih Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P C From: Molly Orkild-Larson [mailto:morkild-larson(agarfield-county.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:22 PM To: Melody Massih Subject: Schaeffer Contractor's Yard Questions 1 Melody: I have the following questions. 1. What type of equipment is being stored on-site and is it hazardous to wildlife (can they get tangled, drown, etc)? 2. The application states that "All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statues and requirements of CDPHE." What industrial wastes is the Contractor's Yard producing and how are you proposing to dispose of this waste? 3. Where on-site and how much of the anticipated fuels and lubricants will there be? 4. How are you addressing any spills that may occur on-site? 5. Where will the spill containments be located on-site? 6. The application states that "The volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the CRS." What sounds are the Contractor's Yard producing? 7. What vibrations will the Contractor's Yard create? 8. Page 2 of the April 11, 2012 letter states that the site is being served by a commercial well but on the Site Plan refers to another well permit number. Which well is being used on the site? 9. How will you irrigate the proposed trees and reclaimed areas? 10. How will you fight wildfire, where's the water coming from? 11. What native seed mix are you using to reclaim the disturbed areas and what species are within this mix? 12. What species of pine tree are you proposing? How are these trees being maintained after installation? 13. Why is the earthen berm proposed? 14. Isn't 10% grade steep for a storage yard? 15. How is the height of the shop? 16. When will the office be moved to the site and how many employees will there be? 17. How are you mitigating dust during construction? Thanks, Molly 2 Garfield Couniy Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building .& Planning Department Vejietation Manawen,ent October 16, 2012 RE: MIPA 7214 -Schaeffer Yard -Revised Comments Dear Molly, After discussing this permit with you yesterday, I missed some things the first time and am offering additional comments to my initial review in September. The applicant should clarify and then quantify the surface area to be disturbed by the berm that will be around the site. If the area to be seeded on the berm is greater than % acre of disturbance, than the county will require a revegetation security in the amount of $2500 per acre. Staff requests that the applicant clarify the seed mix by listing the species by common and scientific names. Sincerety — y Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0298 County Road 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970.625.8601 Fax: 970.625-8627 Edward B. Olszewski Melody D. Massih Amanda N. Maurer OLSZF.WSK1, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 916 214 — 8T" STREET, SUI IE 210 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 TELEPHONE: 970.928.9100 FACSIMILE: 970.928.9600 November 16, 2012 Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 86 Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 VIA HAND DELIVERY t EXHIBIT Website: www.ommpc.com RE: Major Impact Review for Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, BNS Services, LLC Contractor's Yard- Staff Report Submission Materials Dear Molly: This correspondence comes to address issues cited in your October 18, 2012 Project Information and Staff Comments ("staff report"), e-mail and our subsequent follow-up conversations. I have attached various revised plans/reports for your review as follows: 1. Revised Site Plan (Tab 8 of previously submitted binder); 2. Revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (Tab 9 of previously submitted binder); 3. Revised Traffic Analysis Report (Tab 11 of previously submitted binder); 4. Geology and Geologic Hazard Evaluation Report (Tabs 12 and 14 of previously submitted binder); 5. Revised Reclamation Plan (Tab 17 of previously submitted binder); and 6. HRL correspondence and Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan (not previously submitted). We have addressed Section VII, Recommended Findings, paragraph 3, located on pages 12 and 13 of the staff report, as follows: Section 4-502 (E)(5) Geology and Hazards. Previously, Applicant had provided memoranda from High Country Engineering dated April 11, 2012 (Tabs 12 and 14 of the previously submitted binder) indicating that there are no geologic hazards within or adjacent to the Property. In the staff report, staff commented that Applicant had not provided documentation to substantiate this claim. As such, Applicant has obtained a Geology and Geologic Hazard OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review November 16, 2012 Page 2 of 5 Evaluation prepared by a geotechnical engineer from CTL Thompson showing that there are no geologic hazards in the area. Please see the attached report from CTL Thompson dated November 8, 2012. This report should be placed behind Tabs 12 and 14 in the binder previously submitted. Section 4-502 (E)(7) Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. After discussions with County staff with regard to the ditch (considered to be a water body) located on Applicant's property, Applicant has adjusted the location of the proposed shop and will be reclaiming the area near the ditch as indicated on the revised plans submitted herewith. In addition, after discussions with staff with regard to what constitutes impervious area, Applicant has revised its Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. The previously submitted Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan indicated that 1.7 acres would be disturbed, but this figure included pre-existing gravel areas and proposed gravel areas with gravel placed above the soil surface (still considered to be pervious areas, as further discussed in Sections 7-206 and 207 below). A revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is being submitted herewith showing the actual area of disturbance to be .93 acres rather than 1.7 acres, as can be seen from this plan. In addition, the revised plan shows that Applicant is exempt from certain drainage and hydrologic calculations based on the fact that there is no development within 100 feet of a water body and that there is less than 10,000 s.f. of impervious area (further discussed in Sections 7-206 and 7-207 below). The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan has also been revised to include the area of revegetation, includes specific dates for the construction schedule, and now includes specific costs for erosion control measures and maintenance. As articulated in the staff report, CDPHE requires a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) application and permit to be submitted for projects that disturb one acre or more. Since the area of disturbance is less than one acre, no SWMP and permit will be required by the State and thus Applicant is exempt from this requirement and has addressed this section of the ULUR. From discussions with staff, it appears that the County requires a SWMP for projects disturbing more than .5 acres, and if this is the case, Applicant would request that this requirement be deferred until the time of building permit. This revised plan should be placed behind Tab 9 of the previously -submitted binder. Section 4-502 (E)(8)(e) Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures Plan. Following the concerns articulated in the staff report that a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan ("SPCC plan") would be required but had not been submitted, Applicant contacted HRL Compliance Solutions, with regard to the applicability of a SPCC plan. 1-IRL has determined that based on Applicant's oil storage needs, Applicant would not be subject to the requirement to maintain an SPCC plan. However, HRL has provided a Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan which details the spill prevention and mitigation measures that will be taken by Applicant. The HRL November 5, 2012 correspondence and Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan is attached hereto. R MMnd.'S< II AEFFEPI. an woe, Y.ndd'oncspondoncoU0I 6+nfa111 Fool. Budding and Planning 2111211 In do. OLSZEWSKI, MASSIII & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review November 16, 2012 Page 3 of 5 Section 4-502 (E)(9) Traffic. In the staff report, staff wanted to see the traffic report address a growth factor to the 2002 counts used, an evaluation of current condition of roadway and how the anticipated traffic would impact performance of the adjacent roadway. Applicant is submitting a revised Traffic Analysis Report to address these issues. This revised Traffic Analysis Report should be placed behind Tab 9 of the previously -submitted binder. Section 4-502 (E)(11) Reclamation Plan. Per staff comments, Applicant is submitting a revised Reclamation Plan listing areas to be disturbed as being .93 acres and areas to be revegetated as .43 acres. The disturbed areas include the ground beneath the shop, which cannot be revegetated. In addition. the revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan shows in detail these areas of disturbance and revegetation. Also included on the revised Reclamation Plan are the specific seed types in the dry land pasture mix that will be used. This revised Reclamation Plan should be placed behind Tab 17 of the previously -submitted binder. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions. The staff has found that all development standards are met except that Applicant did not provide the height of the proposed building. The ULUR, Article III, Section 3-202, Rural Zone District, requires commercial buildings in a rural area to be 40 feet or less in height. Applicant's proposed building height will be 30 feet. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities. Staff indicated that this section was not adequately addressed previously. Holy Cross has stated that they service properties along CR 301, which is the area of Applicant's property. Applicant has since obtained a Commercial Load and Metering Equipment Information Form for the subject property and has been informed by Holy Cross that this form must be filled out by the electrician working on the building, as it requires specific voltage information and a load summary. Since the building has not been designed at this time, and a contractor and subcontractors have not been hired, we do not have the information necessary to complete this report. Applicant would request that this form be filled out at time of building permit/construction. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas. The County Vegetation Manager has requested that a weed inventory and map be developed for knapweed that may be in the area. As discussed with staff, Applicant will inventory the property in the Spring and will submit a weed management/treatment plan if necessary at that time. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies. Staff has articulated concerns with regard to the location of the gravel storage area and shop to the water body (ditch) on the property. As a result, Applicant has agreed to move the existing gravel area 35 feet away from the ditch and restore the area within 35 feet of the ditch and has moved the shop (further discussed below). Attached is a revised Site Plan showing the area to be restored along the ditch, as well as other changes discussed below. This revised Site Plan should be placed behind Tab 8 of the previously -submitted binder. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants. Staff was concerned about the lack of a SPCC Plan and the proximity of maintenance of vehicles to the ditch. As discussed RlMded.ISCHAEFI'ER'Comrwr.,r's YardK'grc: pondenec'W9 Garfield Conn. Onddmg and Planning Nn?1111. doc OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review November 16, 2012 Page 4 of 5 above, Applicant is submitting Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan which details the spill prevention and mitigation measures that will be taken by Applicant. Any oil changes or routine maintenance will be taking place within Applicant's shop, and to alleviate any concerns with regard to pollutants, Applicant has moved the location of its shop to be over 100 feet from the ditch and has also located the fuel tank and spill containment to be over 100 feet from the ditch. Thus, any maintenance activities will be taking place over 100 feet away from the ditch. The Revised Site Plan shows the revised location of the shop and the location of the proposed fuel tank and spill containment. In addition, although this was not listed as a non-compliance item, in another section of the report (Section 4-502 (D)(7) Water), staff commented that the Site Plan should show the location of the water tank being installed by Applicant, and the Site Plan has also been revised to show the location of the water tank. The issue regarding storage near the waterbody is further discussed in Sections 7-206 and 207 below. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation. Staff articulated concerns about the lack of a Stormwater Management Plan or permit from Applicant. As discussed above, Applicant has submitted a revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan showing the actual area of disturbance to be .93 acres. Also as stated above, a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) application and permit only has to be submitted for projects that disturb one acre or more. and this project does not fall into this category. If a SWMP is required by the County (for projects disturbing more than .5 acres), Applicant would request that this requirement be deferred until the time of building permit. Section 7-206 Drainage & Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off. As can be seen from the Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan, the site has been designed to provide positive drainage away from the shop, and Applicant will use the best drainage practices when designing its shop so as to be in compliance with Section 7-206. Staff has articulated concerns with regard to drainage calculations and the proximity of the shop and storage areas being within 100 feet of the ditch and within the 10,000 feet of impervious area. As discussed above, to alleviate the concern of proximity to the ditch, the shop has been moved to be over 100 feet from the water body, and this is shown on the revised plans submitted herewith. As to the 10,000 feet of impervious arca, Applicant's developed areas will fall under this 10,000 feet. Applicant has an existing gravel area shown on the plans which is 35 feet or more away from the ditch, and after discussions with staff, it has been agreed that gravel is a pervious or permeable area. Thus, Section 7-207 does not apply to this application. To alleviate any concerns with regard to protection of water of quality from pollutants (Section 7-204), since this existing gravel area within 100 feet of the water body, Applicant has agreed to use this area for dry storage only. This storage will not include any vehicles or machinery containing oil, fuel or liquids, and will not include storage of any sand and salt for road traction. Types of storage on this gravel area may include building materials, lumber, pipes, wire and trailers. Section 7-212 Reclamation. As discussed above, a revised Reclamation Plan has been submitted to alleviate staff concerns and address this section of the ULUR. The area to be reclaimed falls R V.1cbd.•SCI IAErrER'C Miuirol.1 md'rorresporda6.1U9 G.rLdd Cam* B oldmg and PLuunng 16121116 dor OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review November 16, 2012 Page 5 of 5 under .5 acres, and as such, per Steve Anthony's October 16, 2012 letter, revegetation security should not be required by the County. I believe we have now addressed all of the issues as stated in the staff comments received by the Building and Planning Department. We appreciate your time and consideration. Please contact me with any further questions or concerns. Very truly yours, OLSZEWSKI, — & MAURER, P.C. 41 Mr' ,d • Massih Bv: MDM:mkd cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer R,.1‘0,cnnopNoOcoko1eloimnti.indtou.e« November 8, 2012 Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. PO Box 916 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Attention: Melody D. Massih Subject: Geology and Geologic Hazards Evaluation Contractor' s Yard 245 County Road 301 Garfield County, Colorado Project No. GS05710-105 CTLI THOMPSON EXHIBIT I S At your request, we prepared this Geology and Geologic Hazard Evaluation of the subject 5 -acre parcel shown on the vicinity map (Fig. 1) and the detailed plan (Fig. 2). The work was conducted by Edward R. White, PE and David Glater, PE, CPG to fulfill the scope of work discussed in our Proposal No. GS 12-0243, dated November 1, 2012, and accepted by the parcel owner, Nate Schaeffer on November 2, 2012. Our investigation is intended to comply with the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, and Colorado House Bill 1041, the "Land Use Bill." Site geology and geologic hazards on this parcel were evaluated using a review of available literature, aerial photography from Google Earth taken in 1993, 2006 and 2011, reconnaissance by Mr. White and our site photographs taken on November 5, 2012. Literature references are cited at the end of this section. The 5 -acre equipment yard parcel (Fig. 2) slopes at about 7 to 14 percent to the north-northwest and is situated on a broad terrace known locally as Morrisania Mesa. The terrace is above and about a mile south of the Colorado River valley. The site has been disturbed by minor cut -fill grading since 2006 (GoogleEarth). Graded areas are either covered with gravel or have sparse weed cover. Some industrial equipment is on the parcel. Natural areas are covered by shrubs, with pinon and juniper trees to the south and east toward and ephemeral drainage that crosses the northeast corner of the 5 -acre parcel. A culvert is installed in the drainage under the driveway to the property. The drainage was dry at the time of our observation and probably flows only after heavy precipitation. No signs of active or unusual erosion were noted in the drainage channel that is about 5 feet wide and 2 feet deep. Mapping by the USGS (1988, Reference 1) indicates the surficial units are Pleistocene -age mudflow and fan -gravel deposits from the Pinedale glacial period. Soils exposed on the ground surface of the property are silty and clayey sand with gravel and scattered to frequent cobbles and boulders of basalt, typical of the area. Site soils are expected to be essentially non -expansive and are not known to be collapse -prone. Bedrock, at depth likely exceeding 100 feet is the Eocene -age Shire Member of the Wasatch Formation composed of variegated claystone and fine to 2",i4 „:e •;r:r [)rive ! Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 •s::';:i!one 970-945-2.809 Fax 970-945.7411 medium grained sandstone. The structural dip of the formation is nearly horizontal in this area. The nearest bedrock outcrops are off-site about Yzmile to the north in drainage valleys tributary to the Colorado River. :srrE Fig. 1 — Vicinity Map r OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. CONTRACTOR'S YARD PROJECT NO. GS05710-105 Y:1GS05710.000110513. Letters1GS05710 105 L1.doc 2 No Quaternary faults are mapped within 30 miles of the site by Colorado Office of Emergency Management (Reference 2, 1999). Seismic site classification per IBC is judged to be Site Class D. Liquifaction potential is deemed nil for the site soils because they are believed to be cohesive, well -graded and very stiff to medium dense to considerable depths. Geologic hazards typical in Colorado are described in Reference 3. Large- scale mapping of Garfield County conducted by Colorado Geological Survey in 1985 (Reference 4) indicate the site is underlain by potentially unstable slopes and moderately erodible soils. Our observations indicate onsite and nearby offsite slopes are gentle to moderate and stable. No evidence of unstable slopes was observed on or proximate to the subject parcel. Erosion potential is low to moderate on this site but expected to return to pre -construction rates or Tess with appropriate civil grading design and construction. Re -vegetation or resistant ground cover should help provide adequate resistance to erosion. We found no evidence the site is prone to debris flow or mud flow. Significant levels of naturally -occurring radioactive materials are judged to be unlikely. In summary, we find no geologic hazards that preclude development of this parcel for the planned use. Geology Section References 1. "Geologic Map of the Rulison Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado" compiled by Donnell, J. R., Yeend, W. E., and Smith, M. C., United States Geological Survey Map MF -2060, scale 1:24,000, 1988 2. "Colorado Earthquake Hazards" by Colorado Office of Emergency Management, 1999 3. "Guidelines and Criteria for Identification and Land -Use Controls of Geologic Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas" by W.P. Rogers, et. al, Special Publication 6, Colorado Geological) Survey, 1974 4. "Surficial Geology, Geomorphology and General Engineering Geology of Parts of the Colorado River Valley and Adjacent Areas, Garfield County, Colorado" by J. M. Soule and B. K. Stover, Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report OFR -85-1, 1985 5. Aerial Photography by Google Earth. 1993, 2005, 2006, 2011. We believe this letter was prepared in a manner consistent with that level of skill and care ordinarily used by geotechnical engineers practicing in this area at this time. No warranty, express or implied is made. We appreciate the opportunity to be of OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. CONTRACTOR'S YARD PROJECT NO. GS05710-105 Y:1GS05710.000110513. Letters1GS05710 105 L1.doc 3 service on this project. If there are any questions about this letter, or the influence of subsurface conditions on the project please call the undersigned. Sincerely, CTL 1 Thompson, Inc. Edward R. White, P.E. Project Engineer David A. Glater, P. Principal Geologic 99 POO LIC 156 I t (j l' \' • 21204 t.P.G. ineer cc rrrry Email: melody(cD.omrnp OLSZEWSI<I, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. CONTRACTOR'S YARD PROJECT NO. GS05710-105 Y:1GS05710. 000110513. Lellets1GS05710 105 1.1.doc 4 November 5, 2012 Nate Schaeffer BNS Services 171 County Road 340 Parachute, CO 81635 2385 F '/i Road Grand Junction, CO 81505 1.970.243.3271 RE: SpiII Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan Applicability Assessment Environmental Consulting Services HCSI Job Number 12-293 Dear Mr. Schaeffer, This document has been provided in response to a request from the Garfield County Planning Department for further information with regards to oil (i.e., diesel and waste oil) storage at the proposed construction yard. Please see below for the applicability analysis in addition to the attached SpiII Prevention and Mitigation Plan. Applicability Per 40 CFR Part 1 12 — Oil Pollution Prevention, Subpart A, facilities storing 1,320 U.S. gallons of oil ' or more, are required to maintain and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. The proposed maximum oil storage volume at the construction yard is not equal to, or greater than the volume which is subject to the referenced federal regulations. As such, the proposed facility would not be subject to 40 CFR Part 112 and its requirement to maintain an SPCC Plan. General Oil Storage Overview To facilitate protection of the environment, personnel onsite, and property, spill prevention and mitigation measures should be implemented for facilities which are not subject to the referenced federal regulations. Per conversation with Mr. Schaeffer and Ms. Massih, the diesel would be stored within an appropriate tank within an adequately sized, galvanized metal secondary containment. Any oil generated during oil changes would be stored within metal drums or other suitable containers within adequately sized secondary containment. r Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: fats, oils, or greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and, other oil:; and greases. including petroleum. fuel oil. sludge, synthetic oil, mineral oils, oil refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other than dredged oil. HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. Environmental Consulting Professionals Mr. Schaeffer pg. 2 November 5, 2012 For further information pertaining to storage of oil at the proposed facility, please see the Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan included as Attachment A of this document. Respectfully, HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. Kate Ramsay Environmental Consultant cc: Herman Lucero (HCSI) File Attachment A — Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan BNS Services SPCC Applicability Assessment - Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan BNS Services 171 County Road 340 Parachute, CO 81635 Prepared By: 1:*-)HCSI HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F %z Road Grand Junction, CO 81505 Contents 1.0 Spill Prevention 1 1.1 Training 1 1.2 Oil Storage 1.2.1 Diesel 1.2.2 Waste Oil 1 1.2.3 Inspection 2 1.3 Secondary Containment 2 1.3.1 Diesel 2 1.3.2 Waste Oil 2 2.0 Spill Mitigation 3 2.1 Spill Kit 3 2.2 Emergency Contact Numbers 4 2.3 Notification Thresholds 5 BNS Services Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan 1.0 Spill Prevention 1.1 Training To help ensure spills or releases are minimized, BNS Services (BNS) will provide training to new hires and existing employees with regards to the appropriate handling of oil (e.g. diesel, waste oil) and the equipment holding the oil onsite. Training materials should include, but are not limited to: • A desktop review of the respective MSDS sheets, citing any dangers associated with the products; • How to properly fill and unload the containers that hold oil; • The proper way to store oil; • Emergency spill protocol, and • Where and how to utilize a spill kit in the event of a release. These training sessions should be documented and stored onsite for a period of three (3) years for liability purposes. 1.2 Oil Storage 1.2.1 Diesel Below are recommendations for diesel storage: • The respective tank shall be labeled with regards to contact number, and any other labeling requirement in federal regulation; • The tank shall be integrity tested to ensure it doe deficiencies; • The fuel will to be stored in a tank that is compatible with diesel; • The diesel tank should be elevated, or placed on a well drained substrate within secondary containment to ensure standing water does not cause accelerated corrosion; • During filling operations, personnel filling the tank should check the headspace within the tank to minimize spills associated with filling operations; • There should not be any source of ignition in the general vicinity of the diesel storage during loading or filling operations, and • A MSDS sheet shall be readily available for reference in the event of an emergency or for informational purposes. contents, volume, owner name, accordance with local, state and s not have any leaks or other 1.2.2 Waste Oil The storage for waste oil is specified below: • Waste oil generated as a result of oil changes or other equipment maintenance will be captured utilizing appropriate equipment, i.e., oil pans; • After the initial transfer from the equipment into an oil pan or other oil capturing device, it should be carefully transferred to the final storage container. • The final storage container, e.g., metal drum, should be secured so that the lid or cap of the container would not leak in the event of sudden movement or being tipped over; BNS Services Spill Prevention and Mitigation Pian • The storage container for the waste oil wiIl he stored within secondary containment. Ideally, the waste oil should he stored in a metal secondary containment in a protected area to mitigate the potential for damage to the drums due to vehicle backing incidents or other heavy equipment related damage. • The drums will he labeled with contents and volume, i.e., Used Oil. 55 gallons. • it is recommended that there be extra empty drums onsite to ensure there is adequate storage capacity. 1.2.3 Inspection The oil storage areas should be inspee:,;d for signs of leaks or other deficiencies on a monthly basis to ensure any issues are identified and addressed in a timely fashion. BNS should designate one employee to conduct these inspections for consistency. These inspections should he filed onsite for a period of three (3) years to ensure thorough documentation is available. in the event of a heavy rainstorm, the secondary containment fhr the diesel, and waste oil should be inspected to ensure there is no sheen on the respective water within the containment. in the event there is a sheen on the water within the secondary containment, it is recommended that it he skimmed off using implements froin the recommended spill kit e.g., absorbent pads or booms Any waste materials generated as a result of skimming activities should he stored in a secure container and disposed of in accordance with applicable local, state or federal regulations. Typically the water tbund within secondary containments as a result of precipitation is allowed to evaporate. In the event there is a significant volume of water in the containment, it is recommended that it he removed and disposed of at an appropriate facility. 1.3 Secondary Containment 1.3.1 Diesel The diesel tank will be stored in a secondary containment that is sufficiently impervious and accommodates at least 115 percent of the largest tank within the containments volume. The secondary containment capacity of the facility should be assessed in the event of increased diesel tank volume or equipment moditicatioes. Metal secondary containments should he placed ottto a graveled, level, well drained substrate to ensure minimization of damage to the containment as a result of exposure to the elements. It is critical to place the containment. on a level surface. Failing to do so could result in inadequate storage capacity and an increased risk. of a release in the event of a worst case discharge. In the event damage is identified, the secondary containment should he repaired or replaced as soon as practical. 1.3.2 Waste Oil The waste oil drums will be stored in metal secondary containment like that used for containment for the diesel tank at the facility. The same inspection and repair or replacement recommendations would be applied if the waste oil drums are stored in metal secondary containment. The :vaste oil seconder; containment will also accommodate 115 percent of the BNS Services Spill Prevention and Mitigation P1 ,r► largest drum within the containment onsite in addition to taking into account the displacement of additional drums within the containment. 2.0 Spill Mitigation Any release at the facility will be discovered through observations made during normal work activities, inspections of work areas and equipment. Upon discovery of a release the first step of the response is to ensure personnel safety, the individual discovering the release will: • Assess the basic situation; • If the incident poses an immediate threat of fire, explosion, or other impact to safety, health, or the environment, the local fire department will be contacted at 911 or 1.970.285.9127 or relay information to dispatch via radio; • Call company personnel; • If it is safe to enter the area and the personnel are properly trained and certified, they can protect themselves with personal protective equipment (PPE); • Eliminate ignition sources; • Restrict access; • • Stop the source of the release if safe to do so; • Contain the spill if possible to safely to so with available spill response inventory items; • Report the release, if required, to the appropriate authorities listed in this document; • If the spill involves a minor amount of oil, it will be cleaned up by BNS personnel provided that: o They have current and appropriate HAZWOPER or applicable OSHA training; o Appropriate Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS sheets) are available for the material spilled; and o Appropriate PPE is available and used. 2.1 Spill Kit Please see below for the recommended spill kit contents: 3 -Cases 17" x 19" x 3/8" Oil Absorbent Pads 1 -Case 7" W x 15" L Oil Absorbent Pillows l -Case 3" x 4' Mini Booms l -Case 3" x 8" Oil Absorbent Booms 5" x 10' Oil Absorbent Boom 2 -Boxes 36" x 56" 3 Mil Trash Can Liners 1 Large Tyvek Coverall 1 Extra Large Tyvek Coverall l -Bag Size 10 Green Nitrile Gloves 2 Round Point Blade Shovels 2 Square Point Blade Shovels 15 5-1/2 Foot Steel Fence Posts 1 Fence Post Driver 1 -Roll 16 Gauge Tie Wire BNS Services Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan 3 1 -Bundle Wooden Stakes 1 Crescent 148 Piece Tool Set 6 28" Traffic Cones 2 -Rolls Duct Tape 2 -Rolls 6 mil 20' x 100' Plastic Sheeting 3 20 Ib. Fire Extinguishers 1 Metal First Aid Kit 2 55 Gal. Poly Drums (Drums contain absorbent booms, pillows and pads) 1 55 Gal Steel Drum 2.2 Emergency Contact Numbers Always call 911 in the event there is a serious threat to life or property. Please note that notification to all the listed entities may not be necessary. BNS Services Nate Schaeffer Local Emergency Response Garfield County Emergency Manager Garfield County Sheriff Department Garfield County All Hazards Response Team Fire Protection District Hospitals — Grand Valley Hospital (Rifle) St. Mary's (Grand Junction) Community Hospital (Grand Junction) Valley View Hospital (Glenwood Springs) State and Federal Department of Transportation National Response Center Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) CDPHE 24 -Hour Spill Response Hotline EPA Region 8 24 -Hour Spill Notification Number Colorado Division of Labor, Oil Inspection Section Colorado PUC Safety and Enforcement Section Colorado State Patrol Hazmat Services Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) 24 -Hour Spill Hotline BNS Services Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan 1.970.986.0513 1.970.945.0453 (x1012) 1.970.285.9127 1.970.384.6500 911 or 1.970.285.9119 .970.625.1510 .970.244.2064 .970.242.0920 .970.945.6535 .800.424.8802 .303.692.3033 .877.518.5608 .800.227.8914 .303.318.8547 .800.888.0170 .970.858.2291 .303.894.2100 .303.860.1435 4 2.3 Notification Thresholds Notification Requirement (Forms)* CDPHE — water quality control division report (5 days), Q Q NA CDPHE — water quality control division report (5 days) - Verbal Notification CDPHE Immediately 24 Hours 24 Hours J. L --. (--,1 Q) �i y E (n i.1 x d- N 24 Hours 24 Hours Verbal Notification COGCC 0 0 z O 0 Z 0 / one 0 0 0 C z None Verbal Notification NRC _>, 4) :IF) E C ,O CE % C z 0.z z Minimum Amount to Report RQ Any Amount Impacting Water (FEE/FED) 0 edLig Mt ---- [2.1 A-" O O Q .flw N o A >100 bbls (FED) Any Amount Impacting Water (FEE/FED) > 25 gallons (FEE/FED) >10 bbls but <100 bbls (FED) ••••••••° o A Media Affected Surface water/Groundwater 0 (/D Surface water/Groundwater 0 (/) Chemical o 4) •Vi L2›"'s0 ;14 u_ ++ = 3+ ... 0 ▪ v 3 I-, • • v u 't O O R) v > U N • e • N0 tel V a- ,. 03t... L- c"; N t0 • Ri N 0 I^ N v O > CO E v • r o ea O '' yN C .0 •- N G, 5 • !6 O c E y u .O U � N C L a• X3 U a v .0 (] 'L Fs - 0 u -L y 7 ti v v ✓ a'5 • 45 ✓ 4) vxca 550 r4t v L E N • O U ty v E c; ▪ .a ld - v L C v v U � 3 Z • N N N .°Z to„m • O sLv v_ N N 0. N b U ai v • y .0 : m E • vw Nv>U — ox .. az BNS Services Spill Prevention and Mitigation Plan TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT FOR BNS SERVICES, LLC 2456 COUNTY ROAD 301 GARFIELD COUNTY, CO. PREPARED FOR: Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. 214 8th Street, Suite 210 P.O. Box 916 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 PREPARED BY: HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite. 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (97%94578,676 . O • !.r April 11, 2012 Revised: November 9, 2012 HCE Job No. 2111017.00 EXHIBIT v1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES 1 SITE ACCESS 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE 1 CRITERIA 1 CURENT DAILY TRIP GENERATION 1 CURRENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2 PROPOSED DAILY TRIP GENERATION DURING CONSTRUCTION 2 PROPOSED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION 2 PROPOSED DAILY TRIP GENERATION AFTER CONSTRUCTION 3 PROPOSED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AFTER CONSTRUCTION 3 GROWTH FACTOR 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE 4 CONCLUSION 5 REFERENCES 5 MAPS: FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - ACCESS MAP FIGURE 3 - ADJACENT COUNTY ROADWAY MAP FIGURE 4 - ADJACENT STATE HIGHWAY MAP FIGURE 5 - CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MAP FIGURE 6 - CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME MAP FIGURE 7 - DURING CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC VOLUME MAP FIGURE 8 - AFTER CONSTUCTION TRAFFIC VOLUME MAP INTRODUCTION This traffic analysis report addresses both the existing and proposed traffic as well as the capacity requirements associated with a proposed contractor's yard. The BNS Services property is situated approximately 3 miles east of Parachute, Colorado, and is located at 2456, County Road 301. The nearest intersections to the site are: County Road 309 approximately 1 -mile to the west, and County Road 310 '/4 -mile to the east. Refer to Figure 1 for the vicinity map. EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES The site is currently vacant, and is zoned Rural. The owners are proposing construction of a contractor yard on the site. SITE ACCESS The site has an existing single driveway at the center of the property which accesses County Road 301. This road is posted as a designated truck route. Interstate 70, is approximately 3 -miles west of the site at Parachute CO, and is accessed via exit 75. The intersection of County Road 309 is approximately 1 -mile to the west of the site, and intersection of County Road 310 is 1/4 -mile to the east of the site. SURROUNDING LAND USE The surrounding land use is zoned Rural and Planned Unit Development. CRITERIA This basic traffic analysis conforms to the submittal requirements set forth in Article IV, Section 4-502 (J) (3) of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as Amended. CURRENT DAILY TRIP GENERATION The site is currently utilized for equipment and material storage. BNS Services currently has two (2) employees. Most employees report directly to the job site. There is no office at the site. The owners of the property have quantified the current daily trip generation of the site. The following is a summary of the owner's current daily trip generation: Vehicles Currently Accessing The Site Weekday Vehicle Trips Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Heavy trucks 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 All Other Vehicles 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 Total Vehicles 6 2 1 3 1 2 3 CURRENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC The existing average daily traffic (ADT) on County Road 301 is 600 vehicles, according to the Garfield County Road System 2002 Transportation Study. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Proposed construction activities are to include; construction of a proposed shop building, extension of utilities to the building site, grading of parking and equipment storage areas, and landscaping to screen the developed areas. The existing driveway is to remain unchanged. Construction staging is to be contained entirely within the property, at proposed parking and equipment storage areas adjacent to the building site. The existing driveway is adequate to accommodate the anticipated construction traffic. The expected duration of the construction is to be approximately 4 to 6 months. During construction, the anticipated frequency of heavy truck trips will be approximately 1 trip per hour. No construction within the County Road 301 Right -Of -Way is proposed. All construction is to be within the property limits. Therefore no lane closures or traffic interruptions of County Road 301 are anticipated. No County or State access permits should be needed. PROPOSED DAILY TRIP GENERATION DURING CONSTRUCTION Anticipated construction at the site is to include a shop building and additional areas for equipment and material storage. BNS Services anticipates having two (2) employees during construction. These employees will normally report directly to the job site. There will be no office at the site during construction. The owners of the property have quantified the daily trip generation of the site during construction. The following is a summary of the owner's anticipated daily trip generation during construction: Vehicles During Construction Weekday Vehicle Trips Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Heavy trucks 8 4 0 4 0 4 4 All Other Vehicles 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 Total Vehicles 12 5 1 6 1 5 6 PROPOSED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION During construction, the anticipated increase in average daily traffic of County Road 301 will be approximately 6 additional vehicles per day. The resulting average daily traffic (ADT) will be 606 vehicles, which equates to a temporary increase in ADT of 1.00 - percent. PROPOSED DAILY TRIP GENERATION AFTER CONSTRUCTION BNS Services anticipates having two (2) employees after construction. These employees will normally report directly to the job site. There will be no office at the site after construction. The owners of the property have quantified the daily trip generation of the site after construction. The following is a summary of the owner's anticipated daily trip generation after construction: Vehicles after Construction Weekday Vehicle Trips Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Heavy trucks 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 All Other Vehicles 8 2 2 4 2 2 4 Total Vehicles 10 3 2 5 2 3 5 PROPOSED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AFTER CONSTRUCTION After construction, the anticipated increase in average daily traffic of County Road 301 will be approximately 4 additional vehicles per day. The resulting average daily traffic (ADT) will be 604 vehicles, which equates to a permanent increase in ADT of 0.67 -percent. GROWTH FACTOR Garfield County population counts were obtained to quantify the overall growth between 2000 and 2010. According to U.S. census data the population of Garfield County in 2000 was 43,791 and the population in 2010 was 56,389, this is an increase of 12,598, which represents a population change of 28.8 -percent. This County -wide population change can be interpreted as an approximate 10 -year growth factor in the volume of traffic on County Roads. Applying this 10 -year growth rate of 28.8 -percent to the Garfield County Road System 2002 Transportation Study, average daily traffic (ADT) of County Road 301, the reported value of 600 vehicles during 2002, can be extrapolated to be 773 vehicles during 2012. During construction, the anticipated increase in average daily traffic of County Road 301 will be approximately 6 additional vehicles per day. The resulting average daily traffic (ADT) will be 779 vehicles, which equates to a temporary increase in ADT of 0.78 - percent. After construction, the anticipated increase in average daily traffic of County Road 301 will be approximately 4 additional vehicles per day. The resulting average daily traffic (ADT) will be 777 vehicles, which equates to a permanent increase in ADT of 0.52 -percent. LEVEL OF SERVICE According to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), County Road 301 is classified as a Class II two lane road. The roadway, along the frontage of the site, crosses relatively level terrain and has a grade adjustment factor, f0, of 1.00, in accordance with Exhibit 20.8 of the HCM. The percentage of trucks and buses on the road is estimated to be 10%, and has an adjustment factor, ET, of 1.1 in accordance with Exhibit 20.9 of the HCM. The percentage of recreational vehicles on the road is estimated to be 5%, and has an adjustment factor, ER, of 1.0 in accordance with Exhibit 20.10 of the HCM. The Heavy Vehicle Adjustment Factor, fHv, is calculated to be 0.99 in accordance with Equation 20- 4 of the HCM. The roadway, along the frontage of the site, is in a no -passing zone, and has a Combined Directional Distribution and no -passing zone adjustment factor, fdi„ p, of 21.8 percent, in accordance with Exhibit 20-12 of the HCM. The roadway is situated within a rural area and has a typical Peak Hour Factor, PHF, of 0.88, in accordance with 12-10 of the HCM. The typical Design Hour Factor ,K, of the roadway is 0.10, in accordance with Exhibit 8- 9 of the HCM. Passenger car equivalent flow rates ,Vp, Base Percent Time -Spent Following, BPTSF, percentages and Percent Time -Spent Following, PTSF, percentages, were determined for three (3) separate traffic conditions; current, during construction and after construction using applicable equations in accordance with the HCM. The corresponding Levels Of Service, (LOS) were then identified for the three traffic conditions, in accordance with Exhibit 20-4 of the HCM, as follows: Condition Peak Hour Volume V (Veh/h) Passenger Car Flow Rate Vp (pc/h) Base Percent Time Spent Following BPTSF (%) Percent Time Spent Following PTSF (%) Level Of Service (LOS) Current Conditions 77.3 88.7 7.50 29.30 A During Construction 77.9 89.4 7.56 29.36 A After Construction 77.7 89.2 7.54 29.34 A Level of Service 'A' is defied as free flow traffic at or above the posted speed limit. CONCLUSION Based on the trip generation forecasts, the described operations at the site are not anticipated to have negative impacts on County Road 301 or the surrounding roadways. The noted increase in traffic during and after construction represents a negligible net increase of less than 1 -percent above the average daily traffic. REFERENCES 2002 Average Daily Traffic County Road System Transportation Study, Garfield County Colorado. Highway Capacity Manual, HCM 2000, Transportation Research Board, Summary File, Table PL 1 U.S Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data Summary File, Table PL 1 U.S Census Bureau, Census 2010 Redistricting Data WOW 1861-ZZ6008.1 9V2 V]WOg3WD9 10WISOImSwtl 1101.1: r 6(1 WAN 1101612103 11610 SIL rtir.core /1061232 OAS 1:02 141./2 1010010*E111 r4 02000f mLS OMOM. 1001000Y0146100001OR10'Io1 21071110200rra 1101 3ooM 11030 »OO'1 Jn aA SNOW s 1ICO 00'OCOMTIpq roswlu'lOYa ]AWOOOIIwpNO t1 II 3N1 'ONR133NION3 A2LI NflO3 H91H NVId 3115 JT '83DIAN3S SNB o� •A.Nnoo 01131A1V0 1. 1 'S3JIA113S SNS UJ MoIIy Orkild-Larson From: Chris Hale [chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 3:12 PM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: RE: Schaeffer Contractor's Yard Traffic study looked fine. I will let you know as soon as I see something. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P E 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph r 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 EXHIBIT y EXHIBIT MoIIy Orkild-Larson From: Chris Hale [chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 6:03 PM To: 'Tom Scott'; MoIIy Orkild-Larson Cc: melody@ommpc.com Subject: RE: Schaeffer Contractor's Yard - Revised plans 11-16-12 MoIIy: The drawings look good. No proposed development within the 100' so no drainage report is needed. The areas add up. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 From: Tom Scott f mailto:tisCa�hceng.coml Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 3:41 PM To: Chris Hale; morkild-Iarson(agarfield-county.com Cc: melody@ommoc.com Subject: Schaeffer Contractor's Yard - Revised plans 11-16-12 Chris and MoIIy: Attached are the revised plans, please let us know if further revisions are needed. Thank you,. Tom Scott 1 uvauo duan wmm.snw 5v L881.88800e1 sra '1411/ AAV OWVMtvva'93&A •3w 2SIONVS uaNsga 219 tO ]Ivo tON odM NoromanNaNk •••••••1114161V• ac...au 2 M 7aaV aMa11CDYPWeKeftvQL•.at 'MAW /Mr= a.a. Moarnanas 811.401A11"1 11 iat. •000Mrn.a Y{ItL/YYJ ,,asR a a,, 'ON1'9N12133N19N3 Aii1Nt100 119114 NV1d NOLLVWV133N 0T '830IA835 5N8 wl000 013 NYU 7'n 53.OSAN3s SSNB i ov xz. 3.10.:caa alt X70: • D ` ' • _ ice,• (;� %` :r /,*'. 8/.5 \� { \ K \�•i'\ � \ ▪ ?4 cam.---', F �` \ Zi 1 i i Q c Q • ' b a \ / / • 1i if j �.. \ ,,r\ \ .. gg \ 1 gr, \' \ \ \ 1 N \ \ \ \ \ :' \ \ as. \ 35EAM,WMAYNOtYiVONOHlO3SLVe. 4wpa4Yty,Noca -N9 Y0 Sr' [.88{6280084 Y1 53WI1T< 3GN:NO3 SONGuun «$S:i°.1QT:i40@XW.i NOmAMI 3ON9U9915111 dOV00ls a.mD3 2191':1 21649 9 2p1, 1 LYtl Ott z10z 34avl er.a.... %ri.. . 4x. 3 .01 W $091•0011.00011.000.411,01101 2 4.1 NOU I wa".1'OOiIYM too oO. o.r.i0oo.4-eau un swa.slnwl.1 -SNI'9N1d33N19N3AILINf103H9IH NYId 1Oa1NO3 NOLLV N3INIO3S OM/ NOISOH3 OT 'S331Atl3S SNB ' 0 M919O31fT3l4arb )T 'StOAn3S SNIT Trm3W �a r .il egi in 99K1 3.00.9C.00S !. r a 8rc:;7$u l r -ta 4 $ O z o o $, z 0 U 1 z i 1 f•q \ 6 \ \ \ \ d'- .,\ \ \ G \ \ \ . \. \ \ S$, . \. \ s ti st 2 Edward B. Olszewski Melody D. Massih Amanda N. Maurer OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 916 214 — 8'" STREET, SUITE 210 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 TELEPHONE: 970.928.9100 FACSIMILE: 970.928.9600 November 27, 2012 EXHIBIT Website: www.ommoc.com Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8`I' Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 VIA E-MAIL ONLY TO: morkild-larson@garlield-county.com RE: Major Impact Review for Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, BNS Services, LLC Contractor's Yard- Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission Meeting on 11/28/2012 Dear Molly: This correspondence comes to address an item of concern with regards to the above - referenced Staff' Report. Under the Staff recommendations, pages 13-14, paragraph number 8, it is stated that "Since Applicant has not demonstrated adequate legal and physical water and wastewater service to support the (sic) this use as presently proposed, no employees, other than the property owner/Applicant shall work at the Contractor's Yard; In the future, if the owner/Applicant wishes to expand the use to include employees on-site, an amendment to the Land Use Change Permit application shall be required to be submitted to the County for review and approval." As you know, my clients have undertaken the time and expense of the Major Impact Review process to be able to use their property for a Contractor's Yard. At this time, there are no employees on-site, and until the contemplated construction is completed, there will not be any employees on- site. However, it is my client's intention that these employees be able to fully access and utilize the site to perform routine maintenance or other necessary procedures in relation to the equipment which will be stored on-site. Because of the time and expense already spent in the Major Impact Review process, Schaeffers do not want to have to go through the additional time and expense of another County process to allow employees to access the site, when this access has been a part of' the contemplated uses of this application from the outset. Staff recommendation paragraph number 8 relates to review standard 4-502(D)(7) and 7-104, Water and 4-502(D)(9), Soils. As to the water, there is adequate legal and physical supply, as the property is served by a commercial well, which will provide water for drinking and sanitary facilities. As indicated by the staff report, there will be a water tank installed for irrigation. Applicant has submitted initial water tests showing that the water meets the CDPHE limits for coliform bacteria, dissolved solids and pH. Applicant is aware that it will have to obtain further water tests as set forth OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major impact Review November 9, 2012 Page 2 of 2 in 7-104(B) for basic Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards for inorganic chemicals. In addition, Applicant is aware that it will have to provide a pump test and report in compliance with 7- I04(B). Applicant has requested that these tests/reports, which are quite costly, be submitted upon application for the building permit as a condition of approval. This request is being made to defray these costs until such time as this contractor's yard has been approved and construction is contemplated. As to the soils percolation, the Applicants have not designed an ISDS because at this time there is no waste water to dispose of on this site, and there will not be any waste water disposal until the building is completed on the site. The shop on the site will contain one bathroom, having one sink and one toilet. There are many other residences and at least two other contractor's yards in the vicinity of this property, and there has been no evidence of soil percolation issues in this area of Garfield County. Neither CTL Thompson nor the Applicant's engineer has indicated that there are any soils issues in this location. County approval of the Contractor's Yard is necessary before my clients can obtain approval for any construction on the site; it is premature to design an ISDS for a building yet to be designed before even receiving the land use change approval for the contractor's yard. The design and approval of the ISDS system is part of the building process, which is why we would like to submit the ISDS design with the shop's building permit. Applicant should not have to spend resources on a future building at this time when the soil percolation/ISDS will be addressed at the time of the building permit process. In addition, Applicant should not have to undertake additional time and expense in the future to amend this Land Use Change Permit to allow its employees on site, as this is one of the reasons for the current application. If the County Planning staff would like to review the ISDS system after it is designed and prior to its approval at the building permit stage, staff can certainly do so to verify that it is an acceptable system. For the reasons set forth above, I would request that Staff recommendation paragraph number 8 be changed to a condition of approval to allow applicant to submit the water tests and engineering report and a design for the appropriate method of wastewater disposal (ISDS) at the time of building permit. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Bv• MDM:mkd cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer R IMebds.SCIIAEFFERIConimeoe, YArd.Corre,ppiMrnmlLlt Garfiell Could. Bmldmp mW P!.nunug ;oil l 1:7 dew J,._Melody 9 Massi Moll Orkild-Larson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Melody Massih [melody@ommpc.com] Monday, December 03, 2012 11:05 AM Molly Orkild-Larson Nate and Becky Schaeffer Schaeffer Reclaim Reclaim EXHIB Hi Molly- Nate Schaeffer has now reclaimed the 35 foot area adjacent to the ditch on the property Attached is a picture of this reclamation area This should satisfy number 7 of the recommendations on the staff report, and we would like to see if this condition can be removed now, prior to it becoming part of the conditions of approval Do you need to go and visit the site to view the reclamation, or is this picture sufficient? Please let me know Thanks for your assistance - Sincerely. Melody D Massih Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P C 214 8th Street, Suite 210 P O Box 916 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 (970) 928-9100 (telephone) (970) 928-9600 (facsimile) melody c(�ommpc.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this electronic mail transmission was sent as indicated above If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited If you have received this transmission in error, please delete this transmission Thank you 1 OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Edward B. Olszewski Website: Melody D. Massih www.ommpc.com Amanda N. Maurer P.O. Box 916 214 — 811' STREET, SUITE 210 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 EXHIBIT I #.2:42, TELEPHONE: 970.928.9100 FACSIMILE: 970.928.9600 December 17, 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 RE: Major Impact Review for Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, GINS Services, LLC Contractor's Yard Dear Fred and Molly: This correspondence comes to request a waiver regarding the above referenced Major Impact Review as follows: Applicant requests a waiver of the requirement set forth in Section 4-502(D)7 Water and Section 7-104(B)(2)(d) Individual Wells. Applicant is working with Grand Junction Laboratories to complete the required Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards Testing for inorganic chemicals (heavy metals, nitrate, sulfate) and bacteria. We are requesting that the County waive the required asbestos testing and radioactivity testing. The CTL Thompson Geology and Geologic Hazards Evaluation dated November 8, 2012, and attached to the County Project Information and Staff Comments as Exhibit S, did not mention any evidence of these e,c nients as hazards in their report. In the event that this additional testing is required, the Applicant will have to use another lab to do this testing, which will be quite costly and time consuming. Please contact me with any questions regarding this application. Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, OLSZEWSKI ,M-ASSIH & MARER, P.C. By: r` M MDM:mkd cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer y D. Massih