Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout30. Correspondence & Supplemental MaterialsMarch 5, 2015 Garfield County Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Community Development Department RE: Schaeffer Contractor's Yard — Major Impact Review Dear Glenn, Vegetation Management GarMesa's letter dated May 20, 2014 addresses the County's noxious weed concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions. Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939 March 5, 2015 Nate Shafer 2456 County Road 301 Rifle, CO 81650 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • P.O. BOX 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081 RE: 2456 County Road 301 Dear Nate: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy. Holy Cross Energy has adequate power supply to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sin HELY CR��'•S ENERGY haney, eering Department schaney@holvcross.com (970) 947-5435 SH:ch Enclosure A Touchstone Energy° Cooperative A ,'k Glenn Hartmann From: Dan Goin Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 2:26 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: 2456 cr 301 Hey Glenn they put a culvert and a concrete pad on this driveway and visibility is good so they should be good to go as far as we are concerned. Dan Goin District 3 Foreman Garfield County Road and Bridge 0298 CR 333A, Rifle CO 81650 970-625-8601 1 Garfield County Road and Bridge Department 0298 CR 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Phone -(970)625-8601 Fax- (970)625-8627 Invoice Driveway Permit Number: GRB15-D-1 Invoice Date: 1/15/2015 Bill To: BNS Services LLC 244 Burtard Lane Parachute ,CO 81635 $75.00 per Driveway Permit. Driveway Permit Fee: Total Due: Thank You! $75.00 $75.00 V1a reA-urn. Thcxr\L yo() Garfield County Application for Driveway Permit Person Obtaining Permit: BNS Services LLC Application Date: 1/15/15 County Road Number: 301 District: Silt Permit Number: GRBI5-D-1 Termination Date: 2/15/15 Inspector: Dan Coin hereby requests permission and authority from the Board of County Commissioners to construct a driveway approach (es) on the right-of-way off of County Road, 301, At Address At Address of 2456 CR 301, located on the side of road for the purpose of obtaining access to property. Applicant submits herewith for the consideration and approval of the Board of County Commissioners, a sketch of the proposed installation showing all the necessary specification detail including: 1. Frontage of lot along road. 2. Distance from centerline of road to property line. 3. Number of driveways requested 4. Width of proposed driveways and angle of approach. 5. Distance from driveway to road intersection, if any. 6. Size and shape of area separating driveways if more than one approach. 7. Setback distance of building(s) and other structure improvements. 8. No unloading of equipment on county road, any damage caused to county road will be repaired at subdivision expense. 9. Responsible for two years from the date of completion. General Provisions 1) The applicant represents all parties in interest, and affirms that the driveway approach (es) is to be constructed by him for the bona fide purpose of securing access to his property and not for the purpose of doing business or servicing vehicles on the road right of way. 2) The applicant shall furnish all labor and materials, perform all work, and pay all costs in connection with the construction of the driveway(s). All work shall be completed within thirty (30) days of the permit date. 3) The type of construction shall be as designated and/or approved by the Board of County Commissioners or their representative and all materials used shall be of satisfactory quality and subject to inspection and approval of the Board of County Commissioners or their representative. 4) The traveling public shall be protected during the installation with proper warning signs and signals and the Board of County Commissioners and their duly appointed agents and employee shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by any reason of the exercise of the Permit. 5) The Applicant shall assume responsibility for the removal or clearance of snow, ice, or sleet upon any portion of the driveway approach (es) even though deposited on the driveway(s) in the course of the County snow removal operations. 6) In the event it becomes necessary to remove any right-of-way fence, the posts on either side of the entrance shall be surely braced before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining fence and all posts and wire removed shall be turned over to the District Road Supervisor of the Board of County Commissioners. 7) No revisions or additions shall be made to the driveway(s) or its appurtenances on the right-of-way without written permission of the Board of County Commissioners. 8) Provisions and specifications outlined herein shall apply on all roads under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, and the Specifications, set forth on the attached hereof and incorporated herein as conditions hereof. 9) Final inspection of driveway will be required upon completion and must be approved by person issuing permit or representative of person issuing permit. The inspection and sign off must be done prior to any CO from the Building and Planning Department being issued. Special Conditions: 1. Driveway Width- 30ft 2. Culvert required? False Size: Existing by Existing 3. Asphalt or concrete pad required? True Size of pad: 30ft Wide x loft long x 4in thick 4. Gravel portion required? True Length: 40ft 5. Trees, brush and/or fence need to be removed for visibility? True 6. Distance and Direction:Boths Sides 7. Certified Traffic Control Required? False 8. Work zone signs required? True In signing this application and upon receiving authorization and permission to install the driveway approach (es) described herein the Applicant signifies that he has read, understands and accepts the foregoing provisions and conditions and agrees to construct the driveway(s) in accordance with the accompanying specification plan reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Signed: Address: Telephone Number: Permit granted 12/1/2014, subject to the provisions, specifications and conditions stipulated herein. For Board of County Commissioners' of Garfield County, Colorado: Representative of Garfield County Road and Bridge Signature Specifications 1. A driveway approach is understood to be that portion of the county road right -of way between the pavement edge and the property line that is designed and used for the interchange of traffic between the roadway and abutting property. 2. At any intersection, a driveway shall be restricted for a sufficient distance from the intersection to preserve the normal and safe movement of traffic. (It is recommended for ntral residence entrances that a minimum intersection clearance of 50 feet be provided and for rural commercial entrances a minimum of 100 feet be provided.) 3. All entrances and exits shall be so located and constructed that vehicles approaching or using them will be able to obtain adequate sight distance in both directions along the county road in order to maneuver safely and without interfering with county road traffic. 4. The Applicant shall not be permitted to erect any sign or display material, either fixed or movable, on or extending over any portion of the county road right-of-way. 5. Generally, no more than one approach shall be allowed any parcel or property the frontage of which is less than one hundred (100) feet. Additional entrances or exits for parcels having a frontage in excess of one hundred 100) feet shall be permitted only after showing of actual convenience and necessity. 6. All driveways shall be so located that the flared portion adjacent to the traveled way will not encroach upon adjoining property. 7. No commercial driveway shall have a width greater than thirty (30) feet measured at right angles to the centerline of the driveway except as increased by permissible radii. No noncommercial driveway shall have a width greater than twenty (20) feet measured at right angles to the centerline of the driveway, except as increased by permissible radii. 8. The axis of an approach to the road may be at a right angle to the centerline of the county road and of any angle between ninety (90) degrees and sixty (60) degrees but shall not be less than sixty (60) degrees. Adjustment will be made according to the type of traffic to be served and other physical conditions. 9. The construction of parking or servicing areas on the county road right-of-way is specifically prohibited. Commercial establishments for customer vehicles should provide off -the -road parking facilities. 10. The grade of entrance and exit shall slope downward and away from the road surface at the same rate as the normal shoulder slope and for a distance equal to the width of the shoulder but in no case less than twenty (20) feet from the pavement edge. Approach grades are restricted to not more than ten percent (1 O%). 11. All driveways and approaches shall be so constructed that they shall not interfere with the drainage system of the street or county road. The Applicant will be required to provide, at his own expense, drainage structures at entrances and exits, which will becotne an integral part of the existing drainage system. The Board of County Commissioners or their representative, prior to installation, must approve the dimensions and types of all drainage structures. Note: This permit shall be made available at the site where and when work is being done. A work sketch or drawing of the proposed driveway(s) must accompany application. No permit will be issued without drawing, blueprint, or sketch. Glenn Hartmann From: Melody Massih [melody@ommpc.com] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:53 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer Subject: Schaeffer Contractor's Yard Attachments: photo 1.JPG; photo 2.JPG; photo 3.JPG Glenn- please see the attached photographs showing the reclamation of the area adjacent to the Helwitt and Milburn Ditch on the Schaeffer property as required by the conditions of approval for the Contractor's Yard. Please advise if this is sufficient to satisfy the County. The only other conditions that need to be completed are the submission of a letter from Holy Cross regarding service to the site, and the upgrade to the driveway to the property. Nate Schaeffer has recently received a driveway permit from the County, and once the conditions are appropriate (and prior to March 11), he will upgrade the property entrance as described in the conditions contained in Resolution No. 2013-20. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding the above. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Melody D. Massih Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. Original Message From: Nate[mailto:bnsservicesPsopris.net] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:45 AM To: Melody Subject: Reclaim pics 1 :Iv, ,t •,•,•,• 1,c.....„,..•• • -7.707..,irr.etrr: .,...,.. , --,!..,x,....„.., .,;,i, -.,;-..,.1.i., • •r h• KO ESL .4 r.hiv�.is � ,;�Sg,•F _,. YFF9!«wi• GARMEsA, S.Q.C. 211144 Road • PO Box 237 • De Beque, CO 81630 1970-858-2368 (office) • 970-858-2437 (fax) 1 info@garmesa.com • www.GarMesa.com May 20, 2014 To Whom 1 May Concern, 1 have inspected the property at 2456 County Road 301 in Parachute Colorado for Knapweed and did not find any there. Sincerely, Dick Latham GarMesa, LLC Weed Control Colorado QS License 07831 • Cc MEMORANDUM Garfield County Community Development Department TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner DATE: March 2, 2015 SUBJECT: Extension Request for the Schaeffer Contractor's Yard Application (File No. MIPA-7214) The Garfield County Community Development Department has been working closely with the Applicants and their representative, Melody Massih in satisfying the remaining conditions of approval for this Major Impact Review, Land Use Change Permit. Two conditions remain to be fully addressed. The Schaeffer Contractors Yard application received an extension pursuant to Resolution 2014- 08 through March 11, 2015. To ensure the approvals do not expire while the remaining conditions are being met, the Applicant's representative has submitted an additional extension request. The Application was originally approved by Resolution No. 2013-20. Copies of the Resolutions and extension letter are attached for your consideration. The extension request has been submitted in accordance with the Land Use and Development Code which in Section 4-101.I (3) allows for the granting of additional extensions. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND The proposed Contractor's Yard is located approximately 2 miles east of the Town of Parachute and Battlement Mesa at 2456 County Road 301. It is located on approximately 5 acres of an overall 37.7 acre property. The Applicant presently owns a company (BNS Services) that supplies equipment to the oil and gas industry and will utilize the Contractor's Yard. The facility will include a shop and two graveled storage areas. Access is from CR 301 by an existing gravel road. The driveway has been improved with additional gravel and a drain pan at the access point onto the County Road. Vicinity Map Site Plan was LINTY ROAD NO 301 1 1111,. 1111: .1.111]/ 11-tH OY :.•uv 'o-nw weir • • 45‘..;.4141:64.:::$1:17.,...:::13.,....6.,Y4 -..1.1...:45:%:"4:: sr 'tin ',1“ ✓.r ,1 �} {+. ,7.Nrt4� T, ."': CCS' • .aMvo.e IY . 1 ti -. . ) R '.uvY rF i T \ /�N,i,— "I...., aR - TOTAL, AREAA% 37.733 Cfcce / ArLILleitki.61:1y, ftme la* IAYs wNq 1111,/Jp. OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I'dward R. Olsicwski Website: Melody D. Massih www.ommtk.com Amanda N. Maurer P.O. Box 916 1204 GRAND AVENUE_ GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 Tet CPI IONE: 970.928.9100 FACSIMILE: 970.928.9600 March 2, 2015 Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8" Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 VIA E-MAIL ONLY TO: cthartmannla?garlield-countv.com RE: Major Impact Review for Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, BNS Services, LLC Contractor's Yard Dear Glenn: As you are aware, an extension for the Schaeffer Contractor's Yard was approved giving the Schaeffers up until March I I, 2015 to meet the remaining conditions of approval. These conditions included providing a map and weed management plan if necessary, obtaining a letter from Holy Cross Electric to supply electricity, reclaiming the area around the ditch on the property, obtaining a driveway permit and upgrading the entrance to the Property to comply with Garfield County driveway standards as specified. Schaeffers have complied with the conditions with regard to the weed management on the property and reclaiming the area as specified, and have provided proof of this compliance. SchaelTers have also obtained a driveway permit and upgraded the entrance of the Property. You conducted a site visit to the property on February 27 and were able to view the reclamation and driveway improvements. The only outstanding items are that Garfield County Road and Bridge still needs to inspect the driveway improvements and a letter from Holy Cross needs to be obtained. Schaeffers expect to get these items completed in the next few days, but in the event that there are any delays, we do not want the County approvals to expire. Thus, we would like to request an extension of the expiration date for the conditions for ninety (90) days, to June of 2016, pursuant to Section 4-101(1) of the Garfield County Land Use Code. Thank you for your time and assistance, and let me know if you need any further information with regard to the above -referenced items. OI S%EwsKI, M issiii & M URER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review March 2, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, MDM:mkd cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer A AkkaA'KIUC1I I:N c sancta's YaN('onrHaeJoetLL17 Garficd Comm 16014K and 19ammn* h.150k)2 6x Melody D. Massih • ■III 111,1rdt:31iFiM' 1r i Ilir%111,1,10L.1'hil';'eIvra,ii,11 III Recept ionf : 846186 0211/2014 02:56.37 PM Jean Alberico 1 0( 3 Rec Fee.$0 00 Doc Fee 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building in Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 3`d day of February, A.D. 2014, there were present: John Martin Mike Samson Tom Jankovsky - absent Frank Hutfless Jean Alberico Andrew Gorgey - absent , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO.:.;Ci4 • t A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE EXTENSION OF TIME TO MEET CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD ON A 37.7 ACRE PROPERTY OWNED BY NATHAN AND BECKY SCHAEFFER AT 2456 COUNTY ROAD 301 IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 95 WEST OF THE 611I P.M., GARFIELD COUNTY (FILE NO. MIPA-7214) PARCEL NO. 2407-091-00-086 Recitals A. The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, (Board) received a request for a one year extension of time to meet conditions of approval for a Land Use Change Permit — Major Impact Review for a Contractor's Yard. B. The Contractor's yard was approved by Resolution No. 2013-20 and is located within a 37.7 acre parcel of land owned by Nathan and Becky Schaeffer. The ownership of this property is described in a Warranty Deed found at Reception Number 778938 in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. C. The Applicant submitted their extension request timely and in accordance with the requirements of the Land Use and Development Code Section 4-101.I. I). In accordance with the Land Use and Development Code as amended, the Board of 0111 Wll'.47)0113 ,i. NT 11 I')1 11111 Reception 846186 02/11/2014 02:56 37 PM Jean Albertoo 2 of 3 Rea Fee $0 00 Doc Fee 0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO County Commissioners is authorized to grant extensions of time to complete conditions of approval for Land Use Change Permits. E. At a public meeting held on February 3, 2014 the Board considered the question of whether to grant an extension to satisfy conditions of approval, at which meeting the public and interested person were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said extension. RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that: A. The forgoing Recitals are incorporated by this reference as part of the resolution. B. The approval for the Major Impact Review for a Contractor's Yard on property owned by Nathan and Becky Schaeffer is hereby extended for one year to March 11, 2015. C. All conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 2013-20 shall remain in effect. D. The requested extension is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. Dated this ID day of _ re 6 rc._a r ATTEST: kY-) .irk of the Board , A.D. 20 1 4 - GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMI _ I NERS, GARFIELD COUN RADO Upon motion duly made and seconded the on w_ls,addpted by the following vote: 1111 P1r:lrl1.I'1M1J.,11 .1111,1.1,1e/i41i147.1ii: 11111 Reception#: 846186 02x11/2014 02 56 37 PM Jean Alberico 3 of 3 Rec Fee $3 00 Doc Fee 0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO COMMISSIONER CHAIR JOHN F. MARTIN COMMISSIONER MIKE SAMSON COMMISSIONER TOM JANKOVSKY , Aye , Aye , Absent STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 20 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 3 Garfield County MEMORANDUM Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401. Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Office: 970-945-8212 Fax: 970-384-3470 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner DATE: January 27, 2014 SUBJECT: Major Impact Review Schaeffer Contractor's Yard (MIPA-7214) Extension Request REQUEST The Garfield County Community Development Department has received an extension request from Melody Massih, of the firm Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. representing Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, BNS Services, LLC in regard to the Schaeffer Contractor's Yard Major Impact Review. The proposal received conditional approval by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on February 11, 2013 by Resolution No. 2013-20 (see attached). The Applicant's letter of request and supporting justification is attached (see letter dated 1/21/14). The request is submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code and prior to the expiration of the conditional approval. Pursuant to Section 4-101(1), the BOCC may grant a first extension of up to one year and the extension request should include a written explanation of the reason for the extension and estimated time frame for satisfying the remaining conditions of approval. BACKGROUND The proposed Contractor's Yard is located approximately 2 miles east of the Town of Parachute and Battlement Mesa at 2456 County Road 301. It is located on approximately 5 acres of an overall 37.7 acre property. The Applicant presently owns a company (BNS Services) that supplies equipment to the oil and gas industry and will utilize the Contractor's Yard. The facility will include a 50' x 100' shop and two graveled storage areas. Repairs on equipment and vehicles will also occur at the shop and within the storage yard. Access to the parcel is from CR 301 by an existing gravel road. (see attached site plan). The Application was approved by Resolution No. 2013-20 with a number of conditions including but not limited to: a) Industrial Use Standards such as noise; b) Weed management; c) Utility will serve letters; d) Site reclamation; e) Driveway permitting and access improvements; and f) Operational issues associated with potable water and sanitation. CURRENT STATUS The Applicant's extension request letter outlines the status of the permit along with key conditions of approval. The letter includes the justification for the extension and requests a one year extension. Staff review of the status of the file indicates that the remaining conditions of approval to be met are primarily associated with Conditions #6 and #7. Some of the requirements are weather dependant and will need to be addressed during construction and growing seasons. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S ACTION Pursuant to Section 4-101(1), the BOCC may grant a first extension of up to one year. Granting of an extension by the BOCC would be documented by resolution and would reflect the time frame for the extension if approved by the Board. • Vicinity Map A { ;r. ,Mu • WO. 2 Site Plan 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 1204 GRAND AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 TELEPHONE: 970.928.9100 FACSIMILE: 970.928.9600 January 21, 2014 Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 VIA E-MAIL ONLY TO: ghartrnannPgarfield-county.com RE: Major Impact Review for Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, BNS Services, LLC Contractor's Yard Dear Glenn: As you are aware, the Schaeffer Contractor's Yard was approved on February 11, 2013 with conditions of approval as set forth in the attached Resolution 2013-20. Schaeffers have not been able to meet all of the listed conditions of approval, and thus must request an extension to allow them to meet these conditions. This correspondence comes to request an extension of the expiration date for the conditions for one year, to February 11, 2015, pursuant to Section 4-101(I) of the Garfield County Land Use Code. Pursuant to Resolution 2013-20, paragraphs 6 and 7, certain conditions were set forth that the Schaeffers needed to meet prior to the issuance of a land use permit. Due to time constraints with work and family, and as a result of the costs and fees that were incurred by Schaeffers because of the major impact review process for their Contractor's Yard, Schaeffers were not able to devote any more time or resources in 2013 to meeting these conditions or constructing any improvements on the Property. Schaeffers anticipate that during the spring and surnmer of 2014, they will be able to devote the necessary time and resources to meet these conditions. These conditions include providing a map and weed management plan if necessary, obtaining a letter from Holy Cross Electric to supply electricity, reclaiming the area as specified, obtaining a driveway permit and upgrading the entrance to the Property to comply with Garfield County driveway standards as specified. As discussed, this request for extension will be on the February 10, 2014 Board of County Commissioners agenda for consideration, and I will plan to attend this meeting. Thank you for your time and assistance, and let me know if you need any further information prior to the February 10 meeting date. OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review January 21, 2014 Page 2 of 2 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:M(e6d,I6('IIAP.IFFI(U7nnuxtmt YanMlwmyw.wk nz11.16.Gufidd (bony !Wilding and Ilanning.2)I4OI Melody D. Massih Edward B. Olszewski Melody D. Massih Amanda N. Maurer OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 916 214 — 8'" STREET, Sura_ 210 GI,ENwooI SPRINGS, CO 81602 TELEPHONE: 970.928.9100 FACSIMILE: 970.928.9600 November 27, 2012 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: mork1Id-larson(agar(ield-county.com Website: www.ommpc.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, MASSIII & MAURER, , P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review November 27, 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- 104(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• Me :d D. Massih MDM:mkd cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer ItIMelndylS(:1IAEITEIM'nnlradoes YardU[aresp.nmknceli.l?. Carf i i County I3oilding and Planning.21112112Zdnc Edward 13. 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 16, 2012 Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 VIA HAND DELIVERY Websitc: \\WV .onmpc.cum 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. 1 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 OtszI:wstu, MASSIF' & 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. HRL 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. Ri NclodytSCHA[FFBR•,Conlr•,Inor s YaddbnrespadrnccUp r ( ,.rf cld C000ly ISuildrng and naming 2d111116 doc OLSZEWSKI, Mnssiti & 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 1I1, 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 R±A(clod��5CI4AIiFIliR\Contractor's 1'ardtCorrespondcnccLJ1) G,thcW Conti 11.11.116: and FI:uonnit 20121116 do OLSZI WSKI, MASSIH & MATURER, 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 additi , although this was not listed as a non-compliance item, in another section of the report (Sectio 4-502 (D)(7) Water), staff commented that the Site Plan should show the location of the war r 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 he 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 area, 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.Uklod,'S('IIAIiFF'CR'\.('omncloes Yard( ortapondcnce1.In/ (.,n6cM ('oonn Buddtna and Plamun¢211121116 dm 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, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Bv: MDM:mkd cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer R C•omncmfs Yardtfnrtcspondencc,IMv. Ciarfidd (•ouni Building and Planning?ol? I 1 It. doc %)t , Melody D. Massih Edward B. Olszewski Melody D. Massih Amanda N. Maurer OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 916 214 —r STREET, SUITE 210 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 TELEPHONE: 970.928.9100 FACSIMILE: 970.928.9600 October 12, 2012 Website: www.ommpc.com Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8`h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL TO: morkild-larson(a)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 Targe 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 fttels 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 ort -site? OLSzEWSKa, 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 Vs 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. RAMcl tly`SC1IA1i1.79illUbnuaave%YalCd (A4, (ialli<41('.unIy.21112111111a4a OLSZEWSKI, MASSIII & 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 Code 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 he 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. RAMelody\NCI IAHF1•IIRU'mhadak Vard11118. Ga. IkII f5.un1y.20121014dc OLSZEWSKI, MASSIII & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review October 12, 2012 Page 4 of 4 3. Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. had seven separate concerns listed 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. 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. g• MDM:mkd Enclosures cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer IL•1MclMv\SCIIAI:I'1'7:ItWonlrxlM's Y.Id1106. (iY( •LICMm1Y.DIlI:I(1IQda Very truly yours, OLSZEWSKI, M 1 R, P.C. By: od D. Massih & MA Melody Massih From: John Savage [savagejw@msn.com) 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:savagejw@msn.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 P�lilii:.n ; & 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 CeII: 970-379-6745; savagejw@msn.com From: JOHN SAVAGE Lmailto:savageiw@msn.com'i Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:44 PM To: Melody Massih Subject: Re: Ditch Melody: The only ditc:h 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. 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. 1 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" <melodv(�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) melodycommpc.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 1, 4, 5 and 3. The italicized portions are the Mountain Cross Engineering Inc. review comments, followed in bold by are our responses: 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 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 ULUR we continue to assert that the 100' separation is achieved. 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970-945-8676 • PHONE 970-945-2555 • FAX WWW.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 trek 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. 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970-945-8676 • PHONE 970-945-2555 • FAX W W W. 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 Tess, 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. La o 57c s kc:ck.t`(yc' c_vL o 16, . ��y Go w 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 1 01 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970-945-8676 • PHONE 970-945.2555 • FAX WWW.HCENG.COM Melod 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@holvcross.com 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: 970.92 8.9100 FACSIMILE: 970.928.9600 July 19, 2012 Fred Jarman, Director Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 VIA HAND DELIVERY 11 eh' iit: ww\%.Ommoc.com JUL X 9 2012 RE: Major Impact Review for Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, BNS Services, LLC Contractor's Yard- Resubmission of Submittal Requirements Dear Fred and Molly: This correspondence comes to address issues cited in your correspondence dated May 23. 2012 and our subsequent follow-up meeting. 1 will follow the Sections cited in your ULUR 4- 502 Description of Submittal Requirements (for Major Impact Review) for ease: ARTICLE IV APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES Section 4-502 (D) Land Suitability Analysis 11. Natural Habitat. The 5 acre site where the Contractor's Yard is going to be is a previously disturbed area which has been used as a gravel storage area. The only existing plants remaining on the site are scant sage brush, juniper and native buffalo grasses over a negligible portion (less than 1 acre) of the total 5 acre Contractor's Yard. No wetlands exist on the Property, as can be seen from the revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan submitted herewith. There is an irrigation ditch running through the Property. As it runs through the Property, this ditch runs for 3-4 weeks per year on a typical year to 2 months per year in a very wet year. Since it is dry the majority of the year, the ditch has no known flora or fauna habitats, and is a rocky bottom ditch. The Applicants do not have any water rights on this ditch and the Contractor's Yard site has been adjusted to comply with the county setbacks. As can be seen from the revised Site Plan submitted herewith, the site is located over 35 feet from the ditch. There will be no disturbance to the ditch as a result of this Contractor's Yard. We are also submitting a revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, Reclamation Plan and Landscaping Plan showing the proper setbacks from the ditch. Please replace the previous maps submitted with these revised maps. OLSZEWSKI, MASSIII & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review July 19, 2012 Page 2 of 3 As far as migration corridors for wildlife on the Property, I have included Colorado Department of Natural Resources maps for the most common species in the area, which are mule deer and elk, and also a map with regard to the endangered kit fox. The location of the Property is delineated on these maps. As can be seen from the attached maps, it does not appear that the Property is a migration corridor for any of these species. Kit fox have not been confirmed as being in the area at all. Deer and elk do utilize this geographical area, albeit not as migration corridors, but given the fact that the 5 acre Contractor's Yard site has already been disturbed and is mostly gravel, the physical yard itself will have a relatively small physical impact on these species. Also, this Contractor's Yard will receive far less traffic and human activity levels than most other commercial developments, and it is unlikely its presence will diminish deer and elk use of the Property significantly. 12. Resource Areas. As discussed in our meeting, the ground underlying the Contractor's Yard site has already been disturbed, so any spoilage of resources as defined in this section have already taken place. However, as requested, I contacted the Colorado Historical Society-OAHP for a record search. Robert Cronk, a Cultural Resource Information/GIS Specialist was able to provide me with information on the sites and surveys in the Colorado Historical Society's files with regard to the Property. This information is attached hereto in letter and table format. Mr. Cronk explained that there are no known archaeological sites on the Property, and that there have been two surveys that have been undertaken with regard to cultural resources showing no sites. Mr. Cronk stated that the fact that there were two surveys which included the Property and no prehistoric or historic sites were found was better proof than is typically found, because in most areas of Colorado, these surveys have not even been conducted. Thus, there are no protected or registered resource areas on the Property. Section 4-502 (E) Impact Analysis 8. Environmental Effects. Section 4-502(E)(8)(a)- Determination of long and short term effect on flora and fauna: As stated above, the site has already been disturbed and most of it is gravel, which has eliminated most plant life on the site. The remaining vegetation is limited to sparse juniper, sage brush and native buffalo grasses, and will remain largely undisturbed as the majority of construction will take place on the graveled areas. As such, both the long and short term effects of this small Contractor's Yard on the existing flora and fauna on the site will be minimal. In addition. Applicants will be installing further landscaping as is set forth in the Landscaping Plan submitted with our April 11, 2012 Application and supplemental materials. The remaining vegetation on the larger 35 acres of Property owned by the Applicants will be undisturbed. Section 4-502(E)(8)(c)- Determination of effect on critical wildlife habitat: As stated above. the maps provided show that this Property is not a migration corridor for any of the key species as identified. As also stated above, the site has already been disturbed and so any further development on the site itself will have little physical impact on the animals. The remainder of the larger part of the Property will be left as open space and as undisturbed for the wildlife. RdvklodISCHAEFFERICommcaYs YardddN Cnficld Camp Budding and VLvmn4; Rcsubmsuon:u12n72u doc OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. Schaeffer Major Impact Review July 19, 2012 Page 3 of 3 ARTICLE VII STANDARDS Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water A (3) Quality of Water Source. A sample from the Applicant's well was analyzed by Grand Junction Laboratories and the laboratory results were reviewed in conjunction with State standards by High Country Engineering. Tom Scott's Memorandum stating that these sample results are within normal ranges is attached hereto. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation A revised Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is attached hereto. This Plan shows the total acreage to be disturbed on the Property as 1.7 acres. The Plan was also revised to show the setbacks from the ditch, as set forth above. Section 7-206 Drainage Attached hereto is the High Country Engineering Memorandum discussing this section as requested in your correspondence and discussed at our meeting with regard to the drainage on the site. If required, and as is further set forth in my April 11, 2012 correspondence, we will provide a full drainage report as a condition of final approval for this Contractor's Yard. Section 7-207 Stormwater Run-off Attached hereto is the High Country Engineering Memorandum discussing this section as requested in your correspondence and discussed at our meeting with regard to the drainage on the site. As to your further questions, I believe we answered those in our meeting. To reiterate, with regard to the Improvements Agreement, we are stating that an Improvements Agreement is not applicable to this Application, and thus this requirement should be waived. The drainage on the site was discussed at our meeting and the Memorandum referenced above is attached hereto for further clarification. Thank you for your time and consideration. We have now addressed all of the issues articulated by the Building and Planning Department and this should render the Application complete. Please contact me with any further questions or concerns. Very truly yours, OLSZEWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C. MDM:mkd cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer R,'Mclod2 LSCIlAF.FFERK'onlr,nnor's YardVD3. Geld Count) Woking and Planning Rcsubmis.gn 20120720.doc CIVIL ENGINEERING An I?mployec•Owned Company L.AND SURVEYING MEMORANDUM To: Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. From: Tom Scott Revised: June 18, 2012 Project: BNS Services, LLC Subject: Storm Water Runoff Per your request we reviewed Article VII, Section 7-207 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as Amended. It appears that the proposed Land use application for the project is exempt from the applicable land use regulations, as follows: New development within 100 feet of a water body According to the Garfield County Geographic Information System (GIS) aerial photographs and the Improvement and Topographic Survey, prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc. there are no existing water bodies within 100 feet of the proposed contractor's yard. Development creating 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area The proposed contractor's yard is to consist of pervious gravel equipment storage areas and a shop building. The proposed building is to be 100 feet in length and 50 feet in length, having an impervious roof area of 5,000 square feet. Conclusion Since the proposed contractor's yard is not located within 100 feet of a water body and the proposed impervious areas are less than 10,000 square feet, the standards contained in Article VII, Section 7-207 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, are not applicable. 1 517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970-945-8676 • PHONE 970-945-2555 • FAX W W W.HCENG.COM CIVIL ENGINEERING An Employee -Owned Company LAND SURVEYING MEMORANDUM To: Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. From: Tom Scott Revised: June 18, 2012 Project: BNS Services, LLC Subject: Drainage Per your request we reviewed Article VII, Section 7-206 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as Amended. It appears that the proposed Land use application for the project is in conformance with the applicable land use regulations, as follows: A. Site Design to Facilitate Positive Drainage. The proposed contractor's yard has been laid out to provide positive drainage, as shown on Erosion and sedimentation Control Plan. The region south of the proposed shop building is to be graded to form a shallow drainage swale 10 feet away and parallel with the rear building line. This swale has been design with a high point midway along its length to split and route storm water around both the east and west side of the proposed building. Storm water emerging from the swales is to continue northerly in sheet flow condition, across the proposed gravel equipment storage areas. The storm water runoff will have the opportunity to seep down into porous gravel voids and percolate into the soil beneath. Any remaining storm water runoff will be intercepted by the existing ditches that are situated north of the proposed equipment storage areas. B. Coordination with Area Storm Drainage Pattern. 1. The proposed shallow drainage swale to be graded south of the proposed shop building is to have a slope of 2 -percent, exceeding the minimum allowable slope of 0.75percent. Anticipated flow velocities within the swale are to be Tess than 5 feet per second, eliminating the need for energy dissipaters. Graded slopes adjacent to the proposed shallow swale are to be graded at a 5:1 slope, far Tess than the maximum allowable slope of 3:1. 2. Sub drains for the foundation of the proposed shop building are to be installed, and day lighted as required. Details are to be prepared at the time of building permit submittal. 3. Drainage from the contractor's yard will not discharge onto adjacent lots. The storm water will remain on-site and ultimately reach the existing roadside ditch situated on the north side of County Road 301. 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 601 970-945-8676 • PHONE 970-945-2555 • FAX W W W. HCENG.COM CIVIL ENGINEERING An Employee -Owned Company LAND SURVEYING To: From: Revised: Project: Subject: MEMORAN DUM Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C. Tom Scott July 19, 2012 BNS Services, LLC Well Water Test Results Per your request, we have reviewed the well water test results prepared by John C Kephart & Company Grand Junction Laboratories, analytical report number 4223 dated 7/18/12. Based on the analytical report, it appears that the tested parameters of the water sample meet the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL), as follows: Tested Parameter Total Coliform Bacteria Total Dissolved Solids pH Test Result MCL Ocfu/l00ml 348 mg/1 7.5 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 601 970-945-8676 • PHONE 970-945-2555 • FAX WWW. HCENG.COM Must be less than one 500 mg/1 6.5 to 8.5 is acceptable JOHN C. 1 EPHART & CO. MJ[T lA AT- iltb 435 NORTH AVQNUC ♦ t'NON6: (970) 242-7618 ♦. FAX: (970) 243-7235 • GRAND JUNCTION. COLORAOC 81501 Received horn — ANALYTICAL REPORT -- BNS Services Nate Schaeffer 970-986-0513 244 Burtard Lane FAX 285-2073 Parachute, CO 81635 Customer No. 4223 water Laboratory No. Sample Date Received 7/17/12 Date Reported 7/18/12 Lab number 4223 Limits . for Drinking Sample ID Special use well permitSupplies 7/17/12 11:00 AM' Colo. Dept. Health Total Coliform Bacteria 0 cfu/100m1 must be less than 1 Conductivjty@25 deg. C 600tohos/cm no official limit Total Dissolved Solids 348 mg/1 500 mg/1 PH 7.50 6.5-8.5 is acceptable cfu/100m1 stands for colony forming units per 100 milliliters. umhos/can stands for micrombos per -centimeter. mg/1 stands for milligrams per liter. Lab Dir.: Brian S. Baur id Wd90:S0 ZLOe 81 'Inf 8860D7Z0L6 : 'ON XH.d nformation Source L ClCD Custom Map Created at Natura o 0 U C 9 J 0$3, a Ms p 5 m~a3. . _ _ _v 4' j o. 4( W S 41 9 V W 0 °::n 1 0 a 5 t) 1,) ,) M n CO 5 :) J a Intermittent 1:100K DRG Image c O • D (0 (0 T O (o N 0 0 a 7 0. T (0 O. co rn i 17,t t ?ra j 161. f0 E g •X U 2 u a Q < nformation Source Custom Map Created at Natural Diversity �yr i� ora.Alt.ro ;her'4•11 iib I E ❑J Major Roads City Boundaries 1:1OOK DRG linage • g t • L) JI W •t m1:r fS i 1 6. • 1- 4 1 C r l + 14. : Y• rn U L Q I— lD 2 4) m E g �o co U a 0< fq a ca _E E ami co ra am N c0O 0 N O N C Na ch N L nformation Source N L Custom Map Created at Natura 1 0 a <o S Y ro m s 00 03 v cq 4/1 7 ,-v 0 00 0- _ ¢ot ee a-- 0 Q a1 dao =to r m y°djr : Y U U U .rn t= D :n E U-1 t= = to D J G ~ `A`‹.❑ DD 1_1 1:106K DRG Image • • •r 4101, 0 c m >, c O a) a) O a a a ca 0. Drn o � N -co Lc?a COCO E U -C2 w m E o 2 U 0 < 0. m E E a• v �o N N O O £ C•1 O CO N C CO .N r � O COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80203 Melody D. Massih Olszewski, Massih, & Maurer, P.C. POBox 916 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 July 18, 2012 Re: Schaeffer File Search No. 17068 A t your request, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has conducted a search of the Colorado inventory of Cultural Resources, as shown on the provided property map, located in the following area: PM 6th. 7S 95W 9 SE NE 0 sites and 2 surveys were located in the designated area(s). if information on sites in the project area was found, detailed information follows the summary. lino sites or districts were found, but surveys are known to have been conducted in the project area, survey information follows the summary. We do not have complete information on surveys conducted in Colorado, and our site files cannot be considered complete because most of the state has not been surveyed for cultural resources. There is the possibility that as yet unidentified cultural resources exist within the proposed impact area. Therefore, in the event there is Federal or State involvement, we recommend that a professional survey be conducted to identify any cultural resources in the project area, which are eligible to be listed in the National Register, of i-listoric Places. We look forward to consulting with you regarding the effect of the proposed project on any eligible cultural resource in accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures and the Preservation and Protection of Historic and Cultural Resources (36 CFR 800). Please provide this office with the results of the cultural resource survey for our review of professional adequacy and compliance with regulations. If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation at (303) 866-3395 or 3392. Thank you for your interest in Colorado's cultural heritage. Richard Wilshusen. Deputy State I•Iistoric Preservation Officer for Archaeology State Archaeologist Kevin Black Assistant State Archaeologist *Information regarding significant archaeological resources is excluded from the Freedom of information Act. Therefore, legal locations of these resources must not be included in documents for public distribution. 17068_sy V O LL V O O 2 z 5 • c 5 8 S 8 5 s 5 0 z 0 5 3 P. 3 2 5 8 9 3 5 O O 5 s S s x 2 0 0 3 yw O a 6 S x x a 3