HomeMy WebLinkAbout26. PC Staff Report 10.24.2012Exhibits — Major Impact Review — Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, MIPA 7214
PC Public Hearing (10/2412012)
EXhibtt
LOW.:
. (it big)
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
Staff Memorandum —
E
P ___ _
G
StaffPowerpoint
Emails from Melody Massih, dated Se • tember 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
1
Email from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, dated September 1Q 2012 ___
Email from the Town of Parachute, dated August 23, 2012
_ M _
N
Emails from Grand Valley Fire Protection District, dated August 22, 2012 and
September 18, 2012 __
0
Letter with attachments from Olszewski, Massih & Maurer,15.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
Planning Commission
10/24/12
MOL
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST Major Impact Review — Contractor's Yard
PROPERTY OWNER Nathan and Becky Schaeffer
REPRESENTATIVE Melody Massih, Oiszewski. 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 to directly to the job site and will visit the proposed Contractor's Yard to pick up and
drop off equipment and materials.
COUNTY POAO NO. 301
•
1
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 wastewater
service will be provided by an
Individual Septic Disposal System
(ISDS) The shop and yard are also
to serve as 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 access road are
the storage areas. A portion of the
storage area west of the access
road already exists and is to be
expanded to the north. The east
storage yard also exists and was
recently installed without a County grading permit. The Site Plan in the application depicts the
west and east storage areas as being approximately 33,660 square feet (160' x 210') and
20,000 square feet (80' x 250') in size, respectively. The shop is to be situated at the south end
of the east storage area. The Site Plan also shows the east storage area to be set back a
distance of 35' from the Helwitt and Milburn Ditch. However, a site visit on October 11, 2012 by
County staff revealed this setback to be 10' or Tess 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 waterbodies 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.
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 such as ash, willows, and
cottonwoods can be found.
2
III. ZONING AND ADJACENT USES
Tne 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 0)
County Consulting Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering (Exhibit J and P)
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 incudes: 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 fourd 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 I sted 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.
3
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.
Staff Comment The Improvement Topographic Survey plan shows two 30' overhead
electric easements on the north portion of the subject properly. No "Will Serve' letter from
the electric company was provided in the application.
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 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
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 vsit
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. The Applicant needs to revise the Site Plan to reflect the correct slooes for the
proposed application.
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 Y4 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
ind`cates 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, tailwafer 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
demonstrating an adequate, reliable, physical, long term, and legal water supply at the time
of the shop's building permit.
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-site 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 should be sized to accommodate all uses and shown
on the Ste P an.
8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations.
Staff Comment. The app ication 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 Applicant's engineer anticipates these
sols 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. County staff
supports this proposal provided no employees are working on the property before the shop
is built.
10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site.
Staff Comment: Tab 12 of the application indicates that there are no geologic hazards within
the property or adjacent to the parcel but no documentation is provided to substant°ate this
claim. The subject property falls outside the County's ArcGIS Geologic Hazards Study Area
therefore County staff can't verify that there are no geologic hazards on the parcel This
section of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR) has not been
addressed sufficiently.
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
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 saes are located on the property.
5
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 &i 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 269 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. Genera' 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: This section of the ULUR is not addressed sufficiently since no
documentation is provided to substantiate the claim that there are no geologic hazards on
the property. This topic is also addressed under Section 4-502 (D)(10).
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
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: The application states an ISDS will be sought at the time of a building
permit at which time the adequacy of a sewage treatment will be addressed Since there are
no employees working on-site, County staff is in support of this proposal.
6
The Erosion and Sedimentation Pian indicates that 1.7 acres will be disturbed with this
proposed land use. As per Section 4-502 (C)(4)(s), the Applicant is required to provide a
copy of the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) application submitted to CDPHE along
with the date of submitta:. CDPHE requires a SWMP and permit for all projects that disturb
one acre or more. A SWMP and permit are not provided in the application therefore this
section of the ULUR has not been adequately addressed
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 Site Ran, 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 application indicates that there are no radiation hazards on-site.
e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable.
Staff Comment. A Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures Plan is not provided.
The application does not meet this section of the ULUR.
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 obta ned for the existing access
and improvements done on the entrance to the access road in order to meet Road and
Bridge standards (Exhibit H). The Applicant is willing to make these improvements which
could be implemented in 2013
Tab 11 of the application contains a traffic study prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc.
dated April 11, 2012. The County's consulting engineer indicates (Exhibit J) that "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 wili impact the
performance " As per the comments of the County's engineering consultant, the Applicant
has not sufficiently addressed this section of the ULUR.
7
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
additiona' 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 application just restates what's in the
code for a Reclamation Plan under Section 7-212. This secton's narrative and plan don'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). This section of the ULUR hasn't beer sufficiently
addressed.
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.
All development standards are met except the height of the proposed building This
information was not provided in the application and as stated in the memorandum from
Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, dated October 12, 2012, the height will be specified at the time
of the building permit. Without this information, County staff can't state that the application
complies with 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 Residentia (2 to <6 AC/DU) of the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030. In general this application is 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.
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
8
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 stat'ng that this
provider will serve the property. An email to Olszewski, Massih & Maurer from Holy Cross
Energy dated October 3, 2012 (Exhibit 0) indicates that Holy Cross has electric service
along CR 301 out doesn't state that Holy Cross can serve the parcel. This section of the
ULUR has not been adequately addressed.
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.
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.
As per the Site Plan, the proposed east storage area and shop are 35' and 65' from a water
body (Helwitt and Milburn Ditch) respectively. However, a site visit by staff found the east
storage area 10' or less from this water body which doesn't meet the minimum 35' setback
requirement as per this section.
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. It is not clear from this letter if a
secondary containment is being proposed for the diesel storage tank. This tank is not
shown on the Site Plan therefore staff can't verify if it's within 100' from a water body.
No Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures Plan are provided in the application.
However, the October 12. 2012 letter, mentions that if any diesel soils occur it will be
cleaned up by "Speedy Dry" and disposed of properly
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
9
oil burner or hauled off-site. It is unclear where this activity will take place in the Contractor's
Yard therefore staff can't verify if this activity is occurring 100' away from a water body.
The Applicant hasn't addressed this section of the ULUR adequately
4. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation
Staff Comment No Stormwater Management Plan or permit are provided in the applicaton
therefore this section of the ULUR hasn't been adequately addressed.
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 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. Positive drainage is proposed
for the site through the installation of swales and sheet drainage. The Applicant requests
addressing Section 7-206 Drainage with the ouilding permit when more is known about the
proposed structure. In the August 13, 2012 meeting with the App icant's representatives,
the County's engineering requested the drainage calculations be provided in order to
determine if the standards of the ULUR are addressed To date, the County has not
received any drainage calculations.
In a memorandum dated June 18, 2012 from Applicant's engineer states that the proposed
shop is not within 100 feet of a water body and less than 10,000 square feet of imperious
areas are proposed therefore this section of the ULUR is not applicable. The Site Plan
shows the storage yard and shop setback 10' and 65', respectively from the Helwitt and
Milburn Ditch. Section 16 of the ULUR identifies a water body as "Large accumulations of
water. such as oceans, seas, and lakes, hut it may also include smaller pools of water such
as ponds; puddles or wetlands. Rivers, streams, canals, and other geographical features
where water moves from one place to another." The Helwitt and Miiburn Ditch is a "canal"
that transports water from Battlement Creek to properties north of the proposed Contractor's
Yard and therefore is considered a water body
The Applicant has not sufficiently addressed these sections of the ULUR
6. Section 7-208 Air Quality
Staff Comment: Tnis land use is not anticipated to reduce the air quality below the
acceptable eves of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Dust
mitigation measures such as watering during construction will be implemented to minimae
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: Staff Comment: This section of the ULUR isn't sufficiently addressed. See
Section 4-502 (D)(10) for further discussion.
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 section of the ULUR isn't sufficiently addressed. See Section 4-502
(E)(11) for further discussion.
10
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 App'leant proposes to plant trees to block these views.
2. Section 7-302 Building Design
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
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.
11
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 materia! 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.
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 acjacent property
owners.
VII. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. That the public hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete;
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were not submitted, and that all nterested
parties were heard at those hearings.
2. The proposed use is not in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
3. The application does not comply with the applicable Sections of the Garfield County
Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended including:
• Section 4-502 (E) (5) Geology and Hazards;
• Section 4-502 (E) (7) Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas;
• Section 4-502 (E) (8) (e) Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures Plan,
• Section 4-502 (E) (9) Traffic,
• Section 4-502 (E) (11) Reclamation Plan,
• Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions;
• Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities,
• Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas
• Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies,
12
• Section 7-204 Protectior of Water Quality from Pollutants,
• Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation:
• Section 7-206 Drainage;
• Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off; and,
• Section 7-212 Reclamation.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff recommends the Punning Commission deny the Major Impact Review `or a
Contractor's Yard.
13
11/311y Orkild-Larson 11. EXGI
HIBIT
From: Melody Massih [melody@ommpc.com]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:28 AM
To: Molly Orkild-Larson
Cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer; Fred Jarman
Subject: RE: Send data from MFP07305528 09/18/2012 09:11
Molly- my requests are set forth in my initial email. The only real waiver request would be
the request for a 4 hour pump test versus a 24 hour pump test, and I set forth my reasoning
in my email. The water tests are the same in the old code as in the new code, and so we will
comply with the wording in the code (and the fact that the code says that the drinking water
tests are "recommended" does not, by my read of this section, require us to have these tests,
considering that no customers or employees will even be drinking the water. Please let me
know if staff feels differently.) Unless you can tell me that staff will support the 4 hour
pump test, I am not inclined to spend any more time on these issues, as it will probably be
cheaper for my client to just get the 24 hour pump test than to have me put in a request that
is going to be denied or not supported by staff anyway.
Please let me know. Thanks -
Sincerely,
Melody D. Massih
Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C.
EXHIBIT
Elef 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:
1. 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.
.1‘.lley Orkild-Larson
From: Ray Sword
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:52 PM
To: Molly OrkiId-Larson
Subject: MIPA 7214
Molly,
EXHIBIT
H
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
rsword cC�garfield-county.com
1
EXHIBIT
1
Garfield County
Molly Orkild-Larson
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
Vetietation Ma,tatentent
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 81660 Phone: 970.625.8601 Fax: 970-625-8627
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:
MOUNTAIN CROSS
ENGINEERING, INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
1
EXHIB T
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 putnp 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,
Mountajp Cross Engi ering, Inc.
Chris Hale, PE
826 ', Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.corn
Moll Orkild-Larson
From: Roussin, Daniel (Daniel. Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO US]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:57 PM
To: Molly 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/permitsiaccesspermits
114144
EXHIBIT
Moll Orkild-Larson
From: Komatinsky, Jim [Jim.Komatinsky@state.co.usj
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
EXHIBIT
I _L..
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.komatinskvc state.co.us
lao2y 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.
EXHIBIT
M
M Orkild-Larson
From: Rob Ferguson [opschief@gvfpd.orgj
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:59 PM
To: Molly Orkild-Larson
Subject: RE: Questions
EXHIBIT
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 f mailto:morkild-larson@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?
ly±Aly 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
EXHIBIT
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 13.Olszcwski
Melody I). Massili
Amanda N. Maurcr
OLSZUWSKI, MASSIH & MAURER, P.C.
ArI ORNEYS AT LAW
P.O. Box 916
214-8"Sitht r,Sum 210
GuiNwooD SPRINGS, CO 81602
TEIJWI iolvr: 970.928.9100
FAcs I tin l . c: 970.928.9600
October 12, 2012
OCT
Wcbsitc:
www.ommlx.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: nmrkild-larson(t)garficld-county.com
RE: Major Impact Review for Nathan and Becky Schaeffer, BNS Services, LLC
Contractor's Yard
Dear Molly:
This correspondence canes in response to your e-mail dated October 9, 2012. My
answers to your questions are as follows:
1. 1Vhat type of equipment is being stored on-site and is it hazardous to wildlife (can Mo. 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 he disposed of in a manner consistent
with statues and requirements of CDI'HE. " 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. I'Vhere 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?
Ois,H.wSKi, MASSIII & MAI'RHR, P.C.
Schaeffer Major impact Review
Oct )her 12, 2012
Page 2of4
The only storage will he 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 .state.s 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?
"!'here 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,
hut 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 writer coming{ franc?
As stated above, a water storage tank will supply the necessary water for outside uses,
including tire protection. In addition, there is a tire hydrant located within'/, mite of the
Property.
11. What native seed mix are yora using 10 reclaim the disturbed amus and what species are
within this mix?
Applicant will use dryland grass mix for any reclamation.
k.44:1e4SSI:AI 1111:('c.u.c:nh \klRlo (:a•9. Y..a:nv :n�•1.�.ni..
OIs71iwSKl, MASS!!! & MAultER, 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 thc Property. This bean provides
additional screening for the Contractor's Yard and protection for the ditch on the
property.
14. Isn't 10%n grade steep for a .storage yard?
The grade within the area proposed tor the Contractor's Yard is 2% to 3%. The area
where the building will be located will he 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 he
addressed when Applicant applies for a building permit.
16. When will the office be mored 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, 1 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 liOCC of this Application.
2. Garfield County Vegetation Management responded to the Application by inquiring if there
was any incidence of diffuse knapwced on the subject property. Applicant docs 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 thc Spring of 2013, pending approval by 13OCC of this
Application.
ktlkkdy :K'IN2roua.mit)31d•t: u.,r OM 1.,,y 2f I; 1014.d'
OLSZEWSKI, I ' IASStn & 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, plcasc scc 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 thc required pump test, due to the time and financial
constraints of the Applicant, as I have stated in our previous telephone conversation,
thc 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 flan, plcasc see the
attached memorandum from Tom Scott, Applicant's engineer.
e. As to item #5 regarding the soils acceptable to a septic system, plcasc see the attached
memorandum from Tom Scott, Applicant's cnginccr.
f. As to item #6 regarding the Traffic Report, plcasc sec 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, 1 enclose an e-mail from Holy Cross Electric Service indicating that they (10
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
I3y:
R, P.C.
MDM:mkd
Enclosures
cc: Nate and Becky Schaeffer
I1 r ',MAN NOVO 111 R t'.wu.b.ut.141,111m twii,1411 4.11111 p1L•unod.
od D. Massih
Melod Massih
From: John Savage (savagejw@msn.comj
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 t:, i h.
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.corri
From: John Savage [mailtu:savagejw(Qim$n.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 N:310'c
house lot off of CR 338, didn't realise he bought 40 acres on CR 301. The ditch which crosses the prowrty is Orr Rda.b r.i
& 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 816SO-1926
970-625.14 /0Ifax: 6?5.0803
Cell: 970-379-6745; savageiwt msn.com
From: JOHN SAVAGE [mailto:savagejw@msn.comj
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. I
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! 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- 1 just tiad 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.0
214 8th Street. Suite 210
P O Sox 916
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
(970) 928.9100 (telephone)
(970) 928-9600 (facsimile)
melodygmmpc 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 Ewpluyrr•O..ard Ca. p
LAND SURVEYING
MEMORANDUM
To: Olszewski, Massih & Maurer, P.C.
From: Tom Scott
Revised: October 11, 2012
Project: BINS 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
► eport 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
(CLEM), 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
GLEN WOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
970.9458676 • 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 an the outcome of ('omtnent #1 above.
As a reminder, erosion and sedimentation control measures arc 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 qt.('
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-Lidefonsu 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 countsfrom •not 2002 as the back ground traffic. No fitctor was
applied to the 2002 counts to estimate grow over the last 10 years. Also, the traffic report does
not evaluate the overall p'rformance 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
GLEN W000 SPRINGS, CO 81601
970-945-8676 • PHONE
970-945-2555 a 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.
1517 SLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO a 1601
970.9454676 • PHONE
970-94S2555 • FAX
W W W.HCENG.COM
Melody Massih
From: Customer Care [customercare@holycross.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12.18 PM
To: 'rnelody@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
M 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 Jmailto:morkild-(arson@ Barfield-county.comj
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 Jmailto: melody@ommpc.com]
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 Jmailto:morkild-larson@Barfield-county.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:22 PM
To: Melody Massih
Subject: Schaeffer Contractor's Yard Questions
Melody:
I have :he 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-ste?
5. Where will the spill containments be located on-site?
6. The app'ication 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 County
MoIIy Orkild-Larson
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
Vejzelnlioiz Manaketnettl
October 16, 2012
RE: MIPA 7214 -Schaeffer Yard -Revised Comments
Dear MoIIy,
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 1/2 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.
Sincerely,
Steve Anthony
Garfield County Vegetation Manager
0298 County Road 333A
Rifle, C0131650 Phone: 970.625.8601 Fax: 970.625.8627