The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.0 Staff Report PC 07.08.15 continued from 06.10.15Planning Commission, July 8, 2015 continued from June 10, 2015 Exhibits -Ken Sack Animal Processing Exhibit Exhibit ~ Letter (A to Z) A Public Hearing Notice Affidavit, with attachments B Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code , as amended c Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended D Application E Staff R eport dated 6/10/15 El Supplemental staff report dated 7/8/15 F Staff Presentation G Email dated May 4 , 2015 from Bob Peterson, CDPHE H Email dated May 14 , 2015 from Dr. Melvin Gore, USDA, with attachment I Letter dated May 18, 2015 from Orrin Moon, Fire Marshall Colorado River Fire Rescue J Letter dated May 15, 2015 from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering K Email dated May 21, 2015 from Orrin Moon, Fire Marshall Colorado River Fire Rescue L Email dated May 26, 2015 from Dan Goin, Road & B ridge M Letter dated May 26 , 2015 from Steve Anthon y., Vegetation Management N Email dated May 29 , 2015 from Nathan Lindqui st, Planning Director City of Rifle 0 Email and attachment dated June 1, 2015 from Orrin Moon, Fire Marshall Colorado River Fire Rescue p US Environmental Protection Agency Water Trivia Facts (number 44.) a Letter dated May 21 , 2015 from Morgan Hill, Garfield County Public Health R Conditions of pending Building Permit s Information dropped off in Community Development -Eagle Spring Organic T Applicant Presentation June 10, 2015 u Applicant's proposed Findings and Conditions of Approval · v Submittal documentation dated June 22 , 2015 (includes plans, traffic study, and utilities w Email dated June 22, 2015 from Dwight Whitehead, Division of Water Resources x Well Permit 125042 y Email dated June 23, 2015 from Dr. Melvin Gore, USDA z Email dated June 23, 2015 from Matt Langhorst, HCE re: kill room floor drains AA Email dated June 26 , 2015 from Dale Dexter, Homestead Meats BB Email dated June 26, 2015 from Orrin Moon, Colorado River Fire Rescue cc Letter dated June 26 , 2015 from Morgan Hill , Environmental Health DD Email dated June 29 , 2015 from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering EE Community Devel opment Road Policy 01-14 FF Supplemental Information dated June 30, 2015 provided by the Applicant GG Applicant Presentation Jul y 8, 2015 HH Applicant proposed conditions and findings received July 8, 2015 II Staff list of proposed conditions JJ EXHIBIT IA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ST A TE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) I, Angelique P. Petterson, being first duly sworn, state and allege as follows: On April 21 , 2015, I mailed a Public Notice, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, via certified mail, return receipt reque sted, to all landowners and all mineral owners within 200 fe et of 482 County Road 315, Silt, Colorado, 81652 , also known as Garfield County Assessors Parcel No. 2179-181-00-681. A list of the landowners and mineral right owners is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Copies of all Return Receipts received as of June 2, 2015, are attached as Exhibit C. AND FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NOT. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this 3rd day of June, 2015, by Angelique P. Petterson. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: ERIKA WATKINS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20064043473 MYOOMWSSION EXPIRES OCTOBER a 2018 f D \ 7 o \ ?<o \ b . ~~~ PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Kenneth J. Sack has applied to the Planning Commission, Garfield County. State of Colorado, to request a Land Use Change Permit for Animal Processing as defined by the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended, in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit: Legal Description Practical Description Request Description Please see Exhibit A attached (also known as Garfield County Assessor's Parcel No. 2179-181-00-681) 482 County Road 315, Silt, CO 81652 Applicant requests that a 35.2-acre property be permitted as an animal processing facility in the Rural Zone District. All persons affected by the proposed Land Use Change Permit are invited to appear and state their views, endorsements or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for the land use request. This application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Administration Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Commissioners Hearing Room, Garfield County Administration Building, Suite 100, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Community Development Department Garfield County Exhibit A EXHIBIT A THE SURFACE ESTATE ONLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS: A tract of land situated in Section 18 , Township ·6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. being more particuJarly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the Southeast Comer of said Section 18 bears South 18° 48' 43" East 2736.17 feet; thence North 73° 57' 56" West 84.78 feet; thence South 82° 36' 32" West 46.72 feet; thence South 58° 04' 05" West 135.69 feet; thence South 74° 39' 03" West 73.66 feet; thence North 80° 55' 21" West 78.00 feet; thence North 68° 38' 29" West 108.08 feet; thence North 68° 53' 03" West 71.82 feet; thence South 89 ° 30' 19" West 79.15 feet; thence South 72° 51' 07" West 70.62 feet; thence South 58° 03' 49" West 148.75 feet; thence South 46° 15' 00" West 56.32 feet; thence South 41° 58' 31" West 98.48 feet; thence South 54 ° 42' 50" West 125.13 feet; thence South 75° 59 ' 58" West 43.68 feet; thence South 81° 24' 12" West 39.30 feet to the North right of way of County Road 315; thence along said right of way and along a non- tangent curve to the right with an arc length of 307.60 feet, a radius of 783.33 feet, a central angle of 22° 29' 57", a chord bearing of North 52° 16' 12" West, a chord length of 305.63 feet; thence North 41° 01' 13" West 536.04 feet; thence along a curve to the left with an arc length of 127.44 feet, a radius of 1789.03 feet, a central angle of 04° 04' 53", a chord bearing of North 43° 03' 40" West, a chord length of 127.41 feet to a point on th~: North-South centerline of said Section 18; thence North 00° 21' 29" West 902.06 feet to the Northwest Comer of the SW lf.i NE lf.i of said Section 18; thence North 89° 20' 17" East 447.79 feet along the North line of said SW lf.i NE Y-i; thence South 46° 24' 49" East 1877.41 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, TOGETHER WITH WELL PARCEL A tract of land situated in Section 18, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P .M. being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the Southeast Comer of said Section 18 bears South 22° 24' 40" East 3116.54 feet said POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along said boundary line North 46° 24' 49" West 30.00 feet; thence departing said boundary line North 43° 35' 11" East 87.60 feet; thence South 46° 24' 49" East 30.00 feet; thence South 43° 35' 11" West 87.60 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, County of Garfield, State of Colorado. Land/Mineral Owners within 2 00 feet of Parcel No. 2179-181-00-681 2177-131-00-303 AIRPORT LAND PARTNERS LIMITED 312AABC, SUITE A ASPEN, CO 81611-2568 2177-134-00-205 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY 108 8TH STREET SUITE213 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-3363 2179-181-00-691 EAGLE SPRJNGS ORGANIC LLC POBOX351 RIFLE, CO 81650 2179-181-00-124 THE DISCOVERY FOUNDATION c/o THE DIXON WATER FOUNDATION 4528 COUNTY ROAD 398 DECATUR, TX 76234 2179-184-00-720 BEDROCK RESOURCES LLC PO BOX 1167 SILT, CO 81652-1167 2179-181-00-123 PORT EVERGLADES RESTAURANT CORP 8191 E KAISER BLVD ANAHEIM, CA 92808 RICHARD THOMSPON DEVER & DOROTHY DEVER FULLER 13518 RARITAN WAY DENVER, CO 80234 URSA OPERATING COMPANY, LLC 1050 17TH STREET, SUITE 2400 DENVER, CO 80265 Exhibit B l"-ru a- c:::J U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mall On ly rmallon, visit our website at 1vww.usps.com'. ~L__{il.EJllOOJICSE~f.tias..:£fl.ru.6!1U..:..J;~.~·~~l~J~s~==-...:r~~~·~_J ::r r-Postage L$---214.!ll:L..-! , ~,;..,,;. ' ~ r •. r-I / V"'1Q (• • r \ M Certified Fee / '\ • Cl 1---.&.l.&ollli.....,i:'-l' 07' ~ Pos11n111k1 •• • Return Receipt Fee ,. • t:J (Endorsement Roqulred) \ Horo " 1 Cl ReS1rlcted Oollvory Fee Cl (Endorsement Required) rtJ 1~--~LIW.......l~ I ~ Total PostBOAORo ~F cdhl1i'Y ~(t 21'/20J5 / ~ m ° COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD I '" i:-•• o 'diiiioiior;, COUNTY I"'-or PO Box , ::r IT1 CitY.'sinlo.' 108 8TH STREET SUITE 213 GLENWOOD SPGS, CO 81601 U.S. Postal Service "' · CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only ~~~~~~~~!!lml:mm!DZ!mm~mi ... ~.__....!lil~~~~'...._.::._r ~-~~_!_f---......:!~~:::::___j ::r r- em o ::r ..-=i -g,;·;;JKii,;i. PO BOX 351 ~ orPOBoxN ci1iislaio:2 RIFLE, CO 81650 '" I • ·-...... U.S. Postal Service'" CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only $? so.oo ~-) :J'" ff (. I 1,I 07 Po~tmark • • Here / ' I • ' -__.,.,,. ' \ ~ -.. .... .._ _ ___., L::.... _ _;$~6~.4!.!..9 -l 04/2112015 U.S. Postal Servicen.1 CERTIFIED MAIL •. 1 RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) m ~aiimmiimiimm~~~~~ .:r .JJ l__---Ai~QW~~B\')8...::.::::---=....::....:~T--:-lc..;_~fi?~--' I.I") r-'l rn ru Certllled Fee CJ Return Receipt Fee CJ (Endorseme nt Required) 1---i~:m.;~!t,. CJ Restricted Oellveiy Fee Cl (Endo roomen t Required) l--~~00----l ru CJ Total Postage & Fees L$:!:...__~~~--' 0412112015 m ~..,..,,.-- m ont 0 PORT EVERGLADES 8 ~trotit;'ApClilc RESTAURANT CORP or PO Box No. I"'-c1ir.-s;Gi;;;z1i 8191 E KAISER BL VD M : I' ANAHEIM, CA 92808 U.S. Postal Service™ CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mall Only ~ ~mi!iiiiiiii~ii]i~~lii~~!ml~~~!!l!ZJ!!illl~ IT' L__J:!r:!;!!filllL!&J~~::::_..:;._::_:::....::.;.:r--::~~-=-:--=----' .JJ =r !"-- 05J8 (;,I .• - 1o} ,, Po~~~:~)I• :, \ • Certified Fee Rostricted Dcllveiy Fee CJ (Endaroomonl Required) 1-----'!lLl.lLlL....!?1 ru "° M -) Total Poslage & Fees $ 4/21/2015 .:r "' 0 --THE DISCOVERY FOUNDATION M "Sitoai&'i ifD 4528 COUNTY ROAD 398 CJ or PO Box No I"'-·······-······DECATUR TX 76234 City.Srato,Zll ' PS Form 3 6Q_O, July :!Ol4 Sec Reverse tor Instructions Cl ,., U.S. Postal Service-"" - CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT , Domestic Mail Only ~~~~~~~~l;lll~[lqmD.l;!!'Z=-.. ~ '----'.!=.!:~<>W!U.WfC:..._;=-...:_;::_:....::-.;_-......:~...::.::.-2:~-_J ::r l"'- M Cl CJ CJ Cl ru cc r-'I Postage Certified Fee Rolurn Receipt Fee (Endorsemon l Requ ired) Rea lrlcled Oellveiy Foo (Etldorsemenl Required) Total Poslage & Foes $ $ 0538 I• ;67 ~tmnrk ' ' Haro '\ ·. \ " 0412112015 l ~ ,----...-.-..._ r- sonr o BEDROCK RESOUR,CES LLC ::r .-:1 "$imor&·Xtii PO BOX 1167 ~ orPOBoxr. I . -........ AIRPORT LAND PARTNERS LTD ~'~~:::~ 312 AABC SUITE A citY.siaiti;i SILT, CO 81652-1167 Exhibit cirY.siaiq,Z ASPEN, co 81611-2568 PS Form JBOO, Ju ly 2011 See _Reve c I ' (,l>\' ·.\ ru Cerlrrled Fee • i 1,1~05J8 \; ~·· 0 Retum Rilcslpt Fee r---~tJ.,.JO..;.__J 7 / r.~ 1 S (Endorsemenl Roqu~od) Po.e.lmark / .._, 1-lere Raslrloi.ed oerrvory Fee / 0 (Endorsement· Ao qu lred) .- ru / ~ Total Postage & Fees $ _.., SGn / o 04/21/2015 ~ si;t;,;;,7tPl .. &i£I RlCHARD THOMSPON DEVER I'--~':/!:.~~-~~· .. & DOROTHY DEVER FULLER ..,,.,...,1010,21£>.t. 13518 RARITAN WAY : I I DENVER. co 80234 m CJ U.S. Postal Service'" CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only ~~Em~amm~m11mmmmmmimm11?J!!!ml .. • ~..__-!i'.!:!.!~3dL..!~.Z.........::~~!.......!:::.-~~~E~___J ::I" I"- .-'I Cer110ed Fee ,. CJ Retum Receipt Fee ( 7 · P~~erk ·,, CJ (Endorseme nt Requ ired) ? . ( nbov CJ Ro&tlfctodDnHvoryFee 1---:r.t:.ICLIL-...J ·.", ~~·, ':. CJ (Endo momon l Roqulred) 1-----'l!'.X.l!XlL--'. ,. , nJ \1,. .'· ( ~ Total Postage & Feee $ 6 04/21/20lS ,....-.: .... / :r sonr 0 URSA OPERATING CONIP..A NY ~· · B ~~~·!ix:~~ 1050 17TH STREET, SUITE 2400 I"-a6tstii,;;zi DENVER, CO 80265 :1 .•.. SENDER : COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY 108 8TH STREET SUITE 213 GT .RNWOOn SPGS _ ro Rl 601 B. ~e!)'ed b~~rinted N11111e) VOfll\ "'l~<t~ D Agent D Addressee C: pate of Delive!'Y Lf~-3·J~ D. Is delivery address dlfferentfrom item 1? D Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: D No 3. Service Type D Certif ied MallGt D Priority Mall Express"' D Registered D Return Receipt for Merchandise D Insured Mall D Collect on Delivery 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) D Yes 2. Article Number (r,.;nsfer from service /abeQ 7014 1820 0001 7469 0927 PS Form 3811 , July 2013 Domes!lc Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. AlsO complete Item 4 It Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mellplece, ~on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC LLC POBOX351 RIFLE, CO 81650 D Agent 0 Addtessoo C. Date of Dellvery D. Is delivery address different D Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: D No 3. Service '!Ype D Certified Mall"' 0 Priority Mall Express'" D Registered D Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mall D Collect on De6very 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fae) D Yes 2. Article Number (rransfer from service labeO 7014 1820 0001 7469 0934 j PS Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: BEDROCK RESOURCES LLC PO BOX 1167 SILT, CO 81652-1167 ·' COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. x D Agent D Addressee D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: D No 3. ServiceType w D Certified Mall• D Priority Mall ExpressN D Regls!ered D Return Receipt for Merchanc D Insured Mall [J Collect on Dellveiy. !-~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~ 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) D Yes 2. Article Number (rransfar from service lebea 7014 1820 0001 74b9 0897 i PS Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that w e can return t he card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the malfpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: PORT EVERGLADES RESTAURANT CORP 8191 E KAISER BLVD ANAHEIM, CA 92808 COMPLETE THIS S!-cCTION ON DELIVEflY A.~turo X\Y'-~ D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below:· 3. Service "fype CJ Certified Mall" D Priority Mall Express'" CJ Registered D Return Receipt for Merchandise D Insured Mall CJ Collect on Delivery 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) D Yes 2. Article Number (rransfer from service lsbeQ 7013 3020 0002 3156 4713 l PS Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can ret urn t he card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the malfplece, or on the front If space permits. · 1. Article Addressed to: AIRPORT LAND PARTNERS LTD 312 AABC SUITE A ASPEN, CO 81611-2568 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY &:! Agent D Add ressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? D Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: CJ No 3. Service "fype CJ Certified Mall" O 'Prlorlty Mall Express"' D Registered Cl Return Receipt for Merchandise Cl Insured Mall D Collect on OO!lvery 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extta Fee) Cl Yes 2. Article Number • (rrsnsfer from service labeQ 7014 1820 0001 7469 0910 I PS Form 3811, July 2013 Domes~lc Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLE rE THIS SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: RICHAJfQ,: THOMSPON DEVER & DOROTHY DEVER FULLER 13518 RARITAN WAY DENVER, CO 80234 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature x~..u#' h--__ 3. Service Type D Certified Mall'" D Registered D Insured Mail 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) Cl Yes 2. Article Number (rrsnsfer from service labeQ 7013 3020 0002 3156 4720 : PS Form 3811 , July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER : COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: URSA OPERA TING COMPANY 1050 17TH STREET, SUITE 2400 DENVER, CO 80265 D. Is delvery address different from Item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: 3. Service "JYpe Cl Certified Mall"' D Priority Mall Express'" D Registered D Return Receipt for Merchandise D Insured Mall Cl Collect on De li very 4. Restricted Del/very? (Extra Fae) D Yes • 2. Article Number (rransfer from service /llbeQ 7014 1B20 0001 7469 0903 I PS Form 3811, July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN POSTING STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) I, Kenneth Sack, being first duly sworn, state and allege as follows: On (/ /J-)___ , 2015, at approximately =z.iJJm., I posted a notice poster at the property located at 482 County Road 315, Silt, CO 81652. Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way. A picture of the notice poster(s) at the posting site is attached as Exhibit A. AND FURTHER AFFIANT SA VETH NOT. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this _/JJ_ day of {YJ ~ , 2015, by Kenneth Sack . WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: 0 cA '2:0 I iA:i l& ~PQ~6 SHANTEL M SALISBURY Notary Public State ol Colorado Notary ID 20114077698 My Commission Expi res Oct 30 , 2016 Ad Name: 11128353A Customer: Karp Neu Hanlon, PC-(legals & Classified Your account number is: 1026008 PROOF OF PUBLICATION TH£RIFL£ <CITIZ EN TELEG RAM STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD I , Michael Bennett, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of The Rifle Citizen Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado , and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of ! consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 4/30/2015 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 4/30/2015 the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have · / .// · JX my hand this 05/01/2015 . ~' Michael Bennett, Publisher Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 05/01/2015. GnJA-9~ Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 My Commission Expires 11101/2015 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that K\lnneth J S~i:Js has applied to the Planning Commlss lon,Gartield Coun1y, S1a1e of Colorado, to request a Land Use Change Pennit for Animnl Processing as defined by the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Deltelopmenl Code, as amended, In conneclion with Iha lo11owing de· scribed property sllualed ir> Iha Counly of Gaifleld, State of Colorado; to-wil: Legel Description THE SURFACE ESTATE ONLY OF THE FOL- LOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS: A tract of land silueted in Seclion 1 S, Township 6 South, Range 92 Wesl ol the 6th P.M. being more particularly described as lollows: Beginning al a point whence Iha Southeast Comer al said Secllon 1 S bears Soulh 1 s• 4S' 43' East 2736.17 leel; thence North 73• 57' 56' West S4 .7S leel; thence South s2° 36' 32' West 46.72 feel; thence South 5S 0 04' 05' West 135.69 feet; thence South 74° 39' 03' West 73 .66 feet; thence North so• 55' 21' West 78.00 feet; thence North 68° 3S' 29' West 1 OS.OS feet; thence North as• 53' 03" West 71 .S2 feet; thence South S9° 30' 19' Wesl 79.15 feet; thence South 72° 51' 07' West 70.62 feet; lhence South ss• 03' 49' West 14S.75 feel; thence South 46° 15' 00' West 56.32 feet; thence South 41° 5S' 31" West 9S.4S leet; thence South 54• 42' 50' West 125.13 feet; thence South 75• 59' 5S' West 43.6S feet; thence South S1° 24' 12' West 39.30 leet 10 the North righl or way ol County Road 315; thence along said r1~hl of way and alon~ ~f~~7~igr~~t~~r~:dtl~~h~1'~sJ.~~:,;:,a~cot;~3~l anple of 22' 29' 57''. a ohOrd bearing of North 52 " 16 12· West , a chord length of 305.63 feet thence North 41 • O 1 ' 13" West 536.04 feet : the nee along 3 curve 10 lhe ten with an arc length ol 127.44 feet , a radius ol 1789.03 leet. a cenlral an91e of 04' 04" 53", a chord bearing or North 43 " 03 40" Wesl. n ~~%e~~~m~.~t~,~~ii4dr ~~rJ ~~;1g~\~: f~.~~= North oo• 21' 29" West 902 .06 feet to the North- west Comer or the SW % NE % of said Section 1S; thence North s9• 20' 17" East 44 7. 79 feet along the North line of said SW% NE%; thence South 46 ° 24' 49' East 1S77.41 feel to the POINT OF BE- GINNING, County al Gartield, State of Colorado, TOGETHER WITH WELL PARCEL A tract of land situated in Section 1 S, Township 6 South, Range 92 West ol the 6th P.M . being more particularly descri bed as follows: Beginning at a point whence lhe Southeast Comer of said Section 1 S bears South 22' 24' 40" East 3116.54 feet said POINT OF BEGINNING; lhence along sai d ~oundary line North 48' 24' 4ll" West 30.00 feel : thence departing said boundary line North 43• 35' 11' East 87:60 feet ; thence South 46' 24' 49 ' East 30.00 feet; lhence South 43' 35' 11' West S7 .60 leet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, County of Gartield, Slate of Colorado. Practical Description 4S2 County Road 315, Sill, co 81652 Roquost Do scri ptlon Applicant requests that a 35.2 ·acre pro~rtv be parmitled as an animal pro· casslng facility Jn the Aural Zone District. All persons affecte d by the proposed Land Use Change Permit aro lnvlled to ai>pearand stale their views, endorsemenls or objec11 ons. II you cannol appaa.r personally at such meeting, then you are urged lo stale your views by leller, as the Planning Comm sslon w ill ~hie consi deration to the com- ments-ol surroundmg property owners and others allected In decid in g whelher to grant or deny the requesl for lhe land use request. This application may be reviewed al the omce of the Planning Da- partmenl localed al 108 81h Streat, Suite 401 , G111· lleld County Admlni strallon Bu ilding, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of S:3D a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearl n_9 on tho a ppliution h as b oon sche dule d for .»'~d ay Juno 10 2015 q i ~In the County Cammlssioners Hearing Room. Garfi eld County Admi nlstrallon Bulldl ng, Suite JOO, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Col · orado. Planning Department Garfield County Published in the Citizen Telegram April 30, 2015. (11128353) TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT (OWNER) REPRESENTATIVES LOCATION ACCESS SITE ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT E ANIMAL PROCESSING FACILITY PROJECT INFORMATION Major Impact Kenneth J. Sack Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 Karl Hanlon -Karp Neu Hanlon, PC; Matt Langhorst- High County Engineering East of the Garfield County Airport -Section 18, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of 61h P.M. CR 315 (Mamm Creek Road) through Eagle Springs Organic property 35.207-acres -Parcel Number 2179-181-00-681 Rural Residential Medium-High (2 to <6 acres per dwelling) I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Applicant seeks a Land Use Change Permit for an "Animal Processing Facility". The facility will be operated by Eagle Springs Organics as 'Outwest Meat and Seafood at Eagle Springs' where animals will be slaughtered and processed. The application states that cutting and packaging of the meat is proposed to occur at the butcher shop in the City of Rifle where the product will be sold, however information has been provided that the facility will include butchering and packaging of the meat on- site. The application is not clear with regard to the types of animals that are proposed to be processed at the facility, however much of the information in the application discusses cattle/beef. Information provided at the site visit (May 29, 2015) informed the county Staff that swine, goats, and sheep are also proposed to be processed at the site although the Applicant has stated that no wild game will be processed at this site. An adjacent facility currently processes fowl at a USDA-exempt facility and that chicken processing is not a part of the current application for USDA approval. llPage Figure 1 -Animal Processing Area Figure 2 -Site and Access -Eagle Spring Ranch Road Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 21Page Figure 3 -Closeup of Processing Facility Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 s c 0 c WA ltR SUPPLY T ANICS / FOR USE AT BOTN / E>aSTINC HOUSl: AHO srm. \ ::.:.:~-~DRAINAGE USlMEllT. Figure 5 -Closeup of Water Storage and Chicken Processing Facility 3jPage Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 The meat product is proposed to be available for public sale and consumption; therefore the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will regulate and inspect the facility and related activities to protect the public safety. An Animal Processing Facility is defined in the 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended (LUDC) as "A USDA-inspected facility primarily engaged in slaughtering animals, preparing processed meats and meat byproducts, and/or rendering or refining animal fat, bones, and meat scraps. Excluded from this definition are custom meat processing and wild game processing facilities, as defined and permitted by the USDA and CDPHE." The application does not request rendering or refining of animal fat, bones or meat scraps at the facility. A custom meat processing facility currently exists on the site as this facility is exempt from the definition of Animal Processing, specifically due to the fact that a custom facility does not result in product being sold for public consumption. This removes the facility from the regulatory standards imposed by the USDA and the LUDC. Conversion of the existing facility to a USDA facility requires a Land Use Change Permit from Garfield County, the intent of which is to determine if the facility meets the minimum standards contained in Article 7 of the 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended (LUDC). In order to determine if the standards are met, and to determine potential impacts, it is necessary to understand the slaughterhouse process. The sequence of events commences with delivery of animals to the facility, either Ftom feedlot Figure 3 Slaug hter Process Slaughter Cow Sticking anCf blHdlngama colltctlng trough Chdllng or rreezlng Hide Removal Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 via truck from local ranchers or from the adjacent Eagle Springs Organic operations. The diagram above illustrates the processing of the animals. From the description provided in the application materials Staff has determined that the facility is categorized as a 'simple slaughterhouse' meaning that the plant slaughters animals and does a very limited amount of by-product processing. The main products consist of fresh meat in the form of half or quarter carcasses or in smaller cuts of meat. The application states that the split and cut carcasses will be transported to a facility within the City of Rifle where butchering and packaging will occur prior to consumer sale. However, Staff was notified during the May 29 1h site visit that butchering and packaging would occur on-site at this facility. The slaughtering process results in by-products, both liquid and solid, which may be processed for consumption or which may be disposed of as solid or liquid waste. Staff assumes that no edible by- products are proposed to be processed in this facility as the application states that the solid waste will be refrigerated and then hauled daily by Waste Management to the landfill. The application is not clear on how the liquid waste will be disposed -specifically the blood and other fluids that will collect in floor drains located in the kill room and in the processing room. The OWTS design documents, page 3 of Exhibits in the Site Utility binder, Carla Ostberg of All Service Septic states that "Any floor drains or plumbing from the "kill room" must be collected in a vault and hauled, as needed. No OWTS has been designed for this portion of the slaughterhouse." The master butcher explained at the site visit that the floor drains are connected to an exterior tank which will be filled and then property disposed of at the landfill. Supplemental information submitted on June 1, 2015 states that "The butchering room facility drains have been designed to a 500 gallon per day OWTS system maximum capacity per State Guidelines." This statement appears to be contrary to the above information from All Service Septic. USDA INSPECTION A USDA-inspected facility requires an inspector to be on-site to ensure proper safety measures and processes have been complied with based upon USDA minimum standards. The USDA inspector examines the animals prior to slaughter to determine that the animal is healthy and the inspector remains onsite to ensure a humane slaughter of the animal. Once slaughtered, the skinning, evisceration and halving of the animal occurs under examination of the inspector. The meat is then accepted, graded and stamped as certified by the inspector. USDA regulatory compliance requires humane handling methods of livestock slaughter to a 1978 Act of the same name which requires activities be carried out only by humane methods. USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) also regulates the labeling process to protect consumers from misbranded and economically adulterated meat, poultry and egg products which ensure that all labels are truthful and not misleading. 11. ADJACENT USES AND ZONING Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 The site is located east of the City of Rifle, the Garfield County Airport and the Airport Industrial Park. Access is south of exit 94of1-70, from CR 315 (Mamm Creek Road). Adjacent uses include agriculture, residential and oil & gas activities to the south and east. A variety of institutional, commercial and industrial uses occur to the west. Zoning, as indicated in Figure 2, right, shows Rural in the pale green, Public Airport Overlay in the bright green, City of Rifle in the bright yellow, PUD in the pale yellow and Industrial in the red. 111. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Submittal documentation was forwarded to numerous federal, state and local agencies for review and response. Road & Bridge, Exhibit L -Comments from Dan Goin, District 3 Foreman, responded that a concrete apron exists at the driveway so it appears to meet the Road & Bridge standards. Vegetation Management, Exhibit M -Steve Anthony requests that the applicant provide a noxious weed map and inventory of the 35-acre parcel and the adjacent easement and water tank site. Russian Knapweed is a concern for this site. A weed management plan will then be necessary to address treatment of any noxious weeds found on the site. Calculation of surface area of disturbance is also required to determine revegetation of the site. Environmental Health, Exhibit Q -Morgan Hill attended the May 29th site visit and identified concerns including the possibility of fugitive dust, water supply system including the hauling water scenario, wastewater management and current use of the facility. Ms. Hill recommends that an alternate water supply be provided to serve the site. Mountain Cross Engineering, Exhibit J -Chris Hale provided the following comments: Water -The proposed water hauling scenario is not typical and may not be a reliable source under drought conditions. 6IPage Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 The applicant should discuss what means and methods will be used to test, treat and maintain the water system to mitigate any contamination . The applicant should discuss how water for fire suppression is separate and preserved from the potable water. OWTS -The applicant should discuss how the animals will be kept off of the OWTS as pasture areas are shown where the OWTS is located. The existing house does not show connection to the water system or an existing OWTS therefore, the applicant should identify how the home is served with water and sanitation and verify the location and status of those improvements. Traffic -The traffic study assumes that the peak hour traffic will not be increased however, because there is traffic generated the applicant should explain this in greater detail or revise the provided calculations. Misc. -The application does not mention what existing equipment is on-site versus what is necessary for USDA operation. The applicant should discuss the necessity of building permits for any improvements. CDPHE -Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Exhibit H -Dr. Melvin Gore has been involved in the review of the building and OWTS permits and he responded to Staff questions regarding the USDA process. FSIS General Rules state that "Each official establishment must be operated and maintained in a manner sufficient to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and to ensure that product is not adulterated ." The USDA determines this by having an inspector on-site to determine that the animal is disease-free and to assure a safe and humane slaughter. Other comments include: Water -Only potable water may be used during the slaughter process and when producing food for human consumption. The process requires continual washing of hands , aprons, tools and equipment that may come in contact with edible product. Hauling of water to the site will require testing of the water in areas such as at faucets, hoses, etc . a minimum of twice per year. Sterilization is required for some equipment and tools, especially during the slaughter process. This can be done with water that is at 180 degrees Fahrenheit at the nozzle, or a chemical sanitizing agent such as bleach . Dr . Gore emphasizes that USDA-FSIS would only use potable water to formulate an acceptable sanitizing agent. Re fr igeratio n -The carcasses after slaughter must be held at :545 degrees Fahrenheit to prevent any outgrowth of pathogens. 71 Page Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 Disposal -The USDA regulates by-product storage to the extent that the waste material products do not contaminate or adulterate the inspected and passed product. Any product intended for human consumption, including edible by-products is regulated by the USDA . The proposed method of disposal in this case is by a waste management company. The concern is in the holding or storage of the by-products which could result in flies or pests. CDPHE -Hazardous Materials/Waste, Exhibit G -Bob Peterson, Solid Waste and Materials Management Program, responded that the solid waste disposal is proposed to occur off-site. Colorado River Fire Rescue, Exhibits I, Kand 0 -Orrin Moon provided initial comments regarding the project that no information was provided regarding fire protection and stated that additional information was necessary to determine that the proposed access road is adequate for fire truck access. An electric gate at the bottom of the driveway prevents fire district access therefore the District will require a Knox Box or Knox padlock for the gate. Addressing issues need to be resolved. Supplemental comments provided in Exhibit 0 state that the access road, from the solar array to the proposed facility, is not adequate for fire trucks. The road needs to be designed to carry 54,000 pounds (the weight of a fire truck) as well as be 20' in width with SO' outside turning radius and an adequate turnaround at the proposed facility. Mr. Moon also states that 18,000 gallons of water storage is required for fire protection as well as a fire hydrant attached pursuant to district requirements . One final comment relates to the Kill Room ceiling which is exposed wood covered in clear plastic -Mr. Moon states that the building will be required to meet the IBC code. City of Rifle, Exhibit N -Nathan Lindquist responded that they have no specific comments on the project. Community Development -Building Division, Exhibit R -Discussion with the Building Division regarding pending building and OWTS permits for this site has determined that there appear to be similarities, but inconsistencies, in the information contained in the Land Use Permit application. It would be appropriate to have a condition of approval regarding issuance of the building and OWTS permits consistent with the information provided in the Land Use application. Exhibit R contains conditions related to the building permit. No comments have been received from: Colorado Parks and Wildlife County Sheriff County Airport 8IPage IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS SECTION 4-105. MAJOR IMPACT REVIEW . C. Review Criteria. Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 An application shall comply with the applicable standards of this Code . SECTION 4-203 G. IMPACT ANALYSIS Where the proposed Development will impact specific features of the site, the Applicant shall describe both the existing conditions and the potential changes created by the project. 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 Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1,500-foot radius. Staff Comment: Eagle Springs Organic property to the south contains agricultural uses such as greenhouses and grazing, oil & gas production pads, and a solar array. Other uses to the south and east are primarily agricultural and residential in nature. Uses to the west include public airport as well as other institutional uses, industrial and oil & gas related uses. 2 . 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: The application states to "Please see Site Plan for site features and vegetation on the existing site." The overall site plan does not indicate the site features including streams or ditches, however it does include topography . The plan appears to indicate some vegetation on the site however there is no labeling to make a determination of the vegetation type. 3. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site that have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: HP Geotech appears to have performed gradation and hydrometer analyses and determined the soils classification as Sandy Clay Loam. No analysis was provided regarding any influence of the soils on the proposed land use. 9IPag e Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 4. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or manmade hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: The application states that the site is relatively flat, however the County Hazard maps, left, indicate that moderate slope hazard exists on the site. The on-site driveway access must traverse through this hazard area. 5. 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 that the site is not located within a floodplain, however there is no evaluation of the nature of the soils, pollution of surface runoff, groundwater or the effect of sewage effluents. 6. Environmental Impacts. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions: Staff Comment: The application states that the operations will occur within a closed facility and therefore there will be no environmental impact and that the operations are consistent with general agriculture use in Garfield County. 7. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comment: The application states that there are no anticipated nuisance impacts from the operation. 8. Hours of operation. The Applicant shall submit information on the hours of operation of the proposed use. Staff Comment: The application states that hours of operation are anticipated to be "daylight hours" Monday through Friday, but that it was difficult to determine how many days per week operations would occur. lOIPage ARTICLE 7: STANDARDS DIVISION 1. GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS. Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 The following standards are approval standards that shall apply to all proposed Land Use Changes, including Divisions of Land, not otherwise exempt from the standards set forth in this Code. STAFF COMMENT: The Applicant has stated that the other information in the application collectively addresses the Animal Processing standards. Applicant response to Article 7, Divisions 1, 2, and 3 refer only to the site plan and other engineering documents provided and do not sufficiently elaborate or detail a full response. Staff has attempted to distill the submittal information in order to provide a response to each standard. ZONE DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS. Staff Comment : The site appears to comply with the Rural Zone District requirements regarding land use restrictions and dimens ional requirements . SECTION 7-102. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS. Staff Comm ent: The application does not discuss the Comprehensive Plan in the application. In Staff's evaluation there are components of the Comprehensive that are consistent with the project, particularly Sect i on 6, Agr i culture. Howeve r the project is not generally consistent with Water and Sewer Services. SECTION 7-~03~ COMP~TIBILITY. Staff Comment: The nature, scale and intensity of the proposed use is compatible with adjacent land uses. SECTl()N 7 ~104._ SOURCE OF WAT l:R~ Staff Com ment: This standard requires that " ... an adequate, reliable, physical, long-term, and legal Water Tank Structure water supply to serve the use ... " be provided. The submittal indicates that water will be obtained the water from municipal sources, hauled to the site and stored in 3-2,000 gallon tanks (not 3-2,500 gallons tanks as stated in the application). However, contrary information was provided that the lll Pag e Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 Applicant may consider extending the City of Rifle water from the Airport area. No additional information has been provided regarding this proposal therefore the review of this application considers the water hauling scenario. The hauled and stored water scenario proposes to serve the animal processing facility as well as adjacent single family home, the chicken processing facility, and provide irrigation for the site (page 4 of the Site Utility Report). The application had originally stated that the 6,000 gallon capacity of the system would require water delivery every 64 days, however supplemental information submitted on June 1, 2015 states that water usage will require delivery every 6 days. The site of the water tanks is located on an adjacent to the subject parcel and an easement exists between an adjacent parcel and the subject parcel for the water tanks. The photo below, Figure 10, shows the water tank access. A warning system is in place that will indicate when the tanks are at half capacity. Morgan Hill responded, Exhibit Q that the current proposal to haul water is not a good long-term solution; the amount of water to be used for the site appears variable and seems too low. CENTRAL WAT~R DIStRiBUTION ANI) V\fASTEWATER SYSliEMS. Staff Comment: An existing water distribution system will deliver water from the storage tanks to the facility as well as to the other uses that it serves. There are inconsistencies and issues with regard to the use of the OWTS, particularly for liquid waste from the kill room . 12 I P a G e SECTION 7 ·106. Pl:JB IL IC UTILITIES . Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 Staff Comment: The application states that all utilities are currently onsite with no modifications and refers to the Site Utility Report. The Site Utility Report lists electric service as being provided by Holy Cross Electric through overhead lines throughout the site and natural gas is provided by Xcel Energy . SECTION 7·107. Staff Comment: Access is proposed to be from two locations off of CR 315 (Mamm Creek Road). These photos show the northernmost access to the site which exists on the subject property. The second proposed access is off of Eagle Springs Ranch Road located approximately 1 miles south of the driveway and traverses through adjacent property to access the subject site. Information has been provided that the driveway does not meet county standards and is therefore proposed to be employee access during the summer months only. All other vehicles will enter the facility from Eagle Springs Ranch Rd via CR 315. BIP a ge Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 14 I P a g e Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 It appears that there are difficulties with access from either of the proposed routes. Eagle Springs Ranch Road appears to be sufficient for a certain distance but once on the Eagle Spring Organic property the access roads do not appear to meet county standards as is evidences by ponding, potholes, and lack of grading and drainage. There has not been adequate information submitted, including road plans and profiles, to determine if the physical access roads meet the county standards . There is evidence from the Fire District (Exhibits I, Kand 0) that the existing access is neither safe nor adequate to serve the proposed use. Orrin Moon, Colorado River Fire Rescue, Exhibit 0, states that a section of the access road (from the solar arrays north) is not adequate for fire trucks. -SECTION 7 -108. USE OF LAND SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS. Staff Comment: County hazard maps indicate that the western and northern portions of the site are located in a moderate slope hazard area . It appears that some of the access roads are located in the slope hazard area and the main reason why the existing site driveway does not meet county standards due to steepness of the grade. Once on top of the site the land becomes level. SECTION 7-109. FIRE PROTECTION. Staff Comment: Orrin Moon, Colorado River Fire Rescue provided three sets of comments on the application, Exhibits I, Kand 0 . Mr. Moon states that there is no information regarding fire protection in the application and instead the application refers to a County building permit application. County Building Staff reviewed this application (Exhibit R) and it appears that a condition of the building permit is that the applicant "Contact local fire district for pertinent IFC requirements, Fire District final approval report is required for final/completion inspection." Fire suppression for the site is unknown. The District will require 18,000 gallons of stored and accessible water for fire fighting. Access is also an issue identified in the comments particularly that the main access road is not shown in the application materials. Access to the site via the driveway is not possible due to an electric gate and the District requires that a Knox Box or Knox Padlock be installed for access . Another access issue includes the addressing of the site from CR 315; the addresses should be off of Eagle Springs Ranch Road so that emergency responders can accurately locate the site. After attending the May 29 1h site visit the District provided final comments, Exhibit 0, related to inadequate access and a lack of water supply for firefighting. Issues were identified with the processing facility structure in that the Kill Room ceiling is exposed wood covered in plastic which needs to be designed to meet the IBC code. 15 I P a g e Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 DIVISION 2. GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS. The following resource protection standards shall apply to all proposed Land Use Changes, including Divisions of Land and exempt Subdivisions, not otherwise exempt from the standards set forth in this Code. AGRICULTURAL LANDS. Staff Comment: This code section includes several standards including impact to agricultural operations, domestic animal control, fencing, roads and irrigation ditches. The applicant responded to the first component that this operation is to support agricultural operations. No demonstration of compliance with domestic animal controls was provided nor was discussion of irrigation ditches or fences included in the submittal documents. WILDIJFf$. fiABITATAREA$. Staff Comment: No information was provided regarding applicant consultation with CPW or a wildlife biologist. The application states that the site will comply with referral comments from CPW. CPW however has not provided comments on the application. PR .OTl:CTION OF WATERBOQIES ... Staff Comment: There do not appear to be any Waterbodies proximate to the facility or impacted by the proposed operations. Staff Comment: The LUDC requires that site design facilitate positive drainage. No information has been provided for the existing structure and the application states that there is "No change in the site to trigger additional concerns." The site plan does include arrows that may designate flow on the site . Acquisition of a Land Use Change Permit requires demonstration of adequate site drainage regardless of whether there are proposed or existing structures related to the use. [$EGTl()N 7-~05._ Staff Comment: Air and water quality are reviewed to determine that the proposed use will not be adversely impacted. Morgan Hill with Environmental Health, Exhibit Q, recommends that fugitive dust mitigation occur due to penning of livestock. The interior roads should also have dust mitigation. It does not appear that water quality would be impacted as no hazardous materials will be used or stored at the site. WILDFIRE !iAZARD$. Staff Comment: The applicant provided no response to wildfire hazard for the site. Wildfire Hazard Mapping is shown in Figure 15 which indicates a low hazard for the subject site. Figure 15 -Wildfire Hazard Map SECTION 7-207. NATURAL AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS . Staff Co mment: The site is located within rnoderate sl o pe hazard areas on the Garfield County GIS mapping as shown in Figure 16. Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 Figure 16 -Site Topography indicating slope hazard SECTION 7-.208. RECLAMATION. . . . Staff Co m m ent: Soils will be disturbed during co nstr uction of the OWTS systerns a nd the ap plica tion states that t he site will be reclaimed with onsite so il an d reseeded with native no n-irrigat ion seed mix. This section of the code discusses the requireme nt fo r a weed mana ge m ent plan. Stev e Anth ony, Vegetation M an ag em ent, responded to the request for comments, Exhibit M, that the site is a concern due to the pres ence of Russian knapweed. Mr. Anthony requires that an inventory and map of noxious weeds be provided as well as a plan to address treatment. Staff Comment: Compatible design is a concept that site organization and operational characteristics should avoid nuisances and be generally compatible with adjacent properties. The application response to demonstrating compliance with this standard is "Please see attached Site Plan prepared by HCE". Thought the site plan reflects few details in regard to compatible design, Staff believes that the proposed use is agricultural in nature and therefore is consistent with adjacent agricultural uses. The processing facility is located such that there would be little impact to adjacent property. 7-302. OFF~STREET PARKING AND LOADING STA_NDA_RDS~ Staff Comment: The application response to compliance with this standard is to "Please see attached Site Plan prepared by HCE". The provision of necessary parking is related to the use. In this instance the calculation of number of spaces is based upon the square footage of the facil ity itself. The site plan indicates that five employee parking spaces (10' x 20') will be provided as well as one handicapped parking space. Staff was unable to locate the numbers to demonstrate the square footage of the facility and there unable to determine that this number of spaces meets the LUDC requirements. 17 I P a g e Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 7 -303. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS. Staff Comment: No response was provided to this standard. There are exemptions provided from this standard however this facility does not meet those exemptions. 7-304. LIGHTING STANDARDS. Staff Comment: No information was provided regarding lighting other than "no new lighting will be installed with this application." The site is subject to the county lighting standards regarding downcast and shielded lighting. 7-305. SNOW STORAGE STANDARDS. Staff Comment: Staff was unable to locate dedicated snow storage areas on the plans however it is a 35- acre parcel therefore Staff would not anticipate this to be an issue. 7-306. TRAIL AND WALKWAY STANDARDS. Staff Comment: Not applicable. DIVISION 6. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND ANIMAL RELATED USES. 'I .. . -. All facilities shall be in compliance with USDA, CDPHE, and any other Federal, State, and local regulations. Staff Comment: The application contains an updated application to the USDA. V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. VIOLATIONS AND TIMING This application resulted from a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued on February 20, 2014. The County Staff and referral agencies have all worked to assist the Applicant in obtaining permits related to zoning and land use as well as building and OWTS permits necessary to bring the site into compliance. The Planning Division has held at least two Pre-Application Conferences with the Applicant's representatives, the first of which occurred on March 14, 2014 and resulted in submittal of an application on October 21, 2014. The application did not meet the submittal requirements and was subsequently withdrawn on January 8, 2015. The application was resubmitted on March 6, 2015. Staff had previously provided a detailed response with regard to necessary information to determine technical completeness; however the resubmitted information remained technically incomplete. In the hopes of assisting the Applicant seek a remedy for the outstanding NOV Staff determined to move the current application forward to hearing. 18 I P a g e Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 It appears that the Applicant has determined that review of the project is only related to the USDA approval, this is contrary to the information provided by Staff in the pre-application conference summary form and in the technically incomplete correspondence. The intent of the land use review process is to determine if the proposal satisfies the required minimum standards of the LUDC. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION /DISCREPANCIES There are numerous discrepancies in the application materials, including the size of the water tanks, the types and numbers of animals to be processed, the amount of water necessary to serve the property, OWTS requirements, traffic/access and solid and liquid waste disposal. The Applicant has provided plans and documentation without benefit of analysis which has placed the burden of interpreting the information on the County Staff and referral agencies. The limited information provided in the application project description is not indicative of the actual proposed use of the property, as became evident when Staff completed a site visit on May 29, 2015 . A revised application packet should be submitted that replaces the prior submittals in their entirety and which clearly describes the proposed project and provides analysis with regard to compliance with the standards in Article 7 of the LUDC. C. ACCESS Access to the facility is from CR 315 (Ma mm Creek Road). The application proposed to utilize : 1) Existing driveway l'>.ACD. 1D ~7'21lt00HT ~.::.,•.:.,-=-=:,-;_~::' ... '!1""'00 ' ---l'JJtt:IJ. Q); l1Hl1:li007li 1 __ ..,.,._. __ PJ.lllal, JD Jl,ttl.400"n0 1.=te:.~~=:c.:nl.:·zJ::--=•-- ~ .. i:;-••• ~.a::r1.'=...,~•·-.. --- Figure 17 -Proposed access map, June 1, 2015 ,:.:::;. The existing driveway does not meet county standards with regard to road width and grade. The application proposed to use this access in the summer for employees only. This access may not be safe and adequate for employee seasonal use. During the site visit we were told that delivery of animals sometimes occurs via this driveway as well . 19!P age 2) Eagle Springs Ranch Road Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 i. Legal Access -The above plan indicating Eagle Springs Ranch Road contains a note referencing an easement recorded at reception number 857779. Research into the Clerk's records indicates that this easement was recorded December 31, 2014. The easement specifically references the operation of a meat processing facility and allows access to move livestock and allow non-exclusive ingress to, egress from and travel over Eagle Springs for Ken Sack his employees and agents. ii. Physical Access -The above plans, Figure 16, indicates an access route different from the route travelled by Staff at the site visit. Photographs of the existing ranch roads, and fire district comments, show that road improvements are necessary for fire apparatus access as well as access compliant with the LUDC. Currently physical access is not sufficient to serve the use. D. WATER 1) Legal Water -The applicant proposed to haul water from municipal sources. The Board has found in the past that this is not a long-term dependable water supply. However the Board has on occasion permitted hauled water for temporary uses only. It was recently brought to Staff's attention, on May 31, 2015 that the Applicant was in discussion with the City of Rifle to determine if there was a possibility of extending water from the Airport area to serve the site -therefore the Applicant has stated that the hauled water scenario may be temporary if water from the City of Rifle is possible. The ability to obtain water from the City would need to be supported by an agreement the City. 2) Physical Water -Staff questions the numbers provided with regard to water usage for the property. The processing facility under review is not the only facility accessing the hauled water -this water serves multiple uses including the single family home, chicken processing facility (shown as Existing Single Family Home on the site plan) and irrigation, in addition to the meat processing facility. The application states that 4 gallons of water per cow is required for processing and that 1 gallon of water is required to process one chicken. Staff research has identified that washing hands on average uses 1 gallon of water, and that processing of chickens uses 11.6 gallons per the EPA. The original application stated that the 7,500 gallon storage would require refilling every 64 days. The verified storage tank capacity is 6,000 gallons and the revised information now states that the tanks will need to be filled once every 6 days. There appears to be a disconnect between the demand, storage capacity and refill timeline. E. SANITATION -OWTS permits have been submitted to the Building Division and are pending issuance of a Land Use Change Permit for the proposed use. Staff, including Environmental Health, is unclear as to what sort of materials will actually be entering the second OWTS designed for the facility. Specifically the OWTS design states that "Any floor drains or plumbing from the "kill room" must be collected in a vault and hauled, as needed. No OWTS has been designed for this portion of the slaughterhouse." Information provided by the Applicant on June 1, 2015 appears to indicate that the OWTS will process the waste from the kill room. 20 I P a g e F. SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE - Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 1) Solid Waste -The animal heads, viscera and carcasses are considered solid waste and will be stored in the refrigerated room to be hauled daily to the landfill (according to the application materials). During the site visit, facility Staff discussed the possibility of contamination would prevent the storage of the solid waste materials in proximity to the inspected meat. Staff is unsure as to how the waste will be stored prior to disposal. (Staff comment: Information on June 1st appears to indicate that 'variety meat' processing would occur -this would include some the materials that would otherwise be considered solid waste requiring disposal). 2) Liquid Waste-This issue is discussed above in OWTS. G. PROVISION OF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION -The Applicant submitted supplemental information on June 1, 2015. This information included response to referral agency comments however, it did not include any supporting plans, documents or verification letters. The application materials are not sufficient in planning detail or engineering, or adequately demonstrate the compliance with the minimum standards of the LUDC. Each submittal of additional information has resulted in more questions andor additional inconsistencies. H. FIRE PROTECTION -The proposed fire protection for the site is to install fire extinguishers in the structure. No water is proposed to be available for firefighting purposes; therefore the District is requiring 18,000 gallons of water for firefighting. No information has been provided regarding where this storage could be located on the site. I. REFFERAL AGENCY REVIEW -Referral agencies have not had the opportunity to review supplemental information that was submitted on June 1st. If additional information is submitted for review, the county provides a 21-day review period to those agencies consistent with state statute. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is unable to determine that the following minimum requirements have been satisfied and therefore recommends denial of the request due to the following issues: 1. That proposal is not compliant with Section 7-104 as adequate water is not available to serve the proposed use; 2. The proposal is not compliant with Section 7-105 as an adequate wastewater system to dispose of liquid waste is not available to serve the proposed use; 3. The proposal is not compliant with Section 7-107 as adequate access does not exist to serve the proposed use; 4. The proposal is not compliant with Section 7-109 as adequate fire protection is not available to serve the proposed use. 21 I P a g e VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS Planning Commission June 10, 2015 MIPA8246 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the request for a Land Use Change Permit is not in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application cannot be determined to be in general conformance with Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. 5. That the application has not met the requirements of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended. VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has the following options with regard to a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Recommend approval of the application; 2. Recommend denial of the application; 3. Continue the Public Hearing to request and/or review additional information. DENIAL A recommendation of denial must be accompanied by findings to support the decision, which Staff has provided. This recommendation should also clearly state the minimum standards that have not been satisfied by the proposed use. CONTINUANCE A determination to continue the application should specify a hearing date certain, specification of information that was lacking that is required to be submitted, and deadlines for submittal of additional information. Staff is concerned that a 30-day continuance would not be sufficient given that referral agency review would be required on any additional review materials submitted. Staff is also concerned that the piecemeal submittal of information makes it difficult to find information and may result in inconsistencies. This could lead to confusion with regard to what is being proposed and/or approved. Should a continuance be considered Staff would recommend that the public hearing be continued to August 12, 2015 to allow for adequate time for submittal of additional documentation, review and analysis of the proposal. 22 I P a g e Planning Commission July 8, 2015, Continued from June 10, 2015 MIPA-8246 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT (OWNER) REPRESENTATIVES LOCATION ACCESS SITE ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I. INTRODUCTION F-l Major Impact Kenneth J. Sack Karl Hanlon -Karp Neu Hanlon, PC; Matt Langhorst - High County Engineering East of the Garfield County Airport -Section 18, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of 6th P.M. CR 315 (Mamm Creek Road) through Eagle Springs Organic property 35.207-acres -Parcel Number 2179-181-00-681 Rural Residential Medium-High (2 to <6 acres per dwelling) This application was considered at the Planning Commission hearing on June 10, 2015. At that time the Commission unanimously voted to continue the application so that the Applicant could submit additional information necessary to demonstrate that the proposal was in compliance with the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended (LUDC). Specifically the Commission required the following be provided: 1. Demonstrate that adequate water was available to serve the proposed use; 2. Demonstrate that the access was adequate for the proposed use, including provision of road design, plans and profiles; 3. Provide location and design specifications related to water storage for fire protection purposes; 4. Provide design and method of solid and liquid waste management; 5. Provide information related to the size and scope of the proposed operation. llPage Planning Commission July 8, 2015, Continued from June 10, 2015 MIPA-8246 II. SUBMITTED INFORMATION -JUNE 22, 2015 Information provided by the Applicant on June 22, 2015 included : l. A blue folder that contained a revised site plan. All other information contained in this folder was submitted with the original application. The revised site plan includes: a. The location of the proposed water storage pond; b. Road plans and profiles; c. The location of the loading area for liquid waste. 2. Two bound documents, including: a. 'Processing Facility Access, Utility and Solid Waste Disposal' -No information was provided regarding what had been updated in this document however a comparison to the original submittal, dated March 6 and April 2, indicates the following changes: i. Expanded section on Existing Onsite Operations. ii. Amendments to the Existing Onsite Utilities including updating the water storage tanks to the correct size. iii. Amendment to Section II. Page 5 regarding proposed access improvements. iv. Expansion of the solid waste disposal section however this section does not indicate where the used gut buggy is stored during the processing. v. A section regarding onsite parking. vi. Addition of statements regarding Applicant investigation to extend City water to the site. vii. Addition of fire water pond storage and addressing. viii. Addition of statement regarding the requirement for weed management. ix. 'Sack Processing Facility Water Usage Chart' states that the total gallons per day of average use would be 890 gallons of water thus requiring water hauled to the site once every 6.7 days. The Applicant states that the usage numbers are from Garfield County, OWTS design and the master butcher. Garfield County supplied the 350 gallons per day per dwelling unit requirement from the LUDC, however all other numbers are from the Applicant. x. Updated letter from All Service Septic which 'addresses a change in estimated wastewater from the butchering room.' b. 'Traffic Report for 482 County Road 315' with an update date of June 19, 2015. Changes to this document include: i. Minor amendment to section B. Description of Property; ii. Amendment to section C. Hours of Operation and Delivery Schedule. 3. A two page stapled document titled 'Animal Processing Procedure and Monthly Maximums'. This document reiterated the steps in the slaughtering process discussed by the Applicant in the hearing, as well as monthly maximums for slaughtering, by animal type. 21Page Ill. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS A. Mountain Cross Engineering -Exhibit DD Planning Commission July 8, 2015, Continued from June 10, 2015 MIPA-8246 Chris Hale requested that the Applicant demonstrate that the well proposed to fill the pond can legally be used for this purpose. Comments also included that the fire protection district should review the proposed fire suppression proposal and that a condition should be considered regarding fencing of the OWTS area. B. Colorado River Fire Rescue -Exhibit BB Orrin Moon responded that the latest information satisfies his concerns but that he will request that engineered plans be submitted on the pond and hydrant. The access road from Eagle Springs Ranch Road looks to be adequate but would like guarantees that the road will be built as designed. Mr. Moon reiterated his concerns regarding the knox lock on the gates. C. USDA -Dr. Melvin Gore -Exhibit Y Dr. Gore responded regarding OWTS requirements. D. Garfield County Environmental Health -Exhibit CC Morgan Hill responded that the water supply has not been adequately addressed, that the wastewater treatment was unclear, and that piping from the kill room should be improved to prevent pests and spills, other miscellaneous food labeling /food sale issues. E. Division of Water Resources -Exhibit W Dwight Whitehead responded to staff's request regarding well permit 125042, Exhibit X, which is proposed to be used to fill the pond that will hold water for firefighting purposes. The response included a statement that this well permit " ... would not be allowed to fill the proposed fire protection pond ... " and states that a plan of augmentation or replacement water and a new well permit will be needed. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS A. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION DATED 6/22/15 The supplemental information provided was incorporated into the original plans and resubmitted, therefore it has been difficult for staff to determine what new information has been submitted. After going though both the original and supplemental submittals it has been determined that insufficient information has been provided on the following issues: 1. The revised site plan includes the proposed water storage pond, road plans and profiles and the location of the loading area for liquid waste, however the plans and profiles of the roads are insufficient to determine what road improvements may be necessary to demonstrate compliance with Section 7-107 of the LUDC. A list of road deficiencies and a comprehensive plan for improvements to meet County standards was not provided. 3jPage Planning Commission July 8, 2015, Continued from June 10, 2015 MIPA-8246 2. The Applicant expanded the solid waste disposal section however no information has been provided to indicate where the used gut buggy is stored during the processing. This is a critical health/safety issue to prevent contamination of the meat products. 3. The Applicant has determined water usage, however has not substantiated these numbers - a cow is processed using 2 gallons of water (a reduction of 2 gallons from the original application which stated that 4 gallons was necessary), a pig requires 4 gallons, a goat and sheep 3 gallons apiece, and to process a chickens 2 gallons of water (including cleanup) is required. Sanitizing of the facility occurs once a day and uses 300 gallons of water. The Applicant states that the usage numbers are from the master butcher. 4. The updated letter from All Service Septic which 'addresses a change in estimated wastewater from the butchering room.' Plumbing in the structure will be diverted into three separate wastewater streams -floor drains from the kill room, plumbing associated with the employee restroom and sinks for hand washing, floor drains and plumbing associated with the butchering room . The plan goes on to say that the OWTS for the butchering room was designed based on wastewater from activities occurring 4 times per month with a maximum of 5 animals each butchering day. This appears to state that the butchering room OWTS has been designed to handle 20 animals per month. 5. The 'Animal Processing Procedure and Monthly Maximums' does not list a monthly maximum of the number of animals to be slaughtered, other than by type. The Applicant states in the Site Utility Report Updates that the number of animals to be slaughtered is based upon an "either/or" situation for each type of animal -the information as provided could allow 80 cows, 200 goats, 200 sheep and 200 pigs to be slaughtered in a one month period. They go on to state that the animals cannot be overlapped but that you could process 100 pigs and 40 cows or 'any other variation of the numbers based on the amount of processing time per month that the animal type required ... .' This information does not constitute a monthly maximum of animals to be processed therefore adequate water, wastewater systems and access cannot be determined. n ""~ '&: :O:J,.11 \llM"UJ ~": .. "':..•~ .. -•-o-•=1-:---·-B. ACCESS i".Ulo.:.l ~ ;tr ;1J l ll l,.lo 1:-7ll •---... •••·• ;o.\lt"'J : ;11 :J Pll111 1.n r..o :A":.~.:'7.:::!--.'2.."""-~·.:r-...-:o:.• :..:.:o,.._...-~~-=-~--· --- ..,c,...~~t"",.).1.-r.'"A~-· ... -. - Figure 1-Proposed acce5S map, June 1, 2015 Access to the facility is from CR 315 (Mamm Creek Road). The application proposed to utilize: 1) Existing driveway The existing on-site driveway does not meet county standards with regard to road width and grade . The application proposed to use this access in the summer for employees only. This access may not be safe and adequate for employee seasonal use. During the site visit we were 41Pa g e Planning Commission July 8, 2015, Continued from June 10, 2015 MIPA-8246 told that delivery of animals sometimes occurs via this driveway as well. 2) Eagle Springs Ranch Road i. Legal Access -An access easement has been provided to demonstrate legal access. ii. Physical Access -Previous comments had identified that the access was not compliant with LUDC standards. Supplemental information states that the on-site driveway will be used seasonally by employees; however this road is not compliant with the minimum standards of the LUDC and therefore should not be utilized until such time as improvements are completed pursuant to the minimum standards of the LUDC. C. WATER Supplemental information has described the proposed access from Eagle Springs Ranch Road to the facility in plans and profiles. It was stated that improvements are required, however those improvements have not been described or itemized therefore it is not possible to determine that the access road is compliant with the minimum road standards of the LUDC. The submittal materials erroneously state that the County has determined Eagle Springs Ranch Road to be sufficient. No information has been provided or reviewed by the county regarding the specifications for this road. We are unable to determine if the road is compliant with the minimum road standards in Section 7-107 of the LUDC or that is adequate for this use. 1) Legal Water-The applicant proposes to haul water from municipal sources. The Board has found in the past that this is not a long-term dependable water supply. However the Board has on occasion permitted hauled water for temporary uses only. It was recently brought to Staffs attention, on May 31, 2015 that the Applicant had discussions with the City of Rifle to determine if there was a possibility of extending water from the Airport area to serve the site -therefore the Applicant has stated that the hauled water scenario may be temporary if water from the City of Rifle is possible. The ability to obtain water from the City would need to be supported by an agreement with the City. The hauled water scenario is not considered a viable long-term water supply, particularly when there are questions regarding the amount of water necessary for a facility of this type. A condition could be considered that would allow this facility to operate for a temporary time period (12 months) with the intent that a public water supply be made available within that time period. 2) Physical Water -Staff continues to question the numbers provided with regard to water usage for the property as they have not been substantiated by any source other than the information stated by the Applicant. 5IPage Planning Commission July 8, 2015, Continued from June 10, 2015 MIPA-8246 The original application stated that 4 gallons of water per cow is required for processing - that information has been updated and they now state that only 2 gallons of water per cow is required for processing. Originally it was stated that 1 gallon of water is required to process one chicken and now the materials state that 2 gallons of water is required to process a chicken (this includes cleanup of the facility post processing). According to the EPA washing hands on average uses 1 gallon of water, and that processing of chickens uses 11.6 gallons. For comparison sake, Staff contacted Dale Dexter at Homestead Natural Meats in Delta, Colorado, Exhibit AA. Mr. Dexter stated that their facility processes about 185 animals per month and average monthly water use is approximately 50,000 gallons, however this water is also used for sausage making at the site. Even if only half of the water usage (25,000 gallons) is directly related to processing activity the water usage would average 135 gallons per animal. Staff also contacted Sunnyside Meats in Durango, Colorado, however has not received a response at this time. Internet research has indicated that an abundant potable water supply is necessary for a processing facility. This contradicts the information provided by the Applicant. The ability to apply an expiration date to the land use permit would allow operation of the facility with a hauled water scenario on a temporary basis (not to exceed 12 months) until such time as a public system or private well water supply could be made available. This could alleviate the concern regarding the water usage numbers. D. SANITATION -OWTS permits have been submitted to the Building Division and are pending issuance of a Land Use Change Permit for the proposed use. Supplemental information submitted on June 22, Exhibit V, contains a letter dated June 17, 2015 from All Service Septic which states that the OWTS system designed for the butchering room with an anticipated butchering occurring four (4) times a month with a maximum of five (5) animals each butchering day. These numbers appear to be inconsistent with the maximum number of animals proposed to be process per month as provided by the Applicant. The OWTS design did not include the kill room floor drains and supplemental information provided by the Applicant, Exhibit Z, appears to indicate a PVC pipe extending from the building to a loading bay where a tank would be located on the back of a flatbed truck. The Applicant states that the liquid waste would gravity feed into the tank on the truck. See figure 2, below. 6IPage Planning Commission July 8, 2015, Continued from June 10, 2015 MIPA-8246 There does not appear to be any alarm system nor shut off valve on this drain, which is concern due to possibility of pest infestation and contamination. E. SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE - 1) Solid Waste -The animal heads, viscera and carcasses are considered solid waste and were proposed to be stored in the refrigerated room and hauled daily to the landfill according to the application materials. facility staff discussed During the site visit, the possibility of Figure 2 _Kill room floor drain outlet contamination which would prevent the storage of the solid waste materials in proximity to the inspected meat. Supplemental information did not adequately address where the gut buckets will be kept/stored during the process. For example, does one gut bucket hold all the materials from one day's slaughter? Or are multiple gut buckets used during the slaughter process and, if so, where are those buckets stored to prevent contamination with the meat product and to prevent access to rodents and insects? 2) Liquid Waste -This issue is discussed above in OWTS, particularly the kill room floor drains and design parameters of the OWTS. F. FIRE PROTECTION -The proposed fire protection pond has been discussed above in section IV.C. however the Applicant has not demonstrated that legal water is available to fill this pond. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION With the Supplemental information submitted on June 22"d Staff remains unable to determine that the following minimum requirements have been satisfied and therefore continues to recommend denial of the request due to the following issues: 1. That proposal is not compliant with Section 7-104, Source of Water, as adequate legal and physical water is not available to serve the proposed. This is determined due to: a. The hauled water scenario; b. The lack of validation of the water usage numbers for the facility; c. The proposed use of Well Permit 125042 to fill the pond for firefighting purposes, which is not permitted by the Division of Water Resources. 2. The proposal is not compliant with Section 7-105, Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems, as an adequate wastewater system is not available to serve the proposed use. This is determined due to: 71Page Planning Commission July 8, 2015, Continued from June 10, 2015 MIPA-8246 a. Use of PVC floor drains to gravity flow into an potable water container in the back of a flatbed truck located in the 'loading' area of the structure; b. Design parameters discussed in the revised letter dated June 17, 2015 from All Service Septic regarding the butchering room OWTS and its design capacity limitations. 3. The proposal is not compliant with Section 7-107, Access and Roadways, as adequate access does not exist to serve the proposed use. This is due to: a. The lack of demonstration that Eagle Springs Ranch Road is compliant with minimum road standards; b. The lack of information regarding proposed road improvements from Eagle Springs Ranch Road to the proposed facility; c. The onsite driveway does not meet county standards and ithas not been demonstrated as an adequate road for the·proposed use. 4. The proposal is not compliant with Section 7-109, Fire Protection, as adequate fire protection is not available to serve the proposed use. The pond is proposed to be filled with water from well permit 125042 which is a late registered well not permitted for this use. VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the request for a Land Use Change Permit is not in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is not in general conformance with Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. 5. That the application has not met the requirements of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as am~nded. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has the following options with regard to a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Recommend approval of the application; 8IPage 2. Recommend approval of the application with conditions; 3. Recommend denial of the application; Planning Commission July 8, 2015, Continued from June 10, 2015 MIPA-8246 4. Continue the Public Hearing to request and/or review additional information . CONTINUANCE A determination to continue the application should specify a hearing date certain, specification of information that is required to be submitted, and deadlines for submittal of additional information. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL Conditions of approval have not been provided due to the significant number of deficiencies in the application. Should the Planning Commission determine that conditions could adequately address these deficiencies Staff would recommend that the application be continued to the August hearing to allow for time to provide a list of conditions that may ensure compliance with the land use code . DENIAL A recommendation of denial must be accompanied by findings to support the decision, which Staff has provided. This recommendation should also clearly state the minimum standards that have not been satisfied by the proposed use. 9IPage EXHIBIT F Monthly and Daily Water Usage Ca l culations Location Description Number of Units Usage per Unit Tota l Usage per Month I Total per (gal) (gal) Day (gal) Kill Room Water Use: Cow Processing per Month 80 2 160 8 Pi g Processing per Mont h 200 4 800 40 Goat Processing per Month 200 3 600 30 Sheep Processing pe r Month 200 3 600 30 Butchering Room I Sanitizi ng of Room {end of day) I 20 Work Days I 300 I 6,000 I 300 I Adjacent Chicken Plant: Chicken Processing per Month I 2000 I 2 I 4,000 I 200 Single Family Home: Three Bedroom Home per Day I 30 Days I 350 I 10,500 I 350 Tota l Water Usage During Average Full Monthly Production: 22,660 Average Daily Use: 890 Days of Water Available with 6,000 Gallon Storage 6.7 Notes: 1.) Average facility use based on 20 work days per month. 2.) Kill room da ily use calculated using pig processing as the maximum water volume. Only one type of animal can be process in a single day. 3.) Average single family home use based on 30 days per month. 4.) Chicken processing usage includes clean up of processing roor I only have the Kill Room drain information that Mark has provided me since I was not there during building construction. The three Kill Room floor drains are directly pipe fed from the drain inlets to the 500 gallon tank on the exterior of the building sitting on a flatbed truck or trailer via PVC piping. They do not have traps in line since they are an open air release to the tank, traps would just cause bacteria buildup . The truck/trailer sits in a loading bay ramp so it is lower than the floor drains, thus allowing a gravity feed to the tank location. See attached photo of drain outlet. Mark and the crew clean the cows with the water and lactic acid and then do a quick flush of the drains into the holding tank to keep them clean also. They can only complete 4 cows a day, from my understanding this is not as much liquid volume as you would guess. Approximately 1.5 gallons of blood per cow per my conversation with Mark, around 0.5 gallons for a pig, goat or sheep. The main access to the site is from 1v1amm Creek Road onto Eagle Springs Ranch Road and then notth on private ranch roads to the main processing facility. The roadway from Mamn1 Creek Raad to tl1e Solar Panel farm located on Eagle Spr ings O rgani c property has been approved fo r fire_!.1cc¢.ss use by Q1:ri.u MoQn at CRFR. The se ction o(road in front of the Solar Panel F ann to the-processing facility is b e ing requit-e d to be upgrade to a 20' \Yid e all s eason road that c an h a ndle the w eight of a 54.000lb s fir e t1uck and meet m i nimum tum rad ius's of th e fire trucks. This. road must also m ee t C'otu1ty standards. The owne r has agreed to upgrade this i-oa d sectio n, app roximately 2 .900 " o f road. t o m eet a ll of thes e is tandards. Please see 1·oadwav plan and profile design sheets within the Land Use packet. -<-7 \~"f. ~~~. "--0-v-'<:~ 1-3· 1'l 10' LANE 2,.; \_()(JTSIOE OF EXISTING ROADWAY ALIGNMENT, SlRIP ALL TOPSOIL, SCARIFY AND RE-COMPACT SUBGRADE TO A MINIMUM DEP1H OF 6" TD 95,.; STANOA.~0 PROCTOR '£. 10' LANE 5• CL.ASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE COMPAClED TO 95~ ST ANDA.RD PROCTOR 2X \_ 12" CL.ASS 3 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE CCMPACTEO TO 95~ STANDARD PROCTOR TYPICAL 20' WIDE ALL-WEATHER ROADWAY SECTION STA: 62+00 TO 91+00 ................ ' I I . '· --.... _ --......... \ I I I I I \ I ' '-.. .,_ \ \ \ I ) j . I \ \ / I ,,.,,. / I ·" / r I ~ ...... . .._ ....... --- '1 ~ ' \ \ ' \ I~ >-I ' \ ---. ------..... ____ _ ----... ....... ----- ~---. -.. -----., '· ~-----'----~~--............. _,,,..,..,,.-------......... --- -.... ~_ ,/ \ --.... .,_ .,_ / I .r·, / / / I ' / / I r -' ............. / / / E ·----/ / / ./ / "' ...... ...... / / / / / / ' / / / / / ' \ \I / / / / / ./ ./ / ' I I / / / l / / ........ \ ) .-· / / \ \ ..... _ - / ,,, ·~I \ I ~ / / \ •, ./ '. I / ' I ..... I I ' I I I From: To : Subject: Date: Peterson -CDPHE. Robert Kathy A. Eastley file MIPA8246 -Ken Sack animal processing facility Monday, May 04, 2015 9:07:50 AM The solid waste program of CDPHE-HMWMD briefly reviewed the application and noted there will be no solid waste disposal on this site and composting, recycling do not appear to be part of the planned activities. We have no further comments. Bob Peterson CDPHE-HMWMD-Solid Waste and Materials Management Program 222 South 6th St. Rm 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-248-7151 bob peterson@state co us EXHIBIT & From: Gore, Melvin -FSIS [mailto:Melvin.Gore@fsis.usda.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:04 PM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: RE: Ken Sack Slaughterhouse EXHIBIT j H Yes, I can try to shed some light on our activities. I will answer your questions by in-putting my response after the question. Melvin Gore, DVM, SPHV c/o Colorado Homestead Ranches 7 41 West 5th St. Delta, CO 81416 Office: (970) 874 -8637 Cell: (970) 371 · 8093 OFO •· Verifying Food Safety and Animal Welfare every day From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@qarfield-countv.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:17 PM To: Gore, Melvin -FSIS Cc: Garner, Roger -FSIS Subject: Ken Sack Slaughterhouse Dr. Gore, As you are aware I am reviewing the land use permit for the 'animal processing facility' on Ken Sack's property. I am interested in understanding the USDA inspection process associated with this use, as well as the general activities that take place during this process. Any response you could provide to the following questions would be great. 1. My understanding is that part of the USDA process is to 'certify' that the facility meets certain requirements -can you briefly let me know what those physical requirements are? Our standards were re-issued in 1997 /1998. The Agency had regulations that were very stringent if not micro-managing. I will send you a copy of what we currently go by. Our guidelines now are "Each official establishment must be operated and maintained in a manner sufficient to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and to ensure that product is not adulterated." There is broad discretion as to what constitutes an "insanitary" condition. 2. Is a USDA inspector required to be on-site for the slaughter/processing in order to be USDA compliant? The USDA inspection appears to be twofold -the facility and the process are part of the inspection, is that correct? Actually, in the interest of sanitation, our duties are one fold: to assure that product(s) are prepared in a manner that prevents adulteration and the product is wholesome. Now to the first part of your question. For the slaughter process to be an inspected product, the Inspector must be on-site for each animal to be harvested so that we can look for diseases in the animal that would be unwholesome and to assure a safe and humane slaughter. Fabrication or the cutting up and preparation of the meat and poultry products, the Inspector does not have to be there the whole time but needs to stop in and assess the sanitation and handling of the meat and poultry. After the slaughter process is completed, the USDA mark of Inspection can be applied. If the carcass of whatever species is not wholesome, it is condemned and disposed of, in this case I saw ESQ would be using the landfill. 3. Does the inspector remain on-site for the entire process or are there only certain stages of the process that are inspected? Please see answer #2. The slaughter process, the Inspector is on- site. The further processing or fabrication of products, the Inspector may come by and observe the sanitation performance of the plant. 4. A comment was made that in-edible by-products will be properly disposed of by Waste Management, does any agency regulate the storage of those by -products prior to pick-up for disposal? We regulate storage to the extent that the waste material products do not contaminate or adulterate the inspected and passed product. This Agency used to require a letter from the state stating that transport of inedible materials could be transported to local landfills. The Colorado Department of Agriculture State Veterinarians Office no longer issues these letters to official establishments in Colorado. The local health department, at their discretion, would be responsible to address the transport of inedible and condemned products off-site. 5. Does the USDA regulate by-products -those that may be used for human consumption (the viscera, blood, intestines, etc) and those by -products that may not be consumed but utilized for other products (such as the rendering process , tallow, hides, etc)? Yes, we regulate any meat and poultry product that is produced at an official establishment that is intended for human consumption to assure the products are wholesome and unadulterated . We do regulate some processes such as rendering if it is done on-site as well as edible fats and tallow which may be used in the cosmetic industry. Hides are not in our regulations unless they are prepared for human consumption (fried pig skin or chicherones). There is an outfit from Scottsbluff, NE currently buying and picking up hides from slaughter plants. 6. Are liquid by-products typically disposed of in the septic system? Some research describes the paunch as being disposed, in whole, in the sewer, is this standard? Others describe a process of washing out the paunch and screening the solids for disposal -any comments on these processes and what the county may need to consider? Blood is mostly disposed of in western Colorado. It may go to the local landfill. Paunch contents from ruminants typically go to landfills or used as fertilizer. The paunch, after being washed, can be used as edible by-product. Our interest would be if the holding or storage would create reservoirs of flies or pests. We would assure that this situation would be rectified immediately. 7. How large a role does potable water play in this process? I understand the need for water to clean up after the process but how is the water utilized in the slaughtering? This is a critical question due to the hauling of water to the .site for storage in tanks which could result in possible contamination. It is of paramount concern to USDA -FSIS as well. During the slaughter process and in all departments producing food for human consumption, only potable water may be used. There is continual washing of hands, aprons, tools and equipment that may come in contact with edible product. See 416.2(g). In the case of private water systems and wells, we require testing of water for coliforms twice per year. Connection to domestic water entities, we request the test results yearly from that source . We are aware that Eagle Springs Organics (ESO) will be hauling water to the site. They will be required to test the water at a water site in the plant, such as faucet, hoses used for washing, etc, at a minimum of twice per year. If an Inspector suspects an insanitary condition resulting from the water, add itional testing may be requested. 416 .2(g)(l). 8. Some of the research I've done states that sterilization is required for cleaning purposes, any idea on how the sterilization may be affected if the plan is to use hauled water stored in outdoor tanks? Yes, there are some equipment and tools that must be sanitized frequently, especially during the slaughter process. The establishment can either use water that is at 180°F at the nozzle or a chemical sanitizing agent that is acceptable in food producing establishments. Sodium hypochlorite (bleach) or an organic iodine are also used at recommended concentrations . I must emphasize again, USDA-FSIS would only use potable water to formulate an acceptable sanitizing agent. 9. Refrigeration would appear to be necessary. You are correct. The carcasses after slaughter must be held at S45°F to prevent any outgrowth of pathogens. 10. My understanding is that they plan on processing cows, but they also want to retain the ability to use the facility for custom cut orders. Is there an issue with slaughtering multiple types of animals in one facility-cows, pigs, elk and deer? Cattle, swine, goats, and sheep can all be slaughtered there if ESO applied for those species in their application for inspection. Deer, elk, and bison (buffalo) may also be slaughtered if ESO has an approved application for "Voluntary Inspection." These would be ranch raised game animals. We are required to observe all slaughtered animals when the animal is alive to detect some disease conditions. As you may expect, big game animals harvested in the wild state would not qualify for the Federal mark of Inspection because an Inspector does not have the opportunity to observe the animal prior to slaughter. An official establishment may also apply to conduct "custom-exempt" slaughter operations. This situation would be in the case of a person bringing in an animal for slaughter and processing for their own use. In this case, the animals are identified as "custom" animals and the Inspector is not on-site during the total process. In such cases, an USDA-FSIS Inspector also performs a yearly review to check the water certificates, verified handling of the inedible products, written plans that address that all bovines were able to stand and move on their own, and some other items to assure that an official establishment is not handling animals that are unfit for human consumption. This is a record review process mostly but facilities are checked over as well. Any assistance you can provide in this review would be very helpful in understanding the land use. Thank you. I have included the section from our Regulations that are discussed in this email. The Regulation is 9 CFR 416. I also high-lighted some of the concerns you asked about. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfield-county.com 9 CFR § 416.1 General rules. Each official establishment must be operated and maintained in a manner sufficient to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and to ensure that product is not adulterated. § 416.2 Establishment grounds and facilities. (a)Grounds and pest control. The grounds about an establishment must be maintained to prevent conditions that could lead to insanitary conditions, adulteration of product, or interfere· with inspection by FSIS program employees. Establishments must have in place a pest management program to prevent the harborage and breeding of pests on the grounds and within establishment facilities. Pest control substances used must be safe and effective under the conditions of use and not be applied or stored in a manner that will result in the adulteration of product or the creation of insanitary conditions. (b) Construction. (1) Establishment buildings, including their structures, rooms, and compartments must be of sound construction, be kept in good repair, and be of sufficient size to allow for processing, handling, and storage of product in a manner that does not result in product adulteration or the creation of insanitary conditions. (2) Walls, floors, and ceilings within establishments must be built of durable materials impervious to moisture and be cleaned and sanitized as necessary to prevent adulteration of product or the creation of insanitary conditions. (3) Walls, floors, ceilings, doors, windows, and other outside openings must be constructed and maintained to prevent the entrance of vermin, such as flies, rats, and mice. (4) Rooms or compartments in which edible product is processed, handled, or stored must be separate and distinct from rooms or compartments in which inedible product is processed, handled, or stored, to the extent necessary to prevent product adulteration and the creation of insanitary conditions. (c) Light. Lighting of good quality and sufficient intensity to ensure that sanitary conditions are maintained and that product is not adulterated must be provided in areas where food is processed, handled, stored, or examined; where equipment and utensils are cleaned; and in hand-washing areas, dressing and locker rooms, and toilets. (d) Ventilation. Ventilation adequate to control odors, vapors, and condensation to the extent necessary to prevent adulteration of product and the creation of insanitary conditions must be provided. (e) Plumbing. Plumbing systems must be installed and maintained to: (1) Carry sufficient quantities of water to required locations throughout the establishment; (2) Properly convey sewage and liquid disposable waste from the establishment; (3) Prevent adulteration of product, water supplies, equipment, and utensils and prevent the creation of insanitary conditions throughout the establishment; (4) Provide adequate floor drainage in all areas where floors are subject to flooding-type cleaning or where normal operations release or discharge water or other liquid waste on the floor; (5) Prevent back-flow conditions in and cross-connection between piping systems that discharge waste water or sewage and piping systems that carry water for product manufacturing; and (6) Prevent the backup of sewer gases. (f) Sewage disposal. Sewage must be disposed into a sewage system separate from all other drainage lines or disposed of through other means sufficient to prevent backup of sewage into areas where product is processed, handled, or stored. When the sewage disposal system is a private system requiring approval by a State or local health authority, the establishment must furnish FSIS with the letter of approval from that authority upon request. (g) Wa ter s upply and water, ice, and solu tion re use. (1) A supply of running water that complies w ith the National Primary Drinking Water regulations (40 CFR part 141 ), at a suitable temperature and under pressu re as needed, must be provided in all areas where req uire d (for processing product, for cleaning rooms and equipment, utensils , and packaging materials, f or employee sanitary facilities, etc.). If an establishm ent uses a municipal water supply, it must make availabl e t o FSIS, upon request, a water repo rt, issued under the authority of the State or local health agency, certifying or attesting to the potability of the water supply. If an establishment uses a private well for its water supply, it must make available to FSIS, upon request , documentation certifying the potability of the water supply that has been renewed at least semi-an nu ally. (2) Water, ice, and solutions (such as brine , liquid smoke , or propylene glycol) used to chill or cook ready- to-eat p rod uct may be reused for t he same purpose, provided that they are maintained free of pathogenic organis ms and feca l coliform orga nisms and that oth er ph ysi cal , chemical , and microbiological cont am ination have been reduced to prevent adulteration of product. (3) W ater, ice , and solutions used to chill or was h raw product may be reused for the same purpose provided that measures a re taken to reduce phys ical, chemical, and mic robiological contamination so as to prevent c o nt amination or adu lteration of product. Reuse that which has come into contact wi th raw pro du ct may not be used on ready-to-eat product. ( 4) Recon ditioned water that has never conta ined hum an waste and that has be en treated by an onsite advanced wastewater treatment facility may be used o n raw product, except in pro duct formu lati on, and throughout the facility in edible and inedible production areas, provided that measures are take n to ensure that this water meets the criteria prescribed in paragraph (g)(1) of this sect ion. Product, facilities, equipment, and utensils coming in contact with this water must undergo a separate final rinse with non- reconditioned water that meets the criteria prescribed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. (5) Any water that has never contained human waste an d that is fre e of pat hogenic organisms may be used in edible and inedible product areas, provided it does not c ontact edible product. Fo r example, such reuse water may be used to move heavy solids, to flush the bott om of open evi sceration troughs , or to wash antemortem areas, livestock pens, trucks, poultry cages, picker aprons , picking room floors, and similar areas within the establishment. (6) Water that does not meet the use conditions of paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this section may not be used in areas where edible product is handled or prepared or in any manner that would allow it to adulterate edible product or create insanitary conditions. (h} Dressing rooms, lavatories, and toilets. (1) Dressing rooms, toilet rooms, and urinals must be suffic ient in number, ample in s ize, conveniently located, and maintained in a sanitary cond ition and in good re pair at all tim es to e nsu re cleanliness of all persons handling any product. They must be separate from th e ro oms and compartm ents in which products are processed, stored, or handled. (2) Lavatories with running hot and cold water, soap, and towels , must be placed in or near toilet and urinal rooms and at such other places in the establis hment as necessary to ensure cleanliness of all persons handling any product. (3) Refuse receptac les must be constructed and maintained in a manner that protects against the creation of insanitary conditions and the adulteration of product. § 416.3 Equipment and utensils. (a) Equipment and utensils used for processing or otherwise handling edible product or ingredients must be of such material and construction to facilitate thorough cleaning and to ensure that their use will not cause the adulteration of product during processing, handling, or storage. Equipment and utensils must be maintained in sanitary condition so as not to adulterate product. {b) Equipment and utensils must not be constructed, located, or operated in a manner that prevents FSIS inspection program employees from inspecting the equipment or utensils to determine whether they are in sanitary condition. (c) Receptacles used for storing inedible material must be of such material and construction that their use will not result in the adulteration of any edible product or in the creation of insanitary conditions. Such receptacles must not be used for storing any edible product and must bear conspicuous and distinctive marking to identify permitted uses. § 416.4 Sanitary operations. (a) All food-contact surfaces, including food-contact surfaces of utensils and equipment, must be cleaned and sanitized as frequently as necessary to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and the adulteration of product. (b) Non-food-contact surfaces of facilities, equipment, and utensils used in the operation of the establishment must be cleaned and sanitized as frequently as necessary to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and the adulteration of product. (c) Cleaning compounds, sanitizing agents, processing aids, and other chemicals used by an establishment must be safe and effective under the conditions of use. Such chemicals must be used, handled, and stored in a manner that will not adulterate product or create insanitary conditions. Documentation substantiating the safety of a chemical's use in a food processing environment must be available to FSIS inspection program employees for review. (d) Product must be protected from adulteration during processing, handling, storage, loading, and unloading at and during transportation from official establishments. § 416.5Employee hygiene. (a) Cleanliness. All persons working in contact with product, food-contact surfaces, and product- packaging materials must adhere to hygienic practices while on duty to prevent adulteration of product and the creation of insanitary conditions. (b) Clothing. Aprons, frocks, and other outer clothing worn by persons who handle product must be of material that is disposable or readily cleaned. Clean garments must be worn at the start of each working day and garments must be changed during the day as often as necessary to prevent adulteration of product and the creation of insanitary conditions. (c) Disease control. Any person who has or appears to have an infectious disease, open lesion, including boils, sores, or infected wounds, or any other abnormal source of microbial contamination, must be excluded from any operations which could result in product adulteration and the creation of insanitary conditions until the condition is corrected. Colorado River Fire Rescue Kathy Eastley 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Kathy: May 18,2015 This letter is to advise you that I have reviewed File Number: MIPA-8246, Ken Sack Animal Processing, located at 482 CR 315. After reviewing the application and doing a site visit, I have the following comments to the proposed animal processing facility: 1. The application makes reference to Fire Protection in the application PDF, page 32, item d. 7-109-Fire Protection for building is addressed in the pending building permit application. I do not have access to pending building permit and nothing is shown in this referral packet. Information is needed on proposed fire suppression and or suppression water for the facility. 2. In the application the reference is made of two access roads for the facility. The reference is a main access road that is too steep and narrow for trucks and trailers, and the secondary road which appears to access from Eagle Springs Ranch Road. Nothing in the packet shows the entire secondary road or addresses the width or grade of the road. I attended a site visit last summer with the Ranch Manager and I drove through the ranch this morning to refresh my memory. The access road from Eagle Springs Ranch Road starts out as a 20' +gravel road that accesses some area well pads. At the solar panels a two track road travels to the west and ties into another road that accesses the existing house and proposed animal Processing Building. The access road from the solar panels to the intersection of the Main road to the buildings is not adequate for a fire department access road. The fire department access road shall be able to support the weight of a fire truck and be all weather driving surface. More information is needed on the proposed secondary access road. Page I 1 EXHIBIT I Colorado · River Fire Rescue 3. The Main access road has an electric gate at the bottom of the driveway. We (CRFR) do not have access to that gate at this time in case of an emergency. If this access is to be used for emergency access, then we will require the owner to purchase a Knox Box or Knox padlock for the gate. If the secondary access is gated and locked we will also need Knox box or padlock installed on gate. 4. The existing home has an address of 482 CR 315. Depending on access roads as noted above we will need to establish an address for the Animal Processing Building and possibly the existing house as to the best access road, (Eagle Springs, Mamm Creek Rd). Emergency response could be delayed if we are responding to a Mamm Creek address but actually end up accessing the address from Eagle Springs Ranch Road. This issue needs to resolved. Thank you for allowing me to review this referral and please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns .. Thank You, Orrin D. Moon, Fire Marshal CRFR. Page I 2 May 15, 2015 Ms. Kathy _Eastley Garfield County Planning 108 gth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNT/\IN CROSS ~N<ilNEERIN<i. INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design EXHIBIT I J RE: Review of the Ken Sack Animal Processing Facility: MIP A 8246 Dear Kathy: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Major Impact Review application for the Ken Sack Animal Processing Facility. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The following comments were generated: 1. The water system is proposed to be supplied by third party hauling .of water purchased from licensed municipal sources; This source is not typical but the proposed operation is lower than thresholds listed in the LUDC. The concern is that hauling water may not be a reliable source under drought conditions. A condition of approval that operations would terminate if water hauling ceases may be warranted. 2. The Applic::ant should discuss what means and methods will be employed to test, treat, and maintain the water system to mitigate any contamination. 3. The Applicant should discuss how water for fire suppression is separate and preserved from the potable water storage. 4. The application materials mentions that animals are raised on the property. The site plan shows pasture areas where the OWTS are located. The Applicant should discuss how animals will be kept off of the OWTS. 5. The application materials do not mention what existing equipment is on-site compared to what will be necessary. The Applicant should discuss if building permits will be necessary for interior building remodeling for new/additional plumbing, electrical equipment, refrigeration, etc. · · · 6. Then~ is an existing house that shows no connection to the water system or an existing OWTS . The Applicant should identify how this existing house is sen:ed with water and verify the location and status of the existing OWTS to mitigate potential conflicts. 826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com Animal Processing Page 2 of2 May,2015 7. The Traffic Report assumes that the increased traffic would not occur at peak hours and based on this assumption states that increased traffic has no impacts to the peak traffic calculations. This assumption should be elaborated upon. It seems incongruent that increased traffic would not generate some increase in peak hour counts also. The Applicant should explain this in greater detail or revise the calculations to account for increased peak hour traffic. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, (§1:: Enginee ing, Chris Hale, PE Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826 % Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Kathy, Orrin Moon Kathy A Eastley Mjke Moman: Orrjn Moon Ale # MIPA8246, 5ack Animal Process ing Facility Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:03:39 AM jmageOOl .png EXHIBIT I IC- I just wanted to let you know that I have reviewed the buildings plans for the existing building and addition of the processing facility. I have determined that based on my referral comments about emergency access and unknown fire suppression outlined in the PDF packet, that fire suppression water up to 18,000 gallons of stored and accessible water may be required. This suppression water is calculated according to NFPA 1142, Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting. This NFPA calculation is determined by the construction type, building cubic feet, and exposure hazards. Please consider this an addition to my referral comments. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. THANK YOU, ORRIN D. MOON FIR£ MARSHAL COLORADO RIVER FIR£ RESCUE 970-625-1243 orrjn.moon@crfr.us EXHIBIT I L- From: To: Subject: Date: Kathy Qilni2Qin Kathy A. East!ey RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Tuesday, May 26, 2015 7:17:26 AM This driveway has been updated with a concrete apron so it meets standards so I they should be good to go on this one. Dan Goin District 3 Foreman Garfield County Road and Bridge 0298 CR 333A, Rifle CO 81650 970-625-8601 From: Kathy A. Eastley Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:46 AM To: Dan Goin Subject: Ken Sack Animal Processing Good morning Dan, Have you had a chance to look at the application for the slaughterhouse on CR 315? You should have received an email in late April asking for comments from Road & Bridge on the request. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you . Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street. #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 kea s t ley @garfjeld-county com EXHIBIT I tv\ Garfield County Ve!!etation Manal!ement May 26, 2015 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Community Development Department RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Facility MIPA-8246 Dear Kathy, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit. Noxious weeds map & inventory Staff requests that the applicant provide a noxious weed map and inventory of all Garfield County listed noxious weeds for the 35 acre parcel to also include the easement with the water tanks . The current county noxious weed list is attached. Of particular concern on this site is Russian knapweed. On the site plan the applicant states that the "site weed analysis and mitigation to be reviewed with the County Vegetation Manager in the spring of 2015 . Current site conditions are not conducive to a accurate analysis and remediation efforts." Weed management plan Please provide a weed management plan that will address the treatment of any inventoried noxious weeds found on site. Revegetation Please quantify the surface area of disturbance, in terms of acres or square feet, created by this project that will require immediate reseeding. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely , Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939 GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST Common name Leafy spurge Russian knapweed Yellow starthistle Plumeless thistle Houndstongue Common burdock Scotch thistle Canada thistle Spotted knapweed Diffuse knapweed Dalmation toadflax Yellow toadflax Hoary cress Saltcedar Saltcedar Oxeye Daisy Jointed Goatgrass Chicory Musk thistle Purple loosestrife Russian olive Also State Listed species: Absinth wormwood Scientific name Euphorbia esula Acroptilon repens Centaurea solstitalis Carduus acanthoides Cynoglossum officinale Arctium minus Onopordum acanthium Cirsium arvense Centaurea maculosa Centaurea diffusa Linaria dalmatica Linaria vulgaris Cardaria draba Tamarix parviflora Tamarix ramosissima Chrysanthemum leucantheum Aegilops cylindrica Cichorium intybus Carduus nutans Lythrum salicaria Elaeagnus angustifolia Artemsia absinthium City of Rifle From: Nathan Lindquist [nlindquist@r1fleco.org] sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:26 PM To: Kathy A. Eastley cc: Tamra Allen subject: RE: Ken sack Animal Processing Thanks Kathy, EXHIBIT I N we don't have any specific comments on this. It's a good use of the propert~_.if its done the right way, obviously, which we trust the County will ensure. Page 1 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Kathy, Orrin Moon Kathy A Eastley Mike Morgan ; Rob Jones RE: Ken Sack Monday, June 01, 2015 12:23:52 PM eagle springs organic .doc EXHIB IT 10 The site visit that I attend with you on May 27,2015, has brought new information to light as to the referral comments that I made on May 19,2015 and May 21,2015. The following is my new and additional comments: The existing proposed fire department access road is not adequate for fire trucks from the solar panels to the Animal Processing Facility site. The road needs to be designed to carry the weight of a fire truck ( up to 54,000 lbs. ), be 20' in width, with 50' outside turning radius, along with adequate fire truck turnaround at the Processing Facility. The design of the road shall be submitted to me and approved before construction. After a site visit to the Eagle Springs Organic Greenhouses that were built in 2011 where fire department access road and a water supply was required, (see attached), have found a lack of maintenance to the access road and the water supply . The road is covered with dirt which will make access difficult if not impassable when wet. The pond access road to the dry fire hydrant is covered with weeds which does not show a clear access road to the draft site. The lack of maintenance on the road and pond area is critical for the fire protection of the existing Eagle Springs Greenhouses. The water supply at the greenhouses is not an option for fire protection water supply of the Processing Facility at this time. The Processing Facility will be required to have fire protection water supply of 18,000 gallons of water which is based on the requirements of NFPA 1142 as noted in the e-mail sent to you on 5-21-15. The means of storage shall be submitted to me for approval. A storage tank with a fire hydrant attached is our preferred method, we have fire protection water storage specifications available at request. The ceiling of the Kill Room is exposed wood that is covered with clear plastic . The room and the building shall meet IBC requirements for flame spread as interpreted by the Garfield County Building department. I feel that the requirements are reasonable to the fire protection of this facility. As always, I am open to hear other ideas or proposals. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you, Orrin D. Moon Fire Marshal Colorado River Fire Rescue 970-625-1243 orrjo.moon@crfr.us From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keasttey@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:59 PM To: Orrin Moon Subject: Ken Sack Good afternoon Orrin, I am assuming that I will receive additional comments from you on the access issues and fire protection related to the animal processing facility, is that correct? Thank you. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax : 970-384-3470 keastley@garfield-county com Burning Mountains Fire Protection District Ken Sach Eagle Springs Organic Growers 5454 County Road 346 Silt, CO Mr. Sack : hurninpmnr;:fpd @ m sn .cnm March 27, 2011 On March 22, 2011, I was called by your project contractor Brian Steel, to come to the site and conduct a Fire Inspection on the west building/green house as required by the Garfield County Building Department. I arrived at the site on March 23 , 2011 and met with Brian Steel. Brian advised me that he was looking for a Final Fire Inspection from me so he could complete his requirements for a Certified Occupancy for the west building. Brian also advised that the east building was not complete yet but would be done in about 6 weeks. After inspecting the buildings, site, and access roads, the following are my concerns that need to be addressed before the sign-off of any co. • Address of the buildings need to be adjusted or changed due to the lack of Fire Department Apparatus access from the existing road address. • Existing access road from County Road 346 or from Eagle Springs Ranch Road is an inadequate Fire Apparatus access road to the buildings . • No site plan has been reviewed by the Fire Department to determine building access or fire truck turnaround areas. • Building plans have not been reviewed by the Fire Department to determine fire flow requirements, water supply storage, and or the need of a suppression system. Site plans and building plans are needed for me to review and determine the requirements for this project. Please submit requested plans to my office, 611 Main Street Silt, CO. I can start to review them next week. I am out of town this week until Thursday with the rest of the week booked on inspections. I will be able to return phone messages or e-mails in the evenings. I advised Brian that I would consider possibly allowing the CO on the west building. Due to the possible need of a suppression system, water supply and access this will not be possible at this time. President, Karen Maddalone-Cochran Secretary, Kevin Erpestad Director, John Moore Jr. Treasurer, Jim Voorheis Director, Megan Richards Fire Chief, Brit C. McLin Stat ion #1 Administration PMiox2 611-Main Street SUL 00 81 65 2 {970) 876·5738 fax(970)816-2.7J4 Stalion#2 731 West Main : New CasUe, CO 81647 (970) 984-34,12 Station #3 5255 CR 335 New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 984-3323 Please feel free to leave me a message on my phone (970-379-2932) or e-mail me with any questions. Thank You, Orrin D. Moon, Asst. Fire Marshal. &EPA EXHIBIT I p United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 4601 WATER TRIVIA FACTS 1. How much water does it take to process a quarter pound of hamburger? Approximately one gallon. 2. How much water does it take to make four new tires? 2,072 gallons EPA 81 O-F-95 -001 April 1995 3. What is the total amount of water used to manufacture a new car, including new tires? 39,090 gallons per car 4. How many households use private wells for their water supply? 17 ,000,000 households 5. Water is the only substance found on earth naturally in the three forms . True (solid, liquid, and gas) 6. Does water regulate the earth's temperature? Yes (it is a natural insulator) 7. How long can a person live without food? More than a month How long can a person live without water? Approximately one week, depending upon conditions. 8. How much water must a person consume per day to maintain health? 2.5 quarts from all sources (i.e., water, food) 9. How much water does a birch tree give off per day in evaporation? 70 gallons 10. How much water does an acre of corn give off per day in evaporation? 4,000 gallons 11. How many miles of pipeline and aqueducts are in the US and Canada? Approximately one million miles, or enough to circle the earth 40 times 12. What were the first water pipes made from in the US? Fire charred bored logs 13. How much water is used to flush a toilet? 2-7 gallons 14. How much water is used in the average five-minute shower? 25-50 gallons 15. How much water is used to brush your teeth? 2 gallons 16. How much water is used on the average for an automatic dishwasher? 9-12 gallons 17. On the average, how much water is used to hand wash dishes? 20 gallons 18. How many community public water systems are there in the United States? 56,000 19. How much water do these utilities process daily? 34 billion gallons 20 . Of the nation's community water supplies, how many are investor-owned? 32,500 21. How much water does the average residence use during a year? 107,000 gallons 22. How much water does an individual use daily? 50 gallons 23. What does a person pay for water on a daily basis? National average is 25 cents 24 . How much of the earth's surface is water? 80% 25 . Of all the earth's water, how much is ocean or seas? 97% 26. How much of the world's water is frozen and therefore unusable? 2% 27. How much of the earth's water is suitable for drinking water? 1% 28. Is it possible for me to drink water that was part of the dinosaur era? Yes 29 . If all community water systems had to be replaced, what would it cost? In excess of $175 billion 30. What does it cost to operate the water systems throughout the country annually? Over $3.5 billion 31. How much does one gallon of water weigh? 8.34 pounds 32. How many gallons of water would it take to cover one square mile with one foot of water? 219 million gallons 33 . How much water is in one cubic foot? 7.48 gallons 34 . How many gallons of water do you get per acre, when it rains one inch? 27 ,000 gallons per acre 35. At what temperature does water freeze? 32 degrees F, 0 degrees C 36. At what temperature does water vaporize? 212 degree F, 100 degrees C 37. What is the most common substance found on earth? Water 38. How much of the human body is water? 66% 39. How much of a chicken is water? 75% 40. How much of a pineapple is water? 80% 41. How much of a tomato is water? 95% 42. How much of an elephant is water? 70% 43. How much of an ear of com is water? 80% 44. How much water does it take to process one chicken? 11.6 gallons 45. How much water does it take to process one can of fruit or vegetables? 9.3 gallons 46 . How much water does it take to process one barrel of beer? 1, 500 gallons 47, How much water does it take to make one board foot of lumber? 5.4 gallons 48. How much water does it take to make one pound of plastic ? 24 gallons 49. How much water does it take to make one pound of wool or cotton? 101 gallons 50 . How much water does it take to refine one barrel of crude oil? l, 851 gallons 51. How much does it take to produce one ton of steel? 62 ,600 gallons 52. How much water does it take to process one ton of cane sugar to make processed sugar? 28, 100 gallons 53 . How much water does it take to process one ton of beet sugar to make processed sugar? 33, 100 gallons EXHIBIT IQ Garfield County 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 Pu blic Health 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-6614 (970) 625-5200 Garfield County Community Development 108 81h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Kathy Eastley May 21, 2015 Hello Kathy, My comments for the Ken Sack Animal Processing facility are as follows : 1. Nuisance Conditions: a. The applicant did. not address fugitive dust in the nuisance impacts section of the Impact Analysis. Operations that involve livestock being contained in a confined area over a certain period of time can cause de-vegetation of the land; which in turn can lead to releases of particulate matter into the air. We recommend proper dust mitigation be used in animal pens and other bare surfaces if necessary. 2. Water Supply a. The current water supply system of three storage tanks that requires water to be hauled to the slaughterhouse is not a good long-term solution for the life expectancy of this operation. Garfield County Land Use Code requires that a potable water supply be provided that is adequate and of a high enough water quality for consumption by employees; and in this case the processing of meat. We recommend a well be drilled, if possible, that would be tested using the "Deluxe Colorado Package" of the CDPHE Lab Services Division. b. The amount of water used for each animal seems variable and not clearly explained. 4 gallons per cow, even if water is not used in the actual slaughtering of the animal, does not account for other unanticipated washing and seems like too low of a figure. 3. Wastewater Treatment a. It is unclear as to what sort of materials will actually be entering the second OWTS designed for the actual animal processing facility. On our site visit, we were made aware that the blood, intestinal, and other waste coming from the kill room would not be sent into the OWTS but rather stored and hauled to the landfill. However, our understanding was that the room where meat is processed into various cuts for clients will drain to the septic system. Before we approve the system designed by All Service Septic, all parties involved should be aware of exactly what will be entering the system to know how large it should be sized and what level of secondary treatment is necessary. b. There is a stipulation in our OWTS regulations that Public Health will permit advanced treatment systems. The applicant may need to work with both Community Development and Public Health on the permit for the second system. 4. Current use of the facility Garfield County Public Health Department -working to promote health and prevent disease Thank you, a. Eagle Springs Organics, Outwest Meat and Seafood at Eagle Springs, Ken Sack, and Farm Fresh Cafe needs to be more clear on the relationship between each of their product lines and where tt:ieir meats are being sourced. There were indicators that the processing facility has already been operating without a USDA license for private clients. We were also made aware that meats being sold at the store have been supplied by US Foods and not from the Ken Sack animal processing facility. b. What will the name of the facility be? I saw several different names throughout the application. c. What is Mr. Sack's intention for a timeframe to sell his own meats that would be processed through that facility? Where is Mr. Sack currently having his own animals slaughtered? ~11{'/Mf, Morgan Hill Environmental Health Specialist Ill Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 14111 Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 665-6383 Garfield County Public Health Department -working to promote health and prevent disease EXHIBIT I~ CONDITIONS OF PERM IT B LCO-7-14-3288 Ken Sack/Eagle Springs USDA Meat Processing Plant 482 CR 315 Silt, Colorado 1) ALL WORK MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2009 IBC, IMC, IPC, IFGC, IFC, IECC, AND THE MANUFACTURERS INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS. 2) ALL WORK MUST COMPLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. 3) ALL WORK MUST COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE CURRENT LAND USE PERMIT. 4) ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURE IS TYPE VB CONSTRUCTION, F 1 OCCUPANCY. S) CONTACT LOCAL FIRE DISTRICT FOR PERTINENT IFC REQUIREMENTS . FIRE DISTRICT FINAL APPROVAL REPORT IS REQUIRED FOR FINAL/COMPLETION INSPECTION. 6) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT (CDPHE) FINAL APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR FINAL/COMPLETION INSPECTION. 7) ENGINEER APPROVAL LETTER FOR EXISTING COOLER CONSTRUCTION IS REQUIRED FOR FINAL/COMPLETION INSPECTION. (SEE LETTER IN FILE) 8) COMPLIANCE LETTER FOR COOLER EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION, SIGNED BY A QUALIFIED MECHANICAL DESIGNER, IS REQUIRED FOR FINAL/COMPLETION INSPECTION. 9) ALL EXPOSED FOAM INSULATION MUST BE COVERED WITH A THERMAL BARRIER AS REQUIRED PER 2009 IBC, CHAPTER 26. 10) ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PER 2009 IBC, CHAPTER 11, AND ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 . 11) PROVIDE EXIT SIGNS EQUIPPED WITH EMERGENCY LIGHTING AT ALL EXIT DOORS. VERIFY EXIT SIGN LOCATIONS PRIOR TO ELECRICAL ROUGH-IN INSPECTION . 12) ELECTRICAL PERMITTING/INSPECTIONS BY THE COLORADO STATE ELECTRICAL BOARD. 13) ELECTRICAL ROUGH-IN APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO FRAME INSPECTION. 14) ELECTRICAL FINAL APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR FINAL/COMPLETION INSPECTION. 15) GAS PIPING DISCONNECT/RELOCATE REQUIRES A PRESSURE TEST/INSPECTION. 16) LIGHT AND VENTILATION PER 2009 IBC, CHAPTER 12. 17) LOCKS, LATCHES AND LANDINGS PER 2009 IBC, SECTION 1008. 18) GARFIELD COUNTY FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED FOR FINAL/COMPLETION APPROVAL. .. · Eagle Springs Organic Eagle Springs Organ ic ~1ia1Jt1 for Your~~a~ TOP SIRLOIN STEAK EAGLE SPRINGS MEATS SAFE HAN D LING INSTRUCTIONS THIS PRODUCT w.1s Pf!EPAllEO FROM /f/SPECTED AND PASSED MEAT AJIDlOR POULTRY. SOME FOOD PRODUCTS !.W CONTAIN IJACTEJlkl Tl/AT COULD CAUSE ILLNESS IF THE P//OOUCT/S MIS· ~lllNOLCO 011 COOKED ll.1PllOf'EllLY. FOR YOUR PrlOTfCTIOM ,r;uow TliESE SAFE llllNOLJl/G INSTRUCTIONS. • E1 ~UP REFnl!l ERlllED on FAOro~ lW<W m RmtlCERATOR On l lCnoWAVE. ~ KEEP RAVI IJEAf Alo'O POULlAY SEPARATE FROM OTHER HJODS l'IASll l'IORXlllG SURFACES O'XUIDCIO CU I flllG DOAROSJ . UIEllSLl.S,A/10 twros AITTA 10\ICllUIG RAW MEAT on PltULTRY. COOK {) l<EEP llDHOODS Hor. R£11UC£RlllE ~ lllOROUGl ll.Y. ~ UFTOV'dlS 11.1/~CDIATELY OR OISCAnD. Pff1~~~r1s l Mli~'a!315 KEEP REFRIGERATED Find Ftir:ndG Lilt'.e Comr.lent • Shar; 18 people like lhis . ~ Wriie a comment ~ Eagle Springs Organic ~ rr.ay 3, 2014 Club Fresh at Farm Fresh Cafe and Steakhouse will be opening this week. The biggest. nicest clL1b in Colorado coming to Rine. Enjoy steaks and dinner, then enjoy dancing. karaoke, pool tables, comedy night, and big name bands and concerts. Nightly drink and appetizer specials . If you are FRESH, we look forward to seeing you . Like Comment ShG:re 2 people like this, E~ r.1 Wnte a corr:menl •• lb, Eagle Springs Organic ~ ~pril 13, 2014 · Enjoy Eagle Springs produce al our cafe and steakhouse 1733 Railroad Ave Rifle, next to Dollar Store . Enjoy the Western Slopes largest dance and entertainment center. We can host and cater your parties for up to 400 people. Quinceaneras. Weddings, Parties and Meetings. ~ Farm Fresh Cafe and Steakhouse . ·m Like Cornrne ;it S~c r e- 5 people like this. Eagle Springs Or9cnic We are gelling ready for a big summer. We will grow plenty of sweet watermelons, cantaloupes, pumpkins, squash 2nd our usual great tomatoes and cucumbers Enjoy our natural beef, pork , lamb and pouliry, all processed at Eagle Springs Meats. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Eagle-Springs-Organic/l 71886419525711 EXHIBIT s PJ: Grey Meno ~'.-.:· Damian Ellsw orth Sh Panda Hamilton ~ Riley Ellsworth t i)m w .· Trendz Retail 61n 11 Ann2 Ellsworth :o ~· :;, Jody Swallow 5Zm ~ Jiii Buiiock em ~ Sheila Summers ;:;n ~ Mary Miner 41 m ~Ros Hatch ~ Kendra Williams !h ~ Debbie Goad 3h ~ Erin Busey Stephens em 6/8/2015 Eagle Springs Organic I Eagle Springs Organic Lo1J/!s /;/(~ -!/; E /' J.t.-(_, f K 0 (A~;;;_:_:; / r..J C/ l!l/t!t:£/ /!-or C li.S lo /17e 1t.,.S ~ \11/rit~ a comme:nl Eagle Springs Organic December 6, 20'i-4 :J. Otibby Ho me 20+ Find Frle:nd& Our greenhouse is planted. Producing tomatoes year round We are slarting our salad mix so it will be ready for our restaurants in Aspen and Vail Like Comment Share 1 a people like this. ~ Write a commemt . ~· Eagle Springs Organic ~ Novembi=r 9, 2014 Looks like winter Is here We just finished planting 37 ,ODO cloves of garlic for next year Organic garlic on pizza or garlic bread ..... Preparing for a big year to come. Going from 15 planted acres lo 130 planted acres . Melons, tomatoes, cukes ... Our greenhouse is looking good. Fully planted for winter. .. See More Lil\e • Comment • Share 8 people like lhis. "" Leah Gower Will you be growing organic sweel com? ~ November 9, 2014 al 11 54am Like a, Eagle Springs Organic yes '<ii ' Novr::mber 9,2014at401prn Like ~ Wn1e a commcnL .~ Eagle Springs Organic ~ October 19 20 14 Eagle Springs Meats 1733 Railroad Ave in Rifle is processing wild game. Master bulcher Mark Montgomery (formerly with Outwest Meats) will custom process your meats. 970-797-4970 ext 3 Eagle Springs Meats is waiting for our USDA processing approval for domestic animals . In the mean time. we can custom exempt process your cows, pigs , lamb, poultry and goats at our slate of the art facility al Eagle Springs Ranch (off Mamm Creek Rd near airport) Lil;e Comment Share 13 people like this 3 shares View 3 more comments Mike Mckeon th anks mark for processi ng our elk awesome sausage to w e appreciate u all the M cKean family Mo vembe1 9 201~ at~ 03pm Like C lay West Mike Teague Mov~mbe r 10, 2014 at 12 05.am Like Wnlc "1 conim~nt Eagle Springs Organic Oclobe:r 19 2014 End of Summer season, Except for our broccoli and cabbage in the fields . Planting acres of garlic this week. Greenhouse looks great with tomatoes and cukes ... Preparing to go from 1 O acres of summer crop to 120 acres or summer c rop. Like Comment Share 8 people like lhis https://www.facebook.com/pages/Eagle-Springs-Organic/17188641952571 l Page 4of12 IB Grey Mello Wt!O Damian Ellsworth 5h Panda Hamilton ~ Riley Ellsworth 46m ~ Trendz Retail Om Iii Anna Ellsworth 3h ~ Jody Swallow 53 m m Jiii Buiiock. 8111 • Sheila Summers Sh ilii1 Mary Miner 41 !Ti "!?· Ros Hatch ~ Kendra Williams 1h ~ Debbie Goad 3h ~ Erin Busey Stephens Bin 6 /8/2015 Eagle Springs Organic Eagle Springs Organic LIKED BY THIS PAGE Rifle Moms for Moms Like Eight K -Viceroy Like ~~ Whole Foods Market Roaring F Like - English iUS) Privacy ·Terms Coof\1es P.dvertismg P.d Choices More F c:icebook ~· 2015 a Like Reply Fe:brLtary 16 at 1 1eam ~ Jaron SrownCow Kasem lol probably il's a farm see if you can work till you k,..-fJ] leave Like Reply February 16 cil 3:24pm ~ Write a comment . ~· Eagle Springs Organic ~ February 7 We are planning on planting over 130 acres lhis year. A big increase from the 15 acres we planted last year. Great organic garlic, melons, tomato, cukes, broccoli, onions, herbs and more .... Like Comment Share 14 people like this. 1 share ~ \/\/rite a comment •• ~ Eagle Springs Organic ~ February 7 • Process your cattle and poultry al Eagle Springs Meals In Silt. No more driving lo Della and wailing 3 months. Our state of the art facility can process custom exempt while we are waiting for our USDA inspected facility approval. We can further process your meats . Smoke in our new 1,50Dsf smokehouse. We can also make pastrami, corned beef, sausage, bacon and jerl<y .... See More Like Comment · Share Louis Miller, Richard J , Aluise and 157 others like this. 40 shares Vlew 15 more comments ~ Stephanie Lucero do you guys sell gullets, lracheas, lripe for dogs? ., !ii2J like Reply March 8 at 3:5/pm Kevin Costanzo Has any one had any meat done yet how was it? Like Reply P..pril 4 at 7 32prn Q Eagle Springs Organfc Mark Montgomery is a master butcher. Our facility I~ dean, large and did I say dean We should also be under USDA inspection soon Like ."'.pril 5 al 4 ·5~pm ~ Wri\e e. comment • .v ~ ~!.':',~";::.~~'"" IJ' Process your cattle and poul\fY at Eagle Springs Meals in Silt. //J e / 0,<tJ ce s:£" I j'/1 ': No more driving to Delta and waiting 3 months. Our state of the art facility can process custom exempt while we are waiting for our USDA inspected facility app roval . We can further process your meats. Smoke in our new 8x16 fool smokehouse. We can also make pastrami, corried beef, sausage, bacon and jerl<y. Mark Montgomery, master butcher (formerly with Outwest Meats) will custom cut, vacuum pack, and produce the finest products. Located at Eagle Springs Organic -exit 94 (airporl exit) Not a Rancher, You can also purchase your fresh meats and seafood at Eagle Springs Meats -1733 Railroad Ave Rifle (Farm Fresh Cafe and Steakhouse) For more information contact Mark at 970.625-5249 Organic Veggies year round for restaurants and Supennarkets 970-876- 2887 like Com;.H::nt s;.,.are https://www.facebook.com/pages/Eagle-Springs-Organic/1718864 l 9525711 Page 3of12 I! Grey Mello '!ieb Damian Ell9worth £.h II Ponds Hamilton ~ Riiey Ellsworth ~ ·~ Trendz Retail lffj Anna Ellsworth ~ Jody Swallow ~ JlllBullocl< ~ Sheila Summers rm Mary Miiier ~Ros Hatch 6m 53rn 8m 6h 41m ~ Kendra Williams 1 h A Debbie Goad 311 ~ Erin Busey Stephens Bm 6/8/2015 EXHIBIT j {A Suggested Findings 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the request for a Land Use Change Permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in general conformance with Garfield County Comprehensive plan 2030 and further meets the goals of economic development and agricultural needs of Garfield County. 5. That the application as conditioned meets the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. Conditions of Approval 1. All verbal representations of the applicant are incorporated as conditions. 2. OWTS and Building Permits shall be issued in conformance with the Land Use Permit 3. Eagle Springs ranch road shall be improved to meet County and Fire District Standards prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 4. Applicant shall install a minimum 18,000 gallons of water dedicated for fire protection services per the comments of the Fire District prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. ~ b.O -~ ~ > •1 I Cl) CJ) cG ~ ~uo u 0 ., : ro ~ '·u ~ o... ro E 'rd ~ ·~ E 0 ., • . , ' ~ Team Ken Sack -Owner • Mark Montgomery -Onsite Manager/Master Butcher Matt Langhorst -High Country Engineering • Karl Hanlon -Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C. I ' I I l ( V) ~ 0 • ,...-4 .+-J ro ~ a; ~ 0 r ' t -0 +.J 0 c.. OJ ~ E +.J s u 0 OJ OJ 0 x c.. • ,...-4 -.+-J LU Vl LL ~ E c Vl -Vl • ,...-4 ~ 0 <( OJ u +.J 0 u Vl 0 V) :J V') !a-a; u ::) CL 0 • Process Flow Eogle Springs Meols Process Flow Diagram Process Category: S/JJughter Prod1u:t: Beef ~--------,. 13.Receiving lactic acid 4 . Head Discard Head Meat Not Saved 14 Storage Lactic acid CCP2B l. Receiving Live Cattle 2. Stunning I Bleeding OR Shooting/Bleeding 3. Head I Shank Removal 5. Skinning 6. Evisceration 8 . Splitting 9. Trim Zera Tolerance 10. Final Wash q. Lactic Acid Spray 12.Chilling -Cattle 7. Variety Meats Processing 9. Trim Zera Tolerance (Performed concurrently with step 7) CCPlB 11. Lactic Acid Spray CCP2B Process Flow -Sheep, Swine ... and Goats Pork, Sheep, Goat Slaughter Model Process Flow Diagram Process Category: Slaughter Product: Pork. sheep, goats CCPIB 1. Receiving Live Animals 2. Stunning I Bleeding OR Shooting/Bleeding 5. Skinning 9. Splitting (optional) 10. Trim Zero Tolerance 11. Final Wash 12. Chilling 6. Scalding I Dehairing B. Variefy Meats Processing (optional) 10. Trim Zero Tolerance (Performed concirrently with step B) CCPIB Site Utilities • Onsite Potable Water -6,000 Gallons • Onsite OWTS System Designs -House versus Facility • Main Line Utilities -Gas, Electric and Telephone PARCEL ID : 217918100661 PARCEL ID : 21791 B10069J PARCEL ID: 217917200710 PARCEL ID: PARCEL ID: Site Access GRAPHIC SCALE 'kz5a u i i .:..~~lit. Recommendation of Denial • Insufficient Wastewater Treatment •Insufficient Water • PhySical Access •Fire Protection Proposed Findings -- • That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. • That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting ~ That for the above stated and other reasons the request for a Land Use Change Permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. ~ That the application is in general conformance with Garfield County Comprehensive plan 2030 and further meets the goals of economic development and agricultural needs of Garfield County. @ That the application as conditioned meets the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. Proposed Conditions of Approval ... - ~ All verbal representations of the applicant are incorporated as conditions. * OWTS and Building Permits shall be issued in conformance with the Land Use Permit @ Eagle Springs ranch road shall be improved to meet County and Fire District Standards prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. ~ Applicant shall install a minimum 18,000 gallons of water dedicated for fire protection services per the comments of the Fire District prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. Suggested Findings 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the request for a Land Use Change Permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in general conformance with Garfield County Comprehensive plan 2030 and further meets the goals of economic development and agricultural needs of Garfield County. 5. That the application as conditioned meets the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. Conditions of Approval 1. All verbal representations of the applicant are incorporated as conditions. 2. OWTS and Building Permits shall be issued in conformance with the Land Use Permit 3. Eagle Springs ranch road shall be improved to meet County and Fire District Standards prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 4. Applicant shall install a minimum 18,000 gallons of water dedicated for fire protection services per the comments of the Fire District prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. Kathy A. Eastley I ______________ ._ ______________________________________________________ __ From: Sent: To: Cc: Whitehead -DNR, Dwight [dwight.whitehead@state.co.us] Monday, June 22, 2015 4:12 PM Kathy A. Eastley William West -DNR EXHIBIT w Subject: Ken Sack, Project no. MIPA8246 and Water Well Permit no. 125042, Water Supply to fill a pond Kathy, per our phone conversation today, Water Well Permit no. 125042 would not be allowed to fill the proposed fire protection pond for Mr Sack, project no. MIP A8246. Filling of the proposed pond with well permit no. 125042 would expose Groundwater to evaporation which will create injury to the stream system. A plan of augmentation or replacement water and a new well permit will be needed to prevent injury to the stream system. It appears that the subject well is located in service area "A" of West Divide Water Conservancy District (WDWCD)and the applicant might be able to purchase replacement water from the WDWCD, and submit a new Water Well Permit Application form to our agency, proposing to expand the use of permit no. 125042. Please note all statutory requirements must to be met prior to the issuance of any new well permit. WDWCD website address: h ttp ://wdwcd.org/ Hope it helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Dwight Whitehead Well Commissioner Division 5 Water Resources PO Box 396 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 COLORADO Department of Natural Resources P 970-945-5665 x5011 f 970-945-8741 dwight. whitehead@state.co.us I www .water.state.co.us 1 " State of Colorado Water Resources -View Well Details: Receipt 9114665 Coloredo Department of Natural Resources Colorado's Well Permit Search Well Constn.!ctecl Receipt: 9114665 Division: 5 Permit #: 125042--Water District: 43- Well Name/#: County: GARFIEll> Dalanated Basin: Management District: Case Number: WDID: I [ -] Appllcant:/Owners HistDry Date Range Unknown • Present Applicant/Owner Name BllUIEYER FRED S & PHYU.IS R I [ -] Location Information Approved Well Location: Address 0482 CR 315 Help I Last Refresh: 10/20/201412:01:28 AM City /State/Zip SD. T, ro 81652 -Q40 Qt&O Section Township Range PM Footage from Section Unea SW NE 18 6.0S 92.0W Sixth 1900 N 1750 E Northing (UTM y): 4378926.9 Easting (UTM x): 267407.0 Location Accuracy: Spotted from section lines Phyalcal Address Subdivision Name City/State/Zip Filing Block Lot Parcel ID: 23-2179-18Hl0-681 Acres In Tract: 35.2 I [ -] Pennit Details Dete Issued: 04/23/1982 Date l!>cplres: Usie( a): DOMESTIC STOCK special Use: Aquifer Al.L UNNAMED AQUIFERS (s): Area which may be Irrigated: 1 ACRES Maximum annual volume of appropriation: Statute: Permit Requirements: Totalizing Flow Meter No Geophysical Leia No Abandonment Report No Croes Referencle Permit Number Receipt Description Pennlt(s): Comments: Umlt b> historic use prior May 8, 1972. Phy address: 0482 CR 315, Silt, ro 81652. Tax #R009599. dmw 1/12/07 I [-] eonstruction/Usage Details Well Construction Date: Pump Installation Date: Well Plugged: 1st Beneficial Use: 02/27/1952 Elevation Depth Perfonited Casing (Top) Perforated Casing (BottDm) Static Wamr Level Pump Rate ~ e I [ -] Application/Permit History Permit Issued Application Received First Beneficial Use I r -1 1matec1 0ocumenta Document Name Original File 04/23/1982 03/04/1982 02/27/1952 Cha nge In Owner NamelAddressllW1t!on Ma ps, Deeds & Leoal Oesqlotlons Date Imaged Annotated 12/05/2007 No 11/3/J/2007 No ll/27 /2007 No Copyright @ 2009 Colorado Division of Water Resources. All rights reserved. Home I Contact Us I Help I Water Links I Colorado.gov I DNR I Privacy Poficy I Transparency Online Project (TOP) http://www.dwr.state.eo.us/WellPermitSearch/View.aspx?receipt=9114665 EXHIBIT )( () 10/20/2014 From: Gore . Me!yjo -FSIS To: Kathy A Eastley Subject; RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 12:33:37 PM USDA-FSIS is concerned that Federal Regulations are followed, and specifically in this case 9 CFR 416.2(f) "Sewage disposal. Sewage must be disposed into a sewage system separate from all other drainage lines or disposed of through other means sufficient to prevent backup of sewage into areas where product is processed, handled, or stored . When t h e sewage d isposa l system is a private system requ i ring appro val by a State or local health authori ty, the establ ishment must furn ish FSIS w ith the letter o f approval from that authority upon request." It was the high-lighted sentence that eventually brought Garfield County Planning and Health Departments into review of this project. Without approval of the septic sewerage disposal system by a State or local health authority, USDA-FSIS could not grant inspection of meat and poultry products privileges to Eagle Springs Organics. This being stated, I see two areas of clarification for USDA-FSIS: 1) Will Garfield County require connection of the processing (slaughter and product fabrication) facility to the OWTS prior to issuing a permit for use? and 2) Will the chicken processing facility be connected to the OWTS as part of the permit of use? When Eagle Springs Organics presents your letter of approval of the sewerage/septic system, USDA-FSIS review will start over to ascertain that Federal sanitary standards will be met. One final observation: The engineering reports stated upon occasion that the USDA-FSIS Inspector will be "grading" the carcasses. This is a semantic issue. USDA-FSIS does not grade the slaughtered animals which would place the USDA "Prime," "Choice," grades on the carcasses. USDA-FSIS inspects the carcasses for wholesomeness and no adulteration to insure food safety; USDA-FSIS does not involve inspection for quality grades. EXHIBIT y Have a great day! Melvin Gore, DVM, SPHV c/o Colorado Homestead Ranches 741 West 5th St. Delta, CO 81416 Office: (970) 874 -8637 Cell: (970) 371 -8093 OFO --Verifying Food Safety and An i mal Welfare every day From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:48 PM To: Chris Hale; Morgan Hill; Orrin Moon; Gore, Melvin -FSIS Cc: Tamra Allen; Kelly cave Subject: Ken Sack Animal Processing Good afternoon, Ken Sack has submitted additional materials related to the request for a USDA Animal Processing Facility. You had all reviewed and commented upon the application therefore I would appreciate it if you could review the attached documents to see if your concerns and comments have been adequately addressed. There is a short timeframe for your review so I would appreciate it if you could respond with any comments at your earliest convenience. I do need comments by the end of the day Friday, June 26th. Thank you and feel free to contact me with any questions . Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-13n ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfield-county com EXHIBIT I z_ From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Dear Kathy, Matt Langhorst Kathy A. Eastley Karl J Hanlon ; Tamra Allen ; Kelly Cave RE: Ken Sack Question Tuesday, June 23, 2015 8:47:22 AM I only have the Kill Room drain information that Mark has provided me since I was not there during building construction. The three Kill Room floor drains are directly pipe fed from the drain inlets to the 500 gallon tank on the exterior of the building sitting on a flatbed truck or trailer via PVC piping. They do not have traps in line since they are an open air release to the tank, traps would just cause bacteria buildup. The truck/trailer sits in a loading bay ramp so it is lower than the floor drains, thus allowing a gravity feed to the tank location. See attached photo of drain outlet. Mark and the crew clean the cows with the water and lactic acid and then do a quick flush of the drains into the holding tank to keep them clean also. They can only complete 4 cows a day, from my understanding this is not as much liquid volume as you would guess. Approximately 1.5 gallons of blood per cow per my conversation with Mark, around 0.5 gallons for a pig, goat or sheep. Please let me know if this answers your question. Thank you, Matthew Langhorst High Country Engineering, Inc 1517 Black Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (o) 970-945-8676 (c) 970-379-9847 NOTICE: Use of this electronic media by anyone other than High Country Engineering, Inc. shall be at the sole risk of such user and without liability or legal exposure to High Country Engineering, Inc. By saving these file(s), the user accepts responsibility for this electronic media. From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 4:26 PM To: Matt Langhorst Cc: Karl J. Hanlon; Tamra Allen; Kelly Cave Subject: Ken Sack Question Matt, Could you further explain the floor drain system and how the kill room liquid waste gets from the floor drains into the exterior ground level tank mounted on a flat bed truck? I am assuming that it is not gravity fed. Is there a holding tank under the building or does the flow go straight to the tank? How are those drains cleaned? Thanks. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street. #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfield-county com From: To: Subject: Date: Kathy, ddexter@homesteadmeats.com Kathy A Eastley Re: Meat Processing and water usage Friday, June 26, 2015 9:12 :24 AM EXHIBIT j AA I don't have numbers by species. In general, we slaughter and process about 100 head of beef, 65 hogs and 20 lambs per month. On average we use about 50,000 gallons of water per month. We also make other products, such as sausage-these products are not related to the slaughter of these animals. So some of that water is used for those unrelated activities. Hope this helps, Dale 970-874-1145 From: Kathy A. Eastley Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 1:25 PM To: ddexter@homesteadmeats.com Subject: Meat Processing and water usage Mr. Dexter, I am a land planner for Garfield County and we are currently reviewing a proposal for a USDA inspected animal processing facility. I am interested in understanding the amount of water used in the process -for holding of the animals to slaughter, clean-up and butchering for cows, goats, sheep, pigs and chickens. Could you provide me any estimates on how much water it takes to process one of each of these animals? I have received varying information -anything from 1 gallon of water to process a chicken to 2 gallons of water to process a cow and am just trying to get a ball- park amount of water needed for a facility. Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you . Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfjeld -county .com Contact -Homestead Natural Meats Page 1 of2 Home Beef Pork Bacon & Ham Lamb Sausage Jerky Beef Halves About Us Where to Buy Custom Processing Contact Homestead Natural Meats Homestead Meats (processing facility and retail store) 741 West 5th Street Delta, Colorado 81416 Phone# (970) 874-1145 Fax# (970) 874-1147 Email: ddexter@homesteadmeats.com Email: jburns@homesteadmeats.com Email: ppatton@homesteadmeats .com http://homesteadmeats.com/l 2.html 6/26/2015 EXHIBIT i 0ez From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Kathy, Orrin Moon Kathy A. Eastley Mike Moman ; Rob Jones RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Friday, June 26, 2015 8:17:47 PM I have reviewed the latest changes to the Animal Processing Facility and have the following comment; 1. The latest changes cover my concerns for this facility. I will request that engineered plans be submitted to me on the Fire Pond and Dry Hydrant. I have concerns on the fire hydrant location and the location of the suction pipe and would like to see further detail. 2. The access road from Eagle Springs Ranch Road looks to be adequate in design and structure. I would like to have insurance that the road is built as designed. I am assuming that the engineering firm will have an inspector. 3. I noticed that the entrance gate at the intersection to the entrance road showed no lock. I want to be clear that if this gate locked that we need to have a Knox lock installed for access. Thanks again for allowing me to comment on this referral. Thank you, Orrin D. Moon Fire Marshal Colorado River Fire Rescue 970-625-1243 orrin.moon@crfr.us From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:48 PM To: Chris Hale; Morgan Hill; Orrin Moon; Gore, Melvin -FSIS Cc: Tamra Allen; Kelly Cave Subject: Ken Sack Animal Processing Good afternoon, Ken Sack has submitted additional materials related to the request for a USDA Animal Processing Facility. You had all reviewed and commented upon the application therefore I would appreciate it if you could review the attached documents to see if your concerns and comments have been adequately addressed. There is a short timeframe for your review so I would appreciate it if you could respond with any comments at your earliest convenience. I do need comments by the end of the day Friday, June 26th. Thank you and feel free to contact me with any questions. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garf ield -county com EXHIBIT I CC- Garfield County 195 W. 141h Street Rifle, CO 81650 · Public He alth 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-6614 (970) 625-5200 Garfield County Community Development 108 81h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Kathy Eastley June 26, 2015 Hello Kathy, My comments for the Ken Sack Ariimal Processing facility amendments are as follows: 1. Water Supply a. I stand in support of my earlier comments regarding the supply of water using holding tanks that must be filled on a regular basis. i. The current water supply system of three storage tanks that requires water to be hauled to the slaughterhouse is not a good long-term solution for the life expectancy of this operation. Garfield County Land Use Code requires that a potable water supply be provided that is adequate and of a high enough water quality for consumption by employees; and in this case the processing of meat. We recommend a well be drilled, if possible, that would be tested using the "Deluxe Colorado Package" of the CDPHE Lab Services Division. b. The new estimate on water usage per animal is even lower in the revised updates, indicating that only two gallons per cow of water will be required. While I understand it might be physically possible to use that little of water, this does not allow for the potential to need extra cleaning in the event that animals might be dirty or for other processes requiring water. I recommend significantly increasing the amount of water per animal needed to ensure adequate supply for cleanliness during slaughtering and processing. 2. Wastewater Treatment a. In All Service Septic's Design Specifications, Carla Ostberg indicates that the applicant still has not provided information regarding effluent quality from the Butchering room. This should be provided to both Carla and the Community Development Department. i. It is unclear as to what sort of materials will actually be entering the second OWTS designed for the actual animal processing facility. On our site visit, we were made aware that the blood, intestinal, and other waste coming from the kill room would not be sent into the OWTS but rather stored and hauled to the landfill. However, our understanding was that the room where meat is processed into various cuts for clients will drain to the septic system. Before we approve the system designed by All Service Septic, all parties involved should be aware of exactly what will be entering the system to know how large it should be sized and what level of secondary treatment is necessary. Garfield County Public Health Department -working to promote health and prevent disease b. The MicroFAST treatment system proposed for use in the OWTS from the butchering room requires an operation and maintenance contract that they will have with the client. Copies of this contract and maintenance records should be submitted to Garfield County Public Health and Community Development. 3. Solid Waste Disposal a. The piping that comes from the kill room should be connected fully to the tank that will be used to haul solid waste to the landfill, rather than an open air spout that empties into the tank. This will reduce the potential attraction of flies and other pests to this area, as well as the potential for spills. 4. Product Labeling and Sale a. I did not see an update in the application revisions answering my questions about the names of the various components of Mr. Sack's operations. Several of their listings online indicate that. there is a "USDA Meat and Poultry Processing Plant on site" which is not correct as of this date. This must be removed and all mislabeling addressed. b. Eggs that are produced at the farm are being sold in the Farm Fresh Cafe. Eagle Springs must be a certified egg dealer through the USDA in order to sell eggs at a retail food establishment. Please contact Heather Nara, the current retail food establishment inspector for the Rifle area, with questions at (970) 683-6648. Thank you, lf!uw;(lt'rv 1!{ f:Ate Morgan Hill Environmental Health Specialist Ill Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 141h Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 665-6383 Garfield County Public Health Department -working to promote health and prevent disease EXH IBIT I DD From: To: Subject: Date: Kathy: Chris Hale Kathy A. Eastley RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Monday, June 29, 2015 9:53:30 AM I have reviewed the additional material provided for Ken Sack Animal Processing. The review generated the following comments: The fire suppression pond, location, and access should be reviewed by the Fire Department. The Applicant should discuss if the site wells allow fire suppression as a use; the Applicant should provide well permits to be used for filling of the fire suppression pond. A condition should be included to fence off the OWTS from pasture/animal grazing areas. Feel free to call or email with any questions or comments. 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: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:48 PM To: Chris Hale; Morgan Hill; Orrin Moon; Gore, Melvin -FSIS Cc: Tamra Allen; Kelly Cave Subject: Ken Sack Animal Processing Good afternoon, Ken Sack has submitted additional materials related to the request for a USDA Animal Processing Facility. You had all reviewed and commented upon the application therefore I would appreciate it if you could review the attached documents to see if your conc~rns and comments have been adequately addressed. There is a short timeframe for your review so I would appreciate it if you could respond with any comments at your earliest convenience. I do need comments by the end of the day Friday, June 25th. Thank you and feel free to contact me with any questions. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 EXHIBIT I ~E . r Policy 01-14 Waivers for Roads and Demonstration of Compliance \._ March 3, 20~ A 5 Section 7-107, Access and Roadways, of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) requires all roads to be designed to provide for "adequate and safe access" and reviewed by the designated County Engineer. The LUDC defines "road" as "a County road, State highway, public road, street or alley, or private thoroughfare which affords primary access to abutting property, excluding a driveway accessing a single property." The LUDC defines "private road" as "a right-of-way constructed, established, owned, and maintained by a private party for access exclusively to private property." Many of the roads in Garfield County are private roads in that they are gated and do not serve the general public and they pre-existed the design currently required by the County's Road Standards as defined in Table 7-107. The LUDC allows for the waiver of specific standards provided that the following criteria have been met: 1) an alternative design achieves the intent of the subject standard to the same or better degree and 2) the proposed alternative will impose no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific standard (Section 4-118). In applications that include roads that do not meet current County road standards as outlined in Table 7- 107, the County has asked that Applicants request a waiver of Section 7-107.F, Design Standards, and include in the Application submittal sufficient information, prepared by a professional qualified in the specific discipline, to demonstrate that they meet the criteria outlined in Section 4-118 for granting a waiver. In doing so, the application must include: A Statement of Adequacy -The evaluation of the existing roadway and waiver will need to include a clear statement that finds that the road will be adequate for the proposed use. This statement must be signed by a professional engineer qualified in traffic engineering and licensed by the State of Colorado. To support this evaluation, the following information will be required to be provided: o Geometry of the road - A description of how the private road does/does not meet the design standards in Table 7-107. This should include a chart that compares the private road design to those standards in Table 7-107, as well as a map that shows the existing road design and highlights those areas that deviate from the standards. A narrative may also be helpful in describing the characteristics of the road as they compare to Table 7- 107 design standards. Unless available, this is not intended to imply construction-level drawings. llPage "I ,I o Safety/Structural Issues - A description of obvious safety and/or structural issues obs~rved and a statement about how these issues will be addressed. o Maintenance - A description of how the road is and/or will be maintained. This should be supported with the submittal of any existing or proposed maintenance agreements for the road sections. o Travel Demand -An accurate count of the existing peak travel demand as well as the Average Daily Traffic on the road. This should also include the types of vehicles that currently use the road as well as the additional amount and type of traffic that the proposed use will generate through all phases of its development. Other Evidence of Compliance. In addition, Sections 7-107 .A, B, C, D, and E are required to be addressed, which includes documentation about legal access. Sufficient evidence will be required to be submitted to demonstrate compliance with these sections of the Code. 21Page l J . ] I ] j j l EXHIBIT I FF CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYIN~G _______ , An Em plO)"<t>0\\1'1od Company MEMORANDUM To: Garfield County Community Deve~opment Dept. Matthew Langhorst .JUN :1 0 Z015 From: Revised: June 30 1\ 2015 GARFIELD COUNTY ·MMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT Project: 482 County Road 315, Silt. Eagle Springs Meat Processing Center Submittal Comment Reponses Letter Subject: The purpose of this letter to is to review the comments received from Chris Hale, Colorado River Fire Rescue, Melvin Gore (USDA), Garfield County Environmental Health Department and a water usage email from Homestead Meats in Delta Colorado. I. Chris Hale Comments from June 291 \ 2015: Email Correspondence l. The fire suppression pond, location and access will be reviewed by the CRFR. They have requested some small changes to the intake location and hydrant location, but nothing that will affect the overall design of the facility or quantity of water available to them . 2. The site wells will need to be augmented through a West Divide contract to allow for water usage out of the wells for pond/above ground usage. This process is in the works through the permitting and augmentation process. 3. If the County and County Engineer are requesting a fence around the OWTS system fields at this time, the owner of the property will abide by this condition. II. Colorado River Fire Rescue from June 261h, 2015: Email Correspondence l. More detailed fire hydrant and pond drawings will be worked through with CRFR. The current plans allow for 45,000 gallons plus of water to be located 2' to 3' above the intake per the CFRF details for a pond intake structure. HCE will work with CRFR to provide the detailed information that they require for final pond approvals. 2. As per the Access Report a Geotechnical Engineer will be onsite during the construction of the road to make sure that the proposed road section is I 00% appropriate with the existing onsite soils. The roadway section design was compiled from a sampling of site soils that were available and consistency in the soils along the entire roadway will need to be verified as will the compaction of the placed material during construction. HCE will also provide a Design Engineer onsite as needed to assure that drainage, alignment and width of roadway are being maintained as per the design and as field conditions regulate. 15178LAKEAVENUE,SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970-945·8676 • PHONE 970-945·2555 •FAX WWW.HCENG.COM l l j _] ] I 1 J J 3. There will be no lock added to the main entrance gate. This gate/access is utilized by multiple parties and a lock would hinder that use. If a lock were ever added to the gate it would be a CRFR approved Knox Lock. III. Melvin Gore Response to Kathy Eastley Email, June 23rd, 2015: 1. The sewage disposal system for the waste water leaving the processing room is to be directed to a OWTS system designed to handle the flow from this room, estimated at 300 gallons per day at maximum processing requirements. The BOD/Effluent quality from this room has been confirmed and the information has been sent to All Service Septic. Prior to the Final OWTS system permitting an updated design packet will be submitted and approved through Garfield County. A final system design acceptance letter will be provided to the USDA-PSIS. IV. Garfield County Environmental Health Development, Morgan Hill Letter, June 261h, 2015: 1. Answers to subsections per comment letter: a. The facility owner agrees that the water tank storage and water hauling method is not the ideal situation for the facility. If the facility were to run out of water for any reason the facility would have to shut down until water was made available again, which is not ideal for a business thus the alarms on the tank levels. The water delivery service can have water to the facility within one days' time, which with the tank alarms for half full tanks, provides enough security in timing that the water delivery company can make their need delivery and the facility can maintain a reliable operation. A long term potable pressurized piped water supply is being investigated for feasibility with the City of Rifle. The extension of the Cities mainline at the airport is being discussed and worked out if possible with the City. b. As stated above, ifthe facility uses more water than the estimate due to unforeseen circumstances and the facility runs out of stored water, they will have to shut down the facility until water is delivered. Due to the tank alarms, no matter what amount of water is being utilized that day, the alarms will sound and the plant manager will order more water. The owner can only predict the water usage that they see on a standard day; all other usages will be outside of a normal day and will be handled with a water delivery if necessary. Water usages were lowered when the overall water requirements shifted from a combination of the kill room and production room to individual water usages for each room, not a combined number. 2. Answers to subsections per comment email: a. To my knowledge All Service Septic has not requested the effluent information from Mark (plant manager) or Ken Sack (owner) directly. The effluent quality information has now been provided to All Service Septic as of this date. Any revision to the OWTS system design that may follow with the information that was provided will be caught up in the Building Permit process when the OWTS system is officially permitted for. 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 10 I GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 60 I 970·945·8676 o PHONE 970·945·2555 •FAX WWW.HCENG.COM l ] 1 ·1 ] I J ] 1 1 l J b. The MicroFast system is required by the State of Colorado to have a service .contract for the life of the system to ensure that the system is functioning properly. Garfield County does not have a system for regulation on the MicroFast system or other second level treatment systems available to the public. The Owner of the property will need to supply the County the initial 2 year contract for the system that Valley Precast provides upon installation of the system and then also provide the year to year contracts to the County for the remainder of the life of the system. c. A hard pipe connection that is detachable via a union or other method of construction will be attached to the solid waste disposal piping flowing from the building to the tank as per the County request. V. Water usage email provided to Kathy Eastley from Dale Dexter at Homestead Meats in Delta Colorado, June 261h, 2015: 1. Kathy Eastley had requested Homestead Meats provide a water usage quantity for their similar processing procedures from Dale Dexter. a. The response from Dale on their water usage is fairly unusable for a comparison to this facility. As per Dale's comments they utilize approximately 50,000 gallons of water at their facility during a single month to process 100 head of beef, 65 hogs and 20 lambs. This amount of processing is above and beyond the agreed upon numbers for the proposed facility. Dale also states that they produce other items such as sausage. Upon review of the Homestead Meats website the facility also provides custom cuts on a daily basis for store customers in addition to their actual processing facility in the shop. They also have a store to sell their product to the public. This appears to be a larger facility than the proposed facility with more staff, restrooms for staff in the store, restrooms for the plant staff and other facility options that this processing plant is not requesting or providing for. The Homestead Meats processing facility has machinery onsite for grinding meat, sausage packing, smoking meats, etc. Grinding and packing machines require significant water to clean and the process of producing the sausage also requires water. This facility is hooked to a municipal water supply and Mark the Plant Manager at the proposed facility has stated that if they were hooked to a municipal facility they would be less conservative with their water usage. Maybe all facilities should have limited water so water conservancy is a must. A more defined water usage chart from this facility would need to be reviewed prior to making a comparison or a comparable facility that is run from a limited water supply should be reviewed for comparison. Please let me know if you have questions pertaining to this Land Use comment response letter . Thanks, Matthew Langhorst, P.E. High Country Engineering, Inc. 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970·945·8676 •PHONE 970·945·2555 •FAX WWW.HCENG.COM l l J l 1 1 l I J l J l Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. (Chris Hale) June 29th Comment Letter: 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 10 I GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8160 I 970·945·8676 • PHONE 970·945·2555 •FAX WWW.HCENG.COM From: To: Subject: Date: Kathy: Chr is Ha le Kathy A. Eastlev RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Monday, June 29, 2015 9:53:30 AM I have reviewed the additional material provided for Ken Sack Animal Processing. The review generated the following comments: The fire suppression pond, location, and access should be reviewed by the Fire Department. The Applicant should discuss if the site wells allow fire suppression as a use; the Applicant should provide well permits to be used for filling of the fire suppression pond. A condition should be included to fence off the OWTS from pasture/animal grazing areas. Feel free to call or email with any questions or comments. 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: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:48 PM To: Chris Hale; Morgan Hill; Orrin Moon; Gore, Melvin -FSIS Cc: Tamra Allen; Kelly Cave Subject: Ken Sack Animal Processing Good afternoon, Ken Sack has submitted additional materials related to the request for a USDA Animal Processing Facility. You had all reviewed and commented upon the application therefore I would appreciate it if you could review the attached documents to see if your concerns and comments have been adequately addressed. There is a short timeframe for your review so I would appreciate it if you could respond with any comments at your earliest convenience. I do need comments by the end of the day Friday, June 26th. Thank you and feel free to contact me with any questions. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastle_y@garfjeld-county com n [J n n 0 n [] D 0 ll ] J J J J Colorado River Fire Rescue (Orrin Moon, Fire Marshal) June 26th Comment Letter: 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970·945·8676 • PHONE 970·945·2555 •FAX WWW.HCENG.COM From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Kathy, Orrin Moon Kathy A Eastley Mjke Moraan ; Rob Jones RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Friday, June 26, 2015 8:17:47 PM I have reviewed the latest changes to the Animal Processing Facility and have the following comment; 1. The latest changes cover my concerns for this facility. I will request that engineered plans be submitted to me on the Fire Pond and Dry Hydrant. I have concerns on the fire hydrant location and the location of the suction pipe and would like to see further detail. 2. The access road from Eagle Springs Ranch Road looks to be adequate in design and structure. I would like to have insurance that the road is built as designed. I am assuming that the engineering firm will have an inspector. 3. I noticed that the entrance gate at the intersection to the entrance road showed no lock. I want to be clear that if this gate locked that we need to have a Knox lock installed for access. Thanks again for allowing me to comment on this referral . Thank you, Orrin D. Moon Fire Marshal Colorado River Fire Rescue 970-625-1243 orrjn.moon@crfr.us From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:48 PM To: Chris Hale; Morgan Hill; Orrin Moon; Gore, Melvin -FSIS Cc: Tamra Allen; Kelly Cave Subject: Ken Sack Animal Processing Good afternoon, Ken Sack has submitted additional materials related tot.he request for a USDA Animal Processing Facility. You had all reviewed and commented upon the application therefore I would apprei::iate it if you could review the attached documents to see if your concerns and comments have been adequately addressed. There is a short timeframe for your review so I would appreciate it if you could respond with any comments at your earliest convenience. I do need comments by the end. of the day Friday, June 26th. ] J I ] _J J .J J ] J J J Thank you and feel free to contact me with any questions. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street. #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastl%f@ggrfield-county com I 1 1 J l ] 1 1 J J J USDA (Melvin Gore) June 23rd Response Email: 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 10 I GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970·945·8676 • PHONE 970·945·2555 •FAX WWW.HCENG.COM ] 1 J 1 J From: Gore. ffi!M n -FS!S To : Kathy A. East lev Subject: RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 12:33:37 PM USDA-FS IS is concerned that Federa l Regulations are followed, and specifically in this case 9 CFR 416.2(f) "Sewage disposal. Sewage must be disposed into a sewage system separate from all other drainage lines or disposed of through other means sufficient to prevent backup of sewage into areas where product is processed, handled, or stored . When the sewage disposal system is a private system requiring approval by a State or local health authority , the establishment must fu r nish FSIS with the letter of approval from that authority upon request." It was the high-lighted sentence that eventually brought Garfield County Planning and Health Departments into review of this project. Without approval of the septic sewerage disposal system by a State or local health authority, USDA-FSIS could not grant inspection of meat and pou ltry products privileges to Eagle Springs Organics. This being stated, I see two areas of c l arification for USDA-FS IS: 1) Will Garfield County require connection of the processing (slaughter and product fabrication) facility to the OWTS prior to issuing a permit for use? and 2) Will the chicken processing facility be connected to the OWTS as part of the permit of use? When Eagle Springs Organics presents your l etter of approval of the sewerage/septic system, USDA-FSIS review will start over to ascertain that Federa l sanitary standards will be met. One final observation: The engineering reports stated upon occasion that the USDA-FSIS Inspector will be "grading" the carcasses. This is a semantic issue. USDA-FS IS does not grade the slaughtered animals which would p l ace the USDA "Prime," "Choice," grades on the carcasses. USDA-FS IS inspects the carcasses for wholesomeness and no adu l teration to insure food safety; USDA-FSIS does not involve inspection for quality grades. j 1 Have a great day! Melvin Gore, DVM, SPHV c/o Colorado Homestead Ranches 741 West 5th St. Delta, CO 81416 Office: (970) 874 • 8637 Cell: (970) 371 • 8093 OFO •· Verifyi ng Food Safety and Ani mal Welfare every day · From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:48 PM To: Chris Hale; Morgan Hill; Orrin Moon; Gore, Melvin -FSIS Cc: Tamra Allen; Kelly Cave Subject: Ken Sack Animal Processing Good afternoon, Ken Sack has submitted additional materials related to the request for a USDA Animal Processing Facility. You had all reviewed and commented upon the application therefore I would appreciate it if you could review the attached documents to see if your concerns and comments have been adequately addressed. There is a short timeframe for your review so I would appreciate it if you could respond with any comments at your earliest convenience. I do need comments by the end of the day Friday, June 26th. Thank you and feel free to contact me with any questions. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfi e ld-county c om 1 j J Garfield County Environmental Health Development, Morgan Hill, June 26th, Letter: 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970·945·8676 • PHONE 970·945·2555 •FAX WWW.HCENG.COM Garfield County. 195 W. 141h Street Rifle, CO 81650 Public Health 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-6614 (970) 625-5200 Garfield County Community Development 108 81h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Kathy Eastley June 26, 2015 Hello Kathy, My comments for the Ken Sack Animal Processing facility amendments are as follows: 1. Water Supply a. I stand in support of my earlier comments regarding the supply of water using holding tanks that must be filled on a regular basis. i. The current water supply system of three storage tanks that requires water to be hauled to the slaughterhouse is not a good long-term solution for the life expectancy of this operation. Garfield County Land Use Code requires that a potable water supply be provided that is adequate and of a high enough water quality for consumption by employees; and in this case the processing of meat. We recommend a well be drilled, if possible, that would be tested using the "Deluxe Colorado Package" of the CDPHE Lab Services Division. b. The new estimate on water usage per animal is even lower in the revised updates, indicating that only two gallons per cow of water will be required. While I understand it might be physically possible to use that little of water, this does not allow for the potential to need extra cleaning in the event that animals might be dirty or for other processes requiring water. I recommend significantly increasing the amount of water per animal needed to ensure adequate supply for cleanliness during slaughtering and processing. 2. Wastewater Treatment a. In All Service Septic's Design Specifications, Carla Ostberg indicates that the applicant still has not provided information regarding effluent quality from the Butchering room. This should be provided to both Carla and the Community Development Department. i. It is unclear as to what sort of materials will actually be entering the second OWTS designed for the actual animal processing facility. On our site visit, we were made aware that the blood, intestinal, and other waste coming from the kill room would not be sent into the OWTS but rather stored and hauled to the landfill. However, our understanding was that the room where meat is processed into various cuts for clients will drain to the septic system . Before we approve the system designed by All Service Septic, all parties involved should be aware of exactly what will be entering the system to know how large it should be sized and what level of secondary treatment is necessary. Garfield County Public Health Department -working to promote health and prevent disease l J ] J b. The MicroF AST treatment system proposed for use in the OWfS from the butchering room requires an operation and maintenance contract that they will have with the client. Copies of this contract and maintenance records should be submitted to Garfield County Public Health and Community Development. 3. Solid Waste Disposal a. The piping that comes from the kill room should be connected fully to the tank that will be used to haul solid waste to the landfill, rather than an open air spout that empties into the tank. This will reduce the potential attraction of flies and other pests to this area, as well as the potential for spills. 4. Product Labeling and Sale a. I did not see an update in the application revisions answering my questions about the names of the various components of Mr. Sack's operations. Several of their listings online indicate that there is a "USDA Meat and Poultry Processing Plant on site" which is not correct as of this date. This must be removed and all mislabeling addressed. b. Eggs that are produced at the farm are being sold in the Farm Fresh Cafe. Eagle Springs must be a certified egg dealer through the USDA in order to sell eggs at a retail food establishment. Please contact Heather Nara, the current retail food establishment inspector for the Rifle area, with questions at (970) 683-6648. Thank you, f{&~!L !ft_. lf/rtf, Morgan Hill Environmental Health Specialist Ill Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 141h Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 665-6383 Garfield County Public Health Department -working to promote health and prevent disease I ] I l l ·1 1 I 1 1 J 1 ] J I J J Water usage email provided to Kathy Eastley from Dale Dexter at Homestead Meats in Delta Colorado, June 26th, 2015: 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE I 0 I GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8160 I 970·945-8676 • PHONE 970·945·2555 •FAX WWW.HCENG.COM 1 j l i J From: To: Subject: Date: Kathy, ddexter@bomestwdmeats.com Kat!Jy A. East!ey Re: Meat Processing and water usage Friday, June 26, 2015 9:12:24 AM I don't have numbers by species. In general, we slaughter and process about 100 head of beef, 65 hogs and 20 lambs per month. On average we use about 50,000 gallons of water per month. We also make other products, such as sausage-these products are not related to the slaughter of these animals. So some of that water is used for those unrelated activities. Hope this helps, Dale 970-874-1145 From: Kathy A. Eastley Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 1:25 PM To: ddexter@homesteadmeats .com Subject: Meat Processing and water usage Mr. Dexter, I am a land planner for Garfield County and we are currently reviewing a proposal for a USDA inspected animal processing facility. I am interested in understanding the amount of water used in the process -for holding of the animals to slaughter, clean-up and butchering for cows, goats, sheep, pigs and chickens. Could you provide me any estimates on how much water it takes to process one of each of these animals? I have received varying information -anything from 1 gallon of water to process a chicken to 2 gallons of water to process a cow and am just trying to get a ball- park amount of water needed for a facility. Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you . Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfie ld-county com EXHIBIT I G:; R J i ~ I l "' t ~n P Al ~c~;l. ID· l'ARC~:L ID PARCE L. ID: P,\RCf:I. ID. PAl{Cl':L ID : I 217918 1006al / KfN S4Q<, ,(AC\.( SP!U:ICS M~A 1 ' fAQU IJ sm:. {. t JKll.:NU~l-•TN•1'CI"' !l(~:,.~s~~Al~~~~l'!.:'111:~"'°"°'~POIUll0$T QWITm ~~~="~~~':fa_9'flll.'t3 •IJICt<80':! POI Al.Ql>JIDll IUID 111~' ll(tQllZ(D fl 1K (-/ I. 217917~710 E.~CU: Sl'l'<11:GS ORGANIC . l~· I . ' GRAPHlC SCA.LE ~ T i l!::.-:01 ... l_-...., - ....... 0 ,' "' ' '\ \.. I I / '~ ..... ...... ' \ ' \ I I , ...... \ I -,\-...._ ~ ' i 17917.l007S2 ~OU: SPRtNCS ~CA>ltC, LLC .I ----" ...... ... -- ' \,\ "---..._. ,, ' ! ...... ""-., Design capacity (ADT) Minimum ROW Width I 80 (Feet) so 40 15to 30' 30 60 50 Lane Width (Feet) 12 11 8 Single Lane Sinele Lane 12 12 12 11 Shoulder Width (Feet) 8 6 Min. Paved 4 2 0 0 2 Min. Paved 6 4 Min. Paved 6 4Min . Paved Ditch Width (Feet) 10 10 6 6 4 32 0 Cross Slope 2% 2% Chip/Seal 2% Chip/Seal 2% n/a 3%Gravel 3%Gravel 2% 2% Shoulder Slope 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% n/a n/a Design Speed 35 mph 35 mph I n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum Radius (Feet) 42S 185 I 80 80 so 40 n/a Maximum% Grade I 8% I 8% I 10% I 12% I 12% I 12% I 12% Asphalt or J J Chip/Seal or I I I Native Surface I Chlp/S'"-al Chip/Seal Gravel Gravel Gravel Material I n/a 1 As determined adequate in an engineering review. Primitive road shan be dedicated ROW, driveway can be dedicated as either an easement or ROW. 2 It determined necessarv for adeQu ate dramane . 1. Circulation and Alignment. The road system shall provide adequate and efficient internal circulation within the development and provide reasonable access to public highways serving the development. Roads shall be designed so that alignments will join in a logical manne r and combine Vvith adjacent road systems to to.rm a continuous route from 1 area to another. 2. Intersections. No more than 2 streets shall intersect at 1 point, with a minimum of 200 feet betvveen off-set intersections, unless otherwise approved by the County. 3. Street Names. Street names shall be consistent with the names of existing streets in the same alignment. There shall be no duplication of street names in the County. SACX P!!OCESSI NG FAC ILITY WATE R USAG E CHAR1 M<>n1h!y •nd Dally W•U>r u,.a• C..la.ia ~ons Location Description Number of Unr~ Usage per Unit Total Usage per Month Total per (gal) (~all Dav !gall KJll Room Wo ll!r Use : Cow Processing per Month 80 2 160 8 Pig Proce5S ll'lg per Month 200 4 800 40 Goat Processing per Month 200 3 600 30 Shee,o Processing per Month 200 3 600 30 Butchering Room Sanitizin g of Room (end of day) 20WorltDavs 300 6,000 300 Ad jacent Chicken Plant Chicken Process ing per Month 2000 2 4,000 200 Sln•le Fa mily H~: Three Bedroom Home per Dav 30Days 350 10,500 350 Total Water Usage Du ring Ave rage Fu ll Monthly Production: 22.660 Average Daily Use: 890 0 llV5o of \V,uer A\l clil ,)\:irle wldl 6.000 G.111.on St01 ;1~ 6.7 Notes: 1 .) Avel1l(i!' f.icmrv 1Jse based on 20 wor k d9VS per month. 2.) Kin room cb1tv u$.C alcuJa~d ~it'IR pltz smx:~~ as the maid:mum w-1ier volume. Onlvone type or a nimal can be proceu in a sil\ld.c ~y. 3.) Av~f11g~ ~fngle f11mlly home use based on 30d•vt. per momh, 4 ,.) Odc:k_,n p,oc.e_ulng usane ind'udesc~;:m up of prouss1ng fOOI Suggested Findings I. l11at proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. ·nint th< hearing before the Planning Commission was e),.1ensive and oomplete, that all pertinem fo~I~. matters and issues were submitted and 1ha1 all interested parties were heard at that mcding 3. Uiat for !ho nbow stated and other reasons the request for a Land Use Change Pennit is in the bes! in1~rem of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfiold County. 4 . l11at the application is in general confonnance with Garfield Comity Compr.:lw>Siw plan 2030 and further meets the go;ils of economic development and agricultural needs ofG<Jrlicld County. 5. TI1at the application as conditioned meets the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. Conditions of Approval I. All verbal representations of the applicant are incorporated as conditions. 2. OWTS and Building P•mnits shall be issued in confonnance wilh the Land Use Permit. 3. Eagle Springs Ranch Road and mnin ncccss rond to the facility sliall ~ improved to meet County and Fire District Standards prior IC> issuoncc ol"the Land Use Change PenniL 4. Applicant shall install a n11mmum I 8,000 gallons of water dedicated for fire protection services per the comments of the Fire District prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 5. Appli cant s hall ubrni n a n<w W<ll p;:moit for 1.he onsitc late rcgis1~r.-d well. Permit N<>. 125042 Md o West Di\'idc Conscrvmocy Contract for a ugntdnt3tion of tho well and nnsile fin: protection pond for fire protection purposes prior to i~w nce of the L.ind U$C Chm1gc J>cnnit. 6 . Mo11 1hl )' mJ>xi mums for anirnn l pro~•i ng ~ha ll bc ne> 111or.i than 80 cows. 200 shco p . 200 pig.. nml 200 goats. Total monthly ma)(imums C!ln be i.'O!llpri~cd of any mix or the foreg<.ling nninmls pro,,id<d th :o l the dc$ign par:unet<r.i of th< OWTS 1'}'llltms for 300 gallons per day ma)(imum !low s lmll not be exceeded. 7. The OWTS shall be fenced per Chris Hale's review comments. EXHIBIT I H-~ _Arf>u~ Suggested Findings 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the bearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the request for a Land Use Change Permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in general conformance with Garfield County Comprehensive plan 2030 and further meets the goals of economic development and agricultural needs of Garfield County. 5. That the application as conditioned meets the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. Conditions of Approval l . All verbal representations of the applicant are incorporated as conditions. 2. OWTS and Building Permits shall be issued in conformance with the Land Use Permit. 3. Eagle Springs Ranch Road and main access road to the facility shall be improved to meet County and Fire District Standards prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 4. Applicant shall install a minimum 18,000 gallons of water dedicated for fire protection services per the comments of the Fire District prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 5. Applicant shall obtain a new well permit for the onsite late registered well, Permit No. 125042 and a West Divide Conservancy Contract for augmentation of the well and onsite fire protection pond for fire protection purposes prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 6. Monthly maximums for animal processing shall be no more than 80 cows, 200 sheep, 200 pigs and 200 goats. Total monthly maximums can be comprised of any mix of the foregoing animals provided that the design paran1eters of the OWTS systems for 300 gallon per day maximum flow shall not be exceeded. 7. The OWTS shall be fenced per Chris Hale's review comments. EXHIBIT I :c L Planning Commission, July 8, 2015 Ken Sack Animal Processing KE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION CONDITIONAL APPROVAL A recommendation of approval with conditions should include required additional information or mitigation measures related for identified issues in order to bring application into general conformance with the ULUR and Comprehensive Plan: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS General Conditions 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners in the public hearing. 2. This land use approval is granted for the following activities: a. USDA certified animal processing facility, including cut and wrap of products, for cows, goats, sheep and pigs; b. Maximum processing per month permitted at the site is 680 animals restricted to 80 cows and 200 each of goats, sheep and pigs. 3. The Land Use Change Permit shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of issuance, whereupon the permit shall expire if a public water supply or private (well) water supply is not provided for the processing facility. This water supply shall replace the water hauling scenario which is approved for a temporary period of time of 12 months. 4. Any modifications to the current approval shall require an amendment to the Land Use Change Permit pursuant to the land use regulations in effect at the time of the request. Conditions required Prior to Issuance of the Land Use Change Permit 5. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide Community Development a copy of the USDA approval for the facility. 6. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit/ scheduling of the application for BOCC review the applicant shall provide construction related information regarding proposed physical access via Eagle Springs Ranch Road, compliant with LUDC and fire district standards. 7. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit/ scheduling of the application for BOCC review the applicant shall provide sufficient engineer plans of the proposed pond and dry hydrant for review and acceptance by Colorado River Fire Rescue . 8. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall demonstrate that proposed access improvements to the facility will be consistent with those standards contained in Section 7- 107 of the LUDC. 9. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall complete required improvements including, but not limited to, access, water, wastewater, and fire protection measures or enter into an Improvements Agreement with the Board of County Commissioners to llPage collateralize these improvements. Planning Commission, July 8, 2015 Ken Sack Animal Processing KE 10. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide an acceptable noxious weed inventory to the County Vegetation Manager and a Weed Management Plan, if deemed necessary by the findings of the inventory. The Vegetation Manager shall inform Community Development whether the submitted documents are acceptable. 11. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall demonstrate that a valid well permit has been issued for the fire protection water storage pond and prior to scheduling the application for BOCC review the Applicant shall provide evidence of applying for said permit and any required augmentation. 12. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall demonstrate that the waste vault and haul is equipped with an overflow alarm and shut-off valve. 13. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall validate the proposed water usage numbers utilizing scientific means or comparison with other facilities of this type. 14. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide a copy of an Operation and Maintenance contract for the MircroFAST treatment system for the OWTS. Copies of the annual contract and maintenance records shall be submitted annually to Garfield County Public Health and Community Development departments. 15. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall design and construct an adequate vault and haul system to assure that the piping system for the floor drains in the kill room prevents possible spills and attraction to pests to the area. The design and construction shall be reviewed and found acceptable by Community Development. 16. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall fence the OWTS area to prevent livestock from grazing above the systems. Annual Review 17. Garfield County shall conduct an annual review of the operations to assure compliance with all conditions of approval and standards of the LUDC. Building and OWTS Perm its 18. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and conditions of the Building and OWTS permits issued by Garfield County. Solid and Liquid Waste Management 19. The facility shall abide by all requirements for the OWTS as required by All Service Septic in a letter dated June 17, 2015 and attached as Exhibit V to this report. 20. By-products of the processing activity, including solid or liquid waste, shall not be buried or discarded onsite, but shall be properly disposed of at the Garfield County Landfill. 21Page Planning Commission, July 8, 2015 Ken Sack Animal Processing KE 21. The facility shall abide by all requirements for water quality testing for the potable water tank storage related to the facility. Access 22. All vehicles hauling equipment and materials for this application shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. All vehicles applying for these permits shall have on file with Garfield County Road and Bridge Department a letter or e-mail stating said vehicles can obtain oversize/overweight permits under their road bond on file with Garfield County. 23. The sole access to the processing facility shall occur via Eagle Springs Ranch Road and the on-site driveway access shall not be utilized for any activity associated with the animal processing facility, including employees. Compliance with Standards 24. The Property Owner acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to revocation of the Land Use Change Permit if continued violations of the permit occur over a period of time. 25. Site operations shall not emit heat, glare, radiation, dust or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. 26. If any lighting is proposed to be located at this facility the Applicant shall provide a lighting plan indicating location, height and source of power. Any lighting proposed shall comply with ULUR standards including, but not limited to, lighting directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. 27. Operation of the facility must be in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and permits governing the operation of this facility of this type. 28. Slaughter and processing activity for meat to be used for public sale and consumption shall not occur without a USDA Inspector on site, as required by law. 29. No materials or wastes shall be deposited on the property in a form or manner that may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural cause or force. 3IPage