Exhibits - Major Impact Review - Thomas Tompkins and Diana ... BO… · Exhibits - Major Impact Review - Thomas Tompkins and Diana Lawrence-Tompkins, MIPA 6727 sacc Public Hearing

Exhibits - Major Impact Review - Thomas Tompkins and Diana Lawrence-Tompkins, MIPA 6727

sacc Public Hearing (11/14/2011)

Exhibit. Exhibit Letter

(A to Zl A Proof of Publication, Posting, and Mailings B Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 D Application E Staff Memorandum F Staff Powerpoint

G,H Memorandums from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Manager, dated July 1, 2011 and September 19, 2011

I Letter from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering Inc., dated July 1, 2011 J Email from Jim Rada, Garfield County Environmental Health, dated June 22, 2011

K Email from Dan Roussin, Colorado Department of Transportation, dated June 24, 2011

L Letter from JT Romatzke, Colorado Division of Wildlife, dated June 30, 2011

M,N Emails from Robert Knight, Town of Parachute, dated June 20, 2011 and September 12, 2011

0 Email from Rob Ferguson, Grand Valley Fire Protection District, dated June 17, 2011

P Email from Eric Schmela, dated July 8, 2011

Q Email from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering Inc., dated September 13, 2011

BOCC 11/14/11 MOL

PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS

REQUEST:

APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER:

REPRESENTATIVE:

PARCEL ID:

PROPERTY SIZE/SITE AREA:

LOCATION

ACCESS

EXISTING ZONING

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN of 2030:

MIPA 6727 - Major Impact Review for a "Contractor's Yard"

Thomas Tompkins

Greg Shaner, Colorado River Engineering, Inc.

2407-054-00-085

35 acres /7.23 acres

0998 County Road 309 (CR 309)

Direct access off of CR 309

Rural

Residential Medium High (2 to <6 ACIDU)

I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Thomas Tompkins (Applicant) seeks approval of a Major Impact Review Permit for a Contractor's Yard on their property located at 0998 County Road 309 (CR 309). The subject property is 35 acres in size of which 7.23 acres will be used for the proposed land use .

The property contains an existing single family residence and 3,200 square foot "garage/mechanics shop" which are located on opposite sides of the parcel. Approximately two acres of land has been cleared of native vegetation around and west of the garage for storage purposes. This area is presently

being used for the storage of vehicles, machinery, equipment, and materials of non-agricultural in nature. The Applicant proposes to enlarge the storage area by 5,200 square feet to accommodate snow during the winter.

The Contractor's Yard provides commercial services to the oil and gas industry as a Well Pumper servicing wells . This business requires the storage of pipe and related materials on-site such as lighting . As mentioned above, other equipment, machinery, and vehicles, unrelated to

1

this service are stored on-site which the Applicant's Representative indicates will be removed as part of this application .

Originally, the Applicant believed that the Contractor's Yard would employ workers , which is reflected in the application. However, during the course of the application's review, the Applicant has indicated that he shall be the only employee and wishes this review to be based on this fact.

Since this commercial business has no employees, other than the Applicant, no potable water or wastewater disposal is proposed. However, in the future, when employees are needed, the Applicant will need to amend the Land Use Change Permit to allow employees to work on-site and address the associated impacts of having these employees such as providing sufficient legal and physical water, and wastewater system (Individual Septic Disposal System) , traffic, etc.

The residence and garage/mechanics shop have separate access points onto CR 309. The Applicant indicates that a Driveway Access Permit has been obtained from the County Road and Bridge Department when the garage was built. However, the Road and Bridge Department has not verified this claim.

Aerial Map

II. BACKGROUND In 2008, the Applicant applied for a building permit for a garage with a shop and storage (Building Permit Number BP-11135). A final inspection of this building was conducted in

2

October 2009 but failed since the Applicant was operating a Contractor's Yard at this location without a Land Use Change Permit. The Applicant was told that a Certificate of Occupancy for this structure would not be issued until the Contractor's Yard was reviewed through the Major Impact Review process and a Land Use Change Permit received for this use.

The Applicant's Representative indicates that the Contractor's Yard is not using the garage/mechanics shop for this commercial business but is being used for storage associated with the residence.

III. SITE DESCRIPTION Majority of the site is undeveloped with pinyon and juniper with an understory of sagebrush. However, in the past the subject parcel was used for livestock grazing. The parcel contains three drainages and slopes from the southeast to the northwest. The boundary of the subject property is fenced.

The property to the north, south, and west of the subject parcel is zoned PUD and Rural to the east. The surrounding land uses include residential and agricultural to the east and undeveloped land to the north, south and west.

IV. SITE PLAN The subject site varies in slope ranging from four to seven percent. Twenty percent slopes are found along the east perimeter of the Contractor's Yard but will not be constructed upon. A three foot berm is proposed along the south and a portion of the west perimeter of the storage area to assist in screening the storage yard from CR 309 and direct on-site drainage. After the Town of Parachute reviewed the original site plan they asked that the berm be extended so that stormwater runoff is directed to a one-foot detention area where the snow storage area is situated. This proposal is to prevent any potential hazardous wastes from being discharged overland towards the Town's spring located northwest of the property.

......... ~ ~ ~~---=-... ~

~~ ~

~ ... ~ ~,- ....... -c"'----® "-.... ~-. tj-_·-

!~ ~-i~~1 : t ... -• :::.::.- I : "",;:.- ._-;.; '~ i. - --':~::'~ •• __ n,. ___ ,.,.._._;~:~_~~_.~c&

3

---"\0---.

.- ;j~.

- - - . - - --';:: ~,;;;:;;:;;:;--

";".-:(-", '1,'.0/ I 1

-~=-~: 4 <_<ClIO)

~--.~-....

The driveway that provides access to the subject site is paved for approximately 100 feet which then will become compacted dirt and gravel. The Contractor's Yard will also consist of compact dirt with gravel. The 5:1 slopes disturbed by grading, existing southern drive, and three foot tall berm will be re-vegetated with Native GrassNVildflower seed mix. The berm will also be planted with sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and pinyon and irrigated by a drip system connected to a 1,000 gallon tank that is run on a battery timer. The irrigation of the berm will commence in the spring and end in the fall until stabilized (approximately two years). The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the proposed landscape.

V. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Staff referred the application to the following State agencies and/or County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are noted below and incorporated within the appropriate section of this memorandum. Comment letters are attached and labeled as noted.

Garfield County Road and Bridge: No comments received.

Garfield County Vegetation Manager (Exhibits G and H): Two emails were received from this department indicates the application provides a plant materials list but the list of plant species to be used by scientific and common name for the native grass mix/wildflower mix are not identified. Also, the surface area to be disturbed by the berm around the yard needs to be quantified. Once this information is provided, a revegetation security shall be calculated. The Applicant is also to implement the Weed Management Plan as identified in Environmental Solutions, Inc.'s Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment.

County Consulting Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering (Exhibit I): A letter received from this consultant indicating the following: • The Applicants indicated that water will be hauled to the site for irrigation. The Applicant

should describe the water hauling in greater detail including the source, the duration, the method, the area to be irrigated and if there are any legal ramifications;

• The Applicants need to address any increases in runoff that will be created with the construction of the new parking area and use of gravel; and,

• The name on the West Divide Water contract is not the names of the Applicants. The application indicates that upon renewal of the contract the Applicants will obtain it in their names. This should be made a condition of approval.

Please note that potable water is not being required for this application since there are no employees on-site. Therefore, Staff will not recommend a condition of approval for the Applicant to modify the water contract with West Divide Water Conservancy District at this time.

Garfield County Environmental Health (Exhibit J): An email was received from this department with the following comments: • It is unclear as to whether this application has a stormwater permit; and, • Once the Applicants hire any employees, sanitary facilities will need to be provided.

Colorado Department of Transportation (Exhibit K): An email was received from this agency stating they have no comments.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (Exhibit l): This agency indicates in a letter the following: • Construct facilities and infrastructure outside the time period from December 1 through April

15; • Use wildlife friendly fences;

4

• Implement a Weed Management Plan; • Utilize bear proof trash cans/dumpsters on-site; • Restore appropriate sagebrush species or subspecies on disturbed sagebrush sites. Use

recommended seed mixes in disturbed areas and avoid aggressive non-native grasses and shrubs; and,

• Minimize lighting on-site.

Town of Parachute (Exhibits M and N): Two emails from the Town of Parachute were received. The first objecting to the application and the second stating the Town didn't have any concerns. The Applicant's representative met the Town on-site and explained the project and amended the site plan to address the Town's concerns regarding their water shed.

Grand Valley Fire Protection District (Exhibit 0): The District reviewed the application and has no objections.

Battlement Mesa Homeowners Association: No response received.

Adjacent Property Owner (Exhibit P): One email was received regarding this application. The concerns expressed include: • Didn't receive notification of this application; • Application indicates surrounding land is zoned commercial and the proposed use will have

no impact to surrounding properties. In reality, adjacent properties are zoned residential and marketing and selling these parcels may be difficult with a Contractor's Yard as a neighboring land use; and,

• Concerns about the increased traffic in Battlement Mesa.

VI. REVIEW STANDARDS & STAFF COMMENTS Major Impact Review for a Contractor's Yard is required to adequately address topics in the listed submittal requirements of Section 4-501 (F) Major Impact Review which includes: Land Suitability Analysis (Section 4-502(D)), Impact Analysis (Section 4-502(E)), Erosion and Sediment Control (Section 4-502 (C) (4)), the General Development Standards found in Article VII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR). Pursuant to Divisions 1-3 of Article VII all applications for land use change shall conform to the listed standards. Divisions 1-3 discuss General Approval Standards, Resource Protection, and Site Planning and Development. The Applicant has addressed all of the requirements of the ULUR that apply to this Major Impact Review and Section 7-810, Additional Standards Applicable to Industrial Use.

The following provides a review of specific standards that are of interest when considering the impacts caused by a Contractor's Yard followed by a Staff Comment:

Section 4-502 (DI Land Suitabilitv Analvsis 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site.

2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints.

3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Staff Comment (For items 1-3): The site will be accessed from CR 309 and no sight distance or intersection constraints are evident with this proposed access location.

The Applicant indicates that there are no easements on the subject site.

5

4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Comment The subject parcel slopes from the southeast to the northwest. The areas of the Contractor's Yard that houses the storage and garage maintains slopes ranging in slope from four to seven percent. Along the east and south perimeters of the yard, 20 percent slopes are proposed but won't be developed.

5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. Staff Comment: The property can be described as gently rolling, upland habitats with three major drainages. Boulder fields and rock outcroppings exist in the steeper slopes on the property. Historically, the property was used for livestock grazing.

6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Comment There are three natural gullies that function as drainage on the property. The washes begin on the south and east ends of the property and join into one wash before reaching the Colorado River. The Contractor's Yard is not located near any of the gullies, and will not alter the drainage characteristics of the property. Best Management Practices will be utilized during construction to mitigate sediment runoff, which are identified in the Stormwater Management Plan.

7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. Staff Comment: There is currently a well on site augmented by West Divide Water Conservancy District that serves the single family residence on the subject parcel. No additional water will be required for this application since no employees, other than the Applicant, are working at the Contractor's Yard.

8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Comment The Garfield County Geographic Information System does not identify the site in a designated floodplain or flood hazard area.

9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Comment The subject site consists of Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slope. This soil has moderate infiltration and water transmission rates.

10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Comment The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies the site as not having any geologic hazards. Colorado River Engineering, Inc. also conducted a review of Geohazards of the subject parcel (dated December 27, 2010) and concluded that none exist on the property.

11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. Staff Comment A Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment was prepared by Environmental Solutions, Inc. (dated June 2010) for the subject property. The 35 acre subject parcel consists of gently rolling, upland habitats comprised of two major vegetation communities. The flat, more open areas are dominated by sagebrush steppe vegetation and the drainageways and steeper slopes are dominated by pinyon-juniper forest. The subject site is located in the flatter open area of the property. There are three natural gullies draining the property which start as shallow depressions on the south and east ends of the site and become increasingly steep, wider and deeper as they cut north and west toward the Colorado River. These drainages eventually merge before reaching the river. All three gullies are dry washes draining ephemeral flows such as snowmelt and summer

6

thunderstorm events. There are no indications of a perennial water source, or wetland vegetation found in any of the draws or within the subject site.

The subject parcel was historically used for livestock grazing. The property boundary maintains a post and three wire fence.

No threatened and endangered species or special status plant species (Federally listed, State listed and species of concern) were identified or wetlands found within the subject property or site. The three gullies are considered well traveled wildlife corridors but none of these drainageways are located within the subject site.

12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, paleontological and historic resource areas. Staff Comment: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. prepared a Cultural Letter Report (dated August 16, 2010) which states that three archaeological sites are situated within the 35 acre subject parcel of land and that the existing Contractor's Yard does not impact any of these sites.

Section 4-502 rEI Impact Analysis The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact AnalYSis shall include a complete description of how the Applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis.

1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Comment: The Applicant provided an address list for property owners within 200 feet of the parcel for public notice which is located under Tab 3 of the application.

2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. Staff Comment: The site is located in an area containing agriculture, rural residential and vacant land. More specifically, adjacent properties consist of:

North, South, and West - The property is currently owned by Battlement Mesa Land Investments and is zoned Planned Unit Development. The parcel is currently vacant.

East - The property to the east is currently owned by John, Roy, Marshall, and Danielie Savage and is zoned Rural. Land uses include single family residence and agricultural land.

3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comment: The property consists of 35 acres of gently rolling, upland habitats with three major drainages. Boulder fields and rock outcroppings exist in the steeper slopes on the property. Historically, the property was used for livestock grazing.

4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: The subject site consists of Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slope. This soil has moderate infiltration and water transmission rates.

7

5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies the site as not having any geologic hazards. Colorado River Engineering, Inc. also conducted a review of Geohazards of the subject parcel (dated December 27, 2010) and concluded that none exist on the property.

6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. Staff Comment: There is a well on-site that serves the single family residence. This well is augmented by West Divide Water Conservancy District. Since no employees are proposed with this application, no additional water will be required.

7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. Staff Comment: The subject site consists of Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slope. This soil has moderate infiltration and water transmission rates. An ISDS is not proposed at this time since only the Applicant is working at the Contractor's Yard.

A Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Colorado River Engineering, Inc. dated February 2011 was provided to address erosion, stormwater runoff, and spill prevention and management for the Contractor's Yard. A Stormwater Permit was not included in the application. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that this permit be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department prior to construction or grading occurring on-site.

8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna.

Staff Comment: As with all construction, temporary impacts to the wildlife and flora will be experience, however it is recommended that the project incorporate mitigation measures to help minimize impacts including minimizing the areas of construction disturbance, reseeding and revegetation of disturbed areas, implementation of a Weed Management Plan, provide pet restrictions to prevent animals from running at-large and harassing wildlife, and limiting human activity in the key winter habitat areas. Staff recommends that implementing the applicable "Potential Mitigation Measures" along with the CDOW's recommendations be made a condition of approval.

No threatened and endangered species or special status plant species (Federally listed, State listed and species of concern) were identified or wetlands found within the subject property or site.

b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. Staff Comment: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. prepared a Cultural Letter Report (dated August 16, 2010) which states that three archaeological sites are situated

8

within the 35 acre subject parcel of land and that the existing Contractor's Yard does not impact any of these sites.

c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous

attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Staff Comment: There is no livestock on-site and the fencing defining the subject parcel (posts with three wires) will keep livestock out. The existing fence will not impede wildlife movement and materials stored on-site are not hazardous to wildlife.

No wildlife migration routes exist on the subject site.

d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. Staff Comment: Colorado River Engineering, Inc. Geohazards Summary indicates that there are no hazards on-site.

e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. Staff Comment: The application includes a Stormwater Management Plan that addresses spill prevention, control and countermeasures (Tab 11 in application) prepared by Colorado River Engineering, Inc.

9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(J). Staff Comment: The Contractor's Yard has access off of CR 309. The Applicant indicates that a County Driveway Permit has been issued for this access. However, no access permit was provided in the application.

A traffic study was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. dated June 2010 (Tab 10 in the application). This study assumes four employees which will generate approximately 12 weekday trips. Of these, two vehicle trips are anticipated during the average weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. This report concludes that application will be successfully incorporated into the existing roadway network and that expected traffic volumes require: 1) An R1-1 "STOP" or R2-1 "YIELD" sign at the on-site driveway access approach to CR 309; and, 2) all on-site and off-site signing and stripping improvements should be incorporated into the Civil Drawings, and conform to Garfield County standards, as well as the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - 2009 Edition (MUTCD). Since there are no employees, Staff recommends that the traffic engineer's recommendations be addressed once employees are needed for this operation.

10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comment: The Applicant anticipates that there won't be any long term or lasting additional nuisances in the form of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare of vibration of other emanations will be generated with the change of land use. Construction of the site will be under the guidance of a Storm Water Management Plan for Construction Activities and will limit incidental nuisance that may be encountered with those activities.

9

11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212 (B). Staff Comment: Reclamation of disturbed areas will be in accordance with the Grading/Erosion Control Plan and Landscape Plan.

Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS

1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions Staff Comment: The Applicant's property is in the Rural Zoning District and a Contractor's Yard is considered a permitted land use subject to Major Impact Review. All development standards are met.

2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements Staff Comment: The property is located in Medium High Residential (2 to <6 ACIDU) of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030. In general this application is in conformance with the comprehensive plan however, it does not reflect the specific land use designation as provided in the Future Land Use Map.

There are no Intergovernmental Agreements that affect this parcel.

3. Section 7-103 Compatibility Staff Comment: Presently, majority of the land surrounding the site is undeveloped and existing vegetation screens existing homes in the area. The existing metal building and storage are visible from portions CR 309 but less noticeable due to the structure/storage being setback 340 feet or more from the road and screening provided by existing vegetation.

4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water Staff Comment: There is a well on-site that serves the single family residence. This well is augmented by West Divide Water Conservancy District. Since no employees are proposed with this application, no additional water will be required.

5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply Staff Comment: A water supply analysis was not completed as part of this application because no additional water usage is being proposed at this time.

6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems Staff Comment: No wastewater system will be installed at this time. Once the Applicant hires employees, an ISDS will be required.

7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities Staff Comment: Electric power is supplied to the site and is available to serve the land use.

8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways Staff Comment: The site will be accessed from CR 309 and the Applicant indicates that a County Driveway Permit has been obtained for the driveway of the Contractor's Yard.

A traffic study was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. dated June 2010 (Tab 10 in the application). This study assumes four employees which will generate approximately 12 weekday trips. Of these, two vehicle trips are antiCipated during the average weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. This report concludes that application will be successfully incorporated into the existing roadway network and that expected traffic

10

volumes require: 1) An R1-1 "STOP" or R2-1 "YIELD" sign at the on-site driveway access approach to CR 309; and, 2) all on-site and off-site signing and stripping improvements should be incorporated into the Civil Drawings, and conform to Garfield County standards, as well as the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - 2009 Edition (MUTCD). Since there are no employees, Staff recommends that the traffic engineer's recommendations be addresses once employees are needed for this operation.

9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards Staff Comment: The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies the site as not having any geologic hazards. Colorado River Engineering, Inc. also conducted a review of Geohazards of the subject parcel (dated December 27, 2010) and concluded that none exist on the property.

Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS

1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands Staff Comment: The Garfield County GIS identifies the subject site as "Irrigated, Inadequate Water." Majority of the 35 acres that is flat remains and could be used for agricultural purposes if so desired in the future.

2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Staff Comment: A Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment was prepared by Colorado River Engineering, Inc. (dated June 2010) for the subject property. The 35 acre subject parcel consists of gently rolling, upland habitats comprised of two major vegetation communities. The flat, more open areas are dominated by sagebrush steppe vegetation and the drainageways and steeper slopes are dominated by pinyon-juniper forest. The subject site is located in the flatter open area of the property. There are three natural gullies draining the property which start as shallow depressions on the south and east ends of the site and become increasingly steep, wider and deeper as they cut north and west toward the Colorado River. These drainages eventually merge before reaching the river. All three gullies are dry washes draining ephemeral flows such as snowmelt and summer thunderstorm events. There are no indications of a perennial water source, or wetlands found in any of the draws or within the subject site.

The subject parcel was historically used for livestock grazing. The property boundary maintains a post and three wire fence.

No threatened and endangered species or special status plant species (Federally listed, State listed and species of concern) were identified or wetlands were found within the subject property or site. The three gullies are considered well traveled wildlife corridors but none of these drainageways are located within the subject site.

3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies Staff Comment: No jurisdictional wetlands or water bodies were determined to be present on the subject parcel through a site inspection. The Wetlands Determination letter can be referenced in Tab 7 of the application.

4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants Staff Comment: A Stormwater Management Plan has been provided in the application (Tab 11) that addresses spills since fuel will be stored on-site.

11

5. Section 7·205 Erosion and Sedimentation Staff Comment: A Storm Water Management Plan has been included in Tab 11. A Grading/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been developed for the land use.

6. Section 7·206 Drainage & Section 7·207 Stormwater Run·Off Staff Comment: Drainage on the site has been designed to provide positive drainage away from the garage/mechanics shop and the three foot berm have been designed to direct drainage to the "Snow Storage Area" to temporarily detain stormwater before infiltrating into the soil. This design feature was requested by the Town of Parachute to assist in reducing possible pollutants into their watershed. The Grading/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan addresses all other Best Management Plan treatments for stormwater.

7. Section 7·208 Air Quality Staff Comment: This land use is not anticipated to reduce the air quality below the acceptable levels of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Dust mitigation measures such as watering during construction will be implemented to minimize impacts to adjacent properties.

8. Section 7·209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards Staff Comment: The subject site is identified as a "Low Hazard" area on the Garfield County Wildfire Hazard Map.

9. Section 7·210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards Staff Comment: The Garfield County Geographic Information System identifies the site as not having any geologic hazards. Colorado River Engineering, Inc. also conducted a review of Geohazards of the subject parcel (dated December 27, 2010) and concluded that none exist on the property.

10. Section 7·211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Staff Comment: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. prepared a Cultural Letter Report (dated August 16, 2010) which states that three archaeological sites are situated within the 35 acre subject parcel of land and that the existing Contractor's Yard does not impact any of these sites.

11. Section 7·212 Reclamation Staff Comment: Reclamation of disturbed areas will be in accordance with the Grading/Erosion Control Plan and Landscape Plan.

Section 7·810 Additional Standards Applicable to Industrial Use A. All fabrication, service and repair operations shall be conducted within an enclosed

building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. Staff Comment: If services and repairs are conducted on-site it will occur in the Contractor's Yard area which will be screened by using a combination of elevation differences, the three foot berm, and natural landscaping. Services and repairs can't occur in the garage/mechanics shop since this building is not approved for a commercial use.

B. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right·of·way. Staff Comment: This requirement is met.

12

C. All outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property.

1. All outside storage abutting or facing a lot in a residential or commercial zone shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a site-obscuring fence to obstruct the storage area from view. The fence shall be of material and design that will not detract from adjacent residences. Staff Comment: The Applicant has indicated that possibly gasoline and diesel fuel will be stored on-site. Storage of fuels and product materials are screened by existing vegetation, three foot berm, or difference in elevation. The locations of these tanks are not shown on the site plan.

D. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. Staff Comment: The Applicant has indicated that no industrial waste will be generated at the site.

E. The volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Staff Comment: The activities associated with this application are not expected to exceed County or State noise standards.

F. Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property. Staff Comment: Ground vibration beyond the site boundary is not anticipated.

G. Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision. Staff Comment: The activities associated with this application will not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which would substantially interfere with existing uses or adjacent property owners.

VII. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Discussion during the Planning Commission public hearing included the revision of Condition 8. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a condition of approval which read "No employees shall work at the Contractor's Yard." Th'e condition of approval was included based on the fact that the Applicant represented that there would be no employees on-site, and that the application did not contain any information regarding adequacy of water and wastewater systems. At the public hearing before the Planning Commission the Applicant testified that he has employees that work in the field and will need to pick up and drop off materials at the Contractor's Yard and therefore wished this condition to be amended to allow this action to occur. The Planning Commission agreed and revised the condition to state: "No employees shall work at the Contractor's Yard full-time but pickup and delivery of materials are permitted." Because this leaves open the door to employees working on site part-time, even though water and wastewater have not been adequately addressed by the Applicant, staff cannot support the Planning Commission's revision. Instead staff recommends that Condition 8 state: "Employees shall not be permitted on-site at the Contractor's Yard except for the limited purpose of picking

13

up and delivering materials or equipment."

Also, at the Planning Commission hearing there was confusion on who was the "applicant" for this application. On the application form the Applicant identifies the Applicants as "Thomas Tompkins and Diana Lawrence -Tompkins" but the published notice identified TLT Services as the Applicant. Thomas Tompkins testified at the hearing that: 1) he and his wife are divorced and his ex-wife has no interest in the property or application; 2) TL T Services is one of his businesses; and, 3) his wife quitclaimed the subject property to him. Based on the Applicant's testimony the Planning Commission accepted and included as a Condition of Approval that the Land Use Change Permit be issued in the name of the "true owner." See Condition 22.

VIII. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That the public hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete;

all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings.

2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at those meetings.

3. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.

4. That the application, if all conditions are met, can be in conformance with the applicable Sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended.

IX. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the Contractor's Yard with the following conditions:

1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.

2. That the operation of the facility be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility.

3. Site operations shall not emit heat, glare, radiation, dust or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard.

4. Volume and sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth for residential in the Colorado Revised State Statute 25-12-103.

5. Storage of flammable material shall be conducted so as to meet all applicable regulations utilizing the practices identified in the Stormwater Management Plan, meet all local, County, State and Federal regulations.

6. All lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property.

14

7. Periodic mitigation measures to address fugitive dust shall be performed to maintain the driveway and storage areas at an acceptable level.

8. No employees shall work at the Contractor's Yard full-time but pickup and delivery of materials are permitted .

9. The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the "garage/mechanic shop" identified in Building Permit BP-11135 within 30 days after receiving the Land Use Change Permit for the Contractor's Yard .

10. The building permit for the "garage/mechanics shop" is for a "Shop, Garage, and Storage" and accessory to the existing residence on the property. This permit shall be amended if this structure is to be used as a commercial building.

11. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the Driveway Access Permit for the Contractor's Yard driveway to the Garfield County Planning Department for review.

12. The Applicant shall implement the following Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and "Potential Mitigation Measures" identified in the Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment TL T Contractors Yard-Battlement Mesa prepared by Environmental Solutions , Inc. (dated June 2010) recommendations to mitigate impacts to wildlife include:

• Make a 'good faith effort to construct facilities and infrastructure outside the time period from December 1 through March 15;

• Utilize wildlife friendly fencing to allow safe passage of animals through the property; or utilize a minimum seven foot fencing (solid or mesh to exclude wildlife from areas);

• Implement a Weed Management Plan for the entire seven acre subject site; • Utilize bear proof trash cans and dumpsters outside the garage/mechanic shop; • Restore appropriate sagebrush species or subspecies on disturbed or restoration ; avoid

aggressive non-grass grasses and shrubs; • Minimize night lighting - use full cutoff lighting or timers to eliminate night lighting outside

or hours of occupied operations; and, • Minimize the loss of vegetation and soil erosion adjacent to areas around the

Contractor's Yard.

13. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall obtain a Watershed Permit and submit it to the Garfield County Planning Department for review.

14. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide a plant list identifying the scientific and common names of the plant species for the Native GrasslWildfiower seed mix. This information shall be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department for review.

15. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide the total surface area to be disturbed by the berm around the Contractor's Yard and. submit this information to the Garfield County Planning Department. Once this information is provided, a revegetation security shall be calculated.

15

16. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide a revegetation security to the Garfield County Planning Department.

17. The Applicant shall be responsible for watering the proposed landscape.

18. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall revise the Grading/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to show the location of the water tank for irrigating the landscape and fuel tanks. This revised plan shall be submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department for review.

19. Prior to any construction and grading on-Site, the Applicant shall prov1de a Stormwater Permit to the Garfield County Planning Department for review.

20. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. the Applicant shall provide drainage calculations supporting the Contractor's Yard to the Garfield County Planning Department for review.

21 . Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, vehicles, machinery, equipment and materials not applicable to the proposed Contractor's Yard shall be removed .

22. The Land Use Change Permit shall be issued to the "true owner" or doing business as (dba) TL T Services .

X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To clarify Conditions 8 and 22, Staff recommends revising these conditions to read as follows:

8. Employees shall not be permitted on-site at the Contractor's Yard except for the limited purpose of picking up and delivering materials or equipment.

22. The Land Use Change Permit shall be issued to Thomas Tompkins or to Thomas Tompkins doing business as (dba) TL T Services.

XI. RECOMMENDED MOTION I move to approve a Land Use Change Permit through the Major Impact Review for a Contractor's Yard on 7.23 acres, on property owned by Thomas Tompkins with the Staff recommended findings and conditions.

16

EXHIBIT

IH

MEMORANDUM

To: Molly Orkild-Larson

From: Steve Anthony

Re: TLT Contractors Yard Major Impact Review MIPA 6727

Date: July 1,2011 Added comments-September 19,2011

• In the plant materials list the applicant lists a "native grass mix/wildflower mix". Please list the spec ies to be used by scientific and common name.

• Please quantify the surface area to be disturbed by the berm around the yard. We will recommend a revegetation security for the berm area once we have that infonnation

• Follow fhe weed monitoring and control recommendations as detailed by Environmental Solutions under Section 7.0 of the "Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment".

MOUNTI\IN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CiVil AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUlTING AND DESIGN

July 01 , 2011

Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building & Planning 0375 County Road 352, Building 2060 Rifle, CO 81650

RE: MIPA 6727, Contractors Yard: TLT Services

Dear Molly:

This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the TL T Services Major Impact Application. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following questions, concerns, and comments:

I. The materials state that there will be no increase in water usage but later that they will haul water for irrigation of the proposed landscaping. The Applicant should describe the water hauling in greater detail including the source, the duration, the method, the area to be irrigated, and ifthere are any legal ramifications.

2. The construction yard appears to remove existing vegetation and topsoil and replace with a compacted gravel parking area. Gravel parking usually is considered to allow less infiltration and generate more runoff when compared to existing vegetation. The application materials do not address if there will be increased runoff anticipated from the proposed improvements when compared to the existing condition. The Applicants should address any increases in runoff.

3. The West Divide water contract is not in the name of the Applicant. The materials state that upon renewal of the contract, that the Applicant will obtain a contract in their name. This should become a condition of approval.

Feel free to call if you would like to discuss any part of the review.

Sincerely, Mountai ~ Cross Engineerin

826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH : 970. 945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.l11ountaincross-eng.col11

•

EXIttIBI'J'

j~ From: Jim...Rada. To: Molly QrkjJd -1 arsoo

Subject: MIPA 6727 TLT Services Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:32:03 PM

I Molly,

I

After talking with you today, I feel that I have a clearer understanding or this operation and I offer the following comments regarding this land use application :

1. Although a stormwater permit application is included in the submittal, it is neither signed or dated so it is unclear as to whether this application was ever submitted . The applicant must receive their CDPHE Stormwater Discharge permit before grading or other construction activities may commence.

2. At such time as Mr. Tompkins hires any employees, sanitary facilities will need to be provided . If water and ISDS are not available at the time new employees begin , a portable toilet will be needed on a temporary basis until appropriate water and wastewater facilities are installed .

Thanks for the opportunity to review this application .

. Iim Hililil Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 14th Street Rifl e. CO 81650 Phone - 970-625-5200 x8113 fax - 970-625-8304 Cell - 970-319-1579 jradjl@garfieltl -co!lnlyeuru wwwgarfi eld -cOllnt y com

From: To: Subject: Date:

Royssin Daniel

Molly Ockjld-! arsoo

nc . Major Impact Review Friday, June 24, 2011 12: 16:25 PM

I have. no comments

Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6290 Fax

EXHIBI:r

I~

STATE OF COLORADO

John W. Hlckenlooper, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver. Colorado 80216 Telephone: 1303) 297·1192 wildlife ,state .co .us

Garfield County Building and Planning Department Attn: Molly Orkild-Larson 0375 County road 352, Building 2060 Rifle, CO 81650

REC~ JUL 07 2011

GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING

RE: TLT Services Contractors Yard on 7.2 acres - Colorado River Engineering

Dear Ms. Orkild-Larson:

Fo!' Wildlije­For People

June 30, 20 II

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Garfield County Land Use Application MIP A 6727. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has reviewed the project report and offers the following comments. We hope you will include them in your discussions with the applicant and approval process as appropriate.

The CDOW identifies this site as being mule deer critical winter range, elk winter concentration area and elk winter range. Our concern is to minimize disturbance to deer and elk during the period between December I and March 15.

• Make a good faith effort to construct facilities and infrastructure (machine shop, access road, etc.) outside the time period from December I through April 15 .

• Utilize wi ldlife-friendly fencing to allow safe passage of animals through property; or utilize minimum 7-foot fencing (solid or mesh) to exclude wildlife from areas.

• Implement the weed management plan for the entire 7 acre site. • Utilize bear proof trash cans and dumpsters outside of the shop building. • Restore appropriate sagebrush species or subspecies on disturbed sagebrush sites. Use

recommended seed mixes for reseeding in areas of disturbance or restoration; avoid aggressive non-native grasses and shrubs.

• Minimize night lighting - use full cutofflighting or timers to eliminate night lighting outside .of hours of occupied operations.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to conunent on this project. The mission of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) is to protect, preserve, enhance, and manage wildlife and their environment for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the people of Colorado and its visitors. One of the ways we achieve this mission is to comment on land use proposals such as the request we received from you.

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Mike King, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tim Glenn, Chair. Robert Streeter, Vice Chair. Mark Smith, Secretary

Members, David R. Brougham. Dennis Buechler . Dorothea Farris. Allan Jones. John Singletary. Dean Wingfield Ex Officio Members, Mike King and John Salazar

If you have any questions, please feel free to call Elissa Knox, the District Wildlife Manager in Parachute. She can be reached at 970-255-6156 .

.---S-incerely, ( ~-~ '. ~ .. "~.... s~ --.

. /.~ <: ~ L //JT Romatzke

Area Wildlife Manager Colorado Division of Wildlife

cc. Dean Riggs, Assistant Regional Manager Elissa Knox, District Wildlife Manager file

From: To: Subject: Date:

Robert Knjght MQlly Qrkjld-LarsQo

Plan review file MIPA 6727

Attachments: MQnday, Juoe 20, 2011 8:25:10 AM RQbert J Knjght yet

Molly

This subject property is in the watershed district of the Town of Parachute. In fact, the

area he wants to build upon is directly on top of our drainage for our spring water. The

Town of Parachute is absolutely opposed to this project and it is highly unlikely any

watershed permit would be approved.

Robert J. Knight TO'im Of Parachute Town Adminisu"atc,,.

(970) 285·7630 i'Ve·rk rober [email protected]

EXHIBIT

i N From: To: Subject: Date:

Robert Knight

Molly Qrkjld-La fSQO

lL T Property

Attachments: Monday, September 12, 2011 8:51:29 AM Robert J Knight yd

Molly

We met with representatives for the TLT project in our watershed. They made some

suggested changes to their site plan and the Town of Parachute has no further concerns

with this project.

Robert J. Knight Town Of Parachute Town Adminisb"ator

(970) 285 ·7630 \·Vc.rk robert!<@parachutecolorado,com

GRAND VALLEV FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 0124 STONE QUARRY RD ~_!!~~!!!I_"

PARACHUTE, CO 81635 EXHIBlf PHONE: 285-9119, FAX (970) 285-9748 1 0

June 17,2011

Molly Orkid-Larson Garfield County Planning and Building Department 108 8th Street, Suite 40 I Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I

Subject: TL T Services - Major Impact

Ms. Larson,

I have reviewed the application for the Major Impact review for the TLT Services project located at the SEI/4 SEI/4 of section 5 , Township 7 South, Range 95 West. The Fire District has no objection to this project and approves it to continue to move forward.

Even with the Fire Districts review of the plans it is the responsibility of the owner to make sure the building complies with the International Fire Code 2003 Edition. If you should have any further questions please feel free to contact me.

Rob Ferguson Deputy Fire Chief - Operations

Cc: Chief Blair File

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

Eric Schmela Molly Orkjld-La rsQo

Fred Jannao II T Services Major Impact Review Friday, July DB, 2011 9:04: 15 AM

EXt.llBliI'

If

Molly - I am writing in regards to a submittal from TL T Services for a Contractors yard that which Battlement Mesa Partners owns nearly all of the surrounding property.

First, I have yet to receive any official notice of the application and as of today, my office has verified with the Parachute post office that they have no record of this delivery and nothing pending for today's delivery. I was very recently provided some documents from the Battlement Mesa Service Association who is copied as a courtesy for all near by submittals. As land owner on three sides of the subject parcel, the applicant may want to send me a copy of the application for review.

More importantly, I would like to address a couple of issues that I see from a quick review of what I have seen. First item of importance is that the applicant states in their application that the surrounding land is zoned commercial and will have no impact to the surrounding properties when in fact nearly all adjoining land owned by us is zoned residential. I am concerned about our ability to develop, market and sell this as a residential product down the road as a result. Secondly, I know that traffic issues into and out of Battlement Mesa has always been a critical item of review for the County for all submittals we have made. To allow for the potential buildout out Battlement Mesa as currently zoned and approved, Battlement Mesa Partners has gone to great expense to preserve that future opportunity for us as a developer, but also for the growth and prosperity of the community. Our most recent effort was our partnering with COOT and Garfield County to the tune of some $450,000 on our part towards the design and instalation of traffic signals at 1-70 interchange at the Parachute exit. Our continued development efforts, albeit now at a near stand still as a result of economic conditions, are all based on our traffic mitigation efforts. I would like the County to take note of our efforts and submittals such as this one in the end add up and could have Significant impacts to the overall traffic flows in the future. I do not want to be the sole esponsible party as we have invested significant time and money in preserving Battlement Mesa's ability to grow.

There may be other items of concern or worthy of comment, but without a copy, it is difficult to comment.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments, and I look forward to speaking with you if need to further discuss.

Regard, Eric

Eric Schmela 970.379.7943 [email protected]

From:

To: Subject: Date:

'Molly & Greg:

Chris Hale "Greg Shaner"; Molly Qrkjld-Larsoo RE: MIPA 6727, Contractors Yard: nT Services Tuesday, September 13, 201110:56:05 AM

I have reviewed the updated drawing Ihat incorporated the revised grading and berm. The review generated no additional comments.

F eel free to call with any questions or comments.

Sincerely , Mountain Cross Engi neeri ng, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs , CO 81601 Ph: 970.945 .5544 Fx: 970 .945.5558

From: Greg Shaner [mailto:Shaner@coloradorivereng ,com] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 4:00 PM To: Molly Orkild-Larson; Chris Hale Subject: RE: MIPA 6727, Contractors Yard: TLT Services

Molly/ Chri s,

I emai led this to Mark Austin (Town of Parachute Engineer) for his consensus that what we

discussed is addressed. Essent ially the rown 11as asked that the berm be extended so that ru noff is

directed to a 1-ft deten t ion loca tion where the storage/snow storage is. Th e idea is to prevent any

potential hazards from discharging overland toward s th eir spring. Once M ark is in agreement wi th

this, we can move forward with a watershed permit from th e Town.

Gregory G. Shaner, PE

Colorado River Engineering

136 E. 3,d Stree t

Rille, Colorodo 8 1650

970.625.4933 (o)

970.6254954 (f)

970319.9744 (e)

~ Please COl/sider tile environment be/ore printing th,s e-mail.

TlJe information contained in this e·maif message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, iwd exempt frOIll dis closure tinder applicable laws. ff the reader of this message is not the intended reCipient, or the employee or agen.1 responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printiny, reproduction, disclos ure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal action or sanction.