Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.02.2004Exhibits for Mamm Creek Commons, SUP Public Hearing held on June 20, 2005. Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Return -Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended. D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Project Information and Staff Comments F Mamm Creek Commons SUP Application G Memo from Matt Sturgeon, Rifle Planning Director, dated 6/14/05 H Memo from Kevin Whelan dated 6/14/05 I A letter from Mike Morgan, Rifle Fire District, dated 5/16/05 J Memo from Road & Bridge dated 6/13/05 K Memo from Steve Anthony dated 6/10/05 L Letter from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering dated 6/10/05 M Me from Dwain Watson, CDPHE, dated 6/15/05 N L.e 64" itLh 7f .�I),),Z14-' - 74 /a r e� 7/9 0 l/ f, - or P , Z Alc, ' 7G 14( %1{, . /GibL iryi , 7 v .. 0?l'(ita f� kt a' U -/A/1/4). Q 1, R S T U V X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH H JJ KK LL MM NN 00 PP • • BOCC 8/2/04 JWH PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT LOCATION SITE SIZE WATER SEWER EXISTING ZONING SUROUNDING ZONING Special Use Permit for the storage of oil and gas drilling equipment, storage, or material handling of natural resources. Mamm Creek Commons, LLC Approximately 1 mile south of the Garfield County Airport on County Road 319 and Grass Mesa Road 47.19 acres Central Water System ISDS A/R/RD A/R/RD I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Applicant proposes to build and operate or lease three (3) separate buildings of approximately 9,000 sq. ft. for oil and gas industry companies in and near the Grass Mesa Area, The buildings would provide storage of oil and gas drilling equipment; storage or material handling of natural resources. The use would include storage of oil and gas industry related vehicles of various size, a repair shop and maintenance facilities, warehouse, and office facilities on 2 plus acre building envelopes for each building. Hours of operation are proposed to be 24 hours although operations that would generate excessive noise will be limited to 8 am to 6pm Monday through Friday. Each building will be provided with domestic water and fire protection from a central water system supplying water to two buildings on a piece of property across CR 319. An engineered ISDS system will be designed for each building. Access to two of the buildings will be from a shared driveway off of CR 319 and the third building will have a driveway off of the Grass Mesa Road. Electricity is in place, but there is no natural gas to the site at this time. LP gas will be used for the foreseeable future. II. SITE DESCRIPTION The topography of most of the 47+ acre site slopes from the west to the east, toward County Road • • 319. A significant portion of the property has very steep slopes, that have limited development potential. In addition to indigenous grasses, the primary vegetation is sagebrush, pinion and juniper trees. The land uses to the east, across the County road are medium to heavy intensity industrial uses, tied to the natural gas drilling activity in the area. Other nearby uses includes relatively large properties consisting of grazing and pastureland and BLM land. All of the property surrounding the subject site is privately owned. There are various observed wildlife habitats nearby to the property. IV REFERRALS Staff referred the application out to the following review agencies and or County Departments: a. City of Rifle: (Exhibit G) b. Rifle Fire Protection District (Exhibit H & I) c. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department: (Exhibit J) d. Garfield County Vegetation Management (Exhibit K) e. Garfield County Engineer, Chris Hale/Mt. Cross Eng. (Exhibit L) f. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environ. (Exhibit M) V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Land Use Maps: The property lies within Study Area 3 and is designated on the proposed land use map as: Outlying Residential, 2 -acre minimum. The Applicants proposal is industrial which is not consistent with the present designation on the county's land use map. Although recent approvals by the Board of Special Use Permits VI. ZONING RESOLUTION REVIEW STANDARDS In the applicants cover letter, they state that the three buildings will be built for "sales, storage and repair of equipment and sales, storage and handling of materials and natural resources." The A/R/RD zone district allows by Special Use permit "storage" and "storage of heavy equipment" and "storage or material handling of natural resources". There are no provisions for "sales" of equipment or natural resources. Any approval given to this project needs to be very clear that sales of equipment or natural resources not extracted on the site, is not a part of the project approved. The storage and delivery of products to the field would be acceptable, but to acknowledge retail sales is not consistent with the allowed uses in the A/R/RD zone district. Special Uses are subject to the standards in Section 5.03 of the Zoning Resolution. In addition, the proposed use, due to its industrial nature, shall also be required to address the industrial performance standards in 5.03.07 and 5.03.098 of the Zoning Resolution. Staff presents these review standards below followed by a response. 2 • • A. Section 5.03 Review Standards 1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Response: The Applicant has demonstrated the ability to provide required water rights that would adequately serve the proposed use based on a review by the County' s Engineering consultant, Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering. But, Mr. Hale notes that there "no information is provided on the physical system pertaining to supply, demand, storage, capacity, and their respective appurtenances". He further notes that "from information provided by the applicant in other applications, it could only be inferred that the water system was constructed as planned and that it has an adequate physical supply." The application states that "until the water system is approved by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment as a community water system , there shall be no more than 12 on site employees in all three buildings." This statement is clear in the intent, but it is an unenforceable statement. In the traffic study, consultants use an assumption that there will be 3-4 permanent employees in an office, along with 7- 8 delivery employees. It is unclear how the applicant's can assert that there will only be 12 employees on the site, since there have to be some people working the storage areas. Chris Hale addressed this issue in the following statement: "Based on our interpretation of the "New Water System Capacity Planning Manual" of the Water Quality Control Division of the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), this is a new water system, constructed after October of 1999, and needs to submit evidence of technical, managerial, and financial capacity to obtain approval from the State. It could be argued that it is intended to serve greater than 24 employees, evident by the West Divide Contract. Therefore, this water system should already be in compliance with the State, regardless of the current number of employees. It is therefore recommended that this water system have State approvals prior to issuance of the SUP. Section 5.03(1) appears to support this." Additionally, in a memo with CDPHE staff, it appears that this system is either a Transient Non -community System or a Non -transient Community System, since it will serve over 25 people, some of which are on site and some are transient.. The Transient Non -community System serves more than 25 people, but the 25 people include a number of transient people using the onsite water facilities. No Capacity Development Approval is required, but the State does have to approve the water system and treatment methods, as noted previously by Chris Hale. Since the applicant has not provided any more detail to the system, than that noted previously, 3 • • staff can only assume that the system meets one of the State classifications and needs to be approved by the State. Based on the comments from the County's consultants, the application has not demonstrated an ability to meet the proposed uses domestic needs. The Rifle Fire District performed a flow test on the fire hydrants on June 10, 2005 and found less than 2 psi flow. This does not provide adequate flow for fire protection purposes. They noted that this test is worse than the last test, which failed to meet standards. This means that the previously approved SUP for Lazier is in violation of the conditions of approval for that project. Based on the Fire District's comments, there is inadequate water for fire protection purposes. Sewage is proposed to be an engineered individual sewage disposal system. Any approval of the project should include a condition requiring the submission of an engineering ISDS with any building peanut. 2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposeduseand to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Response: Chris Hale stated the following: "The applicant has provided existing traffic counts for County Road #319 West Mamm Creek Road. The traffic counts that were used were from the morning and evening peaks, yet the increased traffic is reported in the conclusions as an Average Day. However these counts do not appear to be congruent with the counts performed by Garfield County Road and Bridge in 2002. Also, since the exact industrial uses are unknown at this time, it is recommended that multiple trip generation studies be used and then these studies averaged to estimate trips. Lastly, the increase in traffic is customarily related to a Level of Service, calculated per the methods of the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, to determine if the impacts are significant or not. Section 5.03.07(D) speaks to the increased traffic that is anticipated from the proposed Special Use and it is our opinion that these impacts have not been adequately conveyed." Garfield County Road and Bridge has issued a driveway permit for the proposed access to the two buildings on the south side of the property that accesses directly onto CR 319. No additional comments have been received from the Road and Bridge Department. Staff concurs with Chris Hale that the traffic study dealt with minimal data and did not research other data sources. On the other hand, the area already does have a lot of industrial traffic traveling the road, some of which is from tenants that will be occupying the proposed buildings. 4 • • 3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character; Staff Response: The application includes a landscaping plan consistent with plans accepted by the County for the same types of buildings on the east side of the County road. The landscaping plan not less than 1000 sq. ft. of irrigated green belt area per building, including lawns and shrubs and trees. In addition to the green belt, there will be a minimum of 10 ft. wide area of river rock, trees and shrubs, adjacent to the County road for the length of the property. In addition to the river rock/shrubs, a berm 3 to 4 feet in height, 20-30 ft. in length and irregular shape. The proposed landscaping plan has been completed for the property on the east side of the road and generally been found to be acceptable. B. Section 5.03.07 Industrial Operation Industrial Operations, including extraction, processing, fabrication, industrial support facilities, mineral waste disposal, storage, sanitary landfill, salvage yard, access routes and utility lines, shall be permitted, provided: I) The applicant for a permit for industrial operations shall prepare and submit to the Planning Director ten (10) copies of an impact statement on the proposed use describing its location, scope, design and construction schedule, including an explanation of its operational characteristics. One (I) copy of the impact statement shall be filed with the County Commissioners by the Planning Director. The impact statement shall address the following: a) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, stream flow or ground water; Staff Response: All material extracted from equipment through any washing of equipment will be contained in a seal tight container, such as a sand trap. The material will be removed from the site, when the container is full. No material that is not domestic waste will be allowed to enter any ISDS. A grading permit application was submitted to the County Engineer's office for review and sent back for additional information. The application did not have a grading plan, just a landscaping plan, which was unacceptable. b) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; Staff Response: The Applicant has indicated there "shall be no generation of vapor, dust, smoke, glare, vibrations, or other emanations permitted on this 5 • • lands", They maintain that these limitations will be imposed as a part of any lease agreement with the future tenants. c) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions; Staff Response: The application included a Wildlife Report from Beattie Wildlife Consulting for the Mamm Creek Commons subdivision. All of the evaluation done on the report was based on the impacts of a proposed 24 lot subdivision. As discussed in the conclusions of the study, it is noted that there will still be significant open space, thus wildlife habitat. Additionally, it is noted that the area of the proposed lots (and SUP buildings) "are currently poor wildlife habitat because of heavy grazing , an absence of prior or current irrigation, soils low in nutrients, low forage biomass, poorly developed ground and shrub layers, monotypic woodlands, and low vegetative diversity." Additionally, the report states the proposed subdivision "will not result in the loss of critical wildlife habitat, nor will ti affect wildlife migration routes". In summary, it appears that the wildlife impact should be minimal, but the study only deals with residential impacts, not light industrial. d) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses and their impacts to areas in the County; Staff Response: The Applicant has provided a traffic impact study for the project based on a one day count, nearly a year ago. Chris Hale has questioned the validity of a one day count, truly representing an "Average Day". Particularly, when there is other data available to use for comparison with the one day count. The City of Rifle has acknowledged that the location of the proposed buildings for this type of activity is good, but want to have traffic directed the Mamm Creek I-70 exit, rather than the Airport Road and the main Rifle I-70 exit. e) That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s); Staff Response: The application notes that the proposed uses are in an area that has already started to develop with similar uses. The Grass Mesa development has 68 residential houses that pass through the northern portion of the site and by one of the three buildings. There is the potential for conflicts with truck traffic and local traffic, but the residences are at least lh mile away from the proposed development. f) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for the standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed a list "Supplementary Use 6 • • Regulations" that are to be attached to each lease, requiring the tenants to comply with the standards. The proposed landscaping plan has been acceptable to the neighbors. 2) Permits may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate mitigation for the following: b) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or conditional use is issued, if required. The applicant shall furnish evidence of a bank commitment of credit, bond, certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the County Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation plan in workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications and construction schedule established or approved by the County Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds or check shall be payable to and held by the County Commissioners; Staff Response: The Applicant has not provided adequate information in the application for Steve Anthony to make a determination as to whether or not there would be a need for revegetation security. This information needs to be provided before any Special Use permit is approved. c) Impacts set forth in the impact statement and compliance with the standards contained in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution. Staff Response: see Section 5.03.08 Below. C. Section 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards All industrial operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses are located, in accord with the following standards: 1) Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. Staff Response: The Applicant has stated that there will not be any noise generated from the site in excess the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised statutes and made that a standard in each lease agreement. There is no analysis of the potential noise in the application. 2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any 7 • • point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located; Staff Response: The Applicant has stated that there will not be any vibration generated from the site and made that a standard in each lease agreement. There is no analysis of the potential vibration in the application. 3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be operated so as to comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards; Staff Response: The Applicant has stated that there will not be any smoke and particulate matter generated from the site and that every use shall comply with all Federal, State and County air quality standards and made that a standard in each lease agreement. There is no analysis of the potential smoke and particulate matter in the application. 4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: 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 signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision; Staff Response: The Applicant has stated that there will not be any emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes which would substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property and made that a standard in each lease agreement. There is no analysis of the potential noise in the application. VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting; and all pertinent facts, matters and issues (other than sound levels of the proposed use) were submitted prior at the meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit is NOT in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is NOT in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as Amended. 8 • • VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends DENIAL, for the following reasons: 1. The application does not provide documentation in compliance with Section 5.03 (1) demonstrating "utilities adequate to provide water service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use" Plans and specifications of the water system need to be reviewed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Rifle Fire District needs to approve the physical amount of fire protection water. j61-xt -74'2 --C—; 0,C.S— 4L-/ 9 • • Mark Bean From: Matt Sturgeon [msturgeon©rifleco.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:16 AM To: Mark Bean Subject: Mamm Creek Commons Attachments: Matt Sturgeon.vcf Matt Sturgeon.vcf (550 B) Mark, Sorry for the late response; hopefully, it's not too late. EXHIBIT a Rifle has no objections to the requested subdivision. It makes some sense locating oil and contractors in close proximity to the fields provided adequate infrastructure exists to support said operations. Rifle would request the County place a condition on the Special Use Permit that requires truck traffic traveling to other areas of west Garfield County go east to the Mamm Creek interchange to access I-70 and not use Airport Road and the main Rifle interchange. We have imposed the following conditions on a similar Conditional Use Permit: 21. There shall be no more than 180 truck trips a day (90 going/90 coming) occurring from the site. All truck and heavy equipment traffic shall be directed eastward on Airport Road (Mark, this site is at Buckhorn Dr about 1 mile east of Wal*Mart). An annual deposit of $1,000 shall be provided to the City of Rifle by no later than March 1 of each year beginning in 2005. Those funds will be used to perform one unannounced traffic count per year to ensure that truck traffic is heading East on Airport Road as represented and required. Should the independent study determine truck traffic exceeds the daily limits and/or is traveling westward, the applicant shall be notified and shall be required to deposit an additional $1,000 within 30 days to be used by the City to conduct a second, unannounced evaluation. If a violation is discovered a second time, a show -cause hearing will be schedule with the Planning Commission to consider termination of the Conditional Use Permit. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Matt Sturgeon, Director Planning and Development Department City of Rifle 202 Railroad Ave Rifle, CO 81650 970-625-6254 1 • Mark Bean EXHIBIT H From: Kevin Whelan [kewhelan@riflefiredept.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:27 PM To: Mark Bean Cc: mamollenkamp@riflefiredept.org; mimorgan@riflefiredept.org Subject: Hydrant flows for Mamm Creek Commons- CR.319 This is a follow up e-mail from our phone conversation regarding the hydrant flow at Mamm Creek Commons. I was not present at the test but I have spoken to both Chief Morgan and the crew that ran the test. The test was conducted yesterday, June 13, 2005. The flow from the system was measured at 2 psi and thus does not meet code for acceptance by the fire district. It is my understanding that this system did not pass previous test(s) and a request(s) from the fire district for a set of design plans has not been received as of yet. If there are any further questions, please contact the district. 6/15/2005 RIFLIRE PROTECTION May 16, 2005 Mamm Creek Commons, LLC. 45705 Highway 6 & 24. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attention: Jimmy Sills Mr. Sills, STRICT 1 have received your letter addressed to Matthew Mollenkamp dated May 6, 2005. In review of your letter and comments, 1 will respond to each item individually. 1. Hydrant flow and location; The,'location",of th ,Hydrants has been reviewed and is in compliance with F' e de. "' . „p', p„ The capability was inadequate when. tested by the District. 0. 2_ Building Construction Occi Bance ,,;`fhe th e hbu fire wall is a requitement the Building I' req en of Code,'not thell fr Codeand if,th'e„County Building Official has approved this, then the Distriit is fine with it aj,„well. Iae Fire .District will inspect extmguisheirs, etc:' when the iiaw testingIS conducted en May25th 3. Pump house piping; Weywill conihic'It, a walk-4hro� h f this f c the flow test on ay 125' 'I”' ility when we do 4_ Fixe ProteetiOn btotage: As specffied.in initial letter$,.narainimUrn of 180,000 gallons of fire xtecbio ,wa Ib ,I P n.� ter storage is required for this,l�evelopment. The District does,not get invoked in the (C'ounties zoning p9roc�ess;on.l�vhat types of doe ly III tanks are actable"oto them.. ' ?II ' I'I + id+ry ip As stated above, the flow testing has been scheduled for May 25th. We will do a walk through and an, evaluation of the"Isystems in place at thitt`tjme. In addition, 1 would like a copy of the design specifications for our ' files. ,,Think you and feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or comments. Telephone (970) 625-1243 • Fax (970) 625-2963 • www.riflefiredept.org 1850 Railroad Avenue • Rifle, Colorado 81650 • Mark Bean From: Wendy Mead Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 8:59 AM To: Mark Bean Cc: Jake Mall Subject: Mamm Creek Commons Good Morning Mark, Sorry so slow getting this back to you. Meant to do it last week. The comments for this subdivision are same provisions for the driveway permit as before when orginal driveway permit was issued. If any further questions, please contact Jake Mall directly. Thank you. Wendy Mead 1 • • MEMORANDUM To: Mark Bean From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Mamm Creek Commons SUP Date: June 10, 2005 EXHIBIT k Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this permit. My comments are as follows: 1. Noxious Weeds and Weed Management A. Weed Management -The applicant states that weed control will be required in the gravel yards. Will the owner or the tenants be responsible for this? 2. Revegetation and Landscaping A. Revegetation The applicant needs to provide details on any exposed slopes left by this project How much surface area if any, outside of the building envelopes and work areas, will be left bare? If there is an area left disturbed that is greater than one-half acre then a revegetation security would be appropriate. There wasn't enough information in the application for staff to make that recommendation at this time. B. Landscaping The Landscaping Plan and Sketch Design were not specific in regards to the applicant's intended placement of plant materials. If the Commissioners are concerned about the landscaping, I recommend that the applicant provide a Landscape Plan that goes into greater detail about specific plant materials (to include shrub/tree species and a seed mixture). The location of the tree/shrub species should be described in greater detail. RECAEIO JUN 1 3 2005 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING June 10, 2005 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN 3 EXHIBIT 1. RE: Review of Special Use Permit for Mamm Creek Commons, LLC Dear Mark: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Special Use Permit (SUP) of the Mamm Creek Commons, LLC. The following comments, questions, or concerns were generated: 1. The documentation appears to provide sufficient evidence of a legal supply of water per Section 5.03(1). However, no information is provided on the physical system pertaining to supply, demand, storage, capacity, and their respective appurtenances. From information provided by the applicant in other applications, it could only be inferred that the water system was constructed as planned and that it has an adequate physical supply. 2. Based on our interpretation of the "New Water System Capacity Planning Manual" of the Water Quality Control Division of the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), this is a new water system, constructed after October of 1999, and needs to submit evidence of technical, managerial, and financial capacity to obtain approval from the State. It could be argued that it is intended to serve greater than 24 employees, evident by the West Divide Contract. Therefore, this water system should already be in compliance with the State, regardless of the current number of employees. It is therefore recommended that this water system have State approvals prior to issuance of the SUP. Section 5.03(1) appears to support this. 3. Section 5.03(1) requires that sanitation services be provided. Since individual sewage disposal systems are proposed without evidence of adequate percolation results, it is recommended that as a condition of approval, each building site should have an engineered sewage disposal system prior to obtaining a building permit. 4. The applicant has provided existing traffic counts for County Road #319 West Mamm Creek Road. The traffic counts that were used were from the morning and evening peaks, yet the increased traffic is reported in the conclusions as an Average Day. However these counts do not appear to be congruent with the counts performed by Garfield County Road and Bridge in 2002. Also, since the exact industrial uses are unknown at this time, it is recommended that multiple trip generation studies be used and then these studies averaged to estimate trips. Lastly, the increase in traffic is customarily related to a Level of Service, calculated per the methods of the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, to determine if the impacts are significant or not. Section 5.03.07(D) speaks to the increased traffic that is anticipated from the proposed Special Use and it is our opinion that these impacts have not been adequately conveyed. 5. The CDPHE now regulates construction sites disturbing areas of one acre or more. It is very likely that the construction of these buildings and ware/storage yards will disturb areas larger than this and the applicant should anticipate obtaining permits from the State. This office is in agreement with the 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com Mamm Creek Commons SUP Page 2 of 2 • • 06/10/2005 consultant of the applicant, that the anticipated increased runoff is minor and therefore detention to mitigate the quantity of water from the site is unwarranted. However, since runoff from precipitation is an obvious method of transport from the site per Section 5.03.08(5)(C) a detention/treatment system to trap sediments and stored materials to protect the quality of stormwater would be warranted and is recommended. A stormwater management plan and erosion control plan is required to obtain the CDPHE permit. It is recommended that as a condition of approval, CDPHE discharge permits are obtained and a method of stormwater treatment is proposed, prior to obtaining building permits. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mounta. Cross Engi eeriy, Inc. ris Hale, PE MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826'/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com a Mark Bean From: DWAIN P WATSON [DPWATSON a@SMTPGATE.DPHE.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:42 AM To: Mark Bean Subject: Drinking Water Definitions Hey Mark: Here are the definitions from the Primary Drinking Water Regs. These regulations were recently updated this spring. (87) Public water system (PWS) means a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves an average of at least twenty-five individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. Such term includes: (i) Any collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities under control of the operator of such system and used primarily in connection with such system. (ii) Any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not under such control, which are used primarily in connection with such system. Such term does not include any "special irrigation district." A public water system is either a "community water system" or a "non -community water system." (74) New waterworks means: (i) Any newly constructed public water system, or (ii) An existing system that becomes, by definition, a public water system by extending its infrastructure through physical expansion by virtue of increasing the number of connections, the number of individuals served, or by extending the number of days of service. (75) Non -community water system means a public water system that is not a community water system. A non -community water system is either a "transient, non -community water system" or a "non -transient, non -community water system." (76) Non -transient, non -community water system means a public water system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year. (77) Non -transient population means the average number of individuals served per day during the year or normal operating period(s), who do not reside at the place served by the water system, but have a regular opportunity to consume water produced by the system. Regular opportunity is defined as four or more hours per day, for four or more days per week, for six months or more per year. (118) Transient, non -community water system means a non -community water system that does not regularly serve at least twenty-five of the same persons over six months per year. The key here is 25 people or 15 taps, either of which drops the system into a public water system. If 25 people and/or 15 taps with full time year round residences it is a community system. Once a system reaches (or plans to reach) an average of 25 people a day for at least 60 days or more per year (not residential) it is a non -community PWS. Next is wether it is Nontransient or Transient. Each has different sampling requirements. Transient serves an average of 25 people people a day (not the same people) 60 days or more a year. If the system served an average of 25 people a day of the same people for more than 6 months then the system is non transient. If the system serves less than an average of 25 people a day of the same people and/or does not hit 6 months; but those people plus others add up to an average of 25 people per day for 60 days or more per year the system is transient. 1 • As you can see, it does not take much for a business to fall into the definition of a public water system if it is not already connected to a district or municipal source. Very few businesses with their own water system fall outside of these definitions. In order to do so, we usually require that they submit proof, such as reservations, receipts, etc. Regards, Dwain Watson, Drinking Water Specialist Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Grand Junction Regional Office (970) 248-7156 Dwain.Watson@state.co.us http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/tech/techhom.html 2 • LAWRENCE M MINCER ATTORNEY AT LAW July 5, 2005 • 818 Colorado Avenue, Suite 101 Post Office Box 850 Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81602 (970) 945-5448 Fax (970) 945-5475 To: Mark Bean, Garfield County Building and Planning Board of County Commissioners Re: Mamm Creek Commons LLC Special Use Permit Application Last Wednesday we received a draft of 17 proposed conditions for the Special Use Permit requested by Mamm Creek Commons. A copy of these is attached. We have reviewed these and agree that conditions 1 through 7 and 12, 13 and 17 should be conditions of the Special Use Permit. The applicant has submitted information concerning the water requirements and plans for fire protection to the Rifle Fire Protection District for review and approval. Last Friday the Fire Department tested the system. The pressure at the hydrant with the 2 1/2 inch port open was less than the 100 PSI required by the department. As a result, we have asked our engineer to review this requirement with the fire department, and will make the changes to the fire protection system as outlined in the attached letter to Jeff Odor. The applicant will comply with the additional requirements of the Fire Department. Storage of fire protection water should be allowed as part of the Special Use Permit as required by the Fire Protection District. We would therefore request that proposed condition 9 be changed as follows: Applicant shall comply with the fire protection requirements of the Rifle Protection District prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for any of the three proposed buildings. Storage of fire protection water as required by the Fire Protection District shall be allowed as part of the Special Use Permit. The vegetation report submitted with the application contains recommendations regarding replacement of disturbed vegetation. Applicant will submit additional information to the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department. Satisfactory compliance, mitigation actions, security or other requirements recommended by the department shall be in place prior to the issuance • • of any Certificates of Occupancy. This is the ability to comply with the recommendation of the Vegetation Management Department and needs to be done in conjunction with the construction on the business because, they may in part be related to the work being done on the property at that time. The applicant will agree to the proposed condition 11, however some other modification should be made for security purposes. We would therefore ask that the height requirement be reduced to 6 feet and that this condition be changed to permit non -obscured screening in areas needed for security purposes. The applicant will agree to the conditions set forth in 13, except that as stated in the application, the buildings will be approximately 9,000 square feet. As a result, proposed condition 15 becomes redundant because of the previous language regarding on site sales. The applicant would request that condition 16 be changed to require payment of the engineering bills sent to applicant prior to the approval of any Building Permits. Attached is a copy of a memo from Jeff Odor to Chris Hale regarding the domestic water system. Domestic water is in fact available for the buildings based on the current system which is now in place and has been operating since last March. With minor changes and some storage, the system will be adequate for all five proposed buildings. As previously noted, the applicant has agreed to submit plans for approval of the water system to the Colorado Department of Health. Because of the limitations imposed by the condition number thirteen, the applicant believes it should be allowed to develop a sufficient water system in conjunction with the construction of the improvements on the property. We would therefore propose that condition on the special use permit application be included to provide that the applicant may obtain two building permits and a complete construction of one building and obtain one occupancy permit prior to the approval of the domestic water system by the Colorado Department of Health. The current system is adequate to support the additional buildings. The applicant is fully ready to discuss all of these and any other requirements which the Board wishes to address. • • 1. All representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board. 2. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all State and Federal regulations and standards, such as Noise Abatement, Water and Air Quality. 4. Vibration, emission of smoke and particulate matter, and the emission of heat or radiation shall comply with applicable Federal, State, and County laws, regulations and standards. 5. Any signage installed on-site shall obtain a sign permit in compliance with the applicable County Sign Code. 6. Any changes to the Special Use Permit for all uses as listed in the application as amended and the exhibits as attached shall require an amended Special Use Permit.. 7. The Applicant shall provide the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division with information and analysis as per the "New Water System Planning Manual" regarding the type of water system the proposal will be using. A copy of the letter of approval of the domestic water system State shall be provided to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department. A copy of the proposed water system plans, specifications and design assumptions shall be submitted to the County at the same time they are submitted to the CDPHE. 8. No building permits will be issued prior to the approval of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division's approval of the proposed domestic water supply system . 9. The Applicant shall determine actual water service potential and submit this information to the Rifle Fire Protection District for review and approval. The resulting response shall be sent to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department noting satisfactory compliance, or mitigation actions recommended by the reviewing entity which shall be in place or satisfied prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit or building permit. 10. The Applicant shall provide a Vegetation Report to the Garfield County Vegetation Management Department with a response sent to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department noting satisfactory compliance, mitigation actions, security or any other requirements recommended by said department which shall be in place prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit. • 11. The Landscaping Plan proposed in the application shall be in place prior to occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy for any building Additionally, all storage of heavy equipment shall be enclosed in an area with screening at least eight (8) feet in height and obscured from view at the same elevation or lower. This Plan shall be submitted to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department as a part of any building permit application. 12. Hours of operation shall be 24 hours for all activities internal to the proposed structures (not including outdoor storage) and any operations that would generate excessive noise will be limited t 8am to 6prp, Monday through Friday. "-,-1-)6-a fi< QtQ4 13. The Applicant shall(only be allowed to build and operate or lease three (3) separate buildings o 9,000 sq. ft. for oil and gas industry companies in and near the Grass Mesa Area and by code, allowing storage of oil and gas drilling equipment, storage, or material handling of natural resources. There shall only be a total of twelve (12) on-site employees allowed, only four (4) for each of the three (3) buildings. For each of the 2 acre building envelopes the use shall allow only one (1) building for storage of oil and gas industry related vehicles of various size, related to the oil and gas industry, a repair shop and maintenance facilities, materials related to the oil and gas industry in a warehouse, and office facilities as noted in the application and consented to in the meetings before the BOCC. On site sales shall not be allowed. 14. All heavy traffic heading north from the site, will be directed to use County Road 352 to access the Mamm Creek I-70 interchange. 15. No retail or wholesale sales will be allowed on any of the sites. 16. Prior to the approval of any building permits or the Special Use Permit, the applicant shall pay all engineering bills incurred as a part of this review. 17. In accordance with section 9.03.05 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, this Special Use Permit is subject to one (1) periodic review, six (6) months after the issuance of the permit. The purpose of such administrative review is to determine compliance or noncompliance with any performance requirements associated with granting the Special Use Permit. The review is limited to the performance requirements and conditions, of this Resolution, imposed at the time of the original issuance of the Special Use Permit. Non -Compliance will be referred to the BOCC. • • 319 PROPERTIES, LLC. 45705 HWY. 6 & 24 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO. 81601 PHONE 970. 947. 9511 FAX 970.947.9233 e-mail July 2, 2005 Mr. Jeff Odor High Country Engineering, Inc. 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 RE: FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM Dear Jeff, This past Friday (07-01-05) I met with Matt Mollenkamp with the Rifle Fire District and he conducted a flow test on the fire hydrant installed for the Varco and National Oilwell buildings. I would appreciate you contacting Matt to discuss the results of this test as I think the results he is looking for is just not obtainable with a system that incorporates mechanical equipment and we may need to install storage tanks at an elevation to assist the pumps. Matt indicated that I need to have 100 PSI with the 2 1/2 inch port on the fire hydrant wide open. I simply can not achieve that result even by running the static pressure up to 150 PSI and I do not think we want to increase pressure more than that. After we tested our hydrant Matt and I went down to test the nearest operating hydrant located at the Rifle Storage Park on Airport Road. The static pressure at that hydrant was less than 100 PSI and when opened dropped to between 30 and 40 PSI. It seemed to stabilize around 36 PSI. Our hydrant dropped to around 10 PSI when opened. From my experience as a plumber the past 40 years and talking with Dodsons about this problem I am convinced that pumps are not the answer. In order to meet the fully opened fire hydrant flow requirements we are going to have to install additional tanks at the highest elevation possible on the Mamm Creek Commons property and have asked the BOCC for approval to do so. It is extremely important that I get this issue resolved as soon as possible in order to get the CO for these two buildings. If the BOCC lets me get back to work on the Mamm Creek Commons property I can install some tanks but need you to work with the Rifle Fire Protection District on the design requirements. • • It looks to me like we can use the 2 existing 30 horsepower pumps and pump the water stored at elevation 5670 to additional tanks at elevation 5760. The elevation of the highest building proposed is at elevation 5660 so we would have around 50 PSI as gravity feed to the fire hydrant. I need you to get approval from the Fire District that this meets their requirements I had hoped that we would not need to install the final water system until we submitted a PUD application but that is not going to be the case so I guess we had better get with it. By the way Jeff thanks for your quick response to Chris Hale on the domestic water system. I will fax that information and this letter to Larry Mincer for his use at the BOCC meeting July 5th. I can't be there for the meeting but if things go well we should be able to get back to work on the project and get this system in place shortly. Thanks, Jimmy Sills 1 P'� ��4�`"f'n • CIVIL ENGINEERING L1NTR i ENG1NEFE1iV.3 An bmpbyes-Owned Campam' • LAND SURVEYING MEMORANDUM ' t)fl P C'' +�., ...... is To: CHRIS HALE. MOUNTAIN CROSS F_NGINEERinj P'ti?CcA "R .� • '�F+ b'�1 FROM: JEFF ODOR, REVIEWED BY ROGER NEAL DATE: JUNE 30, 2005 SUBJECT: S.U.P. FOR MAMM CREEK COMMONS HCE JOB NO: 2031046.00 Chris, This memo is in response to the cormnents provided by you dated June 10, 2005 addressed to Mark Beau and reflects the conversation I had with you on June 29, 2005 regarding the water systema for this special use permit. As a result of the conversation, the application for a community water system with the State of Colorado is not required to have been submitted prior to the BOCC meeting on July 5, 2005. It is understood that the application will he submitted at the earliest opportunity. Upon submittal to the state, a copy of the application for the community water system will be submitted to Garfield County for their records. The Manun Creek Commons SLT application is for, construction of 3 commercialilight industrial buildings. The water systema is proposed to provide service to these 3 building and currently consists of an existing purup station, and infrastructure that is mostly in place. In addition to the existing infrastructure, a storage tank will be required and some minor additional infrastructure. The full water system being discussed here: includes the system to provide service to the existing 2 buildings under a previous SUP and the 3 proposed buildings under this SUP application. 1 517 SLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970945.8676 • PHONE 970-94.2555 • FAX WWW.HGENG.COM 14 INVERNESS DRIVE E,.sT, SUITE F.120 ENGLEWOOD; CO 801 12 303-926-O644 • 1'ytONE 303-92S0547 .FAx i ;,.ah COUNTRY EN:,IfJtERIfJ,� • • , 1 83a The domestic demand for the water system, including the proposed SUP, is an Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF) of 2400 gpd. This is generated using 100 gpcd (gallons per capita per day) and a population of 24 users, 4.8 users per building, This demand was then correlated to a peak hour demand of 7.5 gpm using a peak factor of 3 and a 16 hour day. Refer to the attached calculations and the Civil Ertsineering Reference Manual, Ninth Edition, by Michael R. Lindeburg, P.E. There is also an irrigation. demand for these buildings. The demand was determined using the West Divide Water Conservancy District, Water Use Estimates Table provided tinder the augmentation plan. This table, included with this document, indicates a total irrigation diversion of 525 acre-feet per year. The distribution of this diversion indicates that the peak irrigation usage is July at 1.23 acre-feet. These amounts are based on 61 lots each having an irrigation area of 1500 square feet. Based on this, 5 lots will use 0.1 acre-feet of water in the month of July. Assuming 15 days of irrigation during the month, the usage for the 5 lots is 290 cubic feet per day (2.26 gprn based on a 16 -hr day). The peak flow was determined using the same meth.od as described for the domestic peak flow. The system infrastructure consists of 6" PVC waterline from the pump house to the farthest south building proposed under the SUP. This is the longest length of pipe and therefore will incur the greatest head loss. However., with the small peak hour flows, the calculated head loss of the water system including the domestic and irrigation flow is less than 0.1 feet and is considered negligible. Refer to the attached calculations. Some additional, length of pipe will be installed to provide service to the proposed buildings. Since the head loss is negligible in the 6" main, the head loss ix' the additional length of pipe will also be considered negligible. Storage will be required for this system. Three days of storage is planned requiring 7200 gallons of storage for domestic use and 6500 gallons for irrigation. The total storage requirement is 13,700 gallons. This storage tank will be located behind the proposed pump house and will supply pumps to pressure the distribution system. This storage is for domestic and irrigation use only, as described above. This storage amount satisfies the storage requirement for the 2 existing buildings and the 3 proposed buildings under. this SUP for a total of 5 buildings. Fire protection is provided via a separate tank and is provided by others. The entire pump station consists of a total of 4 pumps. Two of the pumps are for fire protection and will not be discussed here. The other two purnps are Gould Pumps, G&L Series Model SSV. A pump curve for these pumps is attached to this docurnent. The pump curve indicates that a single pump is capable of 40 gprn at 275 feet o.f head. This is more than adequate to provide the necessary flow and pressure to each of the 5 buildings. Pressure reducing valves are recorzunended for the buildings to reduce the operating pressure. The pump station also includes a chlorination injection system for the domestic supply. 1517 BLAKE Av4NUE, 5Ur E 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 9709458676 • PHONE 970.94.5.2555 • FAX WWW.NCENG.CON 14 INVERNPfg D1t1vt EAST, Surra F•120 ENGLcwOOD, CO 80112 3r)3-9250844. PHONE 303-925.0547 ►FAY July 9, 2005 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 JUL• 1. 8 2005 GARP LL) LOUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING • k o MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN RE: Response to Memos Concerning Water System for SUP of Mamm Creek Commons, LLC Dear Mark: This office has performed a review of the Memorandums dated June 30, 2005 and July 8, 2005 from High Country Engineering concerning the proposed water system and fire system for the Special Use Permit (SUP) of the Mamm Creek Commons, LLC. The following comments, questions, or concerns were generated: 1. The calculations provided with the Memorandum, dated June 30, 2005, show that the system has adequate capacity and storage for the potable water system. The SUP could be approved by the Board with the following conditions: It is recommended that no building permits be issued until the water system has been submitted to the State for approval and that no certificate of occupancy be issued until approval from the State has been obtained. Copies of the information submitted to the State should also be submitted to Garfield County to complete their files on the application. The above memo specifically excluded fire protection but is addressed below. 2. Based on the Memo dated July 8, 2005, the Fire District has not yet determined that the fire protection system is adequate. It is recommended that no building permits be issued, at a minimum, until the Fire District has determined adequacy. At the request of High Country Engineering, a copy of the Memo is attached for your files. It is unclear from the information provided whether or not the available water storage would be accessible during times of power failure. Since the pumps are described as providing pressure it is inferred that a power failure would cause the system to loose pressure. Therefore another recommended condition of approval would be to explain the impacts that a power failure would have on the system and develop a contingency plan that is acceptable to the Fire District. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineer g is Hale, PE Attachment 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com P.O. Box 19c 8 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood springs, Co 81602 • Eilt4C4144ELLAI 4tirs s-IsSoa fres, pec i EEr r CONSULTAINT5 July 21, 2.005 Mr. Mike Morgan Rifle Eire Protection District 1850 Railroad Avenue Rifle, CO 81660 Re: Marnm Creek Commons Dear Mike: iek • (970) 945-57oo (970) 945-1253 Fax In follow up to our telephone conversation July 20, 2005 we have preared this and brief plan to document the work that Marnrn Creek Corn pons must complete letter to obtain your approval. Zarteanella and Associates field inspected the fire supply system for Mamm Creek Commons. There are currently -hive mobile tanks ori the Mamm Creek Commons property which hold approximately 19,000 useable. gallons in each or a total of 95,000 gallons. It has been determined that the piping deliver; system is inadequate to deliver the required fire flow to the hydrant that was intended to serve the two new buildings. To remedy the current situation, we propose to move the five mobile tanks to a location in between the two new buildings, (as shown in the attached plat). The header pipe connecting the five tanks will be changed to an eight inch pipe with a six inch draft connection with NFT threads for a direct connection to this Rifle Fire District pumper truck. it is clearly understood by the client, Mamrri Creek Commons that no farther certificates of occupancy will be granted for any of the proposed PUD units until a water system is developed that will be capable of delivering 1 500 gprn with a 20psi residual to lot. A complete layout of hydrant focations and piping system with adesignflownet will be submitted to Rifle Fire District for approval prior to construction. If you agree that the above described approach is acceptable for a fire supply stem for the two existing buildings, please sign below and return one copy to our office and the work will be completed for your final inspection. • ft you have any questions, Please call aur office at (970) 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella & Associates, Inc. Thorns ; A. Zancan&fa, P.E. cc: Don Scarrow M1ke M Date fle Fire District z;4.25r3C0 25312 srnowViftefiredistrlctdx /IQ P.D'5 /4, -,1;1 -Lf PrQ5 ,./-Ae rQJ1 /9c ►�p� IaYts Pet S1 ,� .cc /aS-/;n9,16/41` tja 4(2 i4(1-(1;y1A(2_ /,* 4 Mobil Storage Tank • PLA\ V Mobil Storage Tank Valve W • 3 Mobil Storage Tank DROP L V FWV Valve Riser 5' Berm Fill for Freeze Protection 6 NFT Close Up of Connectopm Detail PROJECT LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = DRAWN BY: JULY 00, 2001 CHKO 8Y: APPD BY: DRAWING: LocTopo.dwg PVC Pipe Valve Riser " PVC Pipe Valve Valve CLIENT ZANCANELLA AND ASSOC/RTES, /NC. ENG/NEER/NG CONSULTANTS' POST OPF10E 009 1908 - 1003 COOPER AVENUE " NFT FIGURE NO. 1 PROJECT: 71RYY