The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 Staff Report BOC 9.14.09Exhibits for BOCC Public Hearing on Glenwood Commercial Center held on September 14,2009 A Mail Recei B Proof of Publication c Garfield Cou Zonin Resolution of 1978, as amended D Garfield Cou Com ensive Plan of 2000, as amended E Garfield County Subdivision ulations of 1984, as amended F Staff Memorandum dated 9114109 G Application H ication Addendum Letter and lan set Letter from the Glenwood Fire protection District dated 3125109 J Comments from qg!!ry Project Engineering dated 2t25t09 K Memorandum from the Cou etation ma er dated 3/31/09 L Letter from the CGS dated April 6, 2009 M Letter from the City of Glenwood Springs dated April 2, 2009 N Ease ments of record on the Glenwood Commercial property o res provided by adjacent property owner to the north (to be provided at heari Pictu P Letter from Christine L dated April 8, 2009 a Pictures provided by Christine Lynch's daughter at PC hearing (to be rovided at heari R Letter from the DWR dated 4l21l1g S Letter from B&P to licant dated 7129109 T Letter from DWR dated 8126109 U Letter & Su lemental lnfo from cant dated 716109 V Letter & Su lemental lnfo from icant dated7l2l09 W Email comments from the County Project Rpvigw Engineer dated 7131109 x I Y /1 L z l -v \ -)\ \ ( \: \'\( 1' t, \ \ \ ., \. i\ i\ v\ I J \ i \ I \ lul \i.- PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS BOCC 09t14t09 FJ Preliminary Plan: Glenwood Commercial Subdivision Glenwood Commercial, LLC, David Hicks 2520 South Grand, #210, South Glenwood Springs at the municipal limits on the east side of State Highway 82 4.19 acres City of Glenwood Springs City of Glenwood Springs State Highway 82 Commercial General (CG) REQUE ST APPLICANT / OWN ER LOCATION PROPERry SIZE WATER SEWER ACC ESS EXISTING ZONING Project Site { rU ffi I I I. PROPOS ED SITE PLAN "\&.Lt{;t8L{-c J9 /, J3' -ry .ry j I j -fu"-.,. *i(t*# trcf Pd€tris ,*flftrdnt 9] ,&!rf,o{a_ lrafi. o gfir stfr*.fir$@ wul;'. ,a E]89' 3 *s; I '1 @ {i gs6 {i eJb ffi I a * s ;I* o .B po @ q\ ffi oLas*o@ *&Nt ffifft &f€t rausli it lMSIIIft td aij95 ['40'80' 'l lNCli = a0 FEET -$ 6!trtr6'ffi 9. 0. &0x ?N I ffa &a_ , cdx,gtef ds*rSF, T{r{yiffitrs ,wdd}tr, sius 974.945..4545 rn ${orr*: ILfr 743 ptAS 25. t$lltsvstE.to 3g-1"60{"J6t sot .5 *tt6il$F€e: HP &€Or*t8 so?o 6LtNltU)O = lftll EXCRTW Boc.JhoAff = ullll B&ll&AFY = il$$fif,lf d$r$s *9/r.945" tf&6' (; 'b PrA#ilfi: &dTL ai'J*5J77 INANHA r&/rr:,fR. ortm{.t0 t]tof, c8 po?tHitAl o,itxfirro s!{m *- CtMft*t ((*/*0l rrr:ttrjfi = LfiTIU ((${SC{ ELErEfii & G{Wrry,rsa1&, 30343-!1353 The Applicant has recently constructed four commercial buildings that hold individualwarehouse and office spaces which are being rented to businJsses. The property islocated just at the entrance to Glenwood Springs in South Glenwood on the east side ofState Highway 82. The property is located ln tfe Commerciat Genera I Zone District andls.surlolnded by the same on the east, bordered by BLM to the north, adjacent to theCity of Glenwood Springs to the west and State Highway 82 to the souih. Central waterand sewer service are provided by the city of Glenwood -springs. The property contains significant stopes that slope downward from the east to sHg2 atvarying degrees' The eastern portion of the property contains the most significantslopes which appear to be in excess of 40% wiih sparse vegetation including l6w ffingscrub oak, sage, and pinion-juniper understory. The County has issued building permitl fo.| 3ll four buildings with the final inspections on the fourt'h building expected to occurwithin a month. ERAL ECT I Tto III. REQUEST The Applicant has developed the property in accordance with zoning as a use-by-rightand has met the building code req utre ments. The approval fromGarfield County to "condominiumize,, th ce / warehouse s within each ofthe four buildings in order to sell those spaces rather or lease them. Thisrequest requires the Applicant go throug h the County's subdivision process to createseparate interests in real p roperty As you will see in this memorandum, because theproperty has been almost fully d eveloped as a use-by-right in the Commercial Generalzone district, there are just a few areas where the Cou nty's subdivision regulationspractically apply to an already developed property IV. REFERRALS The application was sent to the following entities for their review and comment.Comments are generally incorporated into thL memo and attached in full to the memo. A. Citv ofG lenwood So nnqs \(- 1N- \ \!\ No specific comments received, however, Staff is preparing a "can and will serve" tetter for water / letter has been tendered to the County. B. Glenwood Sprinqs Fire Protection: Compteted a full review and approval of theproject (and site visits) during the County's building permit process. The Districtr recommends the removal of a parking space for access reason and requestsdetails as to what entity will be responsible for annual maintenance on the fireprotection system. (Exhibit l) C : Has issued a CDOT permit for 72 DHVand understands a revised permit may need to issue for the "'hrng" in use. The understands the City Manager waste water taps. To date, no t'\ I ' r/ ,,r,' ..,' \lf \l I\\ \i,rl\ \r'l Applicant provided a letter from CDOT accepting certain improvements in the CDOT ROW. Staff continues to question the "on-site" improvements that the Applicant has built in the CDOT ROW and whether they had permission to do so. (Exhibit V) D. Colorado Division of Water Resources Determined that there was no material injury to decreed water rights so long as the City of Glenwood Springs operates according to the terms and conditions of its current- plan for augmentation and the Applicant maintains its contract with the City. (Exhibit T) E. Colorado Geoloqic Survev: Provided comments concluding that rockfall, debris flow, and ground settlement are the major geologic hazards on the property as also mentioned by the consulting geotech firms. Ultimately the CGS recommends the County require a professional engineer's assessment of the as-built debrisflow mitigation structure that specifically addresses the concerns and observations raised in their review. (Exhibit L) F. Bureau of Land Manaqement: No comments received G. Garfield County Veqetation Manaqer: Provided comments regarding revegetation and soil management. (Exhibit K) V RAL RELATI COMPREHENSIVE P The property is located within Study Area 1 which has been designated as "Commercial General" on the proposed land use designation map in the Comprehensive Plan which supports commercial development in this area. VI. APPLICABL E ZONING REGULATIONS As the Application was technically complete under the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended and the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended, those codes will apply to the requested subdivision. The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of the CG zone district pursuant to Section 3.08 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. A. Uses By-Riqht (These are the uses that can be conducted in the four buildings.) crafts, provided all activity is conducted within a building; requirements are observed ; (1) All fabrication, service and repair operations are conducted within a building; (2) All storage of materials shall be within a building or obscured by a fence; (3) All loading and unloading of vehicles is conducted on private property; (4) No dust, noise, glares or vibration is projected beyond the lot; goods, furniture, appliances, automotive and vehicular equipment, hardware, clothing, mobile homes, building materials, feed, garden supply and plant materials; Laundromat laundry or dry-cleaning plant serving individuals only; miniature golf course; restaurant, reading room, private club, theater and indoor recreation; vehicular equipment, vehicular rental, service and repair of appliance, shop for blacksmith, cabinetry, glazing, machining, mini-storage units, printing, publishing, plumbing, sheet metal and contractor's yard; and storaqe. B. Common Dimens al Reouirements All permitted development shall be required to adhere to the following common d imensional requirements. minimum lot area of seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet. do not exceed the required 85% in lot coverage for commercial uses. Note: By way of the zoning regulations, the County Commissioners may require adequate screening of all parking and roadway areas in commercial uses from adjoining residential uses and public streets. A maximum of ten percent (10%) of the total parking and roadways areas may be required to be devoted exclusively to landscaping of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to reduce visual impacts. (1) Front yard: As scaled, the building closest to the front lot is approximately 70feet from the front lot line which compries with the front yard setback standard that buildings must be at least seventy-five j7s) feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line, whichever is greater for setbacks from arterial streets. (2) Rear vard: As scaled, the building closest to the rear lot line is approximately 75 feet away which complies with the minimum requirement of Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line for lots occupied by residential uses; seven and one-half (7.s) feet for lots with no residential occupancy. (3) side yard: As scaled, the buildings closest to the side yards are approximately 25 feet away from the side lot line which complies with the required minimum of ten (10) feet from side lot line or one-half (112) the height of the principal building, whichever is greater. type roofs which meet the requited maximum of thirty-five (35) feet height requirement. mum Area 0.50/1.0 and as further provided underSupplementary Regulations. The lot size is 4.19 acres or 182,516 sq. ft. The maximum FAR allowed on thissite is 91,258 sq.ft.The four buildings contain a total of 54,443 sq.ft.which complies with this FAR requirement. Section 5 (Supplemenlary Regulations). An example of what will apply to alldevelopment on the lot includes the following provisions regarding slopes: 5.04-01 Lot Slopq Determinations: In determining lot slopes for use inestablishing minimum lot area requirements and build Lble area, existing andproposed lots of less than two (2) acres shall be calculated on an individual lotbasis. Contour intervals of five (5) feet or less shall be used to make thisdetermination. For lots of two (2) or more acres in size and tracts of landproposed for other methods of development wherein creation of individual lotswithin said tract is not anticipated, the determination of lot slope shall be madeutilizing available topographic maps. 5.04.02 Develooment Limitatio ns Based on Lot Slooe (1)Lot Size Less Than 1 Acre Land with original and undisturbed slope in excess of forty percent (40%) shall not be credited toward lot area in determining whether a lot meets the minimum lot area requirements set forth in the zone district regulations; however, a smaller building envelope may be approved by the Board, as a Special Use permit, after review. (2)Lot Size 1 Acre or Greater: Such lots shall have a minimum building envelope of 1 acre in an area that has less than forty percent (40%) slopes; however, a smaller building envelope may be approved by the Board after review of the following which shail be submitted by the applicant: (A) A soil land foundation investigation prepared by a registered, professional engineer. (B) A topographic survey with contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet. (c) A site grading and drainage plan prepared by a register, professional engineer. (D) A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts, and fills in excess of five (5) feet. (E) A detailed revegetation plan. All of the above shall show the minimum building envelope size for each lot and shall provide evidence that all structures and facilities can be built within such building envelope area so as not to disturb any forty percent (4Oyo) slope area. The following shall be conditions of any approval: (A) Foundations shall be designed by and bear the seal of a registered, professional engineer. (B) All final plans required to be submitted by a professional engineer shall be approved in their final form and shall bear the seal of such registered, professional engineer. For all lots: D riveways, access ways and access easements within the development and on the property of developer shall have a maximum grade of fourteen percent (14%). (3) Staff Response Staff and the Applicant conducted. an in-depth review of the slopes on thisproperty as part of the building permit review. Ultimately, the Applicant,s engineerand surveyor were able to show that the slopes *"r" ,.."ptable to allow the fourbuildings on the site and still meet the Countyt slope requirements. Thisstandard has been met. 5.01.02 Staff Com ments Minimum off-street parkinq: parking spaces shall be provided foreach use in the following amounts: (1) Residential^(except grgup quarters) - one (1) space per sixhundred (600) square feet of ftoor area or onl 1iy space perdwelling unit, whichever is greater; each separately'renta'ble room or group of rooms shail be considered a dweriing unit; (2) Residentiar - group quarters - one (1) space per bed; it nd area): com UA aof sto x ln a gross calculation, the proposal includes 184 spaces. The requirement is thatthere needs to be 1 space for every 200 sq. rt. Grc"pt storage areas). ln thiscase, it is unclear how much storage area is included.'This mJy ue pioutematicbecause if the Applicant wants to "tenant-finish" "il tn" individual'-spaces asshown o1 lhe pretiminary plan (with no storage), they would need to provide 272spaces (54,442 ,?gol.presentty, the ptan oitysnows 1g4 ,pr.""*i.,ich resultsin a deficiency of 88 spaces since the Planning commission, the Applicant has presented staff with a revised"parking.plan" (Exhibit V) that basically'catculates itre parring spaces based onthe total envisioned "retail" space in each of the buildings. Their conceptultimately assumes a certain square footage 1p"r "niir" building) that is likely tobe dedicated to "storage" which doesn't re[uir[ pritirg. Under their calcutation,they determined that 1gg spaces are required andtheir prrn frovio"s 1g0spaces. Staff finds this to be a concept that could work; however, since the units would berented / owned and "tenant-finished" ,..ordingly-on a first-come first-servedbasis, it is possible that they will run out of-parkirijtp".". and be under parked ifthe majority of the space is tinisned as office I re-tait. This issue still needs to beresolved. rl \i') !l VII. APPLICAB LE SUBDIVISION RE LATIONS The following section addresses common subdivision components that applicable to this Preliminary Plan submittal to the County. A. Domestic & lrrioation Water The Applicant has already obtained water service from the City of Glenwood Springs' central water system which has been physically constructed and is presenfly operatiig. The Application included a copy of the minutes from the City Councii meeting approvirigthe provision of water service to the property. This arrangement is mdre'formall! memorialized in a pre-annexation agreement. Garfield County's standard requires, among other things, that "/n all instances, evidence that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity and dependabitity, shalt be available to ensure an adequate suppty of water for the proposed subdivision. Such evidence may include, but shall not be limited to: o Evidence that public or private water owners can and witl suppty water to theproposed subdivision, including the amount of water avaitabte for use within the subdivision by such providers, the feasibility of extending seruice to the area, proof of the legal dependability of the proposed water supply-and the representation that a// necessary water rights have been obtained or will be obtained or adjudicated,pior to submission of the final plat; and ' lf connection is to be made to an existing water system, a letter from an authorized representative of sard sysfem staging that the proposed development wilt be serued,and evidence from either the Colorado State Engineer's Office or Water Court, Water Division No. 5, that the existing water systei presently possesse s adequatelegalwater supply to serue the proposed development; Staff referred the Application to the Division of Water Resources which determined that there was "no material injury to decreed water rights so long as the City of GlenwoodSprings operates according to the terms and conditionJ of its current plan for augmentation and the Applicant maintains its contract with the City.' (Exhibit T). This application does not need to meet the strict requirements of House Bil'1141because it is not defined as "new construction" per the state statute. The City is preparing a "Can and Will Serve" letter which Staff suggests should betendered to the County prior to the hearing before the BOCC. Keep-in mind, the City already presently serves the uses on the property. B. Waste Disoosal The project has obtained sewer service from the City of Glenwood Springs centrat sewer system which has been memorialized in a pre-annexation agreement. This system has been constructed and is currently operational. The City;s minutes are included in the application which demonstrates the City's approval of providing service. The City is preparing a "Can and Will Serve" letter which Staff suggests should be tendered to the County prior to the hearing before the BOCC. Keep-in mind, the City already presently serves the uses on the property. To date, no letter has been tendered to the County. C. Roads /Access The property currently has direct access onto State Highway 82.The application cgltained a Highway Access Permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) which was issued in '10t13t05. That permit states that Access is granted toprovide service to the following uses with a maximum Design Hourly VolumJ (DHV) of 72: Staff is aware that the Applicant proposed to install a traffic signal on Hy82 at the entrance to the subject property but was denied by CDOT. The Peimit discussed abovedid not include the additional pages that contain terms and conditions of the permit. Staff is unable to determine if there were improvements required of the Applicant to HY82 as a result of the projected traffic. Note, the County Traffic lmpact Fee-does not apply to commercial development. Any improvements to HY82 would be required by CDOT. There is an easement in place at the main access to the site from SH 82. lt is unclear asto what easement rights the Applicant has over the adjacent property as the mainaccess point to the subject property from SH82. The preliminary Plan -map needs to depict the existing easements (per a:50(O)) that are in the following documents: Book 349-page 562, #475771 , #Sl11tB, #521119, #694562. lnternal Circulation The main entrance to the property is located on the northwest corner. The internal circulation consists of an asphalt driving surface which allows for two way traffic in frontof and behind all of the buildings except there is .no access to the rear of the fourth building against the hillside. There appears to only be one entrance and exit onto SH82with no alternate emergency access provided; however, the site plan includes a emergency turnaround area in the upper parking area behind the upper building which shall be reviewed by the Glenwood springs Fire Protection District for compliance withtheir standards. On-site Parkinq ln a gross calculation, the proposal includes 184 spaces. The requirement is thatthereneeds to be 1 space for every 200 sq. ft. (exceit storage areas). ln this case, it isunclear how much storage area is included.'This may bd problematic because if theApplicant wants to "tenants finish" all.the individual spaces as shown on the preliminaryplan (with no storage), they would need to provide 212 ,pr."r- (s4,443 I 2oo).Presently, the plan only shows 184 spaces which results in a oeticiency of gg spaces. As mentioned above, The Applicant did propose a revised parking concept (Exhibit V)that basically calculates the parking spaces based on the toial envr:sioned ,,retail,,space in each of the buildings. Their concepi ultimately calculates tne parkin! needs based onthe most restrictive parking rate (retail / office lsesl rather than storige parking rates.Under their calculation, they determined that 1ag spaces "r" *;ili "no their ptanprovides 190 spaces. Staff finds this to be a concept that could work; however, since the units would berented / owned and "tenant-finished" accordingly on a first-come first-served basis, it ispossible that they will run out of parking rpr.6i and be under pa*eJ if the majority ofthe space is finished as office / relail. This issue still needs to be resolved. D. Fire Protection The property is located within the Gle_nwood Springs Fire Protection District. lt appearsthat water service for fire protection to the uuitoirlgs has been accommodated by theinclusion of internat hose connections and strobe. it tn" ends of both buildings that areserved from the central ry{"t supply. from the city of Glenwood sil;d. The property islocated in the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection Oistrict which reviewed the site andbuildings when they were constructed. Since tney nave already reviewed the site, theyonly provided the following additional comments: 1' Site: Remove. one- parking space. The space to be removed is the on the plansthat is located in the most south western corner of the prop-rty near to the roadto the Colby and Lynch properties. The width of the originai ,"."r, road to theseproperties prior to this development was not to code and now it is narrower.Removing this one parking space.wilt limit the possibility of congestion/blockageof this narrow access road which emergency vehicles use to access theproperties it services to the south east of thiJsubdivision. 2' Condominiumization- Documents: These documents shall contain language thatspecifically states who will be responsible for the annual tests and inspectionsand any required maintenance on the fire protection systems installed in thebuilding and the site of this sub-division. The fire suppression system required afire pump to be installed on it to increase the water pressure to buildings three and f9ur, it requires special operational procedures to keep it functioningproperly' ln the these documents it shall also state that all unit owners or rentersare to supply a key to the door to their unit to the Glenwood Springs fireDepartment to put in the Knox box that is installed on each building. ln theapplication I did not see HOA convenience or similar documents statini how thecommunized units will be managed in the future. E. Enoi nnq Review ln addition to the geotech issues already raised in this memo, the County project Engineer reviewed the application and piovided the following list of points that theApplicant needs to address as the project moves fonrvard. Staff has recommended thatthe Applicant meet with the County Project Engineer on these issues prior to going tothe BOCC. 1) Site Accessibility.: ADA compliance was not part of this review. However, thefollowi n g accessibility deficiencies were n oted : a) The handicap. parking spot, at the southeast corner of building #2, has ahandicap parking sign but tacks the required width.b) one handicap parking spot is on a grade greater rhan z%.c) Some handicap ramps lack the lower guidLrailsd) The travel route from handicap parking spots transverses the parking tots.(There should be sidewalks from the parking spaces to doorways.)e) Each building requires a van handicap pa-rking spot. None were provided.(16-foot wide van parking space needed - - 8-foot'parking spot and an g-foot Iane.) 2) At least one of the standard handicap parking spots is too narrow and lacks therequired 4-foot wide travel rane next to the parking spot. 3) The handicap ramp from parking area to sidewalk cannot extend into the parkingarea. These walks need to be part of the sidewalk. 4) One handicap sign was rem.oved. off building #1. (Looks like the buildingoccupant doesn't like having a handicap spot in flont theii unit.) a' Purpose of Plat: On the final plat, add a purpose statement under the tifle ofthe plat.. For example: 'The purpose of this subdivision plat is to delineatethe condominium units within the subdivision. (Personally, l'd prefer callingit a final condominium plat instead of a subdivision plat.) b. Sheet 5: This sheet showing pre-development topography does not need tobe recorded. c. Parking Requirements Per County Code (County's old Land Use Code,5.01.02) Note the following parking deficiencies: Lot 1 : Req'd Parking 23,265 sf / one space per 200 sf = 1 17 parking spaces; Parking Provided: 98 spaces Lot 2: Req'd Parking 14,413 sf / one space per 200 sf = 72 parking spaces; Parking Provided: 54 spaces Lot 3: Req'd Parking 16,765 sf / one space per 200 sf = 84 parking spaces; Parking Provided: 32 spaces Note: The five parking spots in the front of the property along highway 82 are not striped. There are also a few parking spaces that are very awkward being too short or difficult to enter. 5) Parking Spaces as Limited Common Elements a. Some units are not shown as having a LCE parking space (reserved parking space). For example, there are no parking spaces designated for Units 4-F, 4-W, and 4-V. Conversely, Unit 4-H has two LCE parking spaces. b. Only parking spaces on the downhill side of buildings are designed as being LCE. [NOTE: ln total, there are 92 units, 180 total parking spots, and 76 LCE parking spots (including handicap parking spots that are currently designated as LCE).1 c. Handicap parking spots cannot be designated as LCE. They must be GCE unless there is an excess of handicap parking spaces. d. Each LCE parking spot must be designated as belonging to a particular unit. The plan cannot simply show that 5 parking spots are LCE for 6 units. The parking spots must either be designated as a LCE and belonging to a particular unit or the parking space must be a GCE. (Currently, the parking spaces are not signed as being reserved for a particular unit.) 6) Limited Common Elements Assigned to Each Building: Covered walkways are designated as LCE for a particular building. This will need to be addressed in the condo documents. 7) Building Elements Designated as LCE: Each unit owns half of their interior walls. As shown, ceiling, floors and external walls are GCE. This should be clarified with a note on the plans. Staff met with the Applicant on July 2, 2009 and ultimately worked through these ADA issues and determined that they have been adequately addressed. The remaining issue is the parking issue. a a F. Drainaqe Analvsis The Application contains a Final Drainage Report prepared by JLB Engineeringconsultants (dated 5t25t2oo4). The report itates itrat tne developed site will generatemore runoff than historic rates. To accommodate this, tne Applicant constructeddetention basins and swales to retain this drainate on-site using the 1g0-year eventcalculations' The discharge is directed through tirp",."rent basins and into thehistoric basin. Because the site has been developed, Staff in unable to discern if the appropriatemeasures were taken to properly manage the drainage on the site. As a condition ofany Preliminary Plan approval, Staff sulgests the Afiplicant be required to submit aletter from a licensed engineer that sla-tes that the drainag" il[iorements wereconstructed properly and in accordance with the recommendations in ihe Final DrainageReport prepared Uy-.;la_rngineering. Consultants (dated stzstiooqi 'as welt with therecommendations of HP Geotech Preliminary Geotechnical Study aateo March 2001. specifically, the letter shall also provide a drainage plan, at the same scale as thePreliminary Plan and-prepared by an engineer reiistereO in the State of Cotorado,which shall depict the following: 1) Limits of tributary areas, where practical; 2) Computations of expected tributary ftows; and 3) Design of drainage facilities to prevent storm waters in excess of historic run-offfrom entering, damaging or being carried by existing drainage facilities, and toprevent majgr damage or flooding of residences in a one h]undred trool veaistorm, showing: A. Area subject to inundation; andB' Location and size of proposed culverts, bridges, ditches and channels. 4) shall provide proof that all drainage easements, channels, and culverts havebeen designed by an engineer regislered in the State of Colorado. 5) Shall provide proof that all drainage facilities have been designed based on aminimum of a twenty-five (25) yearlrequency storm. 6) Shall provide proof that the detention ditches and ponds are able to retain up to aone hundred (100) year storm for run-off in excess of historic site levets. 7) Shall provide proof that all culverts have been designed such that the exposedends are protected by encasement in concrete or extended a minimum of threefeet (3') beyo.ld the driving surface on each rid". crlr"rt., Jrainage pipes andbridges shall. be - designed and constructed in accordance with AASHorecommendations for an H_20 live load. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant submitted a letter from JLBEngineering Consultants that basically itates they revisited the site to examine theconstructed drainage structures / basins and they appear to be targe enough to makeminor amendments-_necessary to bring them into-compliance with t-he Drain-age study.(see Exhibit U) Staff finds this to be inidequate. There was no evidence as to what wasactually needed ("minor amendments") to the site. This should be fully explored andanalyzed by a professional engineer to affirmatively show what improvements areneeded and how they are to be completed. G. Wildlife The Applicant provided a Division-of Wildlife (DoW) WR|S check list prepared by the 9ou1tY lT Department which identified the area as being entirely located within the BaldEagle Winter Range, Black Bear overall Range, Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat overallRange, Mule Denr -overall Range, [rtq Deei riignway crossing, and the ospreyForaging Area' Staff submitted this Preliminary PIan dpplication-io DOW for theircomments regarding any impacts to wildlife. H. Soils / Geoloqy The property contains steep slopes that rise over 140 feet in elevation a northerlydirection. The four structures have been constructed on the lower, less steep areas. TheApplication contains. a Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared by Hp Geotech in200.1' This study points out that the site has "geologic constr:aints which will affect the g1o-ject development including rock fall, deoris ft6w, and hydrocompressive soils.Mitigation of these conditions will be needed as part of the development of the site.,, Staff does not know if any of the recommendations from the Hp Geotech Study havebeen incorporated into the structural design; further, the Study recommends that arockfall fence be installed on the uphill side of building four as a mitigation measure.Staff recommends this be a condition of approval. Add-itionally, Staff recommends theApplicant provide a letter from a professional engineei that states that therecommendations in the HP Geotech study were folloied during construction. Thisletter is to be tendered to the county with the Final plat application. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant provided a letter from JBLEngineering Consultants that provided three actions that needed to occur to the DebrisFlow Mitigation Pond and Structure to address the concerns raised by the CGS. Theseinclude: 1' Pefform minor adiustments to the grades and back s/opes per discussion in thefield. Re-work the top of embankment to condition and compact the soit that isexperience raveling; 2. After fhese improvements are complete, suruey the basin and provide data for our review. JBL will provide guidance for any adjustmenfs necessa4z; 3. lmplement adiustments to grades and install the ouilet structure andembankment protection to brinq the basin into compliance with the approvedplans. staff suggests these be required as conditions of any approval. l. Veqetation The Subdivision regulations require that the Applicant submit a vegetation plan toensure that once the construction portion of the development is complete, there is aplan in place to revegetate the disturbed areas and provides a method or a plan tomanage noxious weeds on the property. The Application contains a Weed IRevegetation Plan prepared by John Taufei & Associates that indicates when certainspecies will be planted within the Storm Water Detention Area. Beyond that area, thereis little to no revegetation to occur. The County Vegetation Director reviewed the application and provided the followingcomments: 1) Noxious W-999t lnventory and mapping - The applicant has reported that thereare no Garfield county listed noxious weeds on the property. 2) Revegetation: The Applicant has quantified the disturbed area to be revegetatedas .64 acre. Staff recommends a revegetation security in the amount oi$tOOO(.64 acre x. $2500/acre). The security shall be held by Garfield County untilvegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the attachedReclamation Standards. The Board of County Commission6r. will designate amember of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of thesecurity. 3) Soil Plan: The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide aSoil Management plan that includes: a. Provisions for salvaging on_site topsoil.b. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.c. A plan that provid"t foJ soil cover if any olJturoances or stockpiles will sitexposed for a period of 90 days or more. J. Easements fs lhe Applicant prepares the final plat, all easements of record shall be shown on thefinal plat. Of particular note, therg is an easement that governs how the main entranceto the property will work with CDoT, the Applicant and ihe neighbor direcly to the NE. These will need to be estabtished on the final plat with all of the associated recordinginformation. K. Con omtnru The reason the Applicant is going through the subdivision process is to condomiumizethe offices and storage spacLs to sell t6 other parties as separate interests. As such,the Applicant shall be required to submit a Final plat undei Rrti.te V, then submit acondominium Plat under section 5-307 0f the Unified Land Use Resolution of 200g(ULUR)' The reason for this is because the condominium section of the ULUR requiresthat the C-ondo plat be consistent with a Final Plat. The Applicant should be aware thatboth the Final Plat and Re-subdivision pro""rr", are administrative processes. staffbelieves these two processes can be processed together. Understanding all of this, the Preliminary.Plan being reviewed here contains the generalphysical illustration of the intended condominiumiiation of the gg units in each of thefour buildings. The new land use regulations are included here for reference: Secfion 5-307 Review Process and Criteria For Common lnterest ownershipcommunity Re-subdivision, tncruding condominium andTownhouse Plats. The re-subdivision of land for condominiums and planned communities, such astownhouses, defined as common interest communities in the Colorado Commonlnterest ownership Acl c.R.s 38:39:31101 -et siq. snatt require approvat of the ptatsand maps descibed ,n c'R.s. 38-33.3-209, aloig with approvai of the Declarationdefined in CCIOA. Re-subdivision sha// safisty the"criteria in Section 5-307 B. and therecording of the appropriate common interest community ptat sniiini tn" bcation anddimensions of the vertical boundaries of each uniti ih" hoironial boundaries, ifincluded; and the identifying number of each unit, ato,ng with the location and dimensionof common elements and limited common elements, all as defined in the Declaration.No person with any interest in units created in su',ch re-subdivision shalt transfer oragree to sell or offer to sett or sell any unit before the plats des;cribed herein areapproved by the Board and recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder. Such a unit iscreated upon recording of the re_subdivision ptat. A. Administrative Review process. The review process for re-subdivision of a Final Plat into common interest ownershipcommunity units shall be the administrative review process, outtined in Section 4-104 of Article lv with the addition of presentation o,r tn" re-subdivis;ion plat to theBoard of County commissioners for signature. Such a common interest ownershipplat, as approved pv tne Board, shall constitute a site specific development planestablishing vested.property rights pursuant to Paft t of Aiicle 6g of Titte 24 C.R.S.,as amended, and the provisions of Secfion 1-202, Estabtishment of Vested property Rights of Article 1. B. Criteria. 1' Consistent with Approved Plan or Finat Ptat. The proposed resubdivisionplat is consistent with the subdivision Finat ptat and, if apjiiaote, theapproved PUD plan zone designations. 2. Consisfent with Zone District Regulations. a. The total common area and individuat tot area of the whole project,divided by the total number of units, meets the minimum lot sizerequirements of the overlying zoning district. b. A proiect within a PUD complies with the zoning outtined in the p(JD designations. 3' Maintenance of Common Areas. tf applicable, the condominium, townhouse orother common interest community dbclaration and bylaws make adequateprovision for the maintenance of common area elements. 4' lmprovements Agreement and Financial Guarantee. An lmprovementsagreemenf has beeq signed and submitted by the appticant, and an adequatefinancial guarantee for improvements has bein p,osted or wiit be posted pior toapproval of the condominium, townhouse or otier common inteiest communityplat. 5' Lot Located Within Legalty Ptatted Subdivision. The tot in which thecondominium, townhouse or other common interest community is located wasapproved and platted as paft of a subdivision which meets thi requirements ofthe Land Use Code. 6' Adequate Easements. Adequate easements for water, sewer, utitities andaccess have been provided. 7' Party Wall Agreement. tf applicable, an acceptable patty wall agreement hasbeen recorded. L ent / Fees The development is also located in the RE-1 school District. As such the developer isrequired to either dedicate a portion of land to the district or. pry tn" ,ppropriate Schoolsite Acquisition Fee to be paid at final plat and included i, " component of thesubdivision lmprovement Agieement (sA): This fee is generally catculated from theassessed unimproved market value of the parent property. l{ot",-the.property does not fall in a County Traffic lmpact Fee area so there are no feesfor traffic impact. [\I. Mineral Estate It is unclear if the property's mineral estate has been severed and is owned or leased to another party. !f so, the Applicant shall include a plat note on the final plat stating the following: "The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially or wholly severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s)." N. PROJECT ISSUES FOR BOCC REVIEW 1. CDOT Permit: The CDOT Access permit for access to State Highway 82 does not specifically cover the proposed 99 condominium units being proposed. The permit is issued for a previously proposed mixed use project. Staff discussed this issue with CDOT which explained they are more interested in making sure the Design Hourly Volume (DHV) of 72 stays the same regardless of what the uses are stated on the permit. Staff believes the CDOT permit ought to state the right uses on the permit. To that end Staff recommends the Applicant be required to obtain a new access permit that correctly states the uses and the defined DHV prior to Final PIat. The revised information provided in Exhibit V includes a letter from JBL Engineering on behalf of the Applicant that states the DHV was approved at 100; however, the permit issued from CDOT is only approved for72. This needs to be addressed. 2. Access Easement: lt is unclear as to what easement rights the Applicant has over the adjacent property as the main access point to the subject property from SH82. The preliminary Plan map needs to depict the existing easements (per 4:50(O)) that are in the following documents: Book 349-page 562, #475777, #571178, #571179, #684562. A plan was presented to the planning Commission that graphically shoes these easements but they need to be shown on the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat. 3. Geotech lssues: There is little evidence that the drain age system, building structures, etc. have been built in accordance with the recommendations from the geotech studies, although some of the studies were submitted for buildings 1 - 3 in order to get COs. Staff recommends that the Applicant furnish the County with a letter from a P. E. that can demonstrate that the buildings were built and drainage issues were properly addressed. The Applicant indicated they would have that letter prior to the hearing before the BOCC. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant submitted a letter from JLB Engineering Consultants that basically states they revisited the site to examine the constructed drainage structures / basins and they appear to be large enough to make minor amendments necessary to bring them into compliance with the Drainage Study (see Exhibit U). Staff finds this to be inadequate. There was no evidence as to what was actually needed ("minor amendments") to the site. This 19 should be fully explored and analyzed by a professional engineer to affirmativelyshow what improvements are needed and how they are to be lompleted. 4. Parkinq Spaces: The proposal, if developed as shown into 9g condominium units(totaling 54,44-3.sq. ft.), requires 272 spaces, yet the site plan only provides 1g0spaces. lf all of the spaces are retail / professional office spaces with 'no ,,storage,,, then based on the 180 spaces, the developer could only develop 36,000 rql ft.Presently, the design is under-parked. The Applicant proposes an accounting method do deal with this restriction whichultimately places the burden of making sure each tenant finish can accommodateits parking through the CC&Rs. ThiJ topic will need more discussion with thePlanning Commission as to the most effective way to make sure the property doesnot result in being under parked at full tenant finish. This has important enforcementand fire protection issues associated with it. ln a gross calculation, the proposal includes 184 spaces. The requirement is thatthere needs to be 1 space for every 200 sq. ft. (except storage areas). ln this case,it is unclear how much storage area is included.'This may be"problematic because ifthe Applicant wants to "tenant-finish" all the individuai spaces as shown on thePreliminary Plan (with no storage), they would need to provide 212 spaces (54,4431200). Presently, the plan onty shows 184 spaces which results in a deficiency of88 spaces. As mentioned..above, the Applicant did propose a revised parking concept (ExhibitV) that basically calculates the parking spaces based on the total envisioned ,,retail,, space in each of. the buildings. Their concept ultimately calculates the parkingneeds based on the most restrictive parking iate (retail i office uses) rather thaistorage parking rates. Under their calculation, they determined that 1gb spaces arerequired and their plan provides 1g0 spaces Staff finds this to be a concept that could work; however, since the units would berented / owned and "tenant-finished" accordingly on a first-come first-served basis,it is possible that they will run out of parking ipaces and be under parked if themajority of the space is finished as office 7 retail. This issue still needs to beresolved. 5. Water /. Wastewater Service: Staff needs to have a copy of the signed pre- annexation agreement with the City. Additionally, it is uncl'e'ar as to wh-at type ofeasements are to be granted to the City for the water / wastewater lines and meterson the property. The Applicant has discussed this issue with the City Manager who indicated that aletter is forth coming. Staff still believes the terms or tn" prE-rnn"ration agreementneed to be reviewed as only 20 units were discussed in ine hearings whele the Citycouncil took its action to provide taps to the development. 20 O. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission found that these issues mentioned above can be solved as theapplication moves through the process. The most significant issue is the geotechnical issue as it has direct life / safety challenges associateO witn it. However, baseJ'on this, thePlanning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Board of Countycommissioners with the following findings and conditions: Findinqs 1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by lawfor the hearing before the planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and comptete; altpertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested prrti"t were heard at the hearing. 3. That the application can be in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended so long as thefollowing conditions are met. 4. That the application can be in compliance with the standards set forth in Section4.00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended so longas the following conditions are met. 5. That the proposed preliminary plan is in the best interest of the health, safety,morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. Conditions 6 That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and planning Commission,shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the B6ard of County Commissioners. 7 The Applicant shall submit a letter from a licensed professional engineer (licensedto practice in the State of Colorado) that states that the drainagJ improvements yere constructed properly and in accordance with the recommenditions in the FinalDra.inage Report prepared by JLB Engineering Consultants (dated St2St2O04) aswell with the recommendations of HP Geoteih Pretiminary Geotechnical Siudydated March 2001. 2t 8 Specifically, the letter shall also provide a drainage plan, at the same scale as the Preliminary Plan and prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, which shall depict the following: a. Limits of tributary areas, where practical; b. Computations of expected tributary flows; and c.Design of drainage facilities to prevent storm waters in excess of historic run- off from entering, damaging or being carried by existing drainage facilities, and to prevent major damage or flooding of residences in a one hundred (100) year storm, showing: 1) Area subject to inundation; and 2) Location and size of proposed culverts, bridges, ditches and channels. d. Shall provide proof that all drainage easements, channels, and culverts have been designed by an engineer registered in the state of colorado. e. Shall provide proof that all drainage facilities have been designed based on a minimum of a twenty-five (25) year frequency storm. f. Shall provide proof that the detention ditches and ponds are abte to retain up to a one hundred (100) year storm for run-off in excess of historic site levelsas required per Garfield County Subdivision regulations of 1984, as amended. g. Shall provide proof that all culverts have been designed such that the exposed ends are protected by encasement in concrete or extended a minimum of three feet (3') beyond the driving surface on eaeh side. Culverts, drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and constructed in accordance with AASHO recommendations for an H-20 live load. Pursuant to the recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared by HP Geotech in 2001 , the Applicant shall install a rockfall fence on ths uphiil side of building four as a mitigation measure or demonstrate that there is an alternative acceptable method designed, approved, stamped and sealed by a Professional Engineer. The Applicant provide a letter from a licensed professional engineer (licensed to practice in the State of Colorado) that states that the recommendations in the Hp Geotech study were followed during construction of the four buildings and their associated retaining walls. This letter is to be tendered to the County prior to the hearing before the BOCC. Staff SE r The Applicant provided staff with a letter from Kurtz & Associates, g firm) that states the structural design for ail four buildings were -rtr lnc. (engineerin 22 completed / designed in accordance with the recommendations provided byHepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, lnc. (Exhibit V) This condition has been met. 10'The approved P-reliminary Plan needs to depict the existing easements per sectiona:50(O) of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations oi1984, as amended thatinclude the foilowing documents: Book 34-g-page s62, HTsrrr, #sz11rg,#571179, #684562. 11,TheApplicantshallberequiredtoootaLTffiil;,,"":;,J,|],-. the uses and the defined DHV prior to Final Plat. By this condition, the BOCCauthorizes the Applicalt to apply for a revised permit on the behalf of Garfieldcounty. Alternativety, the Appiicant may obtain a letter from cDoT that indicates 1!"1 '! of the presently proposed uses are acceptabte under the existing permit andthat CDOT has no issue with the improvements already constructed by theApplicant is the CDOT easement. 12'1n preparing the Final Plat, the County requires the Applicant place the followingnotes be on the Final plat and in proteciive covenants: a) "colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" state pursuant to c.R.s. 3s-3_101, et seq.Landowners, residents and vi-srloq muit Ue prepared to accept the activities,sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricutturaitperations as anormal and necessary asRgc] of living in a Ciunty with a strong ruralcharacter.and a healthy ranching sectorl All must be prepared to encounternoises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads,livestock on public roads, storage and disposat of manure, "nO tn" applicationby spraying or othenrise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides,and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of alegal and non-negligent agricultural operations.,, b) "No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within thesubdivision. One (1) new solid-fuel burning stove as defineO by C.R.S. 2S-l-401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgitea thereunder, will'be allowed inany dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number ofnatural gas burning stoves and appliances.', c) "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under Statelaw and C-oqnty regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences andirrigation ditches, controlling weeds, [eeping livestock and pets under control,using property in accordance with zoning,-and other mp""i. of using andmaintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learnabout these.rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizensof the County' A good introductory source for such information is ,,A Guide toRural Living & Small Scale Agiiculture" put out by the Colorado StateUniversity Extension Office in Garfield County.,, d) "All exterior.lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and a1 exteriorlighting will be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the 23 subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lightingthat goes beyond the property boundaries.,' e) "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall berequired to be confined within the owner,s property boundaries.,, 13.The development is also located in the RE-1 School District. As such the developeris required to either dedicate a portion of land to the district or pay the appropriateSchool Site Acquisition Fee to be paid at Final Plat and included ai a component ofthe Subdivision lmprovement Agreement (SlA). This fee is generally calculatedfrom the assessed unimproved market value oi ttle parent prJperty. This shall becalculated and paid at the time of final plat. 14'The Applicant has quantified the disturbed area to be revegetated as 0.64 acre. TheApplicant shall tender a revegetation security in the amount of $1600 with the finalplat application...The security shall be held by Garfield County untit vegetation hasbeen successfully reestablished according to the County's Reclamation Standards.The Board of County Commissioners will designate a member of their Staff toevaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security. 15.The Preliminary Plan (and Final Plat) shall be revised to show all antennas and,equipment exterior to the unit that Verizon will lease will be contained in an LCEassociated with their Unit. 1 6. Regarding Fire protection: a. The Applicant shall eliminate the parking space that is located in the mostsouth western corner of the property neai to'the road to the Colby and Lynchproperties. b. The Condominiumization CC&R shall contain language that specifically stateswho will be responsible for the annual tests ano inspLctions and any iequiredmaintenance on the fire protection systems installed in the building and thesite of this sub-division. The fire suppression system required a firJ pump tobe installed on it to increase the water pressure to buildings three and four; itrequires special operational procedures to keep it functionlng properly. ln thethese documents it shall also state that all unit owners orueniei, are to supplya key to the door to their unit to the Glenwood Springs fire Department to put in the Knox box that is installed on each building. 17 'The Applicant shall meet with the- County Project Engineer to address the followingcomments prior to the hearing before the BOCC: Site Accessibility: ADA compliance was not part of this review. However, thefollowing accessibility deficiencies were noted:i. The handicap parking spot, at the southeast corner of building #2, hasa handicap parking sign but lacks the required width.ii. one handicap parking spot is on a grade greater than 2o/o. 24 a IV Some handicap ramps lack the lower guiderails The travel route from handicap parking spots transverses the parkinglots. (There should be sidewarks irom the parking spaces t; doonruays.) Each building requires a van handicap parking spot. None wereprovided. (16-foot wide van parking space needed - - g-foot parking spot and an 8-foot lane.) At least one of the standard handicap parking spots is too narrow and !1rcks the required 4-foot wide traver lane next to the parking spot.The handicap ramp from parking area to sidewalk cannot extend intothe parking area. These walks need to be part of the sidewalk. 9ry handicap sign was removed ofr buitoin g #1. (Looks like thebuilding occupant doesn't like having a handicap spot in front theirunit.) V VI vii viii b. Purpose of Plat: On the Final Plat, add a purpose statement under the tile ofthe plat. For example: 'The purpose of this subdivision plat is to delineate thecondominium units within the subdivision. (Personally, l'd prefer calling it afinal condominium plat instead of a subdivision plat.) c' Sheet 5: This sheet showing pre-development topography does not need tobe recorded. d. llrlilq Requirements per county code (county,s old Land Use code,5.01.02) Note the following parking deficiencies: Lot 1: Req'd Parking 2Z,265 sf / one space per 200 sf =spaces; Parking Provided: g8 spaces Lot 2: Req'd Parking 14,413 sf / one space per 200 sf =spaces; Parking Provided: 54 spaces Lot 3: Req'd Parking 16,765 sf / one space per 200 sf =spaces; Parking Provided: 32 spaces N$! The five parking spots in the front of the property along highway gZ arenot striped. There are also a few parking spaces that ire ,"[, ,irt*ard beingtoo short or difficult to enter. e. Parking Spaces as Limited Common Elements o Some units are not shown as having a LCE parking space (reservedparking space). For exampte, there ire no part<ing Jpaces designatedfor Units 4-F,4-w, and 4-V. conversely, Unit 4-H 6as two LCE plrking spaces. ' Only parking spaces on the downhill side of buildings are designed asbeing LCE. [NOTE: ln totat, there are g2 unitsl 180 total parking a a 1 17 parking 72 parking 84 parking 25 )spots, and 76 LCE parking spots (including handicap parking spots that are currently designated as LCE).1 Handicap parking spots cannot be designated as LCE. They must be GCE unless there is an excess of handicap parking spaces. Each LCE parking spot must be designated as belonging to a particular unit. The plan cannot simply show that 5 parking spots are LCE for 6 units.The parking spots must either be designated as a LCE and belonging to a particular unit or the parking space must be a GCE. (Currently, the parking spaces are not signed as being reserved for a particular unit.) f. Limited Common Elements Assigned to Each Building: Covered walkways are designated as LCE for a particular building, This will need to be addressed in the condo documents. g. This discussion shall include the parking suggestions included in the letter from Leavenworth & Karp dated 411109 and tendered into the record as Exhibit H. J Staff Response: Staff met with the Applicant on July 2,2009 and ultimately worked through these ADA issues and determined that they have been adequately addressed. The remaining issue is the parking issue. . The Applicant did propose a revised parking concept (Exhibit V) that basically \ calculates the parking spaces based on the total envisioned "retail" space in each of I the buildings. Their concept ultimately calculates the parking needs based on the\ most restrictive parking rate (retail / office uses) rather than storage parking rates. Under their calculation, they determined that 189 spaces are required and their plan provides 190 spaces. Staff finds this to be a concept that could work; however, since the units would be rented / owned and "tenant-finished" accordingly on a first-come first-served basis, it is possible that they will run out of parking spaces and be under parked if the majority of the space is finished as office / retail. This issue still needs to be resolved. Additional Conditions Su bv Staff 18.Since the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant provided a tetterfrom JBL Engineering Consultants that provided three actions that needed to occur to the Debris Flow Mitigation Pond and Structure to address the concerns raised by the CGS. These include: A. Pefform minor adjustments to the grades and back s/opes per discussion in the field. Re-work the top of embankment to condition and compact the soil that is expeience raveling; a o .J \ t,\['1. I ..1\ '\ (-\ \ \ I ! a it j \tr \\ .\ \' \ \ \ J t ,.j 1ri l) "tC.. \. ,$1' ''t \' \ C.\ 26 B' After fhese improvements are complete, -suruey the basin and provide datafor our review. JBL wi, provide guidLr""'riir-ii adlustments nec,essary; c' lmp,lement adjus.tme.nfs fo grades and instail the outtet structure and,#;:o*ent protection to oriitg the basin iito iompriance witn ine approved /Jt| /, / u/t/r''t- - --" r t+.;;"4 t q L ( f t"i,i tt .Dr/,L *7' //-/-4-.!-t, /t1/( ,/-,-t )(- ''r7 / L" lY q).r ,J-n /, L ,7t L- " (crz-t a/ r)" ?.-I/ ,,t. -=:Z T'L ) ) 27 LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDERN. KARP JAMES S. NEU KARLJ. HANLON MICIIAEL J. SAWYER JAMES F. FOSNAUGHT ANNA S.ITENBERG CASSIAR. FURMAN JENNIFER M. SMITH T. DAMIENZUMBRENNEN Re Dear Fred: LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EST. 19BO 2OI I4TH STREET, SUITE2OO P. O, DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (97 0) 9 45 -2261 Facsimile: (97 0) 9 45 _7 33 6 kjh@lklawfirm.com April 1,2009 DENVER OFFICE:* 7OO WASHINGTON ST. STE 702 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 * (P lease direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Ofice) Mr. Fred Jarman, Senior planner 9q{e1a Counry Building and planning Department 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO g160l RMCf,FVEI) ,{PR 0 I 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING At our meeting of March 25,2009,you requested additional information on the parkingproposal for the Glenwood commercia!:LLcPreliminary Plan application. As you are aware, theproject consists of four commercial buildings that will a""o--odate retail and other commercialuses as well as personal storage units. Pursuant to section 5.01.02(3) of the existing (i.e., updatedthrough 2006) Garfield co-unty ZoningRegulations, retail and service commercial uses must haveone space per two hundred (200) feet of floor area. However, storage is an exception to this rule.withone hundredeighty-nine (189)parkingspacespropored fortheproject, the maximumretail andservice commercial square footage that may be deve^loped is approximately 36,000 square feet.54'442 square feet of commerciai space is intended ror tne project as a whole, so approximately18'442 square feet must be devoted io storage uses. At thi. ti;;i;i.;;ffi;at types of retairand commercial services or storage .rr", *ill occupy the units. Likewise, the applicants cannotpredict the order in which particular units will u. rota unJ int..iors finished. As units are sold,county regulations require individual buyers.to suumii applications for tenant finish buildingpermits' The necessity of this approval step with the couniy provides a method to track ongoingallocation of parking spaces based or.qr*L footage rather than assigning specific parking spacesto units at final plat' To ensure that these calculations are not a burden to county stafl we proposeto draft provisions in the Declaration for Glenwood commercial center Subdivision that will requirethe Glenwood commercial center Unit owners Association ("GCCUOA,,) to track allocation ofparking spaces as limited common elements based on finished square footage. Although we will need to frnalizeappropriate language for the Declaration prior to final plat LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C Page 2 approval, the concept for the parking allocation requtrement will be as follows: A total of 189 parking spac:: are designated on the Final plat as Limited commonErements for rhe u"".ni of the p*fiil;;;ng which they serve. pursuant toGarfield county regulations, the allo"a-ted;;ilr, spaces are sufficient to serve affiH:ii,i: fi3'.'";?:ff r"" t o r ."tuii "ii^' *.. . o*o. ilT,,.,, ex c r uding be re{uired to demonstra" ,*::lb-uildins permit "ppri."ti"r;;;; o.roerry sharr on square rootug" -No t*Tf,d{ifiiffiT:ff.o#,f trurr,*"."r;:parking cannot be demonsttat.a. Ail Unit o*?.l..rruil u"."quirJ tl'ruumit a copyofthe renant finish buirding permit to tt " assocratiol-to. "pil;;: iarfierd counryshall have no obligation ,o"uiprove a tenant finish.building permit for a unit withoutwritten confirmation from tf,eAssociati", A;;;;"quate parking spaces exist in theProject to serve the intendea uni, *", A;;;'#,"rr, tenant nrr-irti-u,aingpermitapproval submitted to the county, the Association wilt-urro p.oriie an updatedcarcuration of arocatea anJr"-uiring n*tirg'.,1e1 for the project. Garfierdcounty shall have the autholty to revilw tn" a".o"iution,s calcutuiior* and makea final determination as ,o purtirrg space allocation. we feel the Declaration approach is the best course ofaction because itpraces the burden onthe GCcuoA rather than the iil;-to track parking space arocatio;;.^'sim,ar merhods ofassigning parking spaces fo' comm"r.tr prri..i, i, " ori"r.a basis have been used successfury bvother colorado communities' o',." u, tr,'";ffi;##l'u.. ur.igned, no further retair or serviclcommercial units m-ay be finished onii" property unless otherparking rotuti*, are identified. The;:ff r#;.HJ:*J,em::lr*:m,,:t*ru;;::::$ij:::b,i,d..;;,;;;.;;; .r,,-,fi11,?il1T*#T:J#$'j,:j copies orthe B-2 exception documents risted on the titrepr*. 'r,o*i,r "-.i,er" roi *itr, *;j;ll?filiig:T,[,,""ffi;,!1,ff;i[:Til1fl#iffi*leasements was not available at the time of this r.n.i, rro"rr.ver, it should boaJa,abre in the nextcouple of days' This is-prim*r, " n,"l plat issue;ffi; hopetur it w,r noi t ota up the reviewprocess' AIso enclosed are tr'" cooi Lasements which cover the joint "";; fi.". Highway g2. with regard to the water/wastewater I met with JeffHeckser, Grenwood city Manager todayand he assured me-lhat rh" ;4"-;;; yil s.*.;;^r.[", witt b; "";ii;l" iy the meeting onff*ffittfl#*: He did t"it"*t"-triut the citv i. .rr"r,ry serving the projecr and intends to As to the geo-tech update we will provide the letter from the project p.E. prior to the Bocc hearing' You indicated that the certificate of occupancies have arready been issued for Budingsi;?"'[t$;iffi?#;**1f,::l"th",u,. e"J*.i,,*dies were-i.q,i,"Jr". issuance ortte ,", ",f"",L*',1llHi:ffiX1T;:,il:"J;;;;ms raised in vour emal orMarch 2s,200s.rhank LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C Page 3 KJHjac Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Karl J {r fi*t ffit S{*ie* Fwm,{.**S ;lffi* ffi.. &*tffitild Ef, lr &ffiI et *rgl ** X. t d v ryT' ffi. I%**:Y.TT,;_;* " fst*r*trF***tss $#gIg$.HI fl& rffi* ffiffi mC sll .L.trt,6agg-:r;;qr-.,1,1i.P rli{'its*.t! : I.,, xri *.iu:, t ,i! E &a-- -:i trt. .$s. ,':'. .tr&alr:+,$ *q6*.a**,{ **# +,** {{.*}. " $**;*;.'-..-,,.. \ { &}:,_ *rc m$ I 1 ', .r {."I' March 25,2009 To: Fred Jarman, Garfield Cty Planning Department From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department Re: Comments on File, Glenwood Commercial LLC, project Glenwood Commercial Center Subdivision, location 2550 Hwy 82, Glenwood Springs, CO, application preliminary plan Site: Remove one parking space. The space to be removed is the on the plans that is located in the most south western corner of the property near to the road to the Colby and Lynch properties. The width of the original access road to these properties prior to this development was not to code and now it is narrower. Removing this one parking space will limit the possibility of congestioilblockage of this narrow access road which emergency vehicles use to access the properties it services to the south east of this subdivision. Condominiumization Documents: These documents shall contain language that specifically states who will be responsible for the annual tests and inspections and any required maintenance on the fire protection systems installed in the building and the site of this sub-division. The fire suppression system required a fire pump to be installed on it to increase the water pressure to buildings three and four; it requires special operational procedures to keep it functioning properly. In the these documents it shall also state that all unit owners or renters are to supply a key to the door to their unit to the Glenwood Springs fire Department to put in the Knox box that is installed on each building. In the application I did not see HOA convenience or similar documents stating how the communized units will be managed in the future. EXHIBIT -J To: From Date: Fred Jarman John Niewoehner. February 25,2009 RE: Review of Prelimi nary Plan for Glenwood Commercial Center Subdivision General Review Comments Site Accessibility: ADA compliance was not part of this review. However, the following accessibility deficiencies were noted:. The handicap parking spot, at the southeast corner of building #2, has a handicap parking sign but lacks the required width.. One handicap panking spot is on a grade greater than 2o/o.. Some handicap ramps lack the lower guiderails. The travel route from handicap parking spots transverses the parking lots. (There should be sidewalks from the parking spaces to doorways.). Each building requires a van handicap parking spot. None were provided. (16-foot wide van parking space needed - - 8-foot parking spot and an 8-foot lane.)o At least one of the standard handicap parking spots is too narrow and lacks the required 4-foot wide travel lane next to the parking spot.. The handicap ramp from parking area to sidewalk cannot extend into the parking area. These walks need to be part of the sidewalk.. one handicap sign was removed off bullding #1. (Looks like the building occupant doesn't like having a handicap spot in front their unit.) Purpose of Plat: on the final plat, add a purpose statement under the tifle of the plat. For example: 'The purpose of this subdivision plat is to delineate the condominium units within the subdivision. (personally, l'd prefer calling it a final condominium plat instead of a subdivision plat.) sheet 5. This sheet showing pre-development topography does not need to be recorded. 1 2 3 4 Pcrlzinn Pan uireme nfe Par /-arrnfrr ?aAa I Cou I anr{ llca l^nr{a 5.01.02) Note the following parking deficiencies Lot 1 . Req'd Parking 23,265 sf / one space per 200 sf = 1 1 7 parking spaces; Parking Provided: 98 spaces Lot 2. Req'd Parking 14,413 sf / one space per 200 sf = 72 parking spaces; Parking Provided: 54 spaces Lot 3: Req'd Parking 16,765 sf / one space per 200 sf = 84 parking spaces; Parking Provided: 32 spaces a a a 5. Nqlq The five parking spots in the front of the property along highway gz arenot striped. There.are qfso a few parking spaces'thaf "r" ,"ry awkwardbeing too short or difficult to enter. ' some units are not shown as having a LCE parking space (reserved p.afins space). For example, there are no parking-spaces designated forUnits 4-F, 4-w, and 4-V. conversery, Unit 4-H na-s two Lce paikingspaces. ' 9lty parking spaces on the downhill side of buildings are designed asbeing _LCE. [NorE: rn totar, there are g2 units, ta-o totat parklng spots,and 76 LCE parking spots_Qncruding handicap parking-spots that arecurrently designated as LCE).1o !11dicap parking spots cannot be designated as LCE. They must beGCE unless there is an excess of handi-cap parking ,p"."... Each LCE parking spot must be designated as oet6niing to a particularunit. The plan cannot simpry show tnat s parking rfoi. ,r" LCE for 6units. The parking spots must either be designJt"i "i a LCE andbelonging to a particurar unit or the parking ri"c" ,rrt b" a GCE.(currently, the parking spaces are not signed as being reserved for aparticular unit.) 6 7 are designated as LCE fo addressed in the condo d ch r a particular building ocuments. Covered walkways ll need to beThis wi Building Elements Desionated as LCE: Each unit owns half of their interioryrlE. As shown, ceiling, floors and externalwalls are GCE. This should beclarified with a note on the plans. To: From Re: Date: MEMORANDUM Fred Jarman Steve Anthony Glenwood Commercial Center Subdivision March 31,2009 Noxious Weeds Revegetation Soil PIan a Inventory and mapping-The applicant has reported that there are no Garfield Counfy listednoxious weeds on the property The applicant has quantified the disturbed area to be revegetated as .64 acre. Staff recommends a revegetation security in the amount of $1600 (.64 acrex $2500/acre) The security shall be held_by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablishedaccording to the attached Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners willdesignate a member of their staffto evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the securify. lll \evesetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a Soil Management plan thatulcluoes: Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil. A timetable for eliminating topsoil andTor aggregate piles. A plan that provides for soil cover ifany disturbances or stockpiles will sit exposed for aperiod of 90 days or more. STATE OF CO coLoRADo GEoLoGIcAL suRVEy- !;erving the peopre of cororado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 71S Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-261 1 Far (303) 86G2461 COLORADO April6,2009 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and planning Department 109 8t Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 CGS LUR No. GA-09-0007 NESW, Sec.22, T65, R89W DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bill Ritter, Jr Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist RECEIVEI) APR 2 I ZOO! GARFIELD I]OUNTY BUILDING & P!"ANIIIN(J RE: Glenwood commercial center sub Geologic Hazards Review Dear Fred, Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request, and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972), this office has reviewed the land-useapplicaiion submitted by your office and considered the geologic hazards and geologic conditions that may affect the land use development. Pertinent to this review is the final drainage report Uy irn Engineering dated May25,2004 and the following studies by HP Geotech: u pr"1i-inury glotechnicil studytated Marcy 30, 2001 (Job No. 101 175) and a subsoil study for retainin! wall design datld May 1,2006; a comment letter report dated May 24,2005; and, arecommendation foi MSE retainingwall letter report dated July l, 2005 (Job No. 105 217). CGS conducted a site inspection onApil2,2009. At the time of our inspection the commercial development was alrlady built outwith mostly finishing work remaining. Please consider the following observations iryour land use decisions. The site is located in the Roaring Fork Valleyjust south of the Glenwood Springs citylimits. The site is on a moderate to steep slope on thsnortheast valley side. This siope-is -ua"up of an accumulation of alluvial fan and colluvial soils that washed down small drainage gullies and swales in the steep, 900-foot high valleysides above this property. Recently constructed on the property are four, parallel, basement-walk-out commercial UrritAirgs that stair-step up thelower slope. Each building has 10 or more commercial units. A debris flow and rockfall mitigation ditch (basin) and earthen berm have been constructed on the slope immediately above the buildings. Concrete and rock-faced retaining walls have been built below existing residential lots along the eastern boundary. On the westernside, modular-block retaining walls elevate thisdevelopment above the commercial storage facility next door. The land-use submission to CGS did not include design plans for the debris-flow basin so we are unsure whether this structure hasbeen designed by a professional engineer. We concur with the early Lincoln-DeVore hazardmap assessments. Rockfall, debrisflows, and ground settlement from hydrocompactive soils are the major geologic hazards thatmay affect this land p.afel. The geotechnicaf and drainage engineering Jonsultants have alsomentioned these specific hazards. A lesser potential nazirais subsidence (sinkholes) related todissolution of evaporite bedrock which underlies the floor of the river valley. Debris flow and rockfall hazards We were relieved to see proactive debris flow and rockfall mitigation at this site since thedevelopment was already mostly in place. Howevero in our inspectionif the debris flow androckfall mitigation, we found potential problems witir ttre design and construction. We havesome'question about the fill pLcement of the berm. we foundno evidence of any geotextilereinforcement of the fill in this earthen berm. During the CGS inspection, tension cracks wereobserved on the embankment, which implies ro-.*d.g.ee of ground movement andinstability' Also of concern is that the constructed sediment-traf basin appears to be retentionand not detention in purpose. We saw no outlets that would allow the controlled exit of the morefluid components of debris flows. In debris-flow mitigation basins there is typically an outletstructure, either floor drains with debris risers o. u gruLd concrete-lined slot in the side of theembankment' Allowing the water to pond and simfly evaporate will slowly fill the basin. Mostimportantly, in hydrocompactive-soil terrain such as itris, ionaing of waterin this basin maypose serious long-term problems with water seepage, ground settlement, and potentialembankment failure. water infiltration into these iroi-p".-eable, gravelly hydrocompactivesoils could migrate down slope, wet the foundation bearit g soils, and could potentially impactthe structures below. Along the northeast corner of the development, the berm ends and so doesnot provide any rockfall catchment protection to the eastern end of Building 4. In our cursoryreading of the subdivision declarations we_found no specific discussion auirt this geologichazatd mitigation structure, or provisions for long-term maintenance of said structure. Hydrocompactive soil hazard The HP Geotech report recommended that shallow spread footings are adequate for thestructures' If that rvas the foundation system used, rvith no ground imprJvements such asoverexcavation and replacem-ent at optimum moisture and density conditions, we believe that thelong-term risk of settlement for these structures is high. The test pits only extended to a depth of8-10 feet but we would anticipate soil thicknesses alJng the valley side to be quite thick, possibleupwards of 50 feet or more. Collapsible soils are well fnown along the valleysides of theRoaring Fork valley and this location is typical for the area so we consider this entire soilcolumn to be potentially hydrocompactivi. th..r long linear building, even if heavilyreinforced as per the HP Geotech...orn*".rdations, w-ill be sensitive to differential settlementsfrom end to end' Drainage and positive grading are critical to keeping the bearing subsoils as dryas possible' All roofs need rain gutters *a oo*nrpout extenders. At present, the rain gutterdownspouts at the completed Building 1 flows into rocked-in landscaped islanJ areas betweenthe front of the building_and the parkiirg lot pavement. That should be avoided so near thestructure's foundation elements. we strongiy recommend that downspouts be extended out, orpiped, onto the pavement to flow away from the structures as quickly as possible. Another area of potential poor drainage is the back of Building 4 where the berm embankment slopes towards the structure walls. A drainage swale and positive grades extending 10 feet from the exterior wall should be maintained. It appears from the declaration documents that the units of this commercial property are to be individually owned. The potential hazards should be properly disclosed so that owners can understand the potentialhazards and make an informed decision on how they could impact the commercial structures and their business. In closing, if not already done so, the county should require a professional engineer's assessment of the as-built debris flow mitigation structure that specifically addresses the concerns and observations that have been made in this review letter. Owner association documents should contain specific language concerning the long-term maintenance of the mitigation structure. If you have any questions about the content of this geologic hazard review letter, please contact this office at (303) 866-2611 x8331 or e-mail: j onathan.white@state.co. us Sincerely, It* / r,lb/ioiitttarrl.. white Senior Engineering Geologist r\pril 2, 2009 fuIr. l(arl J. Flanku [.cavcnrv<-n1h & Itarp, P.C'. 2()l l4tl' Street, Suite 200 P.O. Drawer 2030 Clenrvoocl Springs, CO 131602 Re: watcrr aud Scwei'Scrvice tr: tlie clenrvood Comnrcrcizrl propcrties Deiir l(iirl. Ihc Cit-v of Glenu'oocl Springs curently pr<lviclcs u,ater ancl sewer serviccs to the Glenwoocl C6rnmelcial <leveloprncnt locatcd at 2550 Highrvay 82, Cilcnwootl Springs. Wlrile this property is currently not 'ovithin the corirorate lirnits of the City, I arn cugeltly unarvare of ariy circutttstancc-' that rvoulcl callse to City to rvitirdrarv. or tleny, service to this plopcrty. Plcase contaot ure should vou have any questions in this mrtttcr. Sincerely. (, L:--r-it/"1a,t I Ilobin Ivlillyard Public Works Director XCI: Jet'f Hecksel, City lv{anager 13Lrdcly 13urns, Water .t Wastervatcr Superintenclent 1 01 \YhsT 8ri r S'rR[E'r, (;i.ENu(xtD SpRINcs, CO g 1 6C I 184-6400 94 5- 2-597 FAx w\ri^{,.(].CLlj N$i(x.)D- s p Rl Nc-s.co.us -: ,';' r. i"ir--. 1;a.i ;:,r! f:fiX i.'1t_1.10;1:{Jl;llri1,.:rr:, y';,i.rl flFr. ilE Ap'ril E,2009 To: Garfield Planning Commission Re; Glenwood Commercial, LLC My name is christine Lpch- My husband Don and I own the property located at2s54Highway 8z' ourpmpertx is located on the Boutheast siae ortnc Glenwood corrunercialcenter zubdivision and just a,bove the cororado west upioistery snop hl warching hzlr' ffick's ryoject being devolopcd over the past six or seven years, I haveberome very concerned about a n*rib.r or*rinss. Fidfi;;an to put in 9g udts in thefour buildings witt onry.ls0 parking tprr.*. rhis *oo, tn t *itrr gg units, tlere will be18I,rF with only lparking space. rfi-, ir or* pi*ouiogl*p*y with an office rhatpa*s 8 of thcir tucks trrere ai night and over thJw*ekends. one time before when Mr.Hioks was told he needed motu prrkiog $paces for buildings I & zhepainted about 7 or gparallelparking spaces along tlri go*d oil above tt" reffi wail on Highway 82. Thespaces that were pahted was on the narrow ryad we all use to get up to our homes. Thefire chief checked this out and said hc could not get th" fue-truct$ up to ogr homes withcars parked in those spaces. This is how congested this area is now. I do not understandwhy he is allowed to have 99 uilits in ttre buiiai"tr o*.;rhol is no room for parkingr!If he does put apafiments in some of the u"ilarrrgi,*i't t u idoir*a to havo a play areafor children, more laadscaping stc. He would not have roomtor that as congested as it isthere- Another conoern is the coot access perrnit that he applied for in 2005. The perrnit showsaccess to provide service to: single Family}trome, siorage units, rvarehousLg; cr,.orofficeBuilding, Apartments Pe units). This perrnit is aliue misleading in the way it isworded' Does c-Dot really know there are z1a storage units tcrenwooo storage) andthe General office Building mentioned is really 4largeoffice buildings with 99 unitsplanned. The first two building$ are now occupied b| only a few bwinesses, y't somemomings tlrere are a line of^cars waiting to get out * rrigl*y g2. If the 99 units are putin' can you imagine how difficult it willbe tq get on nig[way'sz as busy as ttrat highwayis^ As you know there is only onc access to this proper+. The retaining walls he lras b11lt are of great ooncem to me. In looking at some oftheletters from IIP Geotech to l{r, Jannan one dated April 6, zooi u*r* that the retainingwalls will be 3 to 14 feet high. ftie walls by our property, the Hughes propefiy and Mr. thY".'- * proparty are muchhigher. I would "*ti*rtl dhrs built them betrreen 20 ro 30 feet high-an! they may be^even higher. I understand on the *"st end of his prroperty .uelwee-n uuildings 3 & 4.(Mr. Chaiaz's property is right above this), N{r. Hicks has nowbuilt a high concrcre y1r pry o{rh* *.v ,p.qir,i^r[ -put a high chain link feuce oo top orthis wall and has piled large tuulders Uefrina this furce with utae *ti. ;;ilil;;*,rctainipg walls like this recommended in any of the letters ftom the engineers. was thisapproved before he built it or has it ever been approved. The reports say there is a risk of L-,;il ;r1., i ',rrr.*.,;:r.].:1,:i :l.l j:ili.l.t:r.r + I -,'.--!ji1i'ilr1;i. ;, *,,-: :, .". ' . ' :.,a:;. 1 wall movement and ground settlement that could osuse dishess to the residence if these walls are not built dght. In reading somo of tho lottsrs rcgarding the geologic conditions for this area, The Lincoln - Devore roport found dcbris flow, rock fall and hydrocompressive soil hazards to be severe. They believe the debris flow and rock fall hazard risks iu the upper steep part of tho rito is sevorc. With a hard rain where will the uflatcr, deb,ris and rocks ftom the mountain behind Mr. Hick's project now go? I have been told he has piled up bouldeffi in ths old Olenwood ditch. Will atl the trocks, debris and water now be coming dowu in our yards and in our homcs? It is the county's responsibiliry to check and make sure that this projoot is being built according to the plans tlat were approved, that codes are enforcod, and as the engineors requested. they be contacted for their recommeodations as thc work on this project continues. I srongly feel the problems here need to bo addressed as soon as possible. There are other problems that I have not mentioned, br$ with more investigation_I know they would also be corrected. We ask you to please continue to make swe all requirements are met for this project. I ask you to deny this reguest until the problems are addressed and corrected. Thank you for this opportunity to share some of my concsm$ with you. I also thank you fot the time and your service you havo given us on this projecl df,rd e/-r# CtuisLyrch I gEXHIBIT It DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCE REf,F $r'$,1$i* Aprrl 21, 2009 APR z ? ::i;os GARFIELU COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. DirectorFred Jarman Garfield County Planning Dept 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: GlenwoodCommercialCenterSubdivision Preliminary Plan Secs.22, T65, R89W,6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 39/45 Dear Mr. Jarman We have reviewed the above referenced plan iu subdivide a parcel of 4.19 acres into three (3) individual lots. There would be four building on the lots. Buildings 1 ancj 2 v'icr.rld be located on lot 1 , Building 3 would be located on lot 2 and Building 4 would be located on lot 3. Buildings 1 and2 wculd be Civided into 20 units each; Building 3 will be divided into24 units; and building 4 will be divided into 28 units. There will be 7 outside equiprnent units. The total number of commercial condo spaces for the project is 99. The project proposes a total of 180 off-street parking spaces. No information regarding the water suppiy for the subdivisron was provided. No information was provided on sewage disposal. lrrsr.rfticierrt infonmation was provided concerning the physical adequacy of the water supply. As stated in CF.S 3C-28-133(3)(d), the subdivider is required to submit "Adequate evidence that a water supply that is suffrcient in terms of quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water tbr the type of subdivision proposed." Adequate evidence is usually provided in the form of a water resource report, prepared by a professional engineer or water consultant, which addresses the quality, quantity, and dependability issues. A report of this nature was not provided. See the attached Guidelines for Subdivision Water Sup s for the necessary information. The source of the proposed water supply would be from, or tributary to, the Colorado River. The Colorado River is over-appropriated, therefore a plan for augmentation is required tc offset depletions caused by the use of water for this development. Due to the lack of valid well permits and a water court approved augmentation plan, the State Engineer finds pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1XhXl), that the proposed water supply wiil cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. ln addition, due to a lack of information, we are unable to comment on the physical adequacy of the water supply. lf you or the applicant has any quesflcrrs concerning iitis nraiter i.riease uurriaui rrre at .-:L' - - l- ---^:-l^- ^-l-,!lliJE I\.;, O)>:Or.3i lug Si Mark J. Vana Water Resou M..lV/SubdivisioniGlenwoodCom rnercialCenterSubdivision. doc cc Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 ttlike Mello, Water Commissioner, District 39 D,E,P ,BC DWRE Engineer Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 . Denver, CO 80203 . Phone: 303-866-3581 o Fax: 303-866-3589 www.water.state.co.us EXHIBIT I s Garfield County BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 29, 2009 KarlJ. Hanlon Leavenworth & Karp, P.C. zot tath Street, Suite 200 P. O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: Glenwood Commercial, LLC Preliminary Plan Dear Karl, Thank you for the additional information delivered to my office dated tuly 2, 2009 regarding the conditions required by the Planning Commission to be addressed prior to the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Upon review of the materials you submitted, I have the following comments: 1) The issue raised at the Planning Commission hearing (in addition to the ADT generated from the project based on a previous project concept) was the question of whether or not CDOT had allowed and approved the irnprovements within the CDOT right-of-way that have been constructed on the southern portion of the propefi which includes parking spaces, etc. The materials provided appear to address the actual access but do not provide any approval of the other on-site im provements. 2l As you are aware, the Colorado Division of Water Resources provided a letter stating that the proposed project will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. Your statements in your letter do not satisfy state law and the Counfs requirements as they relate to Senate Bill 1141 recently passed by the Colorado Legislature. Please revise your submittal to specifically address the following state law: CRS 2e-20-304(21 and.lll (2) tf the development is to be served by d woter supply entity, the local government moy allow the applicant to submit, in lieu of the repart required by subsection (L) of this l0B Eighth Street, Suite 4al ' Glenwood Springs, CO 8160l (970) 94s-8212' (970) 285-7972' Fax: (970) 384-3470 section, a letter prepored by o registered professionol engineer or by a woter supply expert from the water supply entity stating whether the woter supply entity ls wllllng to commit and its ability to prbvide an adequote woter supply for the proposed development. The water supply entity's engineer or expert sholl prepare the letter if so requested by the opplicant. At a minimum, the letter shall include: (o) An estimote of the woter supply requirements for the proposed development th rou g h bu il d-out cond ition s; (b) A desuiption of the physical source of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development; (c) An estimate of the omount of woter yield projected from the proposed woter supply under various hydrologic canditions; (d) Woter conservation meosures, tf any, thot moy be implemented within the proposed development; (e) Woter demond manogement medsures, tf any, that may be implemented to od d ress hyd rol ogic va ri ations; o nd (f) Such other lnformation os may be required by the local gavernment. (3) ln the alternative, on opplicant sholl not be required to provide a letter or repoft identified pursudnt to subsections (7) and (2) of this section ff the woter for the proposed development is to be provided by a woter supply entity that has a woter supply plon thot: (a) Has been reviewed and updoted, $ appropriote, withln the prevlous ten yeors by the governing board af the woter supply entity; (b) Has o minimum twenty-yeor plonning hortzon; (c) Lists the woter conservation meosures, if ony, that may be implemented within the servlce orea; td) Lists the woter demand manogement measures, if any, thot. moy be i m ple m e nte d withi n the d evelopm e nt; (e) lncludes a generol description ol the water supply entity's woter ohligotions; {f) lncludes o general description af the wdter supply entity's woter supplies; and (g) ls on file with the local govemment- At present, Staff cannot recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners based on these two remaining issues. You may want to revisit with the DWR regarding their letter as well as obtain a letter from CDOT that indicates the lmprovements that have been constructed wholly within thelr right- of-way on the subject proFrty are acce ptable. Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Very trulyyours, Fred A" Jarman, AICP Director, Euilding and Phnning Departmeht Cc CounV Attomet's Offlce File copy t( DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES August 26,2009 "E-kS_rE-,ii ,) i r _! Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director/State Engineer Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning Dept 108 8th St Ste 201 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 AUG 3 l. 2.i:1, Re GARi:i[t..ij (;;ltiir : .., BUiL Dii,it $ ;):-;ri'ri\,,r:r Glenwood Commercial Center Subdivision Preliminary Plan Secs. 22, TOS, R89W,6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 39/45 Dear Mr. Jarman: We have re-evaluated the above referenced plan to subdivide a parcel of 4.19 acres into three (3) individual lots. There would be four building on the lots. Buildings 1 and 2 would be located on lot 1, Building 3 would be located on lot 2 and Building 4 would be located on lot 3. Buildings 1 and2 would be divided into 20 units each; Building 3 will be divided into 24 units; and building 4 will be divided into 28 units. There will be 7 outside equipment units. The total number of commercial condo spaces for the project is 99. The project proposes a total of 180 off-street parking spaces. A letter, dated August 13, 2009, has been received by this office from the law firm of Leavenworth & Karp, P.C., regarding the physical adequacy of the water supply for the subdivision. ln additional, a letter from the City of Glenwood Springs and a Water Conservation Plan were also attached. According to these documents, the water supply for the subdivision will be provided by the City of Glenwood Springs. ln addition, sewer services would also be provided by the City of Glenwood Springs. Pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(ll), it is our opinion that the proposed water supply will not cause injury to existing water rights so long as the city operates according to the terms and conditions of its current plan for augmentation and the applicant maintains its contract with the city. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at this office for assistance. Mark J. Va PhD, PE, PG, BCEE, DWRE Water Resources Engineer MJV/Subdivision/GlenwoodCom mercialCenterSubdivision2. doc cc:Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Mike Mello, Water Commissioner, District 39 Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 o Denver, CO 80203. Phone: 303-866-3581 r Fax: 303-866-3589 www.water.state.co.us EXHIBIT I u LOYALE. LEAVENWORTH SANDERN. KARP JAMES S. NEU KARL J. HANLON MICHAELJ. SAWYER JAMES F. FOSNAUGHT ANNA S.ITENBERG CASSIAR. FURMAN JENNIFERM. SMITH T. DAMIEN ZUMBRENNEN LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EST. I9BO 2OI I4TH STREET, SUITE 2OO P. O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (97 0) 9 45-2261 Facsimile: (97 0) 9 45 -7 33 6 kjh@lklawfirm.com July 6,2009 DENVER OFFICE:* 7OO WASHINGTON ST. STE 702 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 *(Please direct all conespondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) Mr. Fred Jarman, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Glenwood Commercial. LLC Preliminary Plan Dear Fred: Enclosed please find copies of letters we discussed on Thursday, July 2,2009. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Karl J KJHjac Enclosure(s) RECEIVEB JUL 0 6 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNINC Professional Engineers Civil Engineering Apil24,2009 David Hicks Prince Creek Construction PO Box 700 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Subject: Debris Flow Mitigation Pond and Structure Review and Recommendations Dear Dave, On April 17,2009, JLB Engineering conducted a field visit to review the as-constructed debris flow mitigation pond on the site. The pond grading was underway and the required outlet struchue and embankmentprotection were not yet installed. Based on my field visit, the following actions should be taken: l.) Perform minor adjustments to the grades and back slopes per discussion in the field. Re-work the top of embankment to condition and compact the soil that is experiencing raveling. 2.) After these items are complete, survey the basin and provide data for our review. JLB will provide guidance for any adjustments necessary. 3.) Implement adjustments to grades and install the outlet structure and embankment protection to bring the basin into compliance with the approved plans. Based on our review, there appears to be sufficient room in the basin area to complete any minor amendments necessary to bring the ponds into compliance with the Drainage Report. 743 Fear Court [,ouisvdle, Cotorado 80027 303.604.n634 j Profes sional Engineers Civil Engineering Apil24,2009 David Hicks Prince Creek Construction PO Box 700 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Subject: As-BuiIt Drainage For Site Review and Recommendations Reference is made to a Final Drainage Report for Glenwood Commercial, prepared by JLB Engineering Consultants, dated May 24,2004. Dear Dave, On April 17,2009, JLB Engineering conducted a field visit to review the as-constructed drainage features on the site. Specifically, we reviewed the grading and outfall for three detention ponds for peak runoffmitigation. There are three peak runoffmitigation ponds on the site. Pond A is situated between Highway 82 and the site entry drive; Pond B is west of building A and Pond C is west of building B. Based on my field visit, the following actions should be taken: 1.) Stuvey the existing ponds and provide data for our review. JLB will provide guidance for any adjustments necessary. 2.) Implement adjustments to grades and structures in ponds to bring them into compliance with the approved Drainage Study. Based on our review, there appears to be sufificient room in the detention pond areas to complete any minor amendments necessary to bring the ponds into compliance with the Drainage Report. 7413 Pear Court Jlouisvinle, Conorado 80027 303.604.1634 Itt LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDERN. KARP JAMES S. NEU KARL J. }IANLON MICHAELJ. SAWYER JAMES F. FOSNAUGHT ANNA S.ITENBERG CASSIA R. FURMAN JENNIFER M. SMITH T. DAMIEN ZUMBRENNEN LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EST. l9BO 2OI I4IH STREET, SUITE 2OO P. O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (97 0) 9 45 -2261 Facsimile: (97 0) 9 45 -7 33 6 kjh@lklawfirm.com July 2,2009 DENVER OFFICE:* 7OO WASHINGTON ST. STE 702 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 * (P lease direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) Mr. Fred Jarman, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Glenwood Commercial. LLC Preliminary Plan Dear Fred In preparation for the hearing on the Preliminary Plan for Glenwood Commercial before the Board of County Commissioners, Applicant is subrnitting ttre following information in support of the application and in response to conditions of the Planning Commission. Enclosed please find the following: 1.02105107 - letter addressed to Prince Creek construction, [nc. from State of Colorado, Department of Transportation regarding State Highway Access PermitNo. 305203,Application No. 05- l6l accepting the improvements at Glenwood Commercial; 2. 04121109 - letter addressed to Fred Jarman, Garfield County Planning Department from State of Colorado, Depaftment of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources regarding Glenwood commercial Center Subdivision Preliminary Plan; 3.06125109 - letter addressed to Dan Roussirr, CDOT, Region 3 from JLB Professional Engineers, Louisville, Colorado regarding Permit No. 305203 - Compliance with Conditions; 4. 07102109 - letter addressed to Garfield County Building & Planning Department from Kurtz & Associates, Inc. regarding Building No. 4, Glenwood Commercial Center; 5. Parking Calculations Spreadsheet; and 6. Revised Plats. I LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Page2 With regard to the letter of material injury issued by the State of Colorado providing the following additional information regarding the City of Glenwood Springs water rights. The most senior water rights held by the City have an appropriation date of 1887 these are for 8 c.f.s. of water inGrizzly Creek along with l2 c.f.s. in No Name Creek. Together these water rights comprise 20 c.f.s. of the most senior water rights on the Colorado River Drainage. The flows in No Name and G.izzly Creek are derived from a fairly large area on the Flat Tops Wilderness Area. For more information regarding these water rights you can look at the City of Glenwood Springs website at www.ci.glenwood-springs.co.us and click on the link for the water conservation plan for the City of Glenwood Springs. Also enclosed is a revised parking calculation which indicates that with the restrictions placed on the plat, 189 parking spaces are required and 190 are provided. These numbers were reached by utilizing the square footage methodology contained in the recently adopted Land Use Code. With the enclosed, we believe we have met requirements regarding addressing the parking deficit identified at the Planning Commission Hearing. Very truly yours, LE,AVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. KJHjac Enclosure(s) OF DEPARTTEilTOF TRA}ISPORTANON Reoim3Traffc&SafetY zZiSouttr et Sfeet, Roorn 100 Grand Junctlcn, Colorado 81501 (970',t24&7230 Febnrary 5,2007 Prince Creek Construction, Inc. David Hicks 25205. Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: SteteEighweYAccesr Locatcd on Dear Mr. David The completed. named The fails If I can be the office Sincerely, T ZaneZnametaceh PE PemritUnit Engineer No.05-161 been above it" In In I -r 6rtl", I II me at I Regon 3 Traffic Colorado Department of Transportation cc: Jim Blankenship, JLB Engineering File result in Sliise 5 Ti due all 2.s(6) I Code, ifsny \ f 1S oftht )I or II J shall be the +#-T *?tr STA|E OFCOIORADO DEPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region3Traffic&Safety 222 South 60 Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, Colorado 8150'l (e7ol24a-723A February 5,2007 Prince Creek Construction, Inc. David Hicks 2520 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: State Highway Access PermitNo.305203, Application No.05-161 Located on Highway No. 082A,Milepost2.50, in Garfield County DearMr. David Hicks: The inspection of the conskuction required under the above named aceess permit has been completed. All work appears to have been done in geneml close conformity with the above narned permit. The inspection done by the Colorado Department of Transportali.on (CDOT) is only fo4 ttre general conformance of CDOT desigr and code requirements, It is {he responsibility of the Permittee to comply with all provisions of the aocess permit. In accordance with section 2.5(6) of ,the State Highway Access Code, ifarry construction element fails prior to November 5, 2009 due to improper construction or material specifications, the Permittee shall be Sesponsible for all repairs. Faihue to make such repairs may result in suspension of the permit and closure of the access. In acoordancewith section 2.7 ofthe State Highway Access Code, it is the responsibility of the permittee for the repair and maintenance of the access beyond the edge of the roadway, If I can be of any further assistance in this or any other rnatter, please feel free to contact me at the office listedabove. Sincerely, 74 ZaneZrtwnenacek, PE Permit Unit Engineer Region 3 Traffic Colorado Department of Transportation cc: Jim Blankenship, JLB Engineering File Professional Engineers Civil Engineering September 20,2070 Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 subject: Drainage Mitigation plans and Final rmprovements Glenwood Commercial Subdivision Reference is made to: 1. Project Information and StaffConrments, Preliminary PIan: Glenwood Commercial Subdivision, Garfield County, CO, dated Septemberi 4,Z0Ag. 2. Final Drainage Report, Glenwood Commercial, prepared by JLB Engineering Consultants, dated May 25,2004. 3. lvlaster Drainage Plan, Glenwood Commercial Center, Colorado Highway g2, Glenwood springs, co, prepared by JLB Engineering consultants, dated April-l5, ioiz. To Whom It May Concem, The purpose of this letter is to address the final drainage mitigation plan for the subject parcel and to identify and summarize any amendments or adjustments thatiere implementea iuringconstruction. The drainage mitigation design analysis for the parcel was conducted during development of the site plan whioh culminated in the issuance of reference items Z ard3 above. These two itemswere submitted to the-Garfigl{ county Building and Planning Deparrment as paft of the BuildingPermit submittal for the initial building consnucted on the siie. GenerallS the pattems of runoffand characteristics are in accordance with the referenced reportand plans. The basin improvements reflectthe site plan prepared with the drainage study and thegrading is in accordlncg with the grading.!1*1._ nri exiepiionto this is the draiiage mitigationponds alongside the buildings, which are identified as ponts B and C. The perimetir retaiiing concept for these two ponds changed during the constuction phase as identified below. During construction, upgrades to site access from SH82 were required and implemented throughCDOT. The cotstruction-of those upgrades included installation of a large block dry stack stoieretaining wall alongttre highway. The project developer/owner determined those particular materials would be desired to formulate the necessaryretaining walls along ttre side of the 743 Fear Couu't fl.ourisville, ColorCo S0027 303.604"n634 Drainage Mttigation * Glenwood Commercial Page 2 of 2 September 20, 2010 buildings, those walls of which surrounded the detention drainage mitigation areas. These walls areparticularly deeper than the onsinallf anticipated concrete ,"trioir! *ull, thus reducing the surface are available to construct the ponds. In order to achieve the required detention volumes (reference item 2), the layout of the detention areas hadto be amended from the original design. Those amendments include the ad.dition of vertical timber retaining walls intemal to the pond area and a more vertical column of runoff storage. In addition, the outlet struchre elevations and lelease control plates were required to be amended to accommodate tlte adjustment to the vertical column of water. The fural configuration of the detentionponds is depicted on the attached exhibits and includes the as-builtlocations of facilities installed. The effrciencies of the vertical storage are realized in less space required to provide the detention and a lesser depth of storage that originally anticipated. From a drainage perspective, this will be 1mole efficient system operationally. Access to the pond areas for maLtenance is limited, therefore Pond B is access from the adjacent parkinglot by a skid steer and pond C would require a backtoe or excavator and manual labor to provide maintenance such as sediment removal. Trash removal and minor cleaning can beichieved without mechanical equipment ineither pond. Where grade drops exceed 2.5' next to walkways, fencing is provided ioipedestrian protection. Included with this letter is the following information:tr Cross sections and ponding calculations for amended detention pond Btr Cross sections and ponding caloulations for amended detention pond Ctr Amended release plates for detention ponds B and Co As-builtofdetentionpondB n As-built of detention pond C As per the amendments implemented, the drainage mitigation for this site is in accordance withthe Master Drainage Study (reference item?),ttre Uastir Drainage plan (reference item 3), andthe Garfield County storm drainage mitigation criteria. JLB James Project I \ 743 Pear Court Ilouisviflne, Collorado S0027 303.604.n634 Por, 6 {tuOe'O /"uO 7a fut. .^/,'rtt 9. pouo N€A u 620 e€ fre t,??a#, {a 2.o81 {;W, €L. #8,4' 1o llfr{ u*€t-' 588?' 4o' de fr g'o,rt= €ggl '54" Nrcr eal ' {fr80' t? Ntfer lvfr (t,\t' Vuur + frto 9tct1E o's') fre: p14v 1,1*,L 598?'40 gss".51 (rat 1'6nrrt L. a/za /"7 UNfu/ZO0A/^l &..frteoF5 984, 5fi85.o rl (,. ,91fflnw ?e*fa&rre'D 1g uPnP, Cca/al€?.r 7> oa(?eT 6aF *Ezfio N lfT 6ctr t O /'\/q t A5pad 512a,td4aaZ CuzB frw, gL, €fr1'4o -- zt/o *,ltal ,4" /etzPrzt?ttD UNMilffirl lN NW,, corJel€er 7a ftrlO ottttztr Wf ht bst "S Js.3 5Ec no^/ rf1-wrLE oz Mrw (evrw fruO 7D Con/c. safiLLs ?o^to c f^o t/* =- 615 *( fr{z V,427 *t d* 4,qg du rt.1 Sffio.4o lilrt{ us€Lt €ffi7.4o &, A P,a,ht, 6Aq z,a'l luug €Li €7lz-t4 ferrce oc 4il/r7z? Eatz- fu 4g" l&^ewtlE e2€etAU. fir.tl. (crnnr. I/zq /aq ' ( 4.la'veru7 + O.s', tet ?oru x"rc) FFE, Uffizn. Aecrf o 8t.5fr?, u*, atseil. s81?*lO Y dbt,a,.5ffi4o - Sqz 5ecftou 4"fryla*t@uttoertlilfi l nl wEff?.Va*til€cr'fb-PA,rtO Otttz{&x 4' /arcr,nc.o AUEt Peital N uaft?. ccu@r'to Potlo oaft€f Eax 2rl ?"/" Nt^l &Qz.o4 *af"aal ad< Baffi utl'zL E*rs*'p o/e/F/t€ Slees €/a/. Ara*,e. 1lu lot Qo" tt@-'gute ftlz /4 fi, @* /"*o 6 Qc* /,{a 6fr lrhtv tpseL- (art ee{ - €AiT€ lVtt1rrl6,.4 ? 5 &s.'*/c * ;f,tro,,qt - a, ?st 3=32-z fu 4 = o,62 fi = O, tLZrl *," B %, zZ ,;t 2 d'= 5,78 ,534n (o,eutarry' s,se')r/y Po*o C A.Z.zzck h= G,ob rt= O, /49,4t - 3'fi'65" J = 6,04r !)sE 6 (oaaro*otc /€,q t ") 4 @a l= 2,9' rt, fy'z q/=( t[*4A\ {l' /4 rl \ \I \ \ eq ;iq)a-\6\a|o N (4/\Ndb :?sA.obq Sunr.'[D .Jgt{, :^J Lr.r --r{rQd q5i B*o E=8 .-tLF 6ppFSzz EEELJCf,6 ITJ l^J TUzEtJJJlrjt/,,,/,9fffi6>> I l I brF ltIF o ozoo- l I It. I I a ! II "/"o coq) ro =u I \ I i \ \ I I I I I J , I , I \t\ \ \ JurI \ \ \ \ \+ ci OJmn 2ft \\ \\\I \\ \ i \\ \\I\ \------.-\ ,l o(\t 14r+\ Fi' I +(o c.i(oelo o o o lta I c)tEol @lo J UJ JJss JJ s Lo Qul!<liGl t-N 4/\N lrJJ (Joo P lrJ tdzE -tJtrj UlsffaE= bFtlIrF o clzoo-/ +(o r.ig)a U) J trJ +(o , t\i\o'\6\n \tri \ Profes sional Engineers Civil EngineeringJLB May 20,2010 David Hicks Prince Creek Construction PO Box 700 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Subject: GlenwoodCommercialSubdivision Debris Flow Mitigation Pond and Structure Remaining ltems to Complete and Opinion of Cost To Complete Dear Dave, We have completed our review of the remaining work items to complete the installation of the debris flow and rock fall mitigation pond on the subject site. The remaining work items to complete the debris flow mitigation aspect of the pond per the HP Geotech Report and Letter include: Install outlet strucfure Install rip rap dissipation basin The remaining items to complete the rock fall mitigation requirements per the Yeh and Associates report include: 1.) Install impactmitigation wall on uphill side of pond berm The attached opinion of costs includes the scope of work to complete these items. Upon proper completion of these work items, the debris flowmitigation and rock fall mitigation requirements for this project should be satisfied. 1.) 2.) 743 lPear Court llouisvinne, Conorado 80027 303.604"n634 Opinion ofCosts Glenwood Commercial May 19,2010 Completion of Debris Flow Pond Mitigation Measures Item Quantity Units Unit Price Total Price DFPI DFP2 DFP3 8$ 32$ 56$ $ 13,200 1,920 448 19,336 Install Impact Mitigtion Wall (Tire) 24" CMP 24" CMP Riser (Comrgated) sf lf lf 1650 60 8 $ $ $ Prepared By: JLB Engineering Consultants James Lee Blankenship, P.E. 743 Pear Court Louisville, CO 80027 3A3-604-1634 Profes sional Engineers Civil Engineering Apnl24,2009 DavidHicks Prinee Creek Construction PO Box 700 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Subject: As-BuiIt Ilrainage For Site Review and Recommendations Reference is made to a Final Drainage Report for Glenwood Commercial, prepared by JLB Engineering Consultants, dated M'ay 24,2004. Dear Dave, On April 17,2009,JLB Engineering conducted a field visit to review the as-constructed drainage features on the site. Specifically, we reviewed the grading and outfall for tluee detention ponds for peak runoffmitigation. There are three peak runoffmitigation ponds onthe site. Pond A is situated between Highway 82 and the site entry drive; Pond B is west of building A and Pond C is west of building B. Based on my field visit, the fotlowing actions should be taken: 1) Survey the existing ponds and provide data for our review. JLB will provide guidance for any adjustments necessary. 2.) knplement adjustuients to grades and stuctures in ponds to bring them into compliance with the approved Drainage Study. Based on otu review, there appears to be sufficient room in the detentioo pond areas to complete any minor amendments necessary to bring the ponds into compliance with the Drainage Report. 743 FbarCourt n ouisvilfle, Conorado 80027 303.604.n634 Professional Engineers Civil Engineering Jrne25,2009 Dan Roussin CDOT, Region 3 222Sourh6fr Steet, Room 100 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Re: Permit # 305203 - Compliancewith Conditions David Hicks, SH 082, MP 2.50 L Dear Dan, JLB Engineering Consultants is pleased to present our findings and conclusion regarding the Gect iccess frrrrit and adherence to conditions. A sunmary of the approved DHV and the final projected DIIV is as follows: DHV Use As-Built Approved As-Built Warehouse 700 21,400 t7 18 32,100 33,200 58 60 ))0 'r')0 Total nla nla 97 78 The DIIV for the as-built site is 78 which is less than the approved DIIV. A condition of the p;it states that the DHV shall not exceed 100. The aparhnents originally conceiyed as part of ihe project were not pemritted through the local jurisdictional approval *{ 4: buildings were Aesign;a without accommodation foi adding those later. That said, the as-built configuration of ttre s-ite is in accordance with and meets the requirement of the subject permit. Project JLB 743 lPear Court llouisviffie, Conorado 80027 303"604.[634 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER April 21, 2009 RESOURCES RECHfrV$;$} APR 2 ? 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Bill Rifter, ir' Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director DickWolfe, P.E. Director Fred Jarman Garfield CountY Planning DePt 1OB Bth St Ste 201 Glenwood SPrings CO 81601 Re:Glenwood Commercial Center Subdivision Preliminary Plan slcs. 22, i6s, R89w, 6TH PM W. Oivision 5, W. District 39/45 DWRE '' i" waterResou .l MJV/SubdivisioniGlenwoodCom m ercialCenterSubdivision'doc ce' AlanMartellaro;Division'Engineer'D.ivisionSi"' ' ' ;txifru rvr"rio,lwiter cbmmissioner' District 39 .-t.1 : Engineer .'!'.i: . 'i'.. ".";''r' ' " " !:' ''i::."1 i "' i :''1 i"r,' ' '!j;',:i..''.,, i.,l,a Office of the State Engineer 1313Shermanstleet,Suite818rDenver,Co80203.Phone.303-865-3581.Fax:30}866.3589 www.water'state'co'us Professional Engineers Civil Engheering Apil24,2009 DavidHicks Prince Creek Consfuuction PO Box 700 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Subject: Debris FIow Mitigation Pond and Structure Review and Recommendations DearDave, OnApril |T,2009,JLBEngineeringconductedafieldvisittoreviewtheas-constucteddebris flowmitigationpond on the site. The pond gradingwas underway andthe required outlet strucfire and embankmentprotection were not yet installed. Based on my field visit, the following actions should be taken: 1.) Perform minor adjustnents to the grades and back slopes per discussion in the field. Re-work the top of embankment to condition and compactthe soil thbt is experiencing raveling. 2.) After these items are complete, survey the basin and provide data for our review. JLB will provide guidance for any adjusfrnents necessary.3.) Implement adjustments to grades and install the outlet structure and embankment protebtion to bring the basin into compliance with the approved plans. Based on our review, there appears to be sufficient room in the basin area to complete any minor amendments necessary to bring the ponds into compliance with the Drainage Report. 743 lPear Court fi,ouisviile, Colorado 8CI027 303.6CI4.n634 Profes sional Engineers Civil EngineeringJLB April24,2009 David Hicks Prince Creek Construction 2520 GrandAve. Suite 210 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Reference is made to a State Highway Access Permit, CDOT Permit No. 302043, issued to Prince Creek Construction, dated 511712002. Dear Dave, The referenced permit allows for combined use of the access for Warehousing, General Office and Residential. The restrictions on the permit are the combined use shall not exceed 100 passenger car equivalent trips in the peak hour. This access as construction serves Warehousing, General Office and Residential. As the residential component was not constructed with the project, the estimated trips from the other residential served by this access should result in a peak hour volume lower than the required maximum. The access as permitted and approved serves the types of uses listed in the referenced access permit and the square footages and uses are equal to or less than permitted. Respectfully Submitted, JLB Engineering Consultants James Blankenship, P.E. Principal 743 lPear Court Jlouisvinne, Conoradlo E0027 s03.604.n634 s n[: s, i*i rll Qi 3 Bl ,+:r. l Fi i a " I ,,;rB{i i^ r s.8l lh $ *,-, i l.ia.!i lrl i; ll l*ti:i d"t*S ir {i ;i3 " ! r i:".*: d i{ntt iiqi e "inilA IrIr i (ig S t"l: ii-".i r .j I:;: .i-=-*, !. {.-9" -". - g :i { !l ! -r o.1 i ilr , *t- iitr | I rli' liillnlir r31 .a,6 n* if * iiri i\f, i iq l()iQir: :{ o t< n\.9io !I:'i i ,nin:) l_)() iil iiiiiiiii iii,t;$l;.t!i " rt rti ,q R;3;i';51 i H: r: [s; | :, iq{ii}ii I iit*i;*ri EttilriHi io 3*+a: F €3 -Ecs *a*rdil:1.;sd; x;;si$i:i .t;Jl:Bl! p'" i'R; S:{c;'3es il d36.io --i d!- i1 u Ad(f \o *x sE{; e I 5 $t B oqi C:i :"'<t s^${ 6:1: 1d (l'i J:}!q &r i* 3tr:! de. i'i; s.*iliif !5 \e ***. Pr ;itr 6+ IT d qll" ts qq \:r{ ;1lio aI t 6- 6 ! \..1 B5J:irit; 6 st rlIGlxs; iii$i.i$ el lr-ir"il&sr:$Il{ t}*it;rI las i$til cIri{3" , i'{ .t If, ft 3 s{: lt 5} u f 3 6 e 3 !. n' I I I I I I i I i I i I F F I * a. t x x $gF$: li;lqQ !8;1., [i;l? liiliiiillfii i3ir:{tuI {c0g* f e!lii iI;l;" rip' s9lii lillisrn'lti Iri[iiiiRfilr$ qlo.-:til: i:t :lrn i $i; I; i$ i * !i:Btti ri i lti$, r3llii; g1 t! si-i "ij; *e 3 I E : !\ I ! qnrfS!'i :^iEpcSi oi! i $i *i e i-: is I I\ -: I -0 1 [3ritr..ii{x}!!idfrolYlii"a-i ,-iqIt!J;5alirlsrli i.3 ql ;i :1.4.q6'i;r'{dai iqi*liiia:;l a ic$ilt"..sli* n ! rl ri3;l; **i [rl :9.1&:''Y{ ga s'ii6 A'h qc *$et:iI:$ri:i ? i s,u -isnBit 'i : t.c t; s._ 9 3aL; t*s\ xt ri*."irqr;EiX *;r; iir;IiF! o " *" Irti$[ ! 14P g e,tE:tts$c F:: 8"1 E*i ! I E (f E!3o 2. i 6IrI s RI u{:o tt <{a\l Y$ 8F'^o v) B i $ i: iiI i Eti.. pc\ a Fd5 "'N $ 3: + I(dlai ":} x F],r! ,1/ ? & fl*3l tzi *-l3i i;l il it rrr{cccitc lrr lrlji-,4-S\,(.-.<-> c csL:.:f qtq l!l$lill!; \)LN\\i\\$\jllll lllrq-I!-l)l)r$io' $slss$!sssi{ia+}.};llnl )t?-"H*i)!1u))n\ali. \ 5:i'555519V!.i5 uI-aQaGGt&,-AU,rir. lll llra.: - Iq.-hrYla! t$sss!:s$$!:sss:.:ii:.i:riiii;':;r;i. ti^li{!inQt-(nQ(r(^tn1i r r r I , ! | I I I I ^l-\t.tq!!),:Dm:q 5!:SSSlrSS,5:$i;Sss:9r-':::i:i,il:f &i:;iri !d&rtAi\NSi,\+^6r rr ,] rlr ir I l.l<rtF \r_! tr!1n-oaqi :;:;s ss!-!Sr^SSi sSs:;:.itl:.-i il:iii;i lrlrtleL&,4.4\+.E!!{ \ ri ll r i(...6:ro.oc lr':llIIriti,,:t! fr ;ili ! <' I., l:i I t c ? {' q Nfl il IIT !l ril rii!il $ii e$TiRR f-\ n..ll f-* t..tJI. l-*J ! .*l> fH h\J dH fE (--l Lld'[ ] :i# *C' : l.* ='- h. < -"+ F* ^: r- \r :C\\J X(\FE ^-'Jl\VllvvL1r tf -,. \J [-':? \J) J>*t) ,- C- a\ h-l ! v]i^t r o:< "r--i r"]..J \-)r; Sukh^.t L: *\'; <: : F--- \ ,'-\ Fa:\< <- <i r:\ \J- t5 .\ r^ : -,-5 \J'Jl .'i: "l\ r^ H\ r\-.-\ iJs .-/-) r'r' a\ \ J::Le ' \J .\ r -\>s l-- h\ \J ^i.*- -/ ts* ' I-*-,tr --t fS */ S +.' r ) f''.* "tr"J .\ t \-J ^(q \J! ttf '"\ \*J\Ja\ ( (. \tr-*i '<O{ U l>" r' EP & =S" \J rI.:_L.\ i-: ,/)v r"ri ii:illliiliiiiilii ,: i_l-$r:-.-.J;tii;n i( i$RiIlil,:q:ri:$ :$ gxi lii;ii*qgi3:3;; Efr I-*-i;:::is:i $l 5i srtiti:;;t;i: ii I-;+,J";i3;ililqXS p.i n Iliiliiiiiti:ti: :ii+sll;.-s>gi nr is:s{1ir:;Si35 $! i,eivf-:ci3p*l]-t 3i r!:t:r*it i,:..rI'+rt et ?Biiilt;i;:itiHlt *i;Eeii:i;ii I ESf.iiii;t : i "r: G i a *ned*i) tr ;a:1 ,1 *Niltqau 4 ! I i::l 8!Untt di !! fRtciniST3}TBi5 !d 5 * I P $ 6 d83',i8{**3?lj6n';;pE$ F5E lf q n '\ + R= :i4 D\t a ,iriiit a s:IS< lir"35 3$ liiHEIaiii $*u $ si" atr $E ,a $E a T C]g E 'a t: ? :t Cr tr{ s}BTE Eii[!g ;!i a !r.; $ cE' ro i: *[ 6' iui nps,il rtEcl I e"dl I rJt rhl| :ll:tillltll : i) $ 3 o- a. ;I?;IT il TI Et $ c!I 0t $ i I .] *rj 30 Iai9 Bt $a)!ig n () 9N!rfdi :ae"q -'-"- ;x: al Fp!i EB i1" 9i i 9-i" !i+.! - *{ !;: F.*:sI !:.'i 6'tci : ".iT-$ -"-t i: e!' 'r ,l so S sas ai idl- TA !' a :' d t d; $ i :l I:I ,3 t I { I I g ?n :r;r*t 6 E $$:i{t;: iii iii[llliiiii$li:s:lriir ;iirqts*l:is g.;iltt tls-ni tFls ; i$ lil a i i t : i:;'.1 s " l[; iltitrl ; *r ; i q1;i: {rl ;**}$:; ili itliiiiiat --:"13-.id +iro:!r^i-F "3;*3si,l5l $iilrggI{t I q,;[3rli: r $$l;lq:d 3. =":{ir I datri n!t9 Ic.:3 t$ { 9} 3 l?l*iq l^r cti,i ) iq1lrt ,d'ls 9! gt r{t! "iriti6{ g: II 0 st i: t q'9 i el' e !l {slq !l i ';!i- ri * dl 6r 3 3 i' t: { i ; a t r I I I l* I I I { I I h"n{E P!,bsr,v)GG aa:e qqss BHirI;tr'1 3 I d I de s !Irf, ri ! * t EnIt{ i T I :! a.$r!i$9e 8. i.r .-*.k & 8r8; iisAJ i. 'd iE i i.r :i !IU' 3t t$ri; :i II ! ZIooZ o Z, 3 3Z>r.| E aT -1,n fioa-o :B>Uo 3> a iT ilO saoz a8 EE s.^ Fn HHH: : EHE RnRo Fq{ N:-BH f .$g HEIs 6'!trIH HE oE Eg !H F* HUq\ H$ 8.9 ;$ sd 8F't I + tI (aciu L..l{ I tt sq 5 Ias6 {R :x 56 Bt !a ss s ,s E o- It r?5 i_I r lt!-I !I Irs ,b t,{ r qE i. i. LQ6r uet_i a ee I ae I ae acriirr i:r ba Dr s * LC ti Ltr!GC,fo-' tw fr ? H *.f ir ketl IP*+ ti\ Ntri -* t6 s osso\ o: (-) a r'l S.x *c !o ne-lJ oq nl cts 6'f : c- fi C.)rrr xo<)*ti ()irl(:{ i'- -{ Hlr.{t\ Rt- tltq H F 3hl 3 $hE oCZ )il :>^ C)rI Cn FO <xr (TC C c=-o'z_ rn }}a.);g€'\ irIxl @c r:az\)c=€z 'Tlt:f,(::rJ>>T7J -n-1 iiia CECCAz.-o E---niUC2)>r4fi 7J (DC()OzOc=<z.=se mc5;.rri "',|7:()fru- r-3=?zrl ;.O,q€ I +c I J,1 IQlrt 8 {t -r !. rC &* +s t:l +e fi+r b+ $cr! rs rf {cri, 04 I a i\l IF s {t tl dt l-,i19,llil 51ts r!l[; "lo i] lilt- llE ilr ili Ii ili !Ip mt q)R E=sd E*!E HHH:s4tset a?S*tR nRo F!''tu?Nl-t8H L "$* HEris o!!E HEo{ IxH='td HEq\ EH EH ,*S -'H ht 0o -ls 8F't $ + gil:u t. li ll it (t ct; HFr'<25 i ta r5 iSI I! t E! $Ir,IIiII tis tr tn; I ,l,I l rI T a sI isl i a :, { : 6 t I 6 I a lr!, N :lr:tl:IEEs l= :stus ltIr*$*!t'euY'Y {}*Hkrs.i:$ RIIiilfi SssEstsiE$x SFolnri9hgEi$:$ firsil**-s!l: JEHE}!Ils." Htl'-ila+ b.ifiHi gdnl-: Sx$Sa 'd aia"iX- PE-F Eqcrn ":] & s ta FIrH :t ig! ri!<I q: I :l q :) cf(-) 11 :n C)11 ()rr C..-i r x E R br \]tI !-.I ht' f*l t$x E6 HbrF[ (:_z.{c)CZ(,l:.;d) Ec> C1 <)) rnc:-oz-ofi5-fJ il,-'!>O;g=*rlT m-rc>:zQ z 'fnr:c:x>T4-i f, CD C: C:c) :z -r-rc.=-c ,:: c ;{:) >firyi m-r-=*? 'm C: - lll). C)ry#-.m:o IIq it :q g I:o i- iso* I iss* d i$i$ +w :c $* )t ;s rl\+ e q ltis i :c i$ d l* Itr!\s \s NC &Q,}l tuc b+ \C \t,l \er! i: NCr! \tr! ti \Q *3 tdCr!Nt NQ N I g q , e q I II I\sl ''"i I NC I 6i' Its I r "$! o"' & ITS -r rrt rlt t rT$ I i"!I 1. : :: : :.:] I : ..: . .::'.1 ..: : . i"l?i p ;i.-Xi;cE ;fi 4 i.;ii[ ;i3: ${"iS rlt* $se8r $i{ I il}e(( lI'i! $n$li ,! $ f,qq : iq - [11 {6 3I :l s iJ $ !F Efic:: c r s n a3 bI ! =RdN R 8E X s"Hd R* 8 HN E HE '$$" S HH o c^\-, E EHo xdSh HE -S ;H g'( 8F'b € a t\ lF'a >s lRi$qHrxits IsltBs frp$ di i]!'.E><fr ic 0 tA st-t{ i>EttiilQi i 'R sll} iq$li9 ! f {d i n q Ba l$r;l=-.,ltF i R $t-\. p{ c t } & *n Ii 3.G *r J5 $6 E );.r 1s 19 #o9.d,q"s " "*3s;; I l"o n +*i' s, o- tt l'r*lr .YSr l_'* o ^ I<r {.; 19 n' " lY)t{":x c:r;1q,r; 9s n d3pE.a s ilRqid en II +3 3' j _ {.: "tta5t !i i3 *t*s{rsl\IilI F,9 dttl orrn €^o :! o r.Hpondhsooi fi &tY 4 14:= !l +*4 > rio a d ie ^ m ubX n zhia ft Oao zao I ..1 I :, r Fred Jarman From: Sent: To: Subject: John Niewoehner Monday, July '13, 2009 4:43 PM Fred Jarman Glenwwood Commerical - -712109 Letter from Karl Hanlon 7 units of the total 46 units are considered 'storage units' (6 units in bldg #2 and 1 unit in bldg #3). The plat does not label the units that can only be used as storage. Nor does the plat state, for example, that 'a minimum of 6 units in building #2 are to be storage with no office or retail space.' I believe that the calculations are abusing the standards for determining parking requirements. This must not set a precedent. Fred: Mr. Hanlon's letter contained the following information pertaining to Glenwood Commercial: 1. CDOTAccess Permit:According to a letterfrom State, the access construction conforms to permit. NO PROBLEM 2. Division of Water Resources: Letter states that insufficient information was provided. SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM 3. Letter to CDOT Reqardinq Traffic Generated: Generated traffic less than permitted. NO PROBLEM 4. Letter Reoardino #4 Structural:Structural engineer approved construction. NO PROBLEM 5. Parkinq: ln order for the number of parking spaces to be adequate, they have assumed the following . Each unit is 1050-1 100 sq-ft; 160 sq-ft of this area is deemed 'storage'. a a 6 Final PIat: NO PROBLEM as far as I can tell. I noticed that the internal lot lines have disappeared and that they are representing the site as a single property. This seems to make sense. SUMMARY. 1. Div of Water Resources: Seems to be a problem here. 2. Parkinq: I recommend a note stating the minimum number of 'storage-only' units in a building. 3. Outside Units:It needs to be clear that that no structures or enclosures can be constructed in these spaces 4 Label for Overhead Door:There's some very small text that should be removed since it's illegible. - -John Niewoehner, Project Engineer EXHIBIT l September I l. 2009 Mr. KarlJ. Hanlon Leavenworth & Karp, P.C. 201 l4th Src.,et, Suite 200 P.C). Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Watcr and Servcr Servir- to the Glcnwood Commcrcial Propcrties Dear Karl, The City of Glenwood Springs can and will serve l.he currently constnlcted commercial complex locatcd at 2550 Highway 82, Clenwood Springp Colorado commonly knowo as Glenwood Comme'rcial for both water and sewer scrvices. Please note that the City currently serves the project with water and wastervater sctvices Plerse contsct me should you have 8.ny questions in this matter Sincerely, &t= rq,lqru( Robin Millprd \ Public Works Drer:tor XC: JeffHecksel, City Manager Buddy Burns, Water & Wastervater Superintendcnt 1 0 I WEST FH SIRE ET, C I-Ei.I\!OOD SpRr I.,JCS, (X) I 160 I lE+6,100 945. 2597 F t* wvw.(-I,cLENr\r()oD,spRfi\\3s.(I), ui